I see your argument and I can't say I disagree completely. However, you're assuming that every CCW holder is an honest citizen who's well trained and means no harm. Well guess what, the shooter in question was one of them until just prior to his death. He had a permit and no prior criminal history. He just didn't take his pills and got angry. Even people who don't take pills can get angry and do something they will regret. When bullets are flying there's always going to be some confusion and little time to think. I remember reading about the Utah mall shooting. The off-duty cop who was confronting the shooter had to yell several times to the approaching cops that he's one of them because they couldn't hear him or didn't believe him. Imagine several people confronting the shooter and the chaos that would result. Also there's no guarantee that a "CCW citizen" sitting next to you would have the time to pull out his gun or the desire to use it. He might chicken out and try to flee like everyone else or get killed.

Arming everyone is definitely not a panacea. I'd say it's more of a double-edged sword. Some of the most heavily-armed societies are also the most violent. Africa and Iraq come to mind. I think what we need to address is the root of the problem. Why does this crap happen more often in this country than most other countries? Could it be that in this country too many people feel self-righteous, isolated, under severe pressure and/or hopeless with nothing to lose? There's definitely something wrong with too many people in this country.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Anybody who tries to sell you that is absolutely nucking futs. No "Ands, Buts or Ifs". However, what are the odds? So far, few crimes are committed by CCW people.

True. However which gives you better odds? A "maybe, maybe not" CCW guy in the situation or no CCW guy?

Well, we can't lock everybody up and we can't fix all the problems of people or give them IV valium to calm them down. Life goes on as it does.

BTW, was this nutball a CCW guy or somebody with a permit to own a gun?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I assume you are referring specifically to shootings on college campuses. I can not comment on whether or not school shootings occur more per capita in the US than other countries, However, I can comment on the fact that countries with stricter gun laws usually have a higher crime rate per capita than countries with less gun restrictions. In fact we see this trend in our own country. A case in point is Warsaw, GA (I could be wrong about the town…I will have to find the link), which at some point had fairly high crime per capita for that size town. The city made it mandatory that every head of household own a gun. Since then the city has enjoyed a virtually crime free city.

Case in point, Washington, DC has some of the most restrictive guns laws in the country and also has some of the highest crime rates per capita in the country.

I will leave you with this:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson Quoting Cesare Beccaria)


EDIT...It was Kennesaw, GA....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Right - That would be Kenneshaw Georgia. Seems to work for those folks.

But, if anyone thinks that what works there (and I am by no means saying it doesn't) would work everywhere else, particularly DC, they're a fool.

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

Are you saying what they are doing now in DC works? What is your solution to the DC crime rate?

(In an effort to stay as politically correct here as possible.)

I’m not saying anything about what is and isn’t working in DC. Nor, what will and wont. (I guess I should have said: Work the same way.)

I’m saying that there are quite a few factors involved with regard to where mandatory gun ownership will and will not work. It’s not a blanket solution.

i.e. In a small southern town of a few thousand folks is one thing. In a big city (such as DC) full of gangs, poverty, various levels of mental/physical/financial stability is quite another.

If you can’t see, as well as understand that. I can’t explain it to you, and wont waste our time trying.

BTW (and for the record) – I am by no means anti gun. I own a few. Quite a few. And a CHL/CCL. I carry quite often.

However (as I told Bot) - I just get sick of hearing from folks whos "big picture" is actually a wallet sized black and white image they drew up and printed themselves.
(That’s not necessarily directed at anyone in particular. Though it certainly could be.)

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

The whole point of federalism is to allow for diversity of opinions, lifestyles, culture, etc. Folks who live in oh say ... Berkeley probably don't think that living the way folks live in Crossett AR would be such a great idea. And vice-versa, I feel certain. To me, that's a good thing. People in DC want to live at the mercy of thugs? Fine with me, go for it. Folks in Crossett want to squirrel hunt with their kids before school? Go for it.

B

I guess the trick is to figure out how to make it mandatory for those “living at the mercy” to own guns. And not the thugs themselves.

Looking at the mentalities alone (Feel free to grasp that which produces and drives said mentalities on your own.), of both parties (much less, the zillions in between). This is not a pretty picture where crime rates drop and everyone lives in peace.

“Berkeley” ?? Was that a shot? (or should I ask: A troll?)

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

Well, lets look at it this way:
You are in a classroom, if its like many of the classrooms when I went to college then there are two entrances/exits, usually on one wall of the room. A lunatic enters, draws weapons and starts shooting. There will be a stampede to the doors if the shooter is not blocking them and/or people piling up in the back of the room trying to cover themselves, etc.

So the question you are asking is do I want to be in this situation with a lunatic shooter and no other person armed? Or do I want at least the CHANCE of a CCW present that MAY be able to return fire? I will take the CHANCE with CCW every time. Sure, there is a chance that I may be killed by the CCW, or even the police, if they make it on time and shoot the anybody in the room with a gun. I'll take that CHANCE.

Without that CHANCE I and everyone else in the room is a victim just waiting for execution and praying that someone "saves" us.

Lets take a look at the VT shooting. The lunatic went room to room, shooting and reloading, returning to some rooms to shoot people again. The holocaust survivor professor was shot trying to barricade a door and keep the lunatic at bay. Do the naysayers NOT see how there might have been a CHANCE for someone to do something if CCW had been allowed? How much F#$%ing clearer can I make it?

My original comments revolved around simply allowing CCW permit holders to carry in more places, like universities, etc. The CCW holders are already there. It would be extremely unlikely that someone would run right out and obtain CCW permit simply to carry on campuses. The people that want them already have them, they just leave the weapons at home when they can't carry where they are going. This is not "arming everyone" or any of the other alarmist BS stated above.

RT

__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K

First off – I sure hope you’re not referring to me with the “alarmist BS” line.


Anyway. Let’s look at it this way:
Kid passes every test and background check and gets a CHL, CCW, whatever….
Kid has his gun in his backpack when some nut-bag comes into the room armed to the teeth and attempts to start killing other students.
Kid pulls out his gun and drops the nut-bag before he gets a shot off.
Kid wakes up the next day a national hero.
(I’m all for that story, BTW.)
-or-
Kid wakes up the night before to the sound of gun shots. It seems that some other members of his frat house got drunk, found his gun and just “accidentally” (they just wanted to scare him) shot some kid from another frat coming over to TP their house. Other kids parents sue the sh-t out of the school for allowing this to happen…
-or-
Something related to “Thank God that wonderful man had a gun and put a stop to the madness….”
-or-
Well. Bottom line. If he didn’t have that gun….
-or-

Well…that list of stories can go on forever.
And for every -or- that anyone can add to it, either good ending or bad. Someone can always add one to the contrary. That’s all I’m saying. It’s not all cut and dry.

I agree with what you’ve said. I like your story. But you said yourself: “Let’s look at it this way:” If that’s how we look at it fine. I hope I’m in the class with you. I hope we can triangulate the MF and one of us gets a clear shot. After the CNN interview, I’ll buy the first round at the bar.

As for VT. Yep – Sure would have been nice if someone had a gun in there besides the nut-bag.
But how/who/why/etc. we get a gun in there isn’t as cut and dry as some might think. That’s all I’m saying. If it were that cut and dry. It would have been cut and dried some time ago.

“My original comments revolved around simply allowing CCW permit holders to carry in more places, like universities…”
From recent events, I can certainly see your point. And, I agree.

But how are we (PLEASE NOTE THAT I SAID: “WE”) going to deal with the irate parents who wont send their kids to a school that’s a melting pot of people, some of whom can legally walk around on, as well as live on, get drunk on, live in groups on, with a gun? (This picture gets much bigger, quite quickly btw.)

Sadly – This can go ‘round and ‘round forever.

Like has been said above. The trick is figuring out some sort of "law abiding citizens” formula. Somewhere in the formula also lies the “factors of large groups” formula and the “every scenario is different” formula. Once we get the formulas down, only then can the proper changes/laws/procedures be made that keep the masses happy.

edit:
Until then – Both extremist parties can bang their heads on the wall all they want.
I’ve got better things to do with my head (either one), so I’m not going to join either.

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

I agree that mandatory ownership is not the answer, for obvious reasons, however, blanket disarmament is not the answer either as it only disarms the law abiding citizens because the criminals will carry either way.

Two points: One, I mentioned Kennesaw because is shows a direct relationship between law abiding citizens possessing firearms and the drop in the crime rate (the inverse relationship clearly shows that the more law abiding citizens who possess a firearm the less crime there is in that region) . Two, CHL and/or a permit systems seems to work when the restrictions are reasonable and are considered “Shall Issue.” This can be determined by the many reports out there that show that those who are issued permits are not people committing crime.

I am very pro 2A, and that being said, I also do not believe everyone should be allowed to possess a firearm. I believe there should be some “reasonable” restrictions on both ownership and carry. I think the real issue is determining what is reasonable and what is not.

For example, I think it is reasonable to say that mental defectives should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm. I also think it would be reasonable to have a built in mechanism/process so that a mental defective can prove their stability and get their right back. A good example of this is that some legislators out there are trying to band combat vets diagnosed with post traumatic stress syndrome from owning or possessing firearms. I “might” concede that one that is diagnosed with PTSS is unstable and should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm, However, I would assert that at some point they might be stable and should be afforded their constitutional right.

I agree 100%

We're on the same page, side of the coin, fence, whatever.

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

WVOtoGO said it right. I've looked into that stats before and it's easy to cherry-pick them to support any belief you might have. My impression is that overall legal gun ownership doesn't seem to affect the murder rate. There are peaceful, relatively heavily-armed countries like Finland and Switzerland, and there are peaceful, virtually unarmed societies like Japan. There are also violent societies like US and Mexico where US is heavily armed and Mexico is not. It's got everything to do with how civilized and peaceful the population is. The US has a long way to go.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL