Do we need more gun control or less of it?

My mom and I were talking about the shooting on the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb County, Illinois, and I asked her how we might put an end to these college campus shootings.

My mother suggested that it might not be such a bad idea to allow students to pack a pistol on campus. She said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that folks wanting to act a fool on campus would think twice if they walked into a lecture hall and all of a sudden had 150 magnums, glocks, and .38s trained on them. I think she might have been joking; at least I hope she was considering I’ve never heard that 61 year old lady use the word “glock” in my life (that cracked me up, by the way).

But, I think it the tragic events in DeKalb, Illinois raises some interesting questions. In light of the fact that there are some crazy people out there who might just lose it and decide to shoot a place up, do we need more or less gun control? Do people need to be armed on the off chance that they may find themselves in a situation where they need to take out someone who’s on a shooting spree? Would doing so promote vigilantism?

Do we need bills like House Bill 89 which would allow Georgians to carry guns in church and publicly owned or operated buildings (which I believe would include Georgia’s public colleges & universities)?

What say you?

55 comments

  1. Jace Walden says:

    I’m with GOPeach. I think every law-abiding man and woman should be able to carry a gun ANYWHERE, unless the private property owner doesn’t want a gun on his/her property.

    Shoot first, ask questions later, answer to a friendly jury of your gun-toting peers even later than that!

  2. nast says:

    Having everyone packing heat will do nothing to deter this type of tragedy. Other folks having guns only act as a deterrent if the criminal places a value on their own life. In events like NIU, WVU, Columbine, etc., the shooters clearly planned to die in the shootout anyway.

  3. Roy says:

    A question though,. Why are nations with strict gun control laws (England, Germany, Canada, France) lacking in so much of the violence we have in this country? It’s as if some people can’t make a stand without a gun in their possesion.

  4. drjay says:

    nast // Feb 15, 2008 at 11:29 am

    Having everyone packing heat will do nothing to deter this type of tragedy. Other folks having guns only act as a deterrent if the criminal places a value on their own life. In events like NIU, WVU, Columbine, etc., the shooters clearly planned to die in the shootout anyway.

    yes but a law abiding citizen w/ his own gun could have ended many of those tragedies before the loss of life became as great as it was–and knowing that someone else might shoot them before they can really get going might take some of the thrill out of the event to where the perp might just say to hell w/ it and go hang themself in the bathroom instead…

  5. Tommy_a2b says:

    Roy what planet do you live on? You think that England, Germany, Canada, and France do not have the violence we have? Start doing a little research before you open your pie whole.

  6. joltenjoe says:

    It may very well not deter this type of thing from happening, however, it would stop it before it reached the levels we saw at Columbine or Virginia Tech.

    If one teacher at Columbine (or a designated Admin) had a pistol in a safe that they could have pulled out, they very well could have stopped that tradegty in its tracks.

    As a nation we have created “victim zones” and while doing away with these zones will not stop an insane individual from acting, they could (in theory) stop the situation from getting worse.

  7. Icarus says:

    I have no stats, but also agree that Roy is a bit off base.

    Read a story last week that a reporter in England (Liverpool, I think) was doing a live shot on how bad crime had become in the city. She was mugged while on camera.

    Clearly, that “no guns” policy is working there.

  8. patriot says:

    More experienced, concerned citizens who have acquired a Concealed Carry Permit (in Georgia – GA Firearms License). Folks who are not afraid to defend themselves and their property, or to intervene to defend someone else in danger.

    “gun control means using both hands”

    Checkout GaCarry.org

  9. joltenjoe says:

    “A question though,. Why are nations with strict gun control laws (England, Germany, Canada, France) lacking in so much of the violence we have in this country? It’s as if some people can’t make a stand without a gun in their possesion.”

    This is WRONG. Violent crime (un gun related) is just as high in these countries. In fact things like Home Invasions are much HIGHER in Canada in England.

    The criminals know that you don’t have a gun in your home and aren’t afraid to break in with you there.

    The countries with the lowest violent crime rate is Switzerland, and they have guns in practically every home.

  10. Roy says:

    Tommy:

    You’re reading much too much into what I said, try clarifying things first before you totyally jump to conclusions. An FYI, I am a gun owner, grew up with 5k acres (old family plantation)
    where I hunted . Europ does have violence but not near what we have here. You check your stats!

  11. nast says:

    drjay // Feb 15, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    yes but a law abiding citizen w/ his own gun could have ended many of those tragedies before the loss of life became as great as it was–and knowing that someone else might shoot them before they can really get going might take some of the thrill out of the event to where the perp might just say to hell w/ it and go hang themself in the bathroom instead…

    Sure, that’s one theory. Another one, equally plausible, is that a campus full of law-abiding citizens with their own guns, under great stress and in fear for their lives, could have made the situations much worse, shooting at anything that moved, harming other innocent victims, and potentially supplying the shooter(s) with more weapons and ammunition.

  12. nast says:

    joltenjoe // Feb 15, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    …If one teacher at Columbine (or a designated Admin) had a pistol in a safe that they could have pulled out, they very well could have stopped that tradegty in its tracks.

    Absolutely. Put that designated admin in a uniform, give him proper training, and call him a security guard and I’m completely on board with you. You lose me when you want to arm every Tom, Dick and Harry with firearms and expect them to begin acting like trained combat veterans when faced with a life-threatening emergency.

  13. ksuowls81 says:

    People will be able to get guns whether or not there are strict gun contol laws. At least with the pro-gun laws there are greater back ground checks and what not for those who are trying to get a gun.

    My father is a huge gun person, and I have never been so much. If I keep on seeing all of these shootings I may take his advice and buy myself a hand gun.

  14. joltenjoe says:

    http://panda.com/canadaguns/#intended

    BUT IT’S HELPED, HASN’T IT?
    Positive impacts from the Firearms Act have proven elusive. In 2003 (the most recent year for which I have figures), Canada’s reported violent crime rate was a whopping 963 per 100,000, a rate of about twice the US rate (475 per 100,000).

  15. joltenjoe says:

    Amazingly, Mayor Miller then went on to claim that Toronto “is still very safe compared to most American cities.” Never mind that Toronto has more muggings, car thefts, and assaults per capita than New York City! Nationally, Canada’s overall crime rate is 50% higher than the US; and 30 US states are safer than any Canadian province.

  16. ramblinwreck says:

    Less gun control means that there will be fewer target rich “gun free” zones. The only people who observe a “gun free” zone are law-abiding citizens also known as “victims.” You’ll note that shooting sprees like this always end at the same time, when someone (either law enforcement or an armed citizen) shows up with a gun to shoot back. Look at Israel, they used to have a huge problem with school shootings until they started giving automatic weapons to the teachers and administrators. I haven’t checked but i’d bet they have fewer instances like this than the US does now. As someone else pointed out, Switzerland, where every adult male has a fully automatic weapon, has literally ZERO violent crime.

    God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.

  17. Roy says:

    Property crimes in Canada are higher…..

    http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

    Based on selected offences, the United States has had a much higher rate of reported violent crime than Canada. The homicide rate was three times higher in the United States than it was in Canada, while the American rate for aggravated assault was double the Canadian rate. For robbery, the rate was 65% higher in the United States.

    On the other hand, since 1990, Canada has recorded slightly higher rates of property crime, although the rates have gradually been converging during the late 1990s. Canada has higher reported rates than the United States for breaking and entering, motor vehicle theft and arson.

    Also, re; the Swiss. At 20 males go into the Army for boot camp and remain part of a reserve militia for 10 more years. During that time they have firearms assigned to them they keep at home with 50 rounds of amo.
    When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

    Now, if we could have something like the Swiss…

  18. Icarus says:

    I’ve changed my mind.

    It appears that the rat-bastard known otherwise as Chris Farris has closed the thread of dreams, a/k/a “Huckabee has won his last primary”.

    If it’s not re-opened soon, he’s going to wish GA had tougher gun control laws.

  19. Paul Shuford says:

    This question has already been answered. Two armed law students in Virginia stopped a shooter at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002.

    There are lots of other incidences of armed citizens stopping massacres or potential massacres as well. Jeanne Assam stopped a potential massacre at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. William Hazan stopped terrorists armed with an M16 at a restaurant in Tel Aviv. The Principal of Pearl High School in Mississippi retrieved a .45 from his car and stopped his school from becoming another Columbine.

    These kinds of things happen all the time (The FBI estimates 1.5 million crimes are prevented each year by armed citizens). You just don’t hear about them because they aren’t as newsworthy, and they work against the mainstream media’s anti-gun bias.

    Those like nast here who think that armed citizens cannot comport themselves decently and responsibly with the guns have been proven wrong time and time again. It’s time we recognized the facts, and allow those who have carry permits to legally carry on campuses, government buildings and property, places that also happen to serve alcoholic beverages, and anywhere else that it doesn’t violate the property rights of others. Doing so only decreases the likelihood of this from happening in our State, and increases the likelihood of, if it does happen, it being stopped more quickly and more effectively.

  20. ramblinwreck says:

    I’m waiting for someone to tell me how, other than using a gun, my 81 year old mother could defend herself against a 300 lb. home invader who breaks into her house. A firearm is the great equalizer. It puts a 90 lb. teenage girl on the same footing with a pro football lineman. Regardless of what you see on TV, the old West was a very polite place. Why? Because nearly everyone was armed.

  21. Jace Walden says:

    God. Do I always have to settle all the big-time arguments around here?

    First I had to settle the abortion argument once and for all…now this.

    Look people, it’s simple. Just like we need a chicken in every pot, we need a gun in every hand.

    How many times have you been so angry that you could “just shoot someone” but never had the necessary tools to carry out your desire? It happens to me ALL THE TIME. Well, at least it used to until I started packing heat. Now, it seems as though any dispute I have is somehow “settled” before I ever get “mad enough to kill someone”. I suggest folks to as I do and walk around with two hand guns on your side and a shotgun strapped to your back.

    People are much more polite now.

  22. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Screw the guns. You NRA guys are a bunch of pussies! We should be allowed to carry hand grenades, light anti-tank weapons, portable surface to air missiles, landmines, claymore mines, pipe bombs, rocket propelled grenades, squad automatic weapons…if everyone had all this hardware, there would be no more Virginia Tech or northern Illinois tragedies……Guns are for pussies!

    ………….Or, we could outlaw guns, and settle things with a clean fistfight. I guarantee, that will separate the wusses from the tough-guy wanna-be’s. Doesn’t take much balls to mouth off to someone when you’re packing heat.

  23. Jace Walden says:

    Loyalty,

    I’m sorry my friend, you’re a little late. This issue has already been settled (see my above comment).

    And just to clarify, I’m not the one mouthing off. I pack the heat to prevent others from making me “mad enough to shoot” someone.

  24. nast says:

    Jeanne Assam was an armed security guard for that church. The two law students who helped stop the shootings at the Appalachian School of Law were off-duty law enforcement officials. And theyarrived after another, unarmed student had already tackled the shooter. These are not your average gun-toting citizens.

    I’m not advocating taking guns out of everyone’s hands, and ramblinwreck, I’m not arguing against your grandmother’s right to use a firearm for her protection in her own home. However, I believe that common sense dictates that conceal and carry permits should be reserved for a very small class of trained people, preferably law enforcement and security offficials. Not anyone who wants one.

    And Paul, perhaps the reason why I don’t believe that people will comport themselves decently and responsibly with guns is because every day I see people who don’t comport themselves decently and responsibly without them. Why would I want them armed?

  25. Jace Walden says:

    Loyalty,

    I will point out one thing though. A gun is a tool to be used as a defensive weapon in the civilian world.

    LAWs, Hand Grenades, Nuclear Missiles are weapons of total offense, thus one cannot make a truly legitimate argument that there is a “right” to carry one of these.

  26. Chris says:

    Jace,

    Best Defense is a good offense. So weapons of total offense can be used for defense and are thus protected.

    And before you disagree, remember, I can take your thread away again.

  27. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Jace, I’m anxiously waiting for you to settle the creation/evolution debate. Or more importantly, the Mac/PC debate.

  28. ramblinwreck says:

    Why is the second amendment that people think you need a permit to enjoy. What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do you not understand? Criminals will NOT get a concealed carry permit. Why should we require a law-abiding citizen to get one? I’d rather have an inexperienced law-abiding citizen with a pistol close by to help me than an unarmed “experienced” and “trained” unarmed fellow victim nearby.

    These “gun free” zones are nothing but shooting galleries for nut cases. We should at least have the ability to shoot back. Yes, I, and my 81 year old mother can have guns in our homes but sometimes you have to leave the house without an armed police escort.

  29. curt flood says:

    All I ask is this: Please, don’t refer to the guy who uses a gun and blows people away as a “shooter.” He’s a gunman. Or a killer. A shooter is a drink. The mass media fails this test constantly.

    And btw, y’all are nutso. Guns safely stashed in the home, sure. An armed camp at school? No thanks.

    Mac v. PC? Mac, of course.

  30. Goldwater Conservative says:

    What if we had intelligent gun control?
    It is unlikely that anything will be effective in preventing these individuals who end up killing themselves too, but the answer is not more guns.
    It is not necessarily fewer guns either. Smart gun control or even biometric security systems. We have the technology, it is time to make the investment into implementation…unless you buy into the idea that earmarked spending is absolutely evil.

  31. nast says:

    ramblinwreck // Feb 15, 2008 at 3:07 pm
    Why is the second amendment that people think you need a permit to enjoy. What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do you not understand

    I notice you left out the first clause of that sentence, you know – the part that mentions the “well regulated militia?” That implies to me regulation and training.

    Although I’m willing to overlook any requirements for mustering.

  32. Paul Shuford says:

    BubbaRich:

    Citizens with concealed carry permits are among the most law-abiding citizens anywhere. In places that keep those statistics, less than 1% of the concealed carry permits have been revoked for any reason (and committing most crimes will get your concealed carry permit revoked). In Kentucky, for example, since 1986, only 0.8 percent of their concealed carry permits have been revoked for any reason. In Virginia, it’s 0.2 percent.

    nast,

    Both of the students at the Appalachian School of Law that were armed and intercepted the killer stated that the “unarmed student” hadn’t tackled the the shooter, and that he only claimed to have done so afterwards.

    My point is this – concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding citizens in this country. They prevent massacres on a regular basis, it just isn’t reported in the news. And those who are against concealed carry, like nast, have said that if concealed carry laws were passed, blood would run in the streets, people would be shooting each other over parking spaces, and all kinds of other ludicrous claims to prevent people from being able to exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Those things haven’t happened, and concealed carry has been a very positive thing, reducing crime rates, preventing massacres, and allowing people to actually exercise their rights.

    That seems to be the biggest problem that people like nast have – carrying firearms – “bearing arms” – is a right. And they simply don’t want to acknowledge it nor do they want to respect other’s rights to choose to carry a firearm, because they choose not to, they think they should be able to make that choice for others as well.

  33. Dave says:

    All you libs who’ve restricted gun ownership over the last several decades, thanks a lot. Criminals have no fear of being stopped in their tracks. An armed public could have had a least a chance to stop these animals or prevent them from carrying out their warped acts in the first place. A prime example of a liberal idea that has actually contributed to these deaths. Since Va Tech and Colombine, are you all feeling pretty good about your whiny politics?

  34. Tommy_a2b says:

    Hey Roy, it is cold as $h!t in Canada and they have no where near our over all population. Why don’t you defend your #’s using Great Britain.

    p.s. Are you a Mitt Romney type gun owner? How many foxes have you shot on that there plantation. Where I come from we people say farm now. People who say plantation usually need to get over some self importance issues.

  35. Tommy_a2b says:

    Icarus you trip me out man! Thanks for the laugh.

    Icarus // Feb 15, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    I’ve changed my mind.

    It appears that the rat-bastard known otherwise as Chris Farris has closed the thread of dreams, a/k/a “Huckabee has won his last primary”.

    If it’s not re-opened soon, he’s going to wish GA had tougher gun control laws.

  36. Jace Walden says:

    Gentlemen,

    I resolved this issue about 20 comments ago. I don’t appreciate the disrespect you’re showing by continuing “debate”.

    The debate is over. The issue is settled.

  37. Icarus says:

    Tommy,

    You’re welcome.

    However, in the future, I would highly recommend not to threaten Jace with any form of conventional weaponry.

    He’s a self-described mouth breathing hick, and he’s packin’.

  38. Roy says:

    Tommy, What’s a Mitt Romney type gun owner???
    At least I’m obviously not the type gun owner you are…the type that has to have a gun to compensate for brain size and you know what else.

  39. Bill Simon says:

    Roy,

    Have you ever thought that maybe…just maybe, the media folks in Europe are just like the media folks here? That is, chock-full of pathological liars who consider it “okay” to not tell the truth, the whole truth?

    I’m referring to your first comment regarding those other nations thta have strict gun control, and you state their level of violence is quite low? Did you ever consider that their media IS NOT FREELY operated, and maybe they do not report the way our media reports things?

    That, as an example, the main media arm in Great Britain is the BBC, a government financed, government-run media outlet. They aren’t allowed to color outside the lines over there…they have to report what the government decides is trusting enough to report.

    Also…I seem to recall several bomb drops occuring in London from terrorists who would go into a crowded marketplace and drop a bomb and leave. Would you rather have our country turn into a country like that where we have massive amounts of death occuring because the bombers might have been would-be gun toters who would have killed far fewer people with a gun than they killed with a bomb?

    Noting happens in a vacuum, Roy. Stop assuming that the USA is screwed-up in our freedoms. There are a lot more frequent events of terror that occurs over in European countries than occurs here. Ponder why that might be.

Comments are closed.