To all thoose who think arming everyone with a gun at all times:

Consider the points i have made and then consider this next point.
most people are sane, and therefore have common sense or at least some core values they adhere too. Most people have enough common sense to obey the law, and to not go aorund shooting people, theese people can handel a gun fine, because they know that someone could be killed by there actions, thus others are deterred form any such actions against them. But consider the less sane, they may not hold any values, including human life, or even thier own! and therefore don't care what the conciquence is just as long as they get a chance at their target. EX. The terrorists who blatantly drive car bombs into roadside barriers and blow themselvs up, mean while normal people consider the soldiers that are heavily armed and have lots of training and expirence and don't dare to try anything against them.

Reality is not everyone in this world is sane or has moral values. Therefore arming evryperson would just put guns in more hands of the people who might be terrorists or who might be theese insane people. And intruth many mental people don't always consider using a gun as an option, but if you set it in front of them what are they going to do?

and in truth DSTM while killing anyone with any object is possible and leads to a persons death you must consider that some ways are "easiyer". with a belt you would have to sneak up most likely and take a few minutes to strangle your struggling victim, not giving you a chance at taking down more people if that was your objective. Meanwhile the gun is easy to operate you just pretty much point and shoot, you may not be accurate but ammo is normally not all that expensive , and with a hand gun you can carry several clips leaving you lots of time and ammo to kill with. You could even go a step further and say a bomb would kill more people, but my point is while they all result in the same thing (death) people choose the easiest things to do it with. so terribly sad.

Hmm, this is all very confusing. Arguements for both sides are very stable. Why cant the world just be simple?

Who in the world said "arm everyone" ? ?

So...everyone should have guns, except criminals and crazy people. That sounds easy to accomplish! Why didn't we think of that already?

It was too expensive

Because in our society its tough to differentiate between those who are criminally minded and those that aren't.

And as I said before, who makes the determination who is crazy?

My point was i was presenting an opposing viewpoint and some one asked why i said "to thoose who think we should arm everyone", i didnt say we should.

Thus, with regulation we at least try and filter out the "criminally minded" by at least disallowing ex cons the ability to purchase guns.

Insanity is a whole other issue. Not just "who" decides, but what about mental illness that doesn't necessarily lead to violent behavior? Should a person lose his/her right to own a weapon? What about someone who can be perfectly normal as long as he/she stays on meds? Does this person loose the right to own a weapon...in case he/she might choose to go off the meds?

There's so much gray fog here, why, we'll need nav buoys to get through!

My father collected guns,restored old guns, enjoyed target shooting and hunting on occasion. I grew up around guns and learned at an appropriate and responsable age how to handle a firearm and shoot it safely. I enjoyed following along as my father went hunting and my brothers,sisters and I learned to appreciate the friendly competion of target shooting. I am now married to a man who collects guns. He enjoys shooting trap,skeet and targets. I enjoy going along to watch when my husband and a couple of his friends go to shoot trap & skeet. I personnally don't shoot either one. I do, however,enjoy target shooting. It gives me great satisfaction to do something well that I have worked & practiced hard to do. I would hate to think that we would have to give up an activity that we both enjoy because there are, and always will be, those in this world that abuse the use of guns as well as alcohol,drugs,sex etc.etc. People are injured and killed by each of these everyday. I worry more about getting hit and killed by a drunk driver than I do about getting shot by someone toting a gun. They outlawed alcohol in this country at one time, and look what that got us. Massive crime, vice and gang related activity than was forseen as a consequence of this action. Alcohol is now once again legal in the U.S. Drugs and sex crimes kill people everyday, and yes they are illegal but they are far from controlled. I am not trying to compare apples & oranges here, but all of the above mentioned items,guns included,kill people everyday. A car is as deadly a weapon in the hands of someone who leaves a bar after hours of over indulgence as a gun is. The point I am trying to make here is that there are numerous things in this world that can and all too often do kill people. As has been said many times "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!!" and so do alcohol, drugs,sex crimes and multiple other devices that anyone bent on murder can employ. If someone is determined to murder they will find a way and employ any means neccessary to do so and nothing will prevent them from carrying out there planned vendetta against anyone or anything that they think is against them, in their way or just plain ,in their opinion,has no right to live. It's a sad fact of our society but unfortunatly it is all too true. So what is to be done?? I would hate for law abiding citizens like myself and my husband and so many others have their right to own and use guns taken away. As for the and I quote "mental people" out there, locally pwned I agree with you, who is to decide who is competent and who is not?? Being one of these "Mental People" I feel no compulsion to murder or harm anyone and yet by strict definition I am mentally ill. I happen to be Bi-Polar (manic-depressive). It is caused by an imbalance in the brain chemistry that is not wanted nor is asked for and yet it happens to people everyday. It is considered a mental illness as opposed to a personallity disorder. What I have can be stabalized and in most cases controlled by medication that has to be taken everyday, it is a life long illness. People with personallity disorders, alot of whom make up what most people think of as mentally ill, are suffering from just that, a personallity that ,for whatever reason, doesn't funtion well in society. Treatment can help those afflicted with it, if they are willing. There are many,many mental illnesses & personallity disorders, so who decides who is the one who will kill? People are sociopathic, they have no sense of right or wrong, no conscience, no remorse ( they don't think they have done anything wrong)and no sense of the pain that they cause others, ie. Ted Bundy. Yet, until he was caught, who would have thought that such a nice young man as Ted could possibly be the monster that he turned out to be. So again, who makes the decision as to who is responsible enough to own a gun? Is it me, who stays on my medication and am being treated regularly for my illness or good ole' boy Ted who, after all was such a nice young man?? Before you dump all gun owners and all who suffer from any sort of mental illness into one boat maybe you'd better think a little longer. Who's sitting next to you?? Do you know for sure? I appoligize if I stepped on any toes in this forum but I could only take so much of lumping all who suffer from a mental disorder into one cubby hole & all gun owners as well. So there you have my two cents worth for whatever it's worth..

My state of SC has a proposed bill now that will allow teachers and all kids over 21 who has a weapons permit to carry a gun on school and college campuses all over the state of SC.

Background checks will be done
8 hours of training has to be done
50 buck fee
And a couple of other things

God help us, a lone ranger attitude coupled with minimal training. There are military and law enforcement agencies that train on a regular basis so that mistakes don't happen, and they expect 8 hours to be sufficient?!?
The basic problem here is that when you are up to your arse in alligators it's hard to remember that your primary goal was to drain the swamp.

The idea of arming the whole population such as the city of Kennesaw Georgia has a great deal more merit than arming individuals with minimal training, at least there they are realistic in their belief that with everyone armed you know that your chances of being shot are good if you are involved in life threatening situations.

Is that above and beyond the requirements that must be met to have a weapons permit?

Are the 8 hours of training additional training specific to school and campus environments?

Just wonderin'.

Even if the eight hours were directed at school and campus they would be inadequate. Eight hours should be just enough training to make the average person realize just how unprepared they will be to handle a situation like this.

Let me add this, I own firearms and living in a rural area affords me the opportunity to shoot on a regular basis. In the confined space of a classroom my skills with a hand gun would be more than adequate, but I wouldn't want a child of mine to have to depend on someone with those skills and only eight hours of training. The professionals that respond to these types of situation a trained to react, eight hours is not going to do that.

Well, yeah, but -

folks can get concealed weapon permits now.

They can carry these weapons most places in the country.

Unless specifically stated, they can carry them on school and campus grounds now.

An additional 8 hours of training specific to school and campus environments seems like it is at least addressing the issue rather than not acknowledging that this is a somewhat unique arena.

Same could be said for drivers ED for young ones(15.5 to have a cond. liscense with drivers ed).

Having just one student or teacher armed that day could have saved a lot of lives.

Or it could result in more deaths, when a shooter starts killing peopel and everyone is panicing, and other draw thier weapons, who is to know who is and who isnt the shooter(s)?

Maybe. That's speculation, though.

What we do know is that the results when we don't have another person carrying a weapon haven't been very good in these incidents.

Ok well if I saw someone toting around a gun and shot someone else with a gun, and everyone in the school has guns, how would i know who is who?

The next logical thing is to say that everyone who flys should carry a gun.

Remember a gun is not a detterant to thoose mentally unstable, sure you could kill them, but in reality you just gave a whole bunch of people who you don't know weapons, not only that but the right to carry them into school.

Are guns a problem? Hmm Nope
I'll probably get some hate mail for this :-)..I strongly believe it is parenting that is a problem err lack of. Parents hug your kids - communicate with them - keep their thoughts in check- spend quality time with - teach them respect - teach them how to earn a dollar and an
education. LOVE them for THEIR FUTURE.

There should be a TEST before having a child and a pet :-)

Fine let just the teachers have guns.

From what I heard the shootings were done in hallways and rooms and not in crowded areas anyways.

cgm...Cho shot all but two of his victims in a closed classroom.

lalada65...parenting isn't the answer either, what we are talking about with this individual was mental illness.

John Who...I don't have a problem with people being armed, the people around here describe gun control as having a steady hand, and I agree...for the most part. My problem is arming someone with the intention of protecting our children but not providing them with the proper training to react properly in a shootout. The eight hour course that the Georgia legislators are suggesting will not be sufficient to install the proper reactions that a person will need to respond in a shooting situation. As I keep pointing out, our law enforcement and military train hundreds of hours so that they will react with their training to situations like this.

I understand.

But, if the person planning to go on a shooting rampage knew that there might be others there with a concealed weapon, would they have planned differently? Would they have been more reluctant to go forward?

I beleive that the majority, perhaps even overwhelming majority, of the people who obtain weapons carrying permits recognize the seriousness and responsiblity of what they are doing. The scenario created with the assumption that people will just pull out their weapons and start firing at anyone else with a gun, while not impossible, doesn't seem as likely to me.

Otherwise, I agree that people should be properly trained. How much training, I'm not sure. But, 8 hours is certainly better than 0 hours.



Wouldn't we really be letting people who are already armed simply continue to be so? The possibility that they may save some lives is just that - a possibilty.

The people armed "with the intention of protecting our children" as part of their duties are the police and security forces.

John, if this person is determined and plans to die in the process there is little of anything that is going to stop that person. As I have said all along, guns aren't the problem, Cho could have just as easily walked into the class with a bomb strapped to his chest and blown himself and everyone else in the class away.

I'm afraid you and I are not going to agree here, so I will agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

Actually, I agree with that, and believe I mentioned it way earlier in this thread.



Ah, don't be afraid.

What a boring world it would be if we all agreed on everything.

Unless everyone agreed with me, then it would be a great world!

The fear that was alluded to was that of not being able to make you see my point of view, and that is indeed troubling as the concept shouldn't be that hard to understand. It doesn't matter, I have realized that this thread is going around in circles and have wasted enough energy here, this is my last reply in this thread.

"I live in the UK and the attitude to guns is very different here."

Yes, it certainly is. First, it started out with registration, it then ended with nothing less than confiscation. Do not EVER forget that at one point, a citizen of the UK could own firearms. The Australians were next. Your governments disarmed you. They came knocking at your door, demanding that you hand over your firearms. It's that simple.

Both Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler wrote exactly the same thing when it came to seizing absolute power; "The very first thing one must do, is to disarm the populace."

The artery in my temple begins to throb whenever I listen to those who would foist their personal beliefs upon others. I own guns. LOTS of them. I don't rob banks. I don't mug people. I don't participate in drive-by shootings. I don't climb to the top floor of high buildings, and shoot people.

I also hunt.

With this said, I'll be the 1st to admit that gun ownership and hunting isn't for everyone. If you do not like guns, that's fine with me. If you think hunting is cruel and inhumane, that's fine by me, also. Just DO NOT tell me I should not be allowed to own firearms, or hunt. I will make those decisions for myself, thank you very much. Having opinions is fine. So is having a strong belief system. Forcing others to share your opinions and belief systems is NOT OK.

Individuals foisting their personal beliefs upon others is bad enough, but when the government gets into the act of deciding what is good/bad for me, what I can, or cannot do (within reason), or how I live my life, that's the straw that broke the camel's back. As a nation, far too many of us believe it is the government's job to care for, and protect us; a job they are all too willing to do. I, for one, do not want the government making decisions for me. I will make my own.

Do seat belts save lives? Yes. Do I believe you should be forced to wear one? NO.
Are cigarettes bad for your health? Yes. Do I believe they should be outlawed, as they eventually will be? NO.
Is my LS1-powered Trans Am capable of reaching speeds far in excess of the speed limit? Yes. Should high performance cars be made illegal? NO. Do I get a good laugh watching Curly get Moe-slapped? Yes. Do I think the The Three Stooges are partly to blame for violence in our society? NO.

I can place every firearm I own on my kitchen table, cocked and loaded. They'll stay in that condition, without harming a fly, until they rust away to nothing; UNLESS I, or someone else, decides to pick one of them up and do wrong with it. It's all about choices, folks! How fast do you choose to drive? How aggressively? How much do you choose to drink, and how often? What do YOU choose to do with a firearm YOU own? Here again, and I hate to sound like a broken record, morality and "proper behavior" cannot be legislated. You couldn't begin to count the number of gun laws already on the books. And these laws have prevented how many deaths? So when some deranged fool decides that the world is his shooting gallery, I should lose my personal freedoms and liberties? I don't think so.

Hijakd, that is exactly what you posted above. I completely and 100% agree with you.
Guns are inanimate; if one suddenly came alive and started a massacre, I would be very surprised. Guns don't just operate themselves, they need PEOPLE to operate it. PEOPLE are the ones doing the killing, not the guns. The gun is just a tool to make the killing simpler.
In my opinion, the monitoring of who gets and owns the guns is the problem. If all the people who know what to do with guns and use it for good, not harm, there wouldn't be a bit of a problem. In fact, I daresay the world will be a better place.
However, if guns got into the wrong hands (where have I heard this type of sentence before...) no doubt they will wreak havoc.
As Nathaniel Hawthorne once stated: Words - so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them.
If I rephrase it to fit the current situation, I'd think it'd go to be something like this: Guns- inanimate and useless as they are, when thrown away to rust in the dirt, how potent for good or malicious intentions they become in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

Pegging on my own opinion. I tink more or less guns should be there for us. It somehow makes our life easier if u just tink about going hunting and other activities. But of course most things has its pros and cons. and i tink the cons for guns may be a fatal one. But just tink life without guns... not on the surface but somehow deeper into it... u will get what im tryin to say

Hmm, I was too lazy to read the entire topic till the last post, so I'll just comment on the initial question

No they are NOT. Someone who wants to kill a load of people or just one, could do it with anything, it's pretty much a matter of choice. He might've just aswell gone there with a huge blade and start cutting peoples heads off (I don't think anyone would be happy to try to stop him).

Someone burned a church here in Finland, and was asked what he used to lit the fire; he said he had picked up free ad sheets from the ground; then one of the judges had said free ad sheets are absolutely dangerous and should not be lying around?! I mean.... Come on. It was a matter of coincidence whatever he decided to use to burn the church.

You might aswell say we should cut peoples arms off to prevent them from killing others. Things simply doesn't work like that.

Anyway. As for school shootings. Teachers, school nurses and curators have to open their eyes. Schools should also have MUCH more and better resources for checking students health (mental) than they do right now. Thus, if problems are found, they can be handled accordingly, and not cry about it when a bullied youngster flips into doing something horrible.

Let's also not forget that guns are needed for hunting. A crapload of people hunt here in Finland, thus making the amount of weapons in Finland huge. Still, the rate of gun crimes isn't as big as in some countries (if I remember right).

I personally love Guns of any sort.They,like any other like device, only becomes Dangerous, when in the hands of irresponsible Human Beings.

I agree with you 100% DSTM

Agreed. Remember: Outlawing guns only removes them from people who follow the law.

Don't believe me?

Case in point: There are illegal drugs in this country. How much does the US Government spend each year on preventing this? Several HUNDRED BILLION per year.

Look at Switzerland. They GIVE their citizens guns, and teach them how to use them. They presently have the lowest murder rate of any nation.

Washington DC has the strictest gun control in the nation. They also have the worst murder rate.

See any correlation here?

Billy3

EDIT: Though I agree that correlation does not prove causality, given the logic of the first sentence, the causality becomes clear.

I must fully agree, it is a poor argument that if guns are outlawed it will remove the problem. Those whom wish to violate the law, will always find a way to obtain them.

I have been a member and supporter of the United States Olympic Shooting Team, most of my adult life, and applaud their efforts in education and training for the proper usage of firearms.

I think that anywhere I cannot carry a loaded firearm it is a violation of my second ammendment, therefore the constitution, therefore those that prohibit me from carrying a loaded firearm are terrorists and should be killed immediately.

yes, if law abiding folks can't use guns, then there will be gangsters running around knowing that anyone who is lawfull enough to try and stop them won't have a gun. we shouldn't even need permits. think about all the black gang members that shot at us helis when we tried to deliver aid to the new orleans. in a perfect world, honest, good people could have lit those fools up. but no. you can't carry a gun unless you pay a lot of money, keep it in visible sight, and never use it. what a joke. we should not be heading towards outlawing guns, we should make them easier to obtain. Criminals and mass murders will always think at least twice when they are not sure who is packing.

Some find the need of a firearm to be a bigger or more important person than they really are. While, others can get the same feeling knowing that they can do with other things the same end result as a firearm, and get a charge or rush at being in close contact.

Then others have been there, done that, and now relish in the blessings of peace and quiet. I am happy to be in the latter at this stage, but more than willing if required to return to the former.

What in the world are you talking about? time for a reality check. If one person has a gun, and the other doesn't, it is a VERY QUICK fight. IF guns were outlawed so that good people can't have them, you'd have good honest people trying to stop bank roberies with their bared hands, and going down hard. Have you ever seen someone shot and dead from one bullet??? Well i have, and it happens so quick, that if you dont have a gun, you are done.

It is not always the case. I personally dispatched more than one to meet his maker, and it was he that had the gun.



As I said, it is not always the case. But, I see your mind is already made up, and thus I will not pursue this point with you as I am sure nothing can be said that will deter you from the truth as you see it.

That's not true at all. I simply try to disect every argument made based on the knowledge and experience that I have. And if I cannot, then I investigate more deeply and may end up agreeing in the end. So, what is your stance on gun control in all areas, be specific if you think there are areas where guns should be checked, because I may agree with some specific situations.

I shall make an endeavor to properly reply to your request. But not right at this moment. I am making this reply so you know I am not ignoring your request, but the F1 race from Australia is on, and I would prefer to watch it at this moment.

Btw... did you take a look at this:

I agree 100%. Don`t send guns to prison, send criminals to prison. Tired of guns getting slammed as the evil, the evil is the politicos that find it easy to blame guns. but do nothing to make laws tougher on those who use guns to rob, intimidate, or kill. Lets say NO to crime. Life in prison should never be 7 years and parole.

Personally I would prefer the criminal that kills me to be armed with a well functioning handgun, rather than a baseball bat or rusty knife. After they have removed "all" the guns from the planet we still will have evil people who want to hurt others, criminals and thugs who want to control or intimidate people.

My 2cents anyhow.

gw53

While I can say that the opposing argument does make sense on some levels, it just doesn't stand up to the test of reality, atleast to me. Here's why.

I'm one of those people that are 'selective' about what laws I do and do not follow. Gun control amoung others are some of the laws that I don't really follow to the letter let's say. I carry guns concealed without a permit. Period. It's against the law. I am aware of that. I don't care. If I'm ever charged with a weapons charge, odds are I've already done something else to get me in a pinch to begin with and the weapons charge will just be an additional charge. While I am a criminal in the legal sense I do have what I consider to be good morals and values. Does my illegally carrying a gun make me a bad person?

I have gone through a lot of training with guns, most relevent to this subject, Close Quarters Combat. After going through said training, I can tell you that while I MAY be superior in skill to an adversary in a gunfight, his gun can still shoot bullets just like mine can. Many people have said that people don't have enough training with guns. I'm saying that it doesn't take an associates degree to be able to use one. An eight hour class along with frequent refreshers on certain aspects of gun use (i.e. positive identification of a target, knowing your background, etc.) is sufficient in my opinion for the average person to safely carry a firearm. That along with regular 'trigger' time at a range.

Much the same way that on some levels I couldn't care less whether they outlaw guns or not. I already have mine. And we've already established that I don't mind breaking rules. The only thing that would cause me any frustration is how it would be just a little bit more difficult to acquire any new guns. That's about it.

Something else to think about: While we do have our military and law enforcement to protect us, how often does a cop PREVENT a murder as opposed to respond to one?


The same point can be applied to the idea "that's what the military is for." Do you really know how long it takes to mobilize a unit? Days at best. I can assure you if a single sleeper cell were to wake up and start some guff, we'd be pretty much hosed for a couple of days if we had to count on our military until said military gets it's stuff together to respond.

So who's the first responder? Who do we rely on to be the significant deterrent and or responder if 'it' hits the fan? In a situation where somebody is actually killing people do you want to be in a position where you are helpless until 'authorities' arrive? I don't.

Far too many people have so much faith in the rules and structure of our society that they fail to realize how much damage anybody that acts and thinks outside the rules could actually do before they were stopped. It's this fear that allows me to be comfortable with breaking arms laws. Does that make me a criminal in the legal sense? Yes. Does that make me a bad person? I don't think so.

your definitely not a bad person. I've already stated that I believe Americans should be able to carry guns wherever they want without a permit. I think most people have at least a few laws they ignore. With me its drugs. I just do what I want, I'm not hurting anyone. But, I hate my parents. They busted me for weed, and my dad's like,"Its about self respect, Ryan." And I'm like, ok dad, at least your not moaning cause its illegal. But my mom, shes like,"If this happens again, I'm calling the Sherrifs without telling you anything." And here's the best part, my mom is a freaking pirate. That's right, she has a network of friends at her work where she buys/sells/trades pirated movies. she's stealing from people, yet she doesnt see it that way. Many people dis guns, and other illegal things for that matter, when they are actually taking from people.

[rant]When you pirate a movie (even on a disc) you don't take anything away from the studios. They don't earn money. There is still a copy on the Internet after I download it. So did I take it? When you steal something from a store, the store no longer has that item to sell, but the movie studios can still sell the movie. [/rant]

But you're right about everyone ignoring some laws. I know people who won't wear seatbelts for the sake of the government should not FORCE you to wear it. Samething with pirates, thieves, speeders, drug users, underage drinking. Just because something is illegal in a certain country (America) doesn't mean it's morally, ethically, or just plain wrong.

Yeah i know, Theres many countries where you cannot only legally smoke/possess marijuana, but you can grwo it yourself. And you know I'm definitely not looking to the american government for my values and ethics, in fact, that is my general reason for disobeying certain us/state laws. Its cause i either think the government has no right to make/enforce a law, or I just think its immoral.

But i do believe piracy is stealing. Cause if you're not buying it, what, are they giving it to you for free? And once you buy a disc at a store, you own that one individual disc. You have no rights to the licensing on it, and the information is not to be resold, or given away, which is what it sounds like you are advocating. But what does law enforcement expect from us when it is so easy to steal thigns online when its easy, dont have to carry anything, and no one knows. But if you ask me the corporations deserve it. They have outsourced nearly everything for the cheap, inhuman labor that would never happen here, and maybe all the internet pirates are just recouping a little bit of that.

Yes, they are.

stephen colbert had the mayor of i think philadelphia on the other night, to talk about a new gun law he signed in. I believe the most major change is only allowing people to buy one gun a month. I dont remember everything else

Very well said.

doesn't "bear" mean to hold?