VT shooting.. Right to bare arms and to protect yourself.?

Reading comments from the answers here, I got looking around the Internet and came upon this discussion that took place in 2002 after a similar shooting incident in Australia. The comments made then are still valid now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2352855.s...

Stricter gun control won't solve all of our problems, but it will help change the culture of the US for the better. We need to stop seeing the world in black and white, right and wrong, dead or alive. "Might makes right" is an unsupportable philosophy for a civilized society, yet one which many Americans (including the current President) seem to view as our perfectly natural destiny. The discussion gets interesting when you say: "Without guns, how will you protect yourself?" That's when you start getting answers like "Improve education, reduce poverty, treat drug use as a medical problem, etc." In other words, you get answers which address the roots of problems and lead to a more equitable, progressive society. This is clearly preferable to barbaric, ultimately suicidal solution of "kill the bad guys".

Adam Reed, US

While I've read some interesting arguments on both sides, I can't help feeling that if someone broke into my house and I went for my gun there's a good chance someone would end up dead and it would not necessarily be the burglar. I think I would rather just let them take my stuff, life's are more important than belongings.

Dominic Smith, Reading, England

Okay, this is for all the folks that don't have a clue. In 1997 there were 32,436 people killed by guns in the US. This figure is .0125 of 1% of the population. Now, of these 32,436 people shot, 33% were accidental. Which means 10,703.8 people were accidentally killed by firearms in the US. This figure is approximately .0038 of 1% of the population. (out of 280m people). Now, in 1992 drunk driving in this country killed a little over 100,000 people. Lung cancer in 1992 directly linked to cigarettes killed 400,000 people in the US. All loss of life is regrettable, but for anyone to recommend that guns are the biggest threat to society is nothing short of being incorrect. It is quite obvious that lifestyle choices kill more folks than guns do, by far.

D., USA

Absolutely! just think how different the outcome would have been if just one of those students was able to protect themselves and the others. Each year, over 12 times as many violent crimes are PREVENTED by armed citizens than by the police. The police are there after the fact, not when the crimes are occurring!

You cant stop whackos from being out there and trying to harm innocent people, but you can protect yourself and your loved ones. The bad guys will always have access to guns, why shouldnt we even the odds? Prohibition did not stop alcohol, gun laws dont stop the wrong people from having guns.If law abiding citizens have a means to protect themselves, deterrance goes way up.

I don't believe that's the answer either. Criminal could come at you from behind and take your gun. What might a typically normal person do in a fit of anger? I think the biggest issue here is not banning guns nor is it making them any easier to get, but by fighting more against the illegal gun sales/ownership. I don't care what the reason is, if you are caught with one you should be locked up for 20 years, not 5, in a federal penitentiary. If you are selling them you should get life, for the life that will most likely be taken by your sale.

Go after the criminals, not the law abiding citizens.

As a person in law enforcement, I have to assume everyone does have a weapon and will potentially use it. There are a variety of reasons I do not like the part time deputy idea. I will describe some issues of law that may not pertain to your area. I am not an attorney and am not offering legal advice. The following is my opinion. It is true there are reserve officers that must go through the exact same training that regular officers must go through. They have to pass the background, poligraph, and mental evaluation. I can say from experience that I never liked the mental evaluations because I thought it was a joke. ( They can ask you the same question 5 times just worded differntly) It is not hard to figure out. Many police organizations do have a reserve officer program. I am fully in favor of this. This is similar to what the person originally described. Officers that are full time hone their skills that they were taught and increase their knowledge of their beats and of the law more effectively than a reserve officer. Most departments do not have the money ( or want the civil liability) to have a large reserve officer program. Some people do let power go to their heads and should not be involved in law enforcement. They are a law suit waiting to happen. Look, there are people out there that will use anything to hurt another for even the stupidest of reasons. The law, different in each area, states that people have a duty to retreat from violence. Law enforcement does not have this. I belive most states have a version of the "Castle Doctrine." This doctrine is a provision that can allow a person to defend their home. The defender is ultimately held accountable for what happens. Was their action reasonable? Was it a burglar or a serial killer? Did the person break in to use the phone because his girlfriend is down the street in a car wreck and your house was the nearest that he could call for help? Would a reasonable person do the same as the defender in the same circumstances? I think that if everyone began to carry a firearm unconcealed in the public that there would be higher incident rate of abuse initially. However, over time, I think it would dramatically decrease. Knowing that everyone had a weapon could make people second guess their behavior. If a person got angry and shot another, what is to stop the person behind them from shooting the shooter? I know that would make me stop and think before I ever did anything. Punishment for firearm violators would have to be severe and their right to posess or carry one would be revoked permanently in addition to prison time. Currently, it is illegal for felons to posess firearms after their conviction. Do some still have access to them? The answer is yes they do. I have found in my experience that they are enabled to live their life style by their friends and family. I think you would be suprised how many 30+ year old men deal narcotics that live with their mother. Back to the issue at hand; gun control. Even if there was a right to carry unconcealed, I know that your legislature would still prohibit firearms from places ie.. banks, schools, courts, federal buildings, places that sold alcohol etc. This is already law. I am in favor of having people register their firearms. I know many will say that it is not the governemnt's business to know this. Look at it from a law enforcement perspective. If your gun is stolen, your serial number is known. Many times people do not write down their serial numbers of their posessions. They get stolen and the police have no way of knowing if the recovered item is stolen. If the firearm is registered, the officer should know when responding to a location, via premise history, that the person has a firearm. Knowing and guessing are too differnt things. I prefer to know. The registration fee could help your state fund the database , salaries etc, associated with the cost of the system needed to track this. The registration would give litigation a boost in determing who the owner of the firearm is and that person was potentially negligent to allow another access to the weapon. I think a mental evaluation to just own/use a firearm would error on the side of caution. There are mentally challenged people that can sport shoot and hunt recreationally. This measeure would call in to question if they could still do these activities when they have been doing them for years. I belive lack or over use of gun control is not the problem. It comes down to people. In my opinion "people" can get raveled up into inconsequential things and over react to the situation. You can communicate with a person much easier than you can people. I belive the unfortunate incident at VT was not a lack of gun control. It was the act of a person that was, aparently, upset over an issue and chose to break the law to hurt others. If there is a will, there will be a way. That is life and there is not much we can do about it. There are some that would say, " I can't fix in 15 minutes what you messed up in 15 years." They can try and make a differnce, but it comes down to the individual and those in their lives to make it work. We have seen more firearm related incidents recently. I think this is partly to the media's involvement of coverage. I also think that it is partly they way the person was raised/supervised. People do not always make good decisions. I do not have a solution for this problem that I think would be feasible. My sympathy goes out to the friends and family of the victims.

In many states, citizens ARE "pistol like law enforcement" armed. I wear a side holster under my sports jacket--and I'm NOT a commissioned badged law officer.

Patient about the background check, I was all too willing and ready for the safety course and test (which I aced), becomming licensed for concealed weapons.

Citizens arrested for misdemeanor or felony violent crimes are lifetime barred from such license....but that never stopped them from wanting to kill YOU. And they don't worry about YOUR rights, either.

truelori the 2nd amandment pertains to a militia made up of CITIZENS not the military to protect them from the government beccomeing to tyranical.now this scumbag was here on a student visa.so he wasnt able to legally posses a firearm anyway.so further laws wouldnt have stopped him.also dont start on gun shows as all people buying a gun from a dealer has to submit to a background check.

i wont say that if another student was armed in the building it would have changed the situation but i more than likely would have.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean "if the laws were changed." In 33 states you ARE allowed to carry CONCEALED handguns.

So what does this mean, "if the laws were changed??????"

And right now in most states this IS open to almost all citizens. So I don't get your question, I'm sorry.

And it's the right to BEAR arms. And if you read the 2nd amendment, it's clear that it's having to do with the militia and not an individual's right. Unfortunately the gun lobby is very powerful.

I think it would be ridiculous for everyone to carry guns. Talk about a disaster waiting to happen.

I do agree with you, They should allow this , but pending they pass and evaluation, training and people who have or had felonys can not have one.......I think that I would carry one.I am very scared of guns, but I am also very scared of what this world is becoming as well. I was thinking today that I really fear for my children.They are only in Elamentry school at this point, and no I am not saying that this can not happen in their school, but when they start getting into high school and junior high things get more violent........

That's idiotic. the question to ask is just where was the VT campus police? You'd never find a psychological or physiological evaluation that would screen out potential killers efficiently, all you'd do is put guns in more people's hands, increasing the probability of this sort of event happening.

Being from Canada, I find your question absolutely shocking. But, if you're truly serious about this, then I hope the Canadian government bars all entry to the whole lot of you if a law such as that ever passes.

The answer has been, and always will be... less guns, not more.