Why is concealed carry illegal in universities in America?

[Katy]

Yeah, America has a huge problem with the way that students treat their peers. I know multiple people who were expelled because they stated/wrote that they were going to do similar things (all before Columbine by several years). I've tried to think of ways to deal with this repeatedly. The best I've come up with is to charge parents with crimes their children commit or fine parents for having shithead kids.

Do other countries have similar problems with the way kids are treated?

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

My school years in South Africa were ok, and I was in a lot of different schools. Then again, I was usually in the smarter classes where everyone more or less had manners so I never knew of any really bad cases. I would say our schools are relatively safe and ok but I am not sure how the new generations are doing, and God only knows what goes on in the townships. I went to only one school that was harsh, militaristic, with a mean principal and rude, unintellectual kids from the farms. I ended up topping them in classes pretty soon and effortlessly and thought they were pathetic and rude. No wonder people kept on burning down the school.

[Gretchen]

You just can't see the big picture, only your little individual one.

ahh, what is the point anyway, you brainless clods can keep the highest homicide rates in the western world for all I care.

The trouble with guns is that they allow an emotionally distraught person to pronounce death upon another without due regard to whether it is deserved or not. How often do you hear of people who regret their actions once their immediate emotional turmoil has subsided.

James, if you will do some research, you will find that murder is most prevelant in every other country but ours per capita. Homocide may well be high, but we are big country.

If all people were rational, we wouldn't need guns. Case in point, the young man yesterday was clearly not rational. He could have done enough harm with his own two hands. Do you honestly believe someone could have rationalized the gun out of his hands? Even if he did not have a gun, do you think anyone could have rationalized him out of pummelling a bunch of people before someone finally downed him or he ran away? Not that he was one, but I've heard that crack addicts stop to nothing, not even pepper spray or guns. Death happens with a tire iron, hammer, knife, gun, broken bottle.

Other criminologists dispute the 89% figure, using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, and find instead a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed

It would be interesting to find out if it were the criminals who couldn't get access to guns by law that were stealing them from the homes that had them...while the people were away. It happened to us. A guy had watched our house and knew when we left and who we associated with. He merely dressed in a suit, jimmied the door open as casually as possible, and waltzed right in as if he owned the place. Found the handgun and stole it. People saw him come and go, thought it was a friend. Couldn't ID him either.

So, instead of attacking our religious persuasions (which is how a lot of it gets started in the Middle East) allow us freedom to think how we choose and start thinking about a way to deal with psychopaths, drug users, and insanity. It IS the people....and until you or someone else can figure it out, we have a right to bear arms to protect ourselves and our children from those, who through causality and/or free will choose to murder, rape and do harm.

There is no easy answer to it. I would rather not have guns either, but it is what living in the world has come to and has always been since the beginning of time. Man trying to figure out how to exert control over another which is what that guy came to do, isn't it?

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

Look, if you want to destroy your class mates [ not YOU, I mean whoever wants to ] you will do so wether or not everyone has guns or not. Who is fast enough to stop a random bullet even though everyone has a gun? You pop everyone and then you pop yourself. Or at least you try to. Reminds me of that movie The Fastest Gun Alive. That scene where the guy shoots the beer glass was the best shooting act I have EVER and will EVER see on a screen. Anyway, great, so everyone has guns in uni and civil war breaks out! Fun! Come on, WHY can everyone not just play professional paint ball? It is becoming a hot new sport I have heard! : )

[DHodges]

Why do Americans always think they have natural rights by dint of nothing more than their nationality?

In this particular case, owning a gun is a right specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution, and is also mentioned in many of the individual state constitutions. Even the restrictions we do have on gun ownership are generally unconstitutional (IMO).

I have to say - and this seems pretty strange on a political issue - I agree completely with Scott on this. I've been meaning to get a gun and learn how to shoot - I just haven't gotten around to it yet. (I'm getting old and can no longer rely on my kung fu.)

Gun laws don't stop anyone from attaining a weapon, they merely stop people from defending themselves against someone who breaks the law.

This is particularly true here in Philadelphia. There is a very high homicide rate (about four times that of NYC), mostly by guns, and also mostly involving gangs and drugs. Those guns are not aquired legally anyway. The rate of crimes committed with legally acquired, properly registered firearms is quite low. Further restricting gun ownership will not help reduce violent crime.

[Leyla Shen]

Scott wrote:

America isn't a gun culture. That's the problem.

No, it's an empire. That's the problem. Same ol'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z53STkFm_ec

Big man, pig man
Haha! charade you are

You radiate cold shafts of broken glass
You're nearly a good laugh
Almost worth a quick grin
You like the feel of steel
You're hot stuff with a hat pin
And good fun with a hand gun
You're nearly a laugh
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry...

--The incomparable Floyd

[sschaula]

Jamesh,

No (which is why I said for the hell of it). You are potentially complicate though for any future deaths, above that in which a knife killer could perform, if you, along with 100 million others, prevent rational guns laws from being introduced.

The most directly complicate are the political members of the republican party and the gun lobbyists. I hold them almost entirely responsible for these deaths - more people should take this view and express it.

No, more people shouldn't because it's a retarded view.

Dan,

Why do Americans always think they have natural rights by dint of nothing more than their nationality?

Dave answered this question...

Anyway, the gun laws in that town weren't of a genuinely prescriptive nature anyway. You didn't have to own a gun. There was a number of ways you could opt out of doing so. Besides, those laws were primarily for the purpose of private home protection. There's not much of an analogy here.

I'm not the one that came up with the example. I'm still waiting for someone to post statistics showing that with gun ownership comes increased homicide rates. If I don't see it, I'll assume it isn't there!

It may be that in certain communities of that type such gun laws can have the effect of limiting certain forms of crime. The point is there are other ways of doing it. And it has little to do with the more general reality of the admixture of guns and neurosis in American society. This isn't a "crime" issue at bottom; it's more broadly sociological.

There's no neurosis in American society. Come to America and see, instead of postulating from the opposite side of the world. This definitely has to do with crime. The kid went nuts.

What other ways of stopping this are there? Putting armed guards in every classroom, I suppose... I wouldn't see that as a bad option. But really, what's another way to prevent this number of deaths?

Your arguments on this are really quite nebulous, Scott. You say not everyone should have a gun. Well, other than mental people, criminals and Jimbo, who shouldn't? That leaves almost everyone, right? So, we'll have students by the hundreds all sitting in classrooms with 45s at their hips?

Well, I'm sure not everyone would want to carry just because it's an annoying feeling to tote around a weapon, but yes. And that doesn't necessarily make me feel safe...but this isn't about feeling safe, it's about being safe.

Will we have designated shooters like we have designated drivers? Will there be drink-toting laws? No toting over 0.5? Guys in bars everywhere all packin'? I mean, why not? What if one of them just got dumped by his wife and decides to blow a few potential cuckolders away? Someone's gotta take him down, right? Hopefully it's the designated driver who is also the designated shooter.

Yep there would have to be more restrictive laws about carrying while intoxicated. Bars may have to lock up guns as people come in. There are ways around these problems.

I also think your belief that in the sort of situation that unfolded at Virginia Tech that the shooter would have been taken down by others who were armed naive. Having everyone armed solves nothing and produces an obviously cartoonish picture of a society. What amazes me is that you don't seem utterly horrified at the very idea of having to advocate it.

How is it cartoonish? If even one person had a weapon and decided to use it, that situation would've ended quickly. There wouldn't be so many people injured and dead.

Of course if the person didn't use their weapon, then it would've turned out the same...but why would someone sit there and wait to die when they had the means to overcome it?

Hunted,

I think we should get to the root of the problem then we will not need guns in the first place. Its called a lack of respect. The cute pop trash pop culture is a mere veneer for the underlying lack of respect for anyone or anything. That Eric kid and his friend who blew up their class mates in America a few years ago wasn't just addicted to games and full of natural hatred. That kid was actually teased and ostracised by a lot of his classmates. And for what? A few laughs at the weird guy? I am not saying this stuff is right, it is morbid and horrible, but people had better clean up their acts and their schools or kids like that will take revenge and use society's lack of respect against it.

I agree with you here 100%. Some people really are asking for it. We should all watch how we act towards others.

Katy,

I've tried to think of ways to deal with this repeatedly. The best I've come up with is to charge parents with crimes their children commit or fine parents for having shithead kids.

That sounds like a very good idea. There'd be a lot of bitching on the part of parents to the school board and state legislature, but it'd start to get the job done I think. The type of rudeness which brings people to kill and kill themselves shouldn't go unpunished.

Hunted,

Look, if you want to destroy your class mates [ not YOU, I mean whoever wants to ] you will do so wether or not everyone has guns or not.

Well I see your point but I disagree. If I was there with a pistol, that many people wouldn't have been shot. If everyone in that german class had weapons, they wouldn't have been so helpless, so long as they had the guts to use them while their friends were being killed.

So if you want to destroy your class mates, you won't be able to do it so well when they're armed.

Especially when I'm in that class. :)

[sschaula]

Leyla,

No, it's an empire. That's the problem.

Um, well that's not what I see. I hardly know anyone that owns a gun, besides a hunting rifle. I don't know of anyone besides police officers that carry.

[Gretchen]

So if you want to destroy your class mates, you won't be able to do it so well when they're armed. Especially when I'm in that class. :)

And this may be a problem with restricting weapons from campus, not from your perspective because you are military and most likely are very schooled on what to do with your weapon and the responsibility it carries.

The problem with weapons is access. Unless you wore it on your belt and/or locked it up, access to would be thieves would be a possibility. Even in some cases, the holder would be responsible enough, but 24/7? I have no idea if this is the case, but it may also be an insurance issue for the university. Some students may even have a gun on school property, but the rules are that they should not...which then, most likely, limits the liability of the school in the event that something like this occurs. If they allowed guns, then the litigants would have a greater cause of action against the school.

Federal and state agencies have sovereign immunity but are more than likely candidates for heavy legislation on what can and cannot be done and/or litigated. The way laws work these days, I'm sure that state run universities and colleges carry some type of liability insurance for contingencies, part of which the requirements specifically prohibit many things, including carrying a weapon or alcohol usage on campus.

[sschaula]

I realize the problems that my side of the argument faces. My viewpoint won't win...especially when it's been found out that this kid bought the handguns legally just about a month prior.

It just sucks that people like me become criminals when we would try to help others.

[Katy]

Um, well that's not what I see. I hardly know anyone that owns a gun, besides a hunting rifle. I don't know of anyone besides police officers that carry.

Well, I know bunches who do, though most of them are 20 years older than myself and former military members...

And I thought I heard that it was an illegal gun?

[sschaula]

The serial numbers were scratched off, but from what I know, he bought at least one of them legally.

[sschaula]

Katy,

Keep in mind the state you live in. Military members can carry anywhere there legally.

[Unidian]

My immediate gut-level reaction was that the guns have to go. However, after considering the matter rationally, I don't think that is the answer any more than requiring everyone to be armed is. Like everything else, there is no simple solution here. These events involve a wide variety of contributing factors.

In addition, I think that the psychological factors contributing to this are probably more crucial than access to firearms. One might not be able to carry out a massacre without guns, but one also generally can't carry one out without a seriously screwed-up mentality created by some part of their daily experience.

[Gretchen]

I realize the problems that my side of the argument faces. My viewpoint won't win...especially when it's been found out that this kid bought the handguns legally just about a month prior.

Why does it matter when he bought them? He could have been planning it for a month and decided to buy them the night before. His intent was still the same. Had he bought them the night before, one might argue in his defense that his actions were out of "passion." All you have done is proven scienter. He committed a criminal act. Although there may have been mitigating circumstances, as others pointed out, had he lived, he would have been committed. Funny thing is you cannot commit someone involuntarily unless and until they do something to harm others. They tried to get him help, but you cannot force someone into therapy without their consent.

It just sucks that people like me become criminals when we would try to help others

In this world, all is a shade of gray. My liability argument was just in answer to why they may forbid students to conceal weapons. Sometimes the answer isn't a moral issue but an issue of torts. In this case, the university is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Had there been an armed student who killed the guy before his first kill, he would be the hero. It may have made the news a couple of nights, perhaps a week. However, if the armed student left his room for one moment and another swiped his gun and offed several people in the dorm, he is culpable as is the university for negligence and the defendant in future litigation. As it is, the guy bought the guns elsewhere, and the university is still being set up for litigation and the media is assisting.

In fact, I watched this one guy explaining that you cannot judge someone's potential as a killer by their creative writing, otherwise they would have locked Stephen King up by now. Sometimes artistic endeavors are ways for people to vent their anger and frustration but would not otherwise act upon it. He was defending those who tried to help the guy and the reporter kept interrupting him because she didn't like what he was saying.

It's just a tragic event with no definitive resolution.

[sschaula]

Nat,

I absolutely agree with all that you've said since I've had time to process this more.

Passthrough,

Why does it matter when he bought them? He could have been planning it for a month and decided to buy them the night before. His intent was still the same. Had he bought them the night before, one might argue in his defense that his actions were out of "passion." All you have done is proven scienter. He committed a criminal act. Although there may have been mitigating circumstances, as others pointed out, had he lived, he would have been committed. Funny thing is you cannot commit someone involuntarily unless and until they do something to harm others. They tried to get him help, but you cannot force someone into therapy without their consent.

Yeah it's obvious he was screwed up (read the plays he wrote) and that was the only real contributing factor in this.

In this world, all is a shade of gray. My liability argument was just in answer to why they may forbid students to conceal weapons. Sometimes the answer isn't a moral issue but an issue of torts. In this case, the university is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Yep, after consideration I've taken this stance moreso as well.

In fact, I watched this one guy explaining that you cannot judge someone's potential as a killer by their creative writing, otherwise they would have locked Stephen King up by now. Sometimes artistic endeavors are ways for people to vent their anger and frustration but would not otherwise act upon it. He was defending those who tried to help the guy and the reporter kept interrupting him because she didn't like what he was saying.

After reading what Cho wrote, I disagree with that idea. It seemed obvious to me that he was a messed up individual who needed help. Of course you can't lock him up, but something should be done. There's a line between creative writing/venting and a cry for help. Cho crossed the line when he wrote those plays.

In fact, a female teacher thought it was serious enough to remove Cho from the class, because other students were scared, but she was told numerous times that nothing could be done.

Well, something should have.

[Cory Duchesne]

So the kid was Korean.

Uh-oh. Ethnic citizen makes boo-boo.

And so me thinks Bill O'Reilly will once again go apeshit, pouring scorn on all those 'illegal aliens'.

[Faust]

I think we should get to the root of the problem then we will not need guns in the first place. Its called a lack of respect. The cute pop trash pop culture is a mere veneer for the underlying lack of respect for anyone or anything. That Eric kid and his friend who blew up their class mates in America a few years ago wasn't just addicted to games and full of natural hatred. That kid was actually teased and ostracised by a lot of his classmates. And for what? A few laughs at the weird guy? I am not saying this stuff is right, it is morbid and horrible, but people had better clean up their acts and their schools or kids like that will take revenge and use society's lack of respect against it.

don't be so fooled, look closer. EVERYONE read these, the more information the better..


http://www.erichufschmid.net/Columbine-DonnaTaylor.html


http://www.iamthewitness.com/

[sschaula]

A conspiracy is the first thing that came to my mind when I read about the boy scout uniform and maroon beret. But it's an idiotic theory, both for this and Columbine. The first link you gave, the mother is mentally ill and misinformed. The second link has to do with anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists. Both I can't take seriously.

[Jamesh]

A post I made elsewhere, that is relevant to this thread.

"Actually having rational goals is simple, promulgating them is not, but only because of the emotional irrationality of folks who believe traditions are best, because such traditions suit their current situation. This is why conservative government and the religious minded work together to ensure their status is maintained, and in the current climate of the last 10 years improved.

To me conservatives and the religious are more animal than human. An animal is controlled by instincts and emotions, but what separates humans from other forms of animal is neither of those, but the application of logic to counteract such [ultimately destructive] animal influences. The current world where capitalism and greed are the champions of all those who hold wealth, is a purely animalist world. With globalisation of both companies and media interests, whose sole interst in in wealth, it can only get worse. To me the bulk of the population are traitors AND abusers to their children. It is a form of abuse that will ultimately be worse in terms of its effects on all children, than physical or sexual abuse. The vampiric adult population has no control over their desires. Hence actions like the latest freakout in Virginia will become more common, and so they should."

[Philosophaster]

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Columbine-DonnaTaylor.html

"There is overwhelming evidence that a large criminal network controlled by Zionists is taking over Europe, Russia, North America, and Australia."

Riiight.

[Gretchen]

This is why conservative government and the religious minded work together to ensure their status is maintained, and in the current climate of the last 10 years improved.

Where did this occur? And which religious minds should work together?

In fact, a female teacher thought it was serious enough to remove Cho from the class, because other students were scared, but she was told numerous times that nothing could be done. Well, something should have.

But the question is what? At that age, would group student intervention have helped him or embarrassed him? If his parents had tried, which I hadn't heard anything on this one yet, who listens to their parents at this age? Even then, they cannot have him involuntarily committed either, he's too old. I'm not that age anymore, so my opinions on this one are limited, but I'd like to hear them.

[DHodges]

After reading what Cho wrote, I disagree with that idea. It seemed obvious to me that he was a messed up individual who needed help. Of course you can't lock him up, but something should be done. There's a line between creative writing/venting and a cry for help. Cho crossed the line when he wrote those plays.

Really?

The first thing I thought of was Ubu Roi. He seemed to be trying for that kind of style, or something like it. I'm assuming the chopped-up English was deliberate, for effect, rather than ignorance; he was an English major, so it seems unlikely that he was just completely ignorant of how English works.

Even so, the violence in his plays seems relatively tame compared to some music I listen to (Insane Clown Posse, NWA, Cannibal Corpse, Slayer) or some movies I've seen (Natural Born Killers, Reservoir Dogs - anything by Tarantino).

I'm not an English teacher, but the writing by itself would not have necessarily bothered me. I probably would have been bothered by the way he did not answer when his name was called and other inappropriate behavior:

His instructor and fellow students also found his behavior in class "inappropriate," Roy said.

"He was taking photographs of students without their permission, especially under the desk," she said.

[sschaula]

Jamesh,

I don't know where you're coming from here. Wake up.

Passthrough,

But the question is what? At that age, would group student intervention have helped him or embarrassed him? If his parents had tried, which I hadn't heard anything on this one yet, who listens to their parents at this age? Even then, they cannot have him involuntarily committed either, he's too old. I'm not that age anymore, so my opinions on this one are limited, but I'd like to hear them.

Sometimes people need to be embarassed, and then see that their supportive network of friends and family is still there after the fact. I do think those ideas would've helped.

Dave,

Really?

The first thing I thought of was Ubu Roi. He seemed to be trying for that kind of style, or something like it. I'm assuming the chopped-up English was deliberate, for effect, rather than ignorance; he was an English major, so it seems unlikely that he was just completely ignorant of how English works.

That's what I'm wondering about as well. It seemed almost too elementary. Was it his creative vision, or the fact that he was a foreigner? I don't know and I suppose that I shouldn't take a guess.

Even so, the violence in his plays seems relatively tame compared to some music I listen to (Insane Clown Posse, NWA, Cannibal Corpse, Slayer) or some movies I've seen (Natural Born Killers, Reservoir Dogs - anything by Tarantino).

I agree with you. I didn't like after reading the plays how the news was portraying them as violent. I didn't find them violent at all. But I did think they showed major warning signs.

I have a friend who had serious anger management issues all throughout high school. Their writings were very similar, in that: the English was all simple and broken up, they showed justification for the main character's point of view, there is a lot of tension between characters, etc. Not to mention the bisexual innuendos in Cho's two plays. It seems pretty obvious, unless it was his intentional creative vision, that he was molested. There's also themes of being poor or getting opportunities taken away by assholes.

Even though I haven't read the note he left in the dorm, I think when he was justifying the killing of all the students, he was projecting his past tormenters onto them.

This is just pure conjecture though.

I'm not an English teacher, but the writing by itself would not have necessarily bothered me. I probably would have been bothered by the way he did not answer when his name was called and other inappropriate behavior:

His instructor and fellow students also found his behavior in class "inappropriate," Roy said.

"He was taking photographs of students without their permission, especially under the desk," she said.

[/quote]

Like their crotches?

From what I read, the professor and other students tried to leave him alone....definitely the wrong route to take.

[DHodges]

Like their crotches?

Well, yeah, I do, but that's totally inappropriate.



(ba-dum-bum)