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

Yea, I would go for that, good idea. This solves the problems of American constitutional rights, and crime at the same time, yes I like it, And with the terrorist issue at hand, it would also put feet on the ground in a hurry, awesome, good thought.

And for people who question training perhaps only former or existing combat arms MOS's, and others with formal prior training, I used to see the volunteers of this type on horse patrol in the wilderness. It would work.

So Sayeth the Impaler!

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.

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.

It's an idea, but I don't think it would be very effective. Knowing that when you're in public, the man or woman standing behind you at the grocery in line is carrying a .9 mm while you are picking out a last minute candy bar for your kids doesn't exactly sound appealing. It would change the way you interact with others, and society in general.

Not only would this be an idea that doesn't work, but it would act contrary to the very incidents it was designed to prevent. Think about how many bar fights and disputes occur everyday. Now mix in firearms and you may see an even greater increase in violence. I can almost guarantee that casualties as a result of carrying personal firearms would surpass those resulting from tragic incidents such as VT.

In the end, it is really up to law enforcement officials, and authoritative figures at hand, who have to call the shots.

Yes, I do have a CCW permit HOWEVER in most states this will not allow you to carry in or on schools and I suspect the the VT school has a similar law/rule. So we law abiding folks will be unarmed for the next time this happens....

I see how well gun control worked here. He broke two laws to get where he was. So what do the liberals do? they want to take my gun so I can't defend my self. I guess we should all line up and let the crazes kill us. I would be all for gun control if it could be done but you can't get all the guns off the street. Any one who thinks so is living in a fairytale.

Do you know the stats on officers who have had to soot in self defence I as a woman wold not strap on a gun but would be prepared to defend my children and self were it necessary the old west is gone with Louie Lamore and sorry to say we live in a world where I don't think openly arming ourselves is the answer a permit to carrya gun yes I agree but if you carry one on yourm hip there will always be a Doc Holliday around the corner.

You think road rage is bad now?!!! Just wait until you start arming the general public with weapons. Every yahoo on every street corner will think that their vigilantism is justified because they have been through a government "vetting process". ... "but judge, I'm entitled to shoot the moron! Here, just look at my license... it says I'm ALLOWED to carry a concealed weapon".

Buddy... if our city streets come to that, I'm rolling a rock in front of my cave and never coming out again... unless of course the Yankees are in town to play the Sox. Then I'll don my Superman cape and just "dodge the bullets"

yes, carry firearms, strap it to your leg and go, it will stop alot of crazyness, and I bet folks would be a lot less to offend as fast. sure, there will be some weeeding out, but, our society gene pool needs some chlorine.

I think that a Physiological or physicological evaluation is not enough. When you have a gun you never know how are you going to react in a "dangerous" situation.

Imagine you are drunk, come home and find somebody inside, a thief, you can´t control yourself, with a gun will be easy to kill that person.

More guns = more violence = more deaths.

Gun control is the solution