English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

would it have resulted in the killer murdering less people or would it have resulted in more dead bodies? What I think a lot of pro-gun posters don't realize is that it is VERY HARD to accurately shoot a firearm. I am a cop and notice at the range that most POLICE OFFICERS cannot even shoot that well. And it is a known fact that your shooting capabilities are even worse when under large ammounts of stress (like when someone else is shooting at you). Does anyone else see that a campus full of scared kids firing off guns would have been more harmful then helpful?

2007-04-18 01:48:19 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

jacob W, you are a moron. He wasn't aiming at ONE target. It is very easy to hit someone when you fire into a crowd of students. He didn't miss because he was aiming to hit anyone!

2007-04-18 02:12:33 · update #1

ruthie, lol.

2007-04-18 02:25:03 · update #2

27 answers

I totally agree and I am shocked at just the thought of this. From what I know the law states you can have the gun inside your home, locked I presume, for personal protection. Outside the home concealed not in ink so illegal. I could be wrong. Police Officer's have other rules. I think the mall shooting with the off duty cop aiding in the rampage there was over played giving people the thought it's ok to run around with a weapon "in case." The restaurant incident derailed the common sense lobbies that were on the floor and changed the focus to include defend outside the home.
The right to bear arms went off the map there as far as I am concerned. Gun issues have been a kiss of death for political careers. Let's see what they do now not just say!
I know of several of LA friends who stow them in their cars with the car jacking rate so high. Still not legal as far as I know.
Guns for hunting you need permits and to follow the guidelines in place for that "sport."
A student packing a weapon is absolutely ridiculous. Panic, stray bullets? The wrong target? Mayhem!!
I believe in stricter rules for guns in our country. You will never ban them. We need to start somewhere and build on that.
Nation wide, no longer State to State. It's too easy to cross a State line and collect a gun.

2007-04-18 02:14:09 · answer #1 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 2 1

It is very difficult to say what would have happened if?
Until someone is involved in a situation like that, he does not know his reaction. It is very scary, very loud and bloody, so most will try to get out. Also if every one carry a gun, well it will look like the old west.
I believe current laws make it very easy to buy a gun and perhaps that is part of the problem.
Also violent is promoted widely on media and Internet, look at news for example? Or the games that kids love to play and are addicted to, Such as World Of War craft, which is all about killing and nothing else.
It is a good idea to promote peace, instead of war, and love in place of hate.

Best Regards.

2007-04-18 02:19:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 0 0

Well while I am all for the right to carry a weapon (I do have a CW permit), there is a reason why they make you wait until after you turn 21 and a reason why its illegal to have guns around schools.

Teenagers are far more likely to either have an accident with the weapon or because of easy access to deadly firearms get angry at someone and shoot them.

2007-04-18 04:06:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

something along this line happened in Texas one time.. a wacko walked into a Luby's buffet on a sunday and started shooting people.. about 10 to 11 Texans pulled a gun and ended the shooting spree to 2 deaths... 1 victim and 1 criminal had they not had those weapons it would have been alot worse.

I do agree with the 2nd adm. and also with the right to carry...
but I think that the if gun laws we have are enforced we would not have all the problems we have.... at this time in the United States we have 20,000 laws on the books about guns... most are not enforced... if you want to end gun crimes.. just enforced the laws that say if you use a gun during a crime you get 25 years in prison with no parole plus the time for the crime you did... easy enough... here in Charlotte , NC... we had 2 police men killed,,, by a criminal that I think it was said had 7 felony arrest... he should have been in prison for life.. in Charlotte , NC the DNC has run the show for ever... the police made 34,000 felony arrest last year.... 900 went to court... because they ( the DNC ) want to see a light rail system in place.. or new school busses.. or any other think than courts and jails... want to end crime.. BE HARD ON IT

2007-04-18 02:03:38 · answer #4 · answered by Larry M 3 · 2 2

In a perfect world none of us would have to worry about guns. However until we can uninvent the gun and uninvent tyranny from our own governments it is my feeling that the greatest deterrent to crime of all kinds is an armed law abiding population. Would guns in the hands of students and teachers have stopped yet another school massacre? Hard to say. But it may well have cut it short. When people understand that when they take up guns to commit crimes that there is a great possibilty they themselves will be shot then and only then will crime rates drop. The Police simply can not protect us. I live in western Canada and I find it interesting that the City of Calgary which has very strict gun control has a higher crime rate "per capita" than the City of Phoenix which has wide open gun laws. We can be on either side of the argument...Victim or Gun Owner. My choice would be the obvious one.

JC,
Calgary

2007-04-18 02:15:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

I believe every American should have the right to conceal/carry, but just like an automobile license, you must be able to show that you are capable of at least a 70% accuracy. Since you are a police officer I assume you know the ability you must have to score that amount. In Texas where my wife and I hold CCL's, we both go to the local range twice a month and "burn up" 250 rounds each (on average). I average 97% and my wife averages 93%. Just owning a handgun is not enough. Knowledge of weapons and the ability to use one proficiently is key.
Not everyone has the ability to drive an 18 wheeler, and not everyone is a expert marksman.

Oh, btw...Larry M...That incident in Luby's in 1991 is the main reason we now have the CCL in Texas. He killed 23 people then himself when the cops showed up. One of the women who was instumental in getting the CCL here testified in congress that even though she had a .38 caliber revolver in her purse at the time, she was unable to take it in the restaurant due to the law at the time and watched her mother and father die at the hands of this lunatic.

2007-04-18 02:07:50 · answer #6 · answered by watchlizard 2 · 0 3

I do consider CC on campus. i pick to handle a factor that El Tecolote made in the 1st paragraph of the respond they left. Your top to undergo hands ends at my driveway. If i pick to restrict carry, you may not shop on my inner maximum assets. Likewise a save proprietor could supply you the boot in the event that they dont like it. That assets belongs to them and that they could govern it how they so pick interior of reason. they could ban redheads. this does not stick to to denying provider to a secure minority although. A privately owned college or college could desire to likewise restrict carry, whether regulations have been handed that enable it. i've got self belief they could be allowed to hold there in the event that they pick to. college has grow to be a risky place. in the event that they are allowed to off campus what distinction does it make on campus? in the event that they are predisposed to harming others they'll stumble on a thank you to attain this, gun or no gun. Is a criminal provider suddenly a threat for having set foot on a faculties assets?

2016-10-22 12:18:45 · answer #7 · answered by rosen 4 · 0 0

Beautifully put! I have to say that out here in RestOfWorldLand we're a little boggled by how you guys refuse to give up your toys. I know it won't be easy now you've gotten into them so much, but surely *something* can be done.

The NRA apologists can say what they like, but the figures are just crazy: 30,000 gun deaths/year, is it? And they bust people for smokin' dope?

Per 100,000 people:

Gun Homicide Gun Suicide

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998)
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999)
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999)
Japan 0.04 (1998) 0.04 (1995)

(apologies for the crappy formatting, but it's this crappy editor.)

Terrible. It doesn't matter if Switzerland has more guns and fewer crimes - you're different from the Swiss, believe me! You can't change your temperaments, but you do need to wash the guns out of your society. It may take decades before they're all gone.

CD

2007-04-18 02:17:21 · answer #8 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 1 2

I practice with my pistols to keep sharp and rarely miss at a good pistol distance. Don't cops have to have a certain amount of skill with a firearm? If not, they should.

I do not believe that armed students is an answer, it would be chaos for all college students to have firearms.

2007-04-18 01:58:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

We are not really talking about children here. College students are adults.

Your vision of a bunch of kids shooting frantically is absurd in this situation.

The point is, that if even one person was armed and pointed a gun at the shooter, he would have likely stopped shooting. Instead, the lunatic was able to put an entire college campus into sheer terror.

And if you are truly an experienced "cop" (I do not hear many police officers call themselves that, btw), you know that one officer with a gun can stop a shooter, without the officer ever firing.

2007-04-18 02:11:29 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 2 4

fedest.com, questions and answers