Would Guns have stopped VT?

[Last King of Edinburgh]

To quote the words of one retarded republican senator "People dont kill people, guns kill people". Utter rubbish. Don't ask me for the solution but there ought to be some form of control.  Perhaps not total control cos I would like to protect my fam too but there ought to be stricter measures.

Before calling somebody retarded, you should get the quote right, you look stupid otherwise. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

I was'nt trying to hijack the thread if thats what it looked like but I think I'm pretty free to call anyone anything I choose to. I wonder why the insult, its totally unwarranted, chill mate.

P.S
And yes, that was my error.

[Slow Children At Play]

If you can prove that an increase of gun ownership would decrease the aggregate amount of deaths, i would consider it.  But from my anecdotal experience, this would not be possible.

Actually, you need to prove the opposite. It's a Constitutional right.

debateble.

I'm not even sure it's up for debate.  As I recall, it violates Federal law to bring a firearm on a school's grounds.

Cite? b/c I think this was overturned, could be wrong though. Probably still a state law though.

I think you might be right about the unconstitutionality of it.

Here's the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
Here's the dissent to the SCOTUS judgment: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZD2.html 
It looks like it was ruled based on Congress overreaching authority under the commerce clause--not the 2nd Amendment.

But I am almost certain that states have banned firearms on school property--at least the states I've lived in.

[Freak]

If you can prove that an increase of gun ownership would decrease the aggregate amount of deaths, i would consider it.  But from my anecdotal experience, this would not be possible.

Actually, you need to prove the opposite. It's a Constitutional right.

To own and do what you will on your property.  Not to bring with you into my classroom.

Let me check, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people ot keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amend.

No mention of a classroom there.

The issue is guns in a classroom.  The 2nd Amendment does not apply in this case--at least it has not been interpreted to do so.

As a high school teacher let me throw one bit of info out there:  you DO NOT want guns in school.


These are kids, undergrads also are still kids in more than a few ways; I don't care if they're  trained or not.


btw- we've had 5 bomb threats and 1 school shooting threat this month.  I work in a well to do district that promotes community and all that jazz.  No one thinks kids or teachers with guns is the solution.

Actually, Im betting you'd have a mass exodus of public school teachers.  I'm not putting my life in the hands of adolescents...

High school students - no way, I agree, but we do draft 18-year-olds...

[Freak]

To quote the words of one retarded republican senator "People dont kill people, guns kill people". Utter rubbish. Don't ask me for the solution but there ought to be some form of control.  Perhaps not total control cos I would like to protect my fam too but there ought to be stricter measures.

Before calling somebody retarded, you should get the quote right, you look stupid otherwise. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

I was'nt trying to hijack the thread if thats what it looked like but I think I'm pretty free to call anyone anything I choose to. I wonder why the insult, its totally unwarranted, chill mate.

P.S
And yes, that was my error.

Sorry mate, I just get a bit hot when people call others stupid, yet make mistakes themselves. Especially when I agree with the quote.

[General2010]

To quote the words of one retarded republican senator "People kill people, guns dont kill people". Don't ask me for the solution but there ought to be some form of control.  Perhaps not total control cos I would like to protect my fam too but there ought to be stricter measures.

Maybe we should have stricter measures in the sense of not selling guns to those who aren't American citizens, like Cho??

[Slow Children At Play]

Actually, you need to prove the opposite. It's a Constitutional right.

debateble.

I'm not even sure it's up for debate.  As I recall, it violates Federal law to bring a firearm on a school's grounds.

Cite? b/c I think this was overturned, could be wrong though. Probably still a state law though.

I think you might be right about the unconstitutionality of it.

Here's the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
Here's the dissent to the SCOTUS judgment: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZD2.html 
It looks like it was ruled based on Congress overreaching authority under the commerce clause--not the 2nd Amendment.

But I am almost certain that states have banned firearms on school property--at least the states I've lived in.

Wait, I think Slick Willy pulled out a revamped Federal law in 1996 that is still in effect: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/gun_free_school_zones.txt

[Freak]

If you can prove that an increase of gun ownership would decrease the aggregate amount of deaths, i would consider it.  But from my anecdotal experience, this would not be possible.

Actually, you need to prove the opposite. It's a Constitutional right.

debateble.

I'm not even sure it's up for debate.  As I recall, it violates Federal law to bring a firearm on a school's grounds.

Cite? b/c I think this was overturned, could be wrong though. Probably still a state law though.

I think you might be right about the unconstitutionality of it.

Here's the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
Here's the dissent to the SCOTUS judgment: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZD2.html 
It looks like it was ruled based on Congress overreaching authority under the commerce clause--not the 2nd Amendment.

But I am almost certain that states have banned firearms on school property--at least the states I've lived in.

Ya, that's how I remember it. My prof was pretty ticked about that case. A big commerce clause fan.

[Slow Children At Play]

Further evidence that guns on school property are federally banned (still), comes from this site from 2005: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Nx1.htm. 

Whew, that's the most work I've done all day.

[Freak]

Here look at the stats. I haven't read them all. They do come from the NRA, but I don't think they'd lie about the data from the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics.



US Crime Stats

[Einstein]

Our current way of doing things is probably the best.. the only change: I think people with a license to carry a handgun should be able to carry on a college campus.  I would only concede that these people carrying on a college campus be 21 years or older.

I know if I was trying to go on a rampage, I might think twice about it if I knew many people carried guns.

Also, it's not like the people that are authorized to carry a weapon are individuals that would actually use it in an unlawful manner.  To get a license to carry you must be investigated by the FBI and deemed worthy to carry.  They don't give people that are mentally not stable, felons, or drug dealers license to carry.  

Even if they let people carry on college campuses the only thing that would change is that people that have been investigated by the FBI will be armed on campus.  NOT individuals that would use the weapon unlawfully.

If someone wants to rampage a campus, they are going to do it.  But it might deter someone from doing so if they knew that they would only get a couple of shots off before they met opposition from an individual with a valid license to carry.

So in summary what I feel needs to be done is, keep the current laws, you can buy guns to meet the constitutional right to carry, then put gun owners through investigations to deem them trustworthy and stable if they want to be able to carry the weapon.

Then invoke a law to require a person to be 21 years of age to carry on a college campus and of course they must also be licensed to carry.

If you start regulating who can own a gun, then you are directly going against our constitutional right to bear arms.  

But if it is regulated anyway, then guns will still be attainable.  They may be harder to attain, but through robbery of individuals with guns, or black markets guns will be available.  Only now the robber is absolutley sure you won't have a gun.  Thereby emboldening any criminal that is able to attain a gun.  And when such criminal commits a crime they will be far more successful. IMO