If only these students had been allowed to protect themselves

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

My point wasn't to play with words, but to point out that people do have an option, and don't surrender their unalienable rights at any time- remember, our Western Enlightement heritage values the concept that there are certain rights with which we are born, and no man or law can take away. One can choose to carry onto private property in many states, regaurdless of the sign. The owner can ask them to leave. Other states would require that you leave your gun behind- you can choose not to enter the property....no problem. I can't think of any private property that I must have access to, except my own.

Final Score

Americans: 100 | VJ FB: -5

Edited April 4, 2012 by Why_Me

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Random question. Most businesses just put a generic sign saying no weapons right? or no firearms?

What does that define when you consider the following: taser, spray, disassembled firearm etc.?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Random question. Most businesses just put a generic sign saying no weapons right? or no firearms?

What does that define when you consider the following: taser, spray, disassembled firearm etc.?

Women might be able to answer that question more honestly. I mean do they take the mace out of the purse or off their key chain before they enter a place with a sign like that?

[SMOKE 1,426]

Random question. Most businesses just put a generic sign saying no weapons right? or no firearms?

What does that define when you consider the following: taser, spray, disassembled firearm etc.?

most of the businesses around here have a sign saying 'no weapons' w/ a pic of a gun inside a circle and a line strike through it. idk but i think you'd be in a bad spot w/ anything at all someone considered a weapon inside those places.

Edited April 4, 2012 by SMOKE

[Ban Hammer 13,550]

most of the businesses around here have a sign saying 'no weapons' w/ a pic of a gun inside a circle and a line strike through it. idk but i think you'd be in a bad spot w/ anything at all someone considered a weapon inside those places.

a misdemeanor in kansas. but if you're carrying concealed, how would anyone know?

[^_^ 5,021]

a misdemeanor in kansas. but if you're carrying concealed, how would anyone know?

isn't it a question of respect? if you're on someones property and they're asking you not to.... then you do it anyway? sounds shady.

[Ban Hammer 13,550]

isn't it a question of respect? if you're on someones property and they're asking you not to.... then you do it anyway? sounds shady.

in your situation above, yes, it is a question of respect. and they can always order you off the property.

however, smoke was talking about businesses.

[^_^ 5,021]

in your situation above, yes, it is a question of respect. and they can always order you off the property.

however, smoke was talking about businesses.

businesses are also private property.

[Dan and Judy 614]

a misdemeanor in kansas. but if you're carrying concealed, how would anyone know?

that's not a concealed weapon, I'm just happy to see you

[Ban Hammer 13,550]

businesses are also private property.

there's a difference between a business open to the public and private property.

[james&olya 1,121]

And so if are concerned about your personal safety, what other methods protection do you use when you can't carry a weapon?

......

I could go on and explain more effective ways to prevent tragedies like the one in the OP - measures, like securing the campus by containment, etc., but I doubt that's going to convince you any. It doesn't take much to envision the kind of logistical nightmare if everyone were allowed to carry a gun everywhere - whether we would all be safer. There are certain times and situations where a gun is the best personal protection, but in most situations, it is either not viable option (like the above you mentioned) or would most likely create more problems than it would supposedly solve. And ironically the places you mentioned above are the places where you are most likely going to be a victim of random violence.

As one who has decried the tragedy of the excessive toll of gun violence in this country compared to many other advanced democracies, I wonder if we may have reached a point in gun prevalence in society where the best way forward may involve increasing further the presence of guns. There is no way possible to roll back the clock. Even if the democrats were really out to take away guns (which they most decidedly are NOT) it would be a fool's errand! Very few guns would be surrendered regardless of the laws passed. And since passing such laws would be political suicide that would never happen anyway. Maybe some of the regular posters here like Gary are right that now the best way to reduce the toll of gun violence is to do like they do in Vermont where everyone can carry. My personal opposition to guns everywhere has never been about my being personally uncomfortable with guns, rather being uncomfortable with the idea that any of the many unstable people with amazingly poor judgment out there that we must encounter daily may have a gun. With the sheer number of guns available that is increasingly likely no matter what the law says. Maybe it is better if the sane and intelligent people out there are also armed as a deterrent to the idiots and ne'er-do-well's that may be packing. I know it is heresy to say this as a progressive but I think we may have reached and passed a tipping point on this. What is ideal is not possible. Now what we must look for is that imperfect solution that is least costly in terms of innocent lives lost.

Besides, think how much it is going to bother some of the extreme right if they start having to worry about well-armed liberals!