oh louisiana.

[Jacobtm]

I attend SUNY Binghamton in NY, where there was a shooting in April. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/nyregion/04hostage.html?pagewanted=all

It wasn't on campus, but it was right where many students live off-campus, including myself and many friends. The guy just walked into this American Civics Center, shot and killed 13 people, then commited suicide within a few minutes. People were hiding and didn't dare come out. Police surrounded the building but didn't dare go in. For hours, no one really knew what was happening, and the police just waited outside, doing nothing.

The guy killed everyone he wanted to then killed himself. No one stopped him. There was nothing the police could've even done without thinking they were risking the lives of dozens of people in there.

Pretty much every shooting is like that, the shooter kills however many people he wants and then kills himself. Police just give people rides to the hospital after everything is over.

Hopefully if more law-abiding people were carrying weapons things like this could be avoided.

[Jacobtm]

why would you want people to bring their guns on a college campus?

senator realisticidealist:  false.  has it occurred to you that most people don't particularly care about carrying a gun?  what this does is make it easier for people to start shooting each other.  it's ridiculous to say that someone would bring a gun on campus to defend themselves.  it's far more likely that potential shooters will do that instead.

If there were some way to make sure that no one ever brought a gun onto campus, that would be the best option. If there were some way to make sure that no one had a gun in the whole world, that would be the best option. But those are not options.

I'm a junior in college, and I've visited plenty of other college campuses. You don't go through metal detectors to go into campus. You don't have your car searched. You just drive in and park. Classrooms are not locked, and don't have security. Anyone who wants to can drive onto campus with a gun or several in your backpack (the guy who shot up the civics center near my school had 2 guns) and just start shooting anywhere you want.

Even my university, which is a State University in NY doesn't have security. Our campus security is state police, if you get security called on you for any reason, you're immediately dealing with NY state police. But still, despite the fact that state troopers drive around campus all the time, there's nothing stopping you from putting a gun in your backpack and walking into a class, dorm, dining hall or any other building.

And if past school shootings like Columbine of Virginia Tech are any indication, what happens when someone starts shooting up a building is the following:
- Police are called, no later than 3 hours after the shooting starts.
- They set up a firm perimeter around the building.
- They wait until the shooter has killed everyone he wants, then himself.
- They provide people with blankets, coffee, and ambulence rides for any wounded survivors

So if the ease of carrying a gun to class is already the same as carrying a textbook, then why not at least legitimize the practice so that people can defend themselves when someone wants to shoot up a class?

[Jacobtm]

And what happens when someone who gets insulted or pissed off decides to pull out a gun instead of fists?

Then someone gets shot. But you're pretending that this rule has any affect on the ability of people to carry guns. Anyone can conceal a handgun in their jacket, backpack or baggy pants. So if you're a violent type who shoots people randomly, you can already bring your gun.

In fact, a gunless fight occurred at my school last year in which it might've turned out better if some sane, law-abiding citizens actually did carry guns.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/06/27/2008-06-27_binghamton_university_student_at_heart_o.html

At a bar in Binghamton, where I go to school, a 6'9" basketball player stomped a 130 pound kids head in and put him in a coma for nearly a year. The kid couldn't stop him, no one around could stop him, and the guy beat him until he decided to leave and flee.

The bar is centrally located near other bars, and so there are always cops on the street. Literally there are cops no more than 15 feet from teh doorway of the bar, where this occured, and the guy got away after stomping this guys head in and nearly killing him.

Another situation where if some law-abiding, non-crazy citizens had guns that things could've turned out for the better, but in this case, the 6'9" guy can do whatever he wants.

[Jacobtm]

the reason they have strict gun controls is because of the high crime rates. 

There is no gun control on college campuses. Anyone can bring a gun anywhere on campus. There are no metal detectors, no security checkpoints, no bag searches, nothing.

[Jacobtm]

and he could do worse if he had a gun.  there are two sides to every argument you know

Yes, of course. But it goes from a completely unfair fight to a situation where the victim could potentially defend himself. As it is the kid is lucky he survived, another kick probably would've killed him. I've seen footage of him, and there are people who've been shot in the head who recovered far more fully.

[Jacobtm]

well true, but don't you think that the person with violent tendencies would be more likely to carry a gun than the poor victim of the case you describe (or a rape victim perhaps)?

Yes but that is already the status quo.

The person with violent tendencies owned a gun. In his facebook account, there were pictures of him holding a shotgun, whiskey and smoking a cigar, aiming the gun angrily at the camera. I don't know if he had anything like a handgun, but he owned weapons already.

The point is that in this country it is very easy to buy a gun, legally or illegally. Many violent people do own guns, and I know many people buy guns legally and then use them illegally. You have to recognize that the status quo allows people with violent/criminal intentions to purchase and carry guns anywhere. If they're caught there is legal ramifications, but people who are violent like that probably don't care. The point of liberalizing gun laws is to allow law-abiding, sane people to at least be able to compete with the maniacs who already have free access to firearms and don't have discretion.

[Jacobtm]

I live on Long Island where we have very strict gun control, we have among the lowest % of gun owners in the entire country and one of the lowest crime rates as well.

You live on Long Island where it's very rich, and rich people don't have the same motivations as poor people to commit violent crimes. Just the fact of being in Nassau or Suffolk doesn't mean you're safe though, there are plenty of dangerous poor neighborhoods where people do got shot. In places where everyone's mommy and daddy aren't quite so rich, people actually have to worry about the real-world problem of defending yourself.

[Jacobtm]

Even in the poorer areas of Long Island (Hempstead, Roosevelt, Wyandanch) while it does have some crime it is still quite a bit below what other areas with similar poverty rates have.  Fact of the matter is gun registration and stringent background checks won't keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Registration and background checks are fine, and besides the point of whether people should be allowed to carry guns legally on campus. The discussion here is whether law abiding citizens, who jump through the proper hoops, should be allowed to defend themselves on campuses.

[Jacobtm]

Zarn, you and Smash seem to be talking around each other. We're talking about letting people bring guns to campus with the idea that it would stop school shootings, since anyone can buy a gun/bring it to campus as they want. He's just arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns as freely in the first place, hoping that putting restrictions on the legal supply would preempt school shootings.

Unfortunately Smash, I think that people who want to shoot up a school wouldn't be stopped by restrictions on sales either. If your intent is to kill people then kill yourself, you don't care about getting guns legally or illegally.

Granted, the VT shooter got his gun legally. Why wouldn't he? It's easy enough, and his intention was suicidal, so he didn't care about being linked to the shootings after.

But if guns were illegal, or he couldn't buy one because of his mental instabilities, do you think he would've just said "aww, shucks" and gone to class peacefully? Just like alcohol during prohibition, and drugs now, guns can be bought illegally. And if they're made harder to buy legally, that will just mean demand gets shifted over to the black market. It'd probably reduce the number of normal people with no murderous intentions who own guns, but would it stop people who really wanted it from getting them?

[Jacobtm]

Can I ask something?

Are there any cases in which you gun nuts believe gun control should exist?  Because my impression is that you believe guns should be allowed EVERYWHERE and frankly it's your inability to compromise that makes it so hard to have a real discussion with you people.

Of course we should make it so that criminals, mentally unstable people, minors etc. can't get guns legally, but the problem is that as long as firearms are produced, people will trade them illegally, and if law-abiding people of sound mind want to defend themselves, I think it should be allowed.