HOME | DD
DragonXero — Social Commentary
Published: 2007-09-09 09:34:03 +0000 UTC; Views: 4669; Favourites: 45; Downloads: 27
Redirect to original
Description
NOTE: Comments are now disabled because I get sick of arguing with people who use illogical scare mongering and misrepresent the issue at hand.I decided to make somewhat of a statement with one of my old pictures. Currently, all schools (public, private, elementary and college) are "gun-free zones". This didn't stop Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho, who perpetrated the Columbine Massacre and the Virginia Tech slayings respectively. Harris and Klebold were in possession of illegal firearms while Cho was simply breaking the law by being in possession of the firearms on campus.
This isn't to say that arresting students for carrying firearms on campus hasn't done any good, but I would bet that allowing students with legally-acquired, licensed and permitted carried weapons on campus might just save a few lives. Imagine if just one student on the Virginia Tech campus had his weapon on his person instead of in his car. The body count may have been one, rather than 33 (including the vicious psychopath who never should have been allowed to own a weapon in the first place).
It's a radical, scary idea to some. To others, it makes perfect sense. Before you suggest that firearms remaining legal, or even moving more toward a lax legal attitude is a bad idea, think historically. Earlier in the 20th and late in the 19th centuries, gun laws were almost nonexistent. Civilian casualties were rare. During the times of Bonnie and Clyde, you could even walk down to your local sports store and pick up a Thompson fully-automatic SMG. Once the law got word that these criminals were freely purchasing the same weapon we were using against the Nazis and the Japanese, they moved to ban them for citizen use. They still got their hands on them, but the average citizen who didn't rob banks no longer could.
I would say there was no net loss at that point, but as we move forward in the 20th century, gun laws become more restrictive while shooting deaths and violent crime committed with guns increases.
What is the reason for this? I don't know. I don't have statistics or in-depth studies showing the reasoning, but I do see the inverse correlation. Granted, I know that logically and scientifically speaking, this does not mean that more gun laws equals more shooting deaths/injuries. I do, however, believe that it shows a distinct lack of correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer gun crimes.
I know they're not very good analogies, but banning Marijuana didn't stop people from smoking it. Banning alcohol didn't stop people from drinking it. All those bans did was to increase the peripheral crimes.
So, maybe letting everyone run around "like it's the wild west" would be a bad thing. Maybe it would be a good thing. Personally? I'd feel safer with the cops protecting my right to keep a .45 by my side than arresting me for it.
Related content
Comments: 51
I did miss one point by the way.
Police officers are just people. They're every bit as sane or insane as the rest of us. They have bad days, they have bad years. They make stupid, fatal mistakes like the rest of us. Police officers kill the wrong person sometimes. They snap and kill more than one person sometimes.
Of note, in Florida:
"Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason."
Source: [link]
0.3% of permits had to be revoked for non-criminal reasons.
0.01% had to be revoked due to crime committed after the owner had been licensed.
Permit holders seem pretty damn safe in Florida, but then again, maybe they're the only sane ones.
Find me a comparable statistic about police and the termination rate due to criminal activities and I doubt it'll be as low as 0.3% and I can almost promise it won't be at 0.01% or lower.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You have already twice made the assumption that guns are just going to get handed out to every Tom Dick and Jane who slaps down $1000. "
It says in the art description that we should just pass out guns to everyone in a college and that would prevent stuff like Virginia Tech. I was just replying to that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The description says nothing even remotely close to that.
You're blatantly lying to back up your claims. Stop now or forever appear as a fool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"but I would bet that allowing students with legally-acquired, licensed and permitted carried weapons on campus might just save a few lives. Imagine if just one student on the Virginia Tech campus had his weapon on his person instead of in his car. The body count may have been one, rather than 33 (including the vicious psychopath who never should have been allowed to own a weapon in the first place)."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's nothing about passing out weapons in that. Nothing there indicated freely handing out guns to anyone. It only says that people who have already proven themselves responsible and intelligent enough to acquire a concealed carry permit should be allowed to carry on school grounds.
I don't see how you're getting that we should just hand out guns from that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
'Scuse me, phrased that wrong when I answered you. But that was what I was replying to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well in that case, yes, I fully support allowing citizens who have been tested and proven responsible enough to carry a weapon everywhere else to carry one on school campuses.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because nobody responsible ever makes lapses in judgment, and there aren't any people who know how to cheat a test aimed to prove responsibility, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
If you're going to pull that BS, what about cops? They are tested and trained. What exactly makes a police officer better than an average citizen when it comes to protecting the lives of others?
Your argument is ridiculous. Because someone could do something irresponsible with their rights, they shouldn't have them?
Hell, someone might be irresponsible with their speech and offend people, or even incite a riot! Let's just take away free speech for everyone. Someone might vote for someone because they like their hairstyle. Let's just get rid of voting, don't want people to be irresponsible. Oh, and look at OJ abusing that right to a trial by a jury of his peers! He got a biased trial, what an abuse of a right! He wasn't responsible about that at all.
Honestly, do you understand just how ridiculous the fear of "it might happen" is when we're talking about a subject like this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"If you're going to pull that BS, what about cops? They are tested and trained. What exactly makes a police officer better than an average citizen when it comes to protecting the lives of others?"
I don't know. What does? Policeman are just people, I agree. And there is abuse of power and bribery in the police force.
"Honestly, do you understand just how ridiculous the fear of "it might happen" is when we're talking about a subject like this?"
You're right. The fear of "it might happen" is ridiculous. That fear is no reason to bring guns into the equation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Guns are already in the equation, saturated deeply into it. They *are* the equation. If guns didn't exist we'd be arguing about knives being legal, or sharp sticks. Sure, it's a bit easier to be brave when facing a sharp stick, but it's still dangerous when only people who already don't fear the law are using said sticks. You don't get to remove guns from the equation as long as they exist, and outlawing them isn't going to stop that.
As for cops, frankly, I'd rather they have guns than tazers and mace. Unfortunately they all three, and are almost never afraid to use the latter, despite tazers being quite capable of lethality. A jolt of half a million volts passing through the heart can drop a person dead as certainly as a 9mm.
My problem with the way the laws are now is that criminals have no intent on following them, so they're completely useless in deterring the crimes. It's the same reason I dislike the death penalty. It assumes that killers, rapists and other violent or potentially violent criminals aren't mentally sound. Many times they don't think in the long term. They figure that if they go kill 20 people, they might get sentenced to death and sit on death row for the rest of their lives. But a bullet stops rape instantly. A bullet ends a killing spree immediately.
In the end, "gun-free zones" are only gun-free for people who obey the law. For people who are going to break the law, it doesn't matter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Guns are already in the equation, saturated deeply into it. They *are* the equation. If guns didn't exist we'd be arguing about knives being legal, or sharp sticks. Sure, it's a bit easier to be brave when facing a sharp stick, but it's still dangerous when only people who already don't fear the law are using said sticks. You don't get to remove guns from the equation as long as they exist, and outlawing them isn't going to stop that."
I'd rather it be sharpened sticks than guns. You can't blow someone's guts out with a stick from several feet away.
I think we have problems with illegal firearms, sure. But crazies or criminals can get weapons legally. So we make it easier for them to get them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What you'd rather doesn't enter into it. We're not talking about some thought experiment here, we're talking about real lives in real danger. Guns aren't going to go away because we make them illegal. If you don't believe that, you are delusional.
The large majority of crimes are committed with illegally-obtained firearms, not with those purchased legally. I'm getting very, very tired of saying this, but making guns illegal DOES NOT make them harder to obtain illegally. If it did, getting an AK-47 would be incredibly hard for the gang bangers in southern California. As it is, the only people who have a hard time acquiring guns are those who intend to use them for legal purposes.
Guns legal = More good guys have guns.
Guns illegal = More bad guys have guns.
Anyway, this is really getting ridiculous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said making guns illegal fixes anything (it's probably a better idea to go after the root of the problem) I just said passing them out and making them easier to get doesn't do crap either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Would you stop with the "passing them out" bullshit already? Nobody is saying we should pass out guns to everyone, especially not me. The only way to do that would be a socialized program that supplies firearms to people who can't afford them. That is not a valid function of government.
You want proof of how safe a place is with a bunch of guns around? You want proof that *allowing* people to have the guns *they already own* with them keeps gun violence down? Go to a gun show, or a gun store, or a shooting range. Stay there for 10 years. I promise you won't see a single gun-related crime, or ANY crime for that matter.
The root of the problem is that we live in a loft apartment over one of the biggest exporters of drugs and guns in the world. The root of the problem is that our country has become too afraid of guns to even be willing to defend itself against people who don't give a shit about the law. We need education. We need legal immigrants to feel secure when they come into this country so that it's easier to figure out who's illegal. We need to stop being afraid of the solutions and start being educated about real gun safety.
Our problem is that this culture holds up firearms as some sort of deity. They're worshiped by people on my side and demonized by those on yours.
A gun is a tool. An effective tool. It is used for intimidation and murder when in the hands of a criminal. In the hands of a citizen with a legal right to use it, it is a tool for equalization and removal of fear when you walk outside at night. Citizens shouldn't feel safe only when a cop is around, they should feel safe at all times, and barring an overbearing police state where you can't even cough without the government knowing about it, a gun is the only realistic way to achieve that.
Now go ahead and launch into some lofty idealistic way to solve all our problems that involves what amounts to hundreds of years of social, economic and personal evolution and a complete restructuring of our way of life. I'm done with this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I posted statistics already.
I don't know, one guy who does something stupid vs. the 50 others who are armed as well?
I'm betting on the ones who aren't idiots.
It seems to me the choice is "responsible citizens with guns and a couple lunatics with them" or "a couple lunatics with guns". Giving people who are already legally allowed to carry weapons the chance to fight back doesn't seem to me like something anywhere near as dangerous as whackos intending to kill others doing it without permission.
That's the crux of the whole thing though, and people never seem to get that. People are going to bring guns onto campus just as much when they're not allowed as when they are allowed, but the only ones who will be doing so are the ones who mean harm to others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because nobody responsible ever makes lapses in judgment, and there aren't any people who know how to cheat a test aimed to prove responsibility, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Teachers, just like any other authority figure with a gun, would get psychological exams regularly. The students in everything up through high school wouldn't be allowed to have guns anyway because of purchase restrictions.
Having a means to defend yourself is NOT paranoia. As for guns being more available to the shooters, that argument is pretty stupid for pot, what makes you think it's any more sane for guns? Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess, since I don't have a book full of California laws, but I'm pretty damn sure that fully automatic Tec-9s and Uzis aren't legal in California. Yet, somehow, gang members in the LA area get their hands on them.
You have already twice made the assumption that guns are just going to get handed out to every Tom Dick and Jane who slaps down $1000. A CCW is *extremely* hard to get. To get this license, you need to go through training, become certified and you damn sure better have a good reason before walking in there in the first place. You want responsibility? How about education and training? Hell, if it's good enough for cops and the military, why not responsible citizens?
As for your questions regarding the historical ideal, I think you missed the point, but I'd still like to know what you're getting at there.
Yes, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the bottle has already been opened. Criminals, corrupt law enforcement and psychos with nothing to lose already have incredible power.
I'm not some whackjob who thinks "onoes, we have to hoard teh gunz otherwise Obama will lock us all in concentration camps!" I have no doubt that if push came to shove, no amount of civilian-legal weaponry would stand against the might of the US military. Even if we all got our hands on miniguns, we still have the problem of tanks, bombers and limited supplies.
An armed revolution in the US today would be a pointless waste of lives. But that doesn't mean I would gladly give up right after right for a perception of safety.
I own a firearm. It's nothing fancy, and not something I'd ever consider using for home protection, but I give it the respect it requires. It currently has a strong lock through the chamber, holding the bolt back. The ammunition is kept separate and the key is NOT marked. I'm the only person who knows where the key is and what it even looks like.
Of course, this makes it useless for home protection, but I bought it because I wanted to own a weapon and it was within my price range. I still want a 1911A1 with a good trigger lock, but that's a lot of saving up.
By the way, Michael Moore's shockumentary did show something interesting, to me at least. In Canada, there are far fewer shooting deaths than in the US. But per capita, gun ownership is higher. There's no other real statistics to show how these two relate, if they do at all, but the data certainly doesn't support a higher gun ownership = higher shooting rate conclusion.
Then again, we do border a country that routinely manages to sneak in kilos and kilos of drugs, not to mention people, including criminals. I'm not saying there's causation here, but there is that possibility that gun fatalities in the US are higher than they should be because illegal guns are brought in. Just a hypothesis though.
In the end, all I can say is gun owners all need to recognize that with rights come serious responsibilities. Obey the law, follow protocol, respect your weapon, and whatever you do, don't treat the damn things like toys. You treat powerful tools like toys, you lose fingers, get nails rammed into your spleen and end up with the caliber of your choice embedded in your own body cavity.
By the way, I support stricter penalties for crimes committed with a firearm, more than what we have now. The right to a weapon is a serious one, and the consequences for abusing it, even if nobody is hurt, should be just as serious. If you don't have a concealed carry permit, any gun you transport better be locked and stuffed, otherwise the cops keep it and you get to spend some time in a small room thinking about it. I also think firearm education needs to be done early in school to teach kids to respect and leave them alone. Scaring them doesn't work. If it did I'd know a lot fewer potheads.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Gun free zones" = "Feel free to commit mass murder here"
It's apparently too obvious for the people who have a pathological hate/fear of armed citizens.
GREAT motivator!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the comment and +fav. I guess logic isn't a strong point for people who fear guns. Fear is, after all, an emotion whose biological purpose is to bypass rationality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Psychological evaluations 4 THE WIN. Non of the cutting corners BS either, I mean serious deep-thought searching techniques. Then we can talk about making it legal to posses firearms in or around the schools.
Theses people will also need training so that they don't accidentally shoot themselves or others in the face.
Then you can talk all you want, but until then I oppose allowing guns to be anywhere near schools. I'll bring my taser thankyou.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Which will also get you arrested in all 50 states unless you are a member of security or the police. Tear spray? Might get lucky and the local statute will merely get you kicked off school grounds.
You speak of training. Do you honestly think that a concealed carry permit is just handed out at request? It requires a training program be completed and in almost every county, it requires a valid reason for carrying, not just "I felt like getting one".
When it comes right down to it, psychological evaluations are often done before one is allowed on a police force and it doesn't keep people from snapping. You may think this is counter to my argument, but the fact still remains that disallowing students who already legally possess and carry their firearms from carrying them on school grounds is not going to stop murders on campus, it's only going to hinder the students' and teachers' ability to defend themselves.
But I suppose I can see being more afraid of those who wish to defend themselves than those who wish to hurt you. It is only natural to want to control things that are dangerous as much as possible. Since society can't control the criminals, it's easier to control the law-abiding citizens.
In the end it seems the sentiment is that the people aren't smart enough to protect themselves. We're all just a bunch of potential idiots, and 20 or 30 dead once in a while is worth it to possibly preserve the life of 1 or 2 at even greater intervals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
well as much as ppl argue that it will cause more violence its not like schools being gun free zones have stopped others in the past so yah go team
and i think that law about having to be 21 4 a handgun is bullshit i can shoot better than a lot of ppl of that or greater age but I am still unable
what the government doesnt know wont hurt them
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
can't wait til my 21st b-day! glock 9 or 45
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A discussion! Great!
"He was the only one breaking the law by bringing a gun he legally purchased onto the campus."
Okay. If the only persons worth saving are students because "legally purchased" guns are illegal only on the campus of some university, school or whatever, I see your point.
"[W]hat would have happened if one of those men and women who have served their country had actually brought the gun they are legally allowed to carry just about anywhere else?"
The school would have been full of armed persons, instead of only one.
"Your overbearing sarcasm and lack of any real argument suggests to me that you're a left of center type and are more afraid of guns than of the criminals who use them."
Your post "suggests to me" that you, like myself (in your opinion, at least), are also "assumptive" (but not a "jerk". I don't seem to have a sufficient amount of empathic power to know your whole personality just by reading your posts) and that
1. "left of center type[s]" cannot come up with real arguments (although I thought that you HAD actually identified some of the "sarcasm" I might or might not have woven into my post...for whatever reason)
2. Guns can only kill innocents if they are used by criminals (or possibly "left of center types[s]") and
3. Not being afraid of guns saves lives.
"I don't know what your little anti-patriotic section there has to do with guns being legal"
I don't know why all DA members seem to be only one post away from being identified as Americans (who are certainly not the only ones wanting to talk about gun-related topics). Bad, left-wing, sarcastic, anti-patriotic Americans. Sad, actually.
Answering the question: that might be because, in my opinion, this constitution allows people to carry certain things that have been designed to enable individuals carrying them to injure and kill others.
I don't care who fires the bullet that kills me. I don't care why it is fired. If it was only a friend of mine wanting to show me his new .357 revolver by shoving the barrel into my face and pulling the trigger. If it was you or your ex-president.
"I'm assuming that you think my only reason for believing guns should be legal is the constitution [...]"
If you carried a gun and the constitution didn't say anything about them being legal...wouldn't that make YOU a criminal (not a murderer, mind you, but a criminal nonetheless)?
"I have a lot of issues with [my country]."
Uh oh, I hope the people who don't are not students at some university.
"We have religious zealots with an insane amount of clout in policy making."
Yes, you do. Your last president, Mr. George W. Bush, very much seemed to be one of them when I last checked.
"[Plenty of people] think that gay people shouldn't have the right to be miserable like the rest of us by getting married."
You should give your (future?) wife a gun (as a wedding present?). Maybe she'll be happy with you (or maybe she already is)...as opposed to you, obviously.
(Why does it just not feel right to draw homosexuality into a discussion about firearms?)
"We've got people who want to tell us what we can and can't say on both sides and even in the middle."
Its called "democracy".
"[Seung-Hui Cho] broke several laws and took an incredible number of lives."
Yes, he did. Would you prefer someone who could take "an incredible number of lives" without breaking any laws? I certainly wouldn't. I would also prefer not being killed if I DID break laws.
Potentia currumpet.
Ergo?
(taken from DragonXero's signature, with some slight alterations)
Guns give their bearers power, don't they?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Guns for everyone! Great idea!
Well, at least, it might solve the problem of overpopulated schools...in the USA. The only nation in the world with a *true* democracy. Based on an *infallible* constitution.
Because an American person is only a proud, mentally sane, freedom-loving, law-abiding citizen as long as he or she owns a gun.
Oh, and if there had been a second shooter at Virginia Tech, I'm sure Seung-Hui Cho would have stopped him - because he was the one with the legally purchased gun...right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He was the only one breaking the law by bringing a gun he legally purchased onto the campus. Several students on campus that day were former military or reservists who had the training, skill and knowledge to respond quickly to a situation like that. The only problem is that the only person with a gun on campus that day was a killer. And what would have happened if one of those men and women who have served their country had actually brought the gun they are legally allowed to carry just about anywhere else? They'd have been arrested for protecting their school, but maybe they would have saved quite a few lives.
But I guess people who are still respectful of the law shouldn't be able to carry guns. Only people who're already willing to break it should.
Your overbearing sarcasm and lack of any real argument suggests to me that you're a left of center type and are more afraid of guns than of the criminals who use them. I don't know what your little anti-patriotic section there has to do with guns being legal, but I'm assuming that you think my only reason for believing guns should be legal is the constitution and that you think I have no issues with my country. I have a lot of issues with it. We have religious zealots with an insane amount of clout in policy making. We have plenty of people, religious and not, who think that gay people shouldn't have the right to be miserable like the rest of us by getting married. We've got people who want to tell us what we can and can't say on both sides and even in the middle.
You're an assumptive jerk. I'm not some right-wing Rush fan. I may be wrong about you too, but you *did* start the logical fallacy train rolling.
And let me reiterate: Seung-Hui Cho was not in possession of a legal firearm that day. He was illegally carrying a gun. He broke several laws and took an incredible number of lives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very nice work.
I am a firm believer that Guns are the right of every citizen without restriction. Gun laws never have, and never will work. in reducing violent crime, But they sure can stop a violent crime fast!
The National academy of Sciences prooved gun laws to be completely uneffective: [link]
Any way, I really dig the piece. Great job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Sorry chief, sent you the wrong link: [link]
I also meant to say Ineffective.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Will people EVER listen? As more and more people die for believing the lie of "gun free" zones, it isn't looking like it...
More like "self-defense free and criminal-friendly" zones...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The fact that the pistol is pointed right at the viewer is a bit frightening. Pistols on campus should be in concealed retention holsters, and only pointed at threats.
And speaking as a view of this piece, I am not a threat!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The photo itself was meant to convey the kind of effect even a weapon that is never fired can have. The possibility of lethal retaliation is often more effective than the actual use of it. That's why pepper spray and tasers are such a bane on society. Their use is less-than-lethal and therefore seen as acceptable to resort to. A gun, on the other hand, represents a very obvious and serious set of repercussions for any sane person even considering using it.
If you know the police are just going to spray you in the face with a little mace when you steal a car or beat a person into hospitalization, there's much less deterrence than if the officer threatens a fatal wound.
If an officer points his weapon at you, you know it's become serious. He pulls out the pepper spray, you know it's going to hurt for a few days.
Just for information, the camera was in front of the gun while I was to the side. I respect guns and how dangerous they can be. The barrel should *never* be pointing directly at another person, even if you know with 100% certainty that it's unloaded. Unloaded guns kill more people than loaded ones. Proper training and maintenance is required before a gun is even safe from the behind. Guns, like all deadly weapons should be respected, with the only people needing to fear them being those who would harm others maliciously.
Guns were created to kill for the military. Today they are used to hopefully avoid killing in the civilian world.
While fallacious, it's still interesting to note that one of the first things Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Fidel Castro did was to sweep through and take away every firearm in possession of non-enlisted citizens. The only way you ever got to use a gun in Nazi Germany was to join the military. I've always felt there was truth in the idea that the second amendment protects the first.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That wouldn't necessarily help, though. There are a lot of immature college students and I honestly believe that it would actually increase college shooting incidents if people were simply allowed to carry firearms around with them like that. Even if everyone had one for safety, once a single shot would be fired others would start shooting, either out of fear or anger, and then we'd have a much worse incident on our hands in that kind of a situation... And besides, it's not a right to be able to carry a firearm, it's a privilege, just like driving is. (Obviously a lot of people have trouble with driving as well and cause lots of trouble for us already)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Solution: Strict licensing for CCL's. They would have to attend a short training program and take a competence test on top of additional background checks. That would weed out most of the idiots who can't handle firearms well.
The other factor is if one knows that he could be gunned down in a hurry, the less likely a shooting spree like VT. Fear of mutual annihilation if you will.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Understandable, but they also test people for licensing with vehicles, and we lose more people in car accidents than anything else. There are merits to the idea, don't get me wrong, but there are drawbacks as well. Someone could easily act mature enough to get something if they want it enough, and then fool around like a dumbass and get themselves or someone else hurt before they know it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Point taken, but firearms are a hole different beast than cars.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True. They still have a great ability for destruction and death as well, though. I just prefer the idea of caution and care in these kinds of matters. Not that they wouldn't be cautious, but it's a lot easier to be careful when things like firearms are more restricted, because otherwise more people who could be potentially more dangerous could have easier access to them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not necessarily. New procedures would have to be developed around a CCL standard for colleges.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, but there will always be the few that manage to get through... And just that few could cause disastrous things. lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A few manage to get through as it is, and do cause disastrous results. Just think what Columbine might have been like if just one teacher had pulled a weapon from under his or her desk and killed the murderers before they had a chance to take more lives.
That's the problem with prohibitive laws. Making something illegal only stops people who obey the law from doing/using/owning it. Alcohol in the early 1900s was still imbibed readily. Except it was surrounded by dangerous organized crime, was polluted with toxins that could kill you in hours, rather than years. Marijuana is also surrounded by crime, mixed with unsavory elements which can be instantly deadly and is the cause of many shootings, coincidentally. Gambling, where illegal, is often overseen and conducted by those who are already part of the criminal element.
Granted, these are vices, not things intended entirely to kill, but it's a view of criminalization through time. My main point is that restriction almost never means reduction in availability.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I honestly don't think there's much to get. I always felt the ideas behind this were pretty transparent and obvious, but there are still many arguers against keeping our rights. I suppose you could argue that keeping guns illegal makes us safer as a society at the expense of being less safe as individuals. Personally, I always thought we were supposed to care more about individual liberty than the liberty of the group.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
