Gun laws in the United States

[st_dux 26]

First off, it seems I need to clarify my position on gun-free zones. I was not suggesting that high school students or younger should be allowed to tote guns to school -- there is no state in the United States that allows anyone under the age of 18 to purchase or carry firearms, anyway -- but teachers, school administrators and other employees of the school that are of age and do not have a criminal record should be allowed to extend whatever concealed (or open) carry rights they have onto school premises. Gun-free zones serve no purpose; anyone who has a mind to shoot up a school/mall/bank/etc. will do so anyway, so the gun-free zone regulation only ensures that no law-abiding citizens can defend themselves.

Also, I wasn't trolling. It's interesting to me that gun control advocates take it as a personal insult whenever someone has a differing opinion on this subject.

So you must want to live a gun nut fantasy land where there are no laws and criminals and law abiding citizens are armed to the teeth and where people who are not trained take their lives and the lives others into their own hands instead of doing whats smart, which is to hide and wait for the professionals. I'm not saying law enforcement is perfect, they're human and I resent you putting words in my mouth. But they're way more trained to deal problems like that than some redneck cowboy who's watched Die Hard one too many times and thinks he can be a real life John McClane.

Thirty-two people were killed during the Virginia Tech massacre while attempting to hide and wait for the professionals. The gun control regulations that came into play during this situation -- most notably, that Virginia Tech is recognized as a gun-free zone by the state -- did nothing to stop the crime from occurring.

Now what if some law-abiding citizens (like teachers or older students) present on campus when the shooting started were also carrying weapons? Would an untrained individual accidentally shoot a fellow student in an attempt to defend himself or others from the shooter? Maybe, but I seriously doubt that; even to the untrained individual, basic gun operation is mostly intuitive. I'll tell you what it would have definitely done, though: It would have really evened up the odds, making it impossible for Seung-Hui Cho to kill anywhere close to 32 people before being incapacitated himself.

Once the police arrive, I agree that it's in everyone's best interest to let them take over. But police have never arrived anywhere instantly, and when 32 people can be killed during the time it takes for them to arrive, that's a huge problem. To me, that's an unacceptable problem.

would be one main regulation i would suggest and that be a compulsory firearm safety course and or something similar at least cause ive seen alot of stupid behaviour with firearms from the states

This is a reasonable regulation that I generally support, provided that the gun safety program isn't so difficult or expensive that it makes it unreasonably difficult for an ordinary citizen to arm himself.

Seriously - the odds of someone losing control of themselves and shooting someone over a minor dispute are thousands of times higher than the odds that a Columbine scenario is going to occur. In the former situation, letting people carry guns turns gun crime from a premeditated crime into a spur of the moment mistake.

This seems to be the great fear of many gun control advocates, but there isn't a shred of evidence that supports this claim. Guns actually don't turn angry people into killers. Unless you're seriously disturbed already, you aren't going to just shoot someone in the face because you're pissed off about something, and if you are seriously disturbed, then you aren't going to let something as petty as gun control measures get in your way. The idea that having guns readily available will lead to a Wild West scenario where people kill each other left and right over minor squabbles is one that is borne out of paranoia, not a rational examination of the facts. Having guns readily available actually leads to a lower rate of violent crime in any given area, and this is a claim that is backed up by several statistical studies.

We'll never know what would have happened in Big Mac's pregnant girl scenario had she not been caught, but I'll tell you this: It is far easier to bring a gun to school out of anger than it is to actually use it.

There's a necessity value associated with cars that you don't have with private ownership with guns.

Who are you to say what is and what is not necessary for someone other than yourself?

[Big Mac 19]

but teachers, school administrators and other employees of the school that are of age and do not have a criminal record should be allowed to extend whatever concealed (or open) carry rights they have onto school premises. Gun-free zones serve no purpose; anyone who has a mind to shoot up a school/mall/bank/etc. will do so anyway, so the gun-free zone regulation only ensures that no law-abiding citizens can defend themselves.

So instead of just worrying about teenagers bringing guns to school and going nuts, kids and parents have to worry about teachers and school admins going postal as well or worse yet if another columbine happened they wouldn't be properly trained on how to deal with situation and end up shooting some innocent kid? I'm sorry, but as a parent myself I would never agree to anyone who is not trained trying to save my kid's life in a situation like that.

Now what if some law-abiding citizens (like teachers or older students) present on campus when the shooting started were also carrying weapons? Would an untrained individual accidentally shoot a fellow student in an attempt to defend himself or others from the shooter? Maybe, but I seriously doubt that; even to the untrained individual, basic gun operation is mostly intuitive. I'll tell you what it would have definitely done, though: It would have really evened up the odds, making it impossible for Seung-Hui Cho to kill anywhere close to 32 people before being incapacitated himself.

So it's ok for you to let someone who's untrained take other people's lives in their hands? That's very irresponsible and dangerous.

Once the police arrive, I agree that it's in everyone's best interest to let them take over. But police have never arrived anywhere instantly, and when 32 people can be killed during the time it takes for them to arrive, that's a huge problem. To me, that's an unacceptable problem.

That also presents the problem of cops not knowing who the shooter is and with everyone waving guns around would lead to even more bloodshed. So in the end you'd end up with way more than 32 dead.

Who are you to say what is and what is not necessary for someone other than yourself?

Who are you to take the life of someone else in your hands when you're not trained nor is it your place? I'll take my chances with a rookie cop over people like you any day.

We'll never know what would have happened in Big Mac's pregnant girl scenario had she not been caught, but I'll tell you this: It is far easier to bring a gun to school out of anger than it is to actually use it.

It's not a scenario it actually happened. I can't say if she would have actually followed through it, but the steps she took said that chances of her following through were greater than the chances of her not. Edited July 22, 2010 by Big Mac

[st_dux 26]

One more thing.

In case anyone would like to call me out on my references to facts and/or statistics about gun control and its effects, here's where I've obtained most of my information: http://gunfacts.info/

That e-book is a great source of factual information for the debate on gun control, complete with easy-to-understand graphs/charts and full citations. ch_123, I would point you at the section on page 23 about the availability of guns and its relation to crime rates.

[HyperU2 11]

I'm sorry, but as a parent myself I would never agree to anyone who is not trained trying to save my kid's life in a situation like that.

That's pretty damn pathetic.

[st_dux 26]

So instead of just worrying about teenagers bringing guns to school and going nuts, kids and parents have to worry about teachers and school admins going postal

What don't you understand about gun-free zones not stopping anyone from going postal? Making it legal for a law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm somewhere does not make it any more likely that he or she will turn around and shoot up a school. The availability of guns is not what causes people to do insane things like go on shooting sprees.

I'm sorry, but as a parent myself I would never agree to anyone who is not trained trying to save my kid's life in a situation like that.

So you'd rather have your child be utterly helpless until the police arrive? You seem to be ignoring the fact that the police don't show up instantly when there's a problem. I'm certainly not going to try and tell you how to raise your kid, but if it were me, I'd take some protection over no protection until the police arrive any day.

So it's ok for you to let someone who's untrained take other people's lives in their hands? That's very irresponsible and dangerous.

In an extreme situation where the options are certain death at the hands of a lunatic on a shooting spree or possible rescue at the hands of an armed citizen, I'd definitely say that the latter is less dangerous than the former.

Yet again, you're ignoring the fact that the police do not help anything when they are not there, and they cannot be expected to be able to respond to an emergency instantaneously as long as teleportation technology doesn't exist.

Who are you to take the life of someone else in your hands when you're not trained nor is it your place? I'll take my chances with a rookie cop over people like you any day.

It's not about picking an armed citizen over a cop. It's about a situation where there are no cops yet. But hey, if you and I ever get into such a situation together, and I'm armed while you're not, I'll be sure not to make any attempt to protect you, lest I offend your sensibilities.

I can't say if she would have actually followed through it, but the steps she took said that chances of her following through were greater than the chances of her not.

Is that so? And by what method of psychological analysis, pray tell, did you arrive at this conclusion? In my experience, people often say they will do some crazy things and may even take steps to prepare for it, but when the time comes to actually do it, your average person doesn't have the guts to follow through.

[Big Mac 19]

What don't you understand about gun-free zones not stopping anyone from going postal? Making it legal for a law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm somewhere does not make it any more likely that he or she will turn around and shoot up a school. The availability of guns is not what causes people to do insane things like go on shooting sprees.

I never said it stopped them. What I said is that it makes it easier for someone who's likely to go postal.

So you'd rather have your child be utterly helpless until the police arrive? You seem to be ignoring the fact that the police don't show up instantly when there's a problem. I'm certainly not going to try and tell you how to raise your kid, but if it were me, I'd take some protection over no protection until the police arrive any day.

As opposed to being shot because someone who's untrained trying to play hero? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It's not about picking an armed citizen over a cop. It's about a situation where there are no cops yet. But hey, if you and I ever get into such a situation together, and I'm armed while you're not, I'll be sure not to make any attempt to protect you, lest I offend your sensibilities.

And so when the cops do get there they see all these people with guns running around what do you think they're going to do? A person who's life is being threatened is thinking about self preservation and is likely to shoot first and ask questions later so when they're confronted by a cop who says "FREEZE!! DROP THE WEAPON!!" they'll respond by turning toward who ever said that gun raised and all and will then be shot before it kicks in their mind "Oh its the cops."

Is that so? And by what method of psychological analysis, pray tell, did you arrive at this conclusion? In my experience, people often say they will do some crazy things and may even take steps to prepare for it, but when the time comes to actually do it, your average person doesn't have the guts to follow through.

No but a pregnant 16 year old girl who's dealing with extreme mood swings and probably teenage rage issues isn't you're average person.

This discussion is going no where. You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm going to find another debate to amuse myself with.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Big Mac

[jakerod 254]

http://gunfacts.info/

Because that's an unbiased source.

[franze 196]

Ok, I think this thread is done.

Closing.