Only a small percentage of college students are over 21, an even smaller percentage of those students desire to be armed. Quite frankly it's a non issue that people blow out of proportion trying to make emotional pleas to one side or the other.
Mostly true. But ... there were people over 21 killed, and there were other people over 21 there. Perhaps one of them would have chosen to be armed that day. If so, he would have had an opportunity to defend himself. Given the hundreds of people in the building, there's a chance at least one would be armed.
Would that person have saved himself or anyone else? No way to prove it either way. But CCW is about self defense and empowering people to fight back. Fighting CCW is about making sure that people are defenseless and that no one has the tools to fight back.
If my girl is at school and someone begins murdering at random, I would prefer there be someone there that can fight back and maybe disrupt the attack rather than them all just being disarmed so they can be shot like helpless fish in a barrel. If you prefer the latter scenario for your children or mine, bradycampaign.org would be happy to take your contribution.
The brady campaign asks for $1 per victim. Is it any wonder they make sure that all potential victims remain disarmed?
The fact is gun ownership does not increase nor decrease crime, as proven by countless studies. Due to this rather inconveinient fact neither side can use crime as a reason to allow or disallow firearms ownership.
It doesn't. But it does empower people, and that is a fact.
The problem with it affecting the crime rate is that the crime still happens; it just affects the victims opportunities to defend himself.
i.e. in a non CCW state, like NY, a man attacks me with a steel pipe. He beats me half to death, leaving me braindamaged and unable to care for myself for life. He is charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
The same crazy man attacks me in Colorado. Except after being knocked down I manage to draw my firearm and either force him to stop or wound him before being permanently damaged. The man is charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Except in this scenario, I'm able to defend myself and end the assasult hurt but not maimed or killed.
Or perhaps a mugger approaches me, I flash the weapon, and he flees. Since he still needs his drug money, he then attacks an unarmed person and takes their money. When he's arrested, both the other victim and myself file charges. So now he faces two charges of assault, and the crime rate is actually worse because I was able to defend myself.
The bottom line ... CCW is empowering. It's a good thing, and there are no negatives to it.
it's not really fair to say that gun control hasn't prevented any school shootings yet since you can not logically prove a negative like that. Current regulations might have prevented countless thousands of school shootings, but how would we know that?
True again. But since existing laws didn't stop Columbin, Virginia Tech, etc. ... perhaps we still need to keep considering other options besides just "more of the same."
And from the largest school massacre in History, which took place in Bath, MI in 1928, we know that such mass murders can tape place even without guns at all.
I'll poke around Gear and Accessories for tips.