oh louisiana.

[Zarn]

Fanatic gets killed by first potential victim!


Video images of a would-be campus gunman's failure were caught and posted all over the internet. More on page 3.

[Zarn]

I agree.

It's insane to only have illegal firearms on campus.

[Zarn]

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.

he said that places with strict gun control have higher crime rates and was using that as an argument to why gun control is ineffective.  that's what i was responding too.  he wasn't talking specifically about college campuses.

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.

Knowing Long Island, it wouldn't suffer from an increase in guns.

[Zarn]

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.

Which I don't think should be the case, but for the most part the areas these laws are passed are in states with very loose gun laws where any nut job can go to a gun show and legally purchase a gun with little or no checks.

Shooters find a way to get guns, anyway. Notice VT and Columbine did not allow guns. That did not help.

[Zarn]

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.

Which I don't think should be the case, but for the most part the areas these laws are passed are in states with very loose gun laws where any nut job can go to a gun show and legally purchase a gun with little or no checks.

Shooters find a way to get guns, anyway. Notice VT and Columbine did not allow guns. That did not help.

In the VT case the kid who had previous mental issues was able to legally by the gun due to the lax gun laws.

You aren't quite getting it are you? He was not allowed to have a gun on campus. He still brought it. Obviously, he was not worried about a possession charge.

[Zarn]

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?

I know what he was saying.

Apparently, you didn't know what I was saying.

Why do even people "on my side" cherry pick what I say?