In light of the massacre in Virginia....

[_Mr. Coffee]

They could also allow someone to take weapons into places more easily.

That's kind of the point of concealed carry. There are certain places where I'd consider it to be irresponsible to carry (Bars for example), but CCW in a college classroom does not present a threat to safety, and could actually enhance it.

Supposing that someone had a concealed gun and started firing at Seung-Hui, who's to say they would hit him? Odds are just as likely that in the confusion they would hit an innocent bystander.

Here comes another part of responsible gun laws. Most stats that issue CCWs require classroom training on use of force, situations where force is authorized, and basic tacts and situational awareness. Most states also require that CCW holders take a practicle marksmanship qualification test conducted by a certified instructor.

The state of Virgina requires both 10 hours of classroom training and a practical shooting qual prior to issuance of a carry permit. So yes, if comeone with a CCW had been allowed to carry, their marksmanship training combined with the shototer being siloetted in a doorway with no one behind him woudl have enable a clear shot with little or no chance of collateral damage.

The Colombine guys were American citizens.

The Colombine shooters were also minors who only had access to firearms because of negligence on the part of their famillies in sotrage of those firearms.

Nice red herring though.

Guns, don't kill people, people kill people. (Guns just make it a whole lot easier).

And so does a claw hammer, or a car, or crowbar, or a knife, or even basic hand-to-hand combat training. I'll give you a little hint... There are only two ways to kill a human being, 1. cause sufficient systemic damage to the central nervious system that the body can no longer function, or 2. cause sufficient systemic damage to the circulatory system that the body bleeds out.

Humans are fragile critters and it's pretty easy to kill them with or without a weapon. Infact, there are many weapons that make it a lot easier to kill a human than a fire arm. A gun requires time and training in order to be an effective tool in killing soemone as the damage a bullet can do is very localized. A knife can cause much great truama over a larger area to the circulatory system than a gun. A baseball bat can inflict much greater truama to either the circulatory or central nervous system over a much larger area than a gun.

And guess what? Anyone can slash or stab with a knife or swing a baseball bat. It takes training in order to use a firearm accurately enough to hit areas of the human body that would cause fatal injury.

[_Gazelam]

Well said Coffee.

The unguarded classroom has been there for a long long time.

People with guns have been around the school for an equal amount of time.

What changed? The heavily medicated nutcase with a history of disturbing behavior.

[_beastie]

The latest news is that this individual was severely mentally ill, and despite being legally declared mentally ill and a possible threat to self or others by a court, this person was just put back out in society.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page=1

To me, what this attests to, more than gun control issues, (other than recognizing the obvious reality that he could have done far less damage with anything OTHER than a gun) is the need to fix the crippled health care system in the US. Due to pressure from private insurers, health care professionals often release people from care when they ought to remain hospitalized.

The current news is that he sent a videotaped confession/explanation to NBC in the two hour interim between the first shooting and the subsequent mass murder. In it, he was often incoherent, he was that mentally ill. It is inexcusable that a person THAT ill was simply put back out in society.

In regards to private citizens carrying weapons, I have heard that police do not want that situation. If they are called in to an area with shooting, and they see someone with a gun, they're going to assume that is the perp, not a vigilante citizen.

[_Gazelam]

Heres a question, when they did the background check, the history of mental illness didn't set off any red flags?

[_Who Knows]

Heres a question, when they did the background check, the history of mental illness didn't set off any red flags?

It's a criminal background check.

[_Mephitus]

I think free speech is taken to far in America myself. Just because I have the "right" to say (for example) the "N" word doesn't mean I should. Why shouldn't I? Because I think it's a mean word that would show myself to be ignorant. I make a free choice not to use racial slurs because I've been nurtured to think they are wrong. Freedom of speech is one thing, but freedom to be stupid should be curtailed as much as possible (in my honest opinion).

Sorry bond, but i have to say something here. The ONLY reason that there is a constitutional amendment is because non-offensive speach never has to be protected. You only need such a thing to protect what might be offensive. No matter what you say, you will offend someone. I believe 100% in the right of anyone to say whatever the hell they want. So long as it is not a physicaly violent act towards a person. i believe full heartedly that a hate crazed neo-nazi has just as much right to speak as he wishes as would any other person.

We have to remember, that there are many times even with recent history that good things happened due to what could have been deemed "offensive" speach. Such as equal rights or the black rights movement. As one such example, there have been people picketing outside military funerals saying that only gays are dying in Iraq. "gay fag in hell" their signs say. Offensive to me as you can get. But i know they have the right to speak as laudly and whatever they want. I kinda feel as Penn Jellette from Penn and Teller, that the more these people talk the further they dig their own hole.

[_Fortigurn]

Sono_hito, do you believe anti-vilification or anti-incitement laws are valid?

[_Mephitus]

I think i might be taking the "nut" position, but im going to take the freedom stance. I agree that without being a full citizen, he shouldn't have been able to receive a gun. Im also suprised that the "danger to society" did not show up on his background check for a gun. But im totaly in support for more guns for people. Im planning on getting my own concealed carry permit within the next year or so.

If you want a chilling observation, every single major shooting spree (non-robbery) occured within a "gun free" zone. "Oh my gosh! its a gun free zone! that can't happen there!" If someone had a legaly concealed gun, as you said before, maybe 2-3 people would have died.

As a rhetorical situation:(yes, this is plagerised, its just really good) Lets say you give every woman in the US a handgun and a concealed weapons permit. (yes, minimal training too) And lets also say that 1/2 of them throw away/get rid of the gun. What do you think would happen to rape counts? How many rapists would want to risk a 50/50 chance that the woman is armed and ready to defend themselves?

[_Mephitus]

Sono_hito, do you believe anti-vilification or anti-incitement laws are valid?

Not at all. You should be able to say whatever you want, no matter what it is. Protected under the 1st amendment.

[_Fortigurn]

Sono_hito, do you believe anti-vilification or anti-incitement laws are valid?

Not at all. You should be able to say whatever you want, no matter what it is. Protected under the 1st amendment.

I see. You don't think there might be any somewhat unpleasant results to this kind of open slather?