theinvisibleheart
New member
targetshootr said:That's just a bad idea on many levels. There are some places guns are better left at home but let's suppose it passes and students 21 or older get a carry permit and schools allow them to attend classes. Stats will be kept which they will make available to prospective students choosing a college who will wonder why anyone feels unsafe in that school without a gun so they enroll somewhere else. Just from an economic standpoint, it would be a bad idea not to mention accidents and spur of the momment shootings we'd be reading about. Everyone is acting like school shootings are an epidemic when they're not. They're the exception. Thirty-two people are probably shot everyday in homes and streets across the country. That's where guns belong. I would not attend a school where kids were toting guns unless it was a Montgomery College gunsmithing class.
hello, there.
1. there are actually several school shootings which were stopped, either by students or school officials/teachers grabbing their guns which were kept in their cars just outside of schools. You just don't hear about it because it's not considered newsworthy.
2. you don't restrict rights (natural right to self-defense which form the basis for most fundamental of all rights --- that is, the right to live, right to life itself) based on individual propensity for accidents.
If it would make you feel any better, statistics show that unjustified shootings/accidental shootings by CHL/CCW holders are less than that of police. Not only that, when concealed carry laws are enacted and people are allowed to arm themselves, personal crimes(rape, murder, assault, robbery, homicide, etc.) goes down, even when heat of the moment crimes are included.
3.
targetshootr said:Just from an economic standpoint, it would be a bad idea not to mention accidents and spur of the momment shootings we'd be reading about.
People who commit "heat of the moment" violence, whether by gun or knives or any other force, usually don't do it when they know the victim(s) or potential victim are armed and/or stronger than they are.
I've seen very few cases where victim was physically much stronger than the assailant and the assailant intentionally attacked the victim in the heat of the moment.
It seems strange, but in most instances, even crazy or unbalanced people seem to understand pain or suffering that they are bound to incur on themselves if they attack someone who is much stronger than they are.
There was a study done last year(?) which found out that mass/public shootings tend to happen in places where people are unarmed....you can always count on academia to do studies on what is obvious. -)
4. I've known people who have seriously injured several people when they were attacked. I would have to say these people's ability to hurt or injure others is close to that of a normal person armed with a gun...should these people's right be restricted because of their physical ability to do harm to others?
Best regards.
--John