yes, if students or the teachers carried guns all the time, the killer may have been stopped early, but you people keep glossing over the fact that many more than 33 people would be killed by accidental fire and whatnot if everyone carried guns all the time. the smallest disputes can become deadly when someone has spur-of-the-moment access to firearms, and something that would have ended in maybe a fistfight ends in a funeral or two. so think about that before you make it "mandatory" for all teachers to carry guns.
2007-04-17 00:31:24 · 14 answers · asked by redluke 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
The benefits of owning a gun still outweigh the disadvantages especially as our world becomes more populated and people live closer together.
2007-04-17 00:50:29 · answer #1 · answered by Land Warrior 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
You people? Who's you people? Make up your mind first, is the students or the teachers that " you people" wants to carry guns. Are these "you people " so powerful that they can make it mandatory to carry weapons at a University? If this, for the sake of argument, could ever happened, would make any difference for the persons killed, regardless of the number? Whether students or teachers be allowed or not to carry weapons, everyone has access to weapons at the "spur of the moment", remember Columbine? I'm not saying is a good idea, but is also not a good idea to generalize and create an scenario that is completely blown out of proportion and based solely on your own perception of what "you people" are commenting. Use your own advise and think before you said anything.
2007-04-17 07:59:44 · answer #2 · answered by cabron o 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
People shouldn't have to carry guns "just in case". Can you imagine 15 year old high school students carrying a gun for protection? If the faculty carries a gun how do you keep students from stealing it? Lock it up? How efficient is that? The answer isn't keeping guns handy. Unfortunately I don't know the answer because the people who commit these crimes don't care about life, including their own. I'm sure that the person who did this knew he would never come out of it alive, that he would take is own life.
What a big change from 30 years ago when kids who hunted kept their guns in the back window of their pick-up truck and no one said a word, because no one was killing fellow students...
where have those days gone?
2007-04-17 07:48:15 · answer #3 · answered by plege_girl 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think anyone wishes for it to be mandatory. Some will choose not to possess a firearm. I doubt that more than 33 would have died. The shooter was intent on killing people and there was no deterrent. One person with a gun could have stopped the evil.
Switzerland has a kind of mandatory ownership law. The govt actually gives out guns to its citizens, in some cases full automatic weapons. It's for their own national security. They don't seem to have a gun violence problem, because a potential assailant doesn't know how's packing.
2007-04-17 07:46:26 · answer #4 · answered by garfieldkat 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
What is used in almost every crime, can be used as a deadly weapon, carries explosive compounds, can be bought with no questions asked and can be transported across state lines and international boundaries with little concern?
Answer: A car
I would not be surprised if the killer today, drove a car to the university.
2007-04-17 10:03:18 · answer #5 · answered by Eldude 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are replacing one extreme for another.
No one is advocating that "everyone" carry guns.
Most states require civilians to undergo rigorous training and a comprehensive background check before being allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
Not everyone posesses the character and/or judgement to own or carry a gun. And truly responsible licenced gunowners like myself will put our guns away when we are going to be in a situation where our own judgement will be affected (such going out for drinks, etc.)
Ask yourself this: how likely would the gunman have planned his spree, if he knew that a certain fraction of responsible law abiding students and faculty were armed?
2007-04-17 07:53:39 · answer #6 · answered by Meresa 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
This kind of senseless killing really can never be prevented because we will never be able to control the individual mind.We must learn from these terrible acts of selfish mental disorders that some people carry with them.
2007-04-17 07:45:26 · answer #7 · answered by one10soldier 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's a nonsense, and I'll give you a good example why.
I looked into all the school shootings in the US over the last 20 years. The average age of the shooter was 14(!), and took place at elementary and junior high schools. So now just let's send all our 12-year-olds to school packing a loaded pistol - RIGHT....
2007-04-17 08:00:17 · answer #8 · answered by lesroys 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Would it make it better for you if people said, "If all the students had guns AND training"? There's much less chance of a crazed person walking into a classroom with two pistols if they know that the entire class is also packing weapons. He went into that classroom because he knew those students wouldn't be armed.
2007-04-17 07:37:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Statistically, you are wrong. You make assumptions that are not valid. If people carried guns, they would have the chance to defend themselves against a crazed shooter. In the US we have the right to bear arms. Read The US Constitution, second amendment. It is very basic. Try finding records of mass killings in the old west when cowboys were walking around with six-guns and were carrying rifles on their saddles. You won't find any. You will find records of US military slaughtering unarmed tribes of Indians. You will find records of Indians who slaughtered settlers who did not have weapons to defend themselves with.
2007-04-17 07:48:30 · answer #10 · answered by regerugged 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋