Guns on college campuses

Just curious, here in Texas they are looking at letting students carry, naturely after taking gun safety classes and getting a concealed permit. What are thoughts on this and are you for or against.

For me I am for it, the reason why is that with proper training it will make campuses safer, there are dangers but with everything else in life there always is

 

As a Canadian, that is just inconceivable.

Does anyone remember Rosy O'Donnell going after Tom Sellick, when he appeared as a guest on her show. She "accused" him of being a spokesman for the NRA. Then she attempted to get him into a debate about gun control.

He refused to get into it with her, but did say, and I paraphrase, "The availabilty or lack of availabilty of firearms is not the issue. We have had the second amendment for many, many years. Kids were not shooting each other at school in the 40's or the 50's or the 60's. Something has happened to our culture since then. That is what we have to address."

I think he's right. I don't think arming students is the answer. Firearms, readily available, will be used in angry confrontations. And remember, you would be arming all the nutcases, too. It would just escalate the problem.

Something has changed in our culture. I would start with the entertainment industry glamorizing gun fights in movies, TV and music. Then the media sensationalizing these tragedies, 24/7, and giving fame to the perpetrators.

 

I agree with Brewster, it just seems to me that there is little good that can come out of having more people armed, just more opportunities to have something go awry, for example an accidental discharge and people reacting and shooting before thinking. In general I simply don't think the benefits outweigh the consequences.

 

knb-texas,

I thought I was getting across the point that Rosey was trying to embarrass Mr. Sellick. That was certainly the case. Good point that she has armed guards. What impressed me about his response was that he didn't jump on the 2nd ammendment soapbox. Instead he looked deeper into dealing with the cause of this cultural shift in recent years. Guns have been around a long time but the occurence of school and workplace shootings is relatively recent. Why is that?

That, to me, is the issue. Deal with why young people have begun doing this horrific acts in recent years.

We too, have had school shootings here in Canada. The worst is known as the École Polytechnique Massacre in 1989, where a student targeted women studying engineering. He shot 28 women, killing most, in his rampage against what he preceived to be a feminist threat.

Hand guns are highly restricted in Canada. Collectors and target shooting only. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are prohibited with very few exceptions. Owners of firearms used for hunting must be licenced and must follow strict storage requirements.

Only the "bad guys" are armed here, aside from law enforcement. Unfortunately, the "bad guys" are getting their weapons from south of the border (a sore spot for Canadian's). Mexico is dealing with the same problem. So the ramifications of your 2nd ammendment is not restricted to within your borders.

I know your 2nd ammendment is a subject of heated debate within your country. My understanding of it is that it allows for an "armed militia" in the event that your government should ever require removal through violent means. Do you interpret "armed militia" as everyone packing? Do you foresee a time when a coup will be necessary? You know when the 2nd ammendment was written, 1789, firearms basically meant flintlocks?

The only countries in the world that have really serious problems with crimes involving firearms are the countries who's people have lots of them. Mostly the U.S. and some African nations.

You live in a country where drugs are illegal because you might kill yourself using them. But fight for the right to carry weapons that kill other people?

I really believe putting more guns out there will just exacerbate the problem.

You mentioned that federal law requires that you be 21 years of age. I correct my earlier statement regarding high school. The law being considered would allow firearms in colleges and universities.

Sorry to be so long winded. And sorry if I have offended anyone with my opinions. But we all have a right to those

 

Even though I'm Canadian I would support "concealed carry" I've never heard that term before however I am Canadian.
I don't believe I will ever see that opportunity come to this country, and I believe I'm in the minority here. I believe all law abiding citizen should be able to carry a weapon.
But thats just my opinion.

 

In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded that the Swiss "are pretty dull."
For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye. (Try this in the U.S., and a SWAT Team might do you in.)
Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is the national sport, and the backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be.
According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.
Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.
The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."
Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva. No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S., however.
Congress is stampeding to pass additional firearm restrictions in response to the events of April 20, when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado.
Yet in 1996, a man who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage, murdering 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. Parliament then banned all handguns and most rifles.
But there have been no school massacres in Switzerland, where guns and kids mix freely. At shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter, the competitors pay 12-year-olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles with men and women of all ages. In fact, the tourist brochure, "Zurich News" recommends September's Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest) as a must-see: "The oldest Zurich tradition consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." The event has been held since 1657, and attracts thousands of teenage participants and spectators.
While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home. In addition, gun shops abound. Yet firearms are rarely used in crime.
Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of guns. The prevalence of firearms in the home and the participation of youth in shooting matches bind youth to adults and discourages a generation gap.
By contrast, homicide rates are highest in the underdeveloped countries, many of which ban private firearm possession. In some, private murder does not compare to the genocidal murder committed by governments against their unarmed subjects.
In America, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and violent movies. But in Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting festival brings out the entire family. Beside the range is a huge tent where scores or hundreds of people are eating, drinking, and socializing. With cantonal and rifle club banners fluttering in the wind, the melody of rifle fire blends with Alpine music and cow bells.
Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow not only to shoot the apple from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."
This coincidence has not escaped the notice of those who oppose liberty.
Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by commoners. Subjects must be disarmed to prevent democratic sedition, he said. The Swiss proved, Bodin wrongly averred, that arms bearing was "the cause of an infinite number of murders."
The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europe's despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists.
John Adams praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on laws and to bear arms. Patrick Henry, another American Founding Father, lauded the Swiss for maintaining their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.
The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.
However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the
Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.
There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.
For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify.
European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.
By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that civilian firearm possession may prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, or many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?
Traditionally, the Swiss Cantons had few firearm regulations. The first federal firearms law was recently enacted. Certain firearm purchases require a permit, and others do not. On retirement, every soldier may keep his rifle or pistol. Surplus assault rifles may be purchased by any Swiss citizen from the Military Department.
The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not.
From The Wall Street Journal Europe

I thought this very interesting
deb

 

That is an interesting article. However it does make some questionable assertions.

Did Hitler not invade Switzerland because its citizens were armed? That may have been a consideration. Hitler did intend to take Switzerland, but "on the way home". The primary reasons historians list are:

1) Concern that integrating Switzerland, with 74% German speaking population, into the Third Reich would have led to civil disobedience requiring the resources of Secret Police and the army. This would have strengthened the internal resistance in Germany to the Nazi regime.

2) The railways through Switzerland were critical to Germany's war effort. Not invading ensured the railways would stay open and a less likely target of sabotage.

3) Germany depended on Switzerland for the conversion of gold to convertible currency.

4) 20% of the employed males were in the Swiss Army. Roughly 420,000 men. They wouldn't have stopped Hitler for more than a couple of days but they would have retreated to the mountains and conducted guerrilla tactics.

Bottom line is that it appears Hitler wouldn't have been stopped by an armed citizenry in Switzerland.

Today, men are obligated to spend time in the military. They can keep their weapons afterwards, at home.

I think the difference is cultural. Switzerland may not have rap artists bragging about "bustin' a cap" in someone's ass. Or a movie industry in which sexual acts are restricted but mutilated, shot up bodies is fine.

 

I don't think I would assume that Switzerland doesn't listen to American Rap/Rock or watch American Movies.. correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure they listen and watch the same as us. :sofa: