The shooting wasn't a result of someone coming to shoot up a school, but rather, uncontrolled tempers in an argument
I'm typically not a fan of politicizing death, but everyone that says being able to carry guns to school will make everyone more safe.. I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The potential for crossfire casualties is too high.
Think about what would happen if instead of fights, there were shootings.
+Keyan Mobli there is an exception to every rule, and a rule to every argument. In reality it is a statistical anomaly that there will be a shooting any any particular campus anywhere in the US, but assaults and robberies are common enough.
Eric, that's absolutely dumb - anyone who thinks a kid is "cool headed" enough to carry a gun should just let them drive the car to school or be responsible for taxiing aircraft . hell lets just put little kids in the army - it'll make our forces better trained. I'm training my kid to fire weapons responsability, but he's not allowed touch the gun or even hold it without me scrutinizing every movement - no one wants anyone dead or injured.
In my opinion, if the person has a problem with their temper enough that'd they use a gun in an argument, they'd find other ways to lash out and do harm. Gun laws would only restrict the law-abiding victim.
+Andreas Suter oooorrr, by the time they found a way to lash out, their rage induced anger would subside? These can be argued both ways. However, only one of the ways involves innocent people not involved with the latercation being shot.
The standard argument is that guns don't kill people. I generally agree with this argument. The numbers don't lie. People stab, bludgeon, strangle, poison, etc. If they want to kill a person, they will... The big difference with those tools of death compared to a gun is that a gun makes mass, indiscriminate killing a very simple thing. Try killing a bunch of people at once with a knife or hammer. It just won't happen. I think this is the main point a gun control argument must make.
That already happens all the time. We get stories here all the time about two guys fighting over a girl and someone getting shot, or a $20 bet that someone didn't want to pay, or something else stupid. Where people used to throw punches now they shoot.
+Steve Berry I don't doubt that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. My question is: is the proposed solution from anti-gun control advocates of more guns going to increase responsible gun ownership?
Likewise, if these bio-medical chemists are responsible, does that mean we should all have access to that kind of info? Surely, the more people with access increases the chance that irresponsible people can use it.
responsible :P yeah right, the only reason they haven't unleashed a killer virus on us.. oh wait.it's possible they have.
The point is, you assume those in charge of nuclear, infrastructure and biological weapons are incapible of using them to kill others. I beg to differ. - the weapons of humanity are always used. - there's no blocking. this isnt startrek society. it's earth 2013. we're brutal. get used to it.
But if you extend the anti-gun control logic to biological and nuclear weapons it says we should all have access. After all... the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear ARMS. It doesn't specify between firearms and rocket propelled grenades or nuclear bombs or mustard gas. Why do we draw a line at some and not certain others.
And I'm not in favor of getting rid of guns... I just think there should be some reasonable limits on type and capacity of them
anything is possible. It may sway people to the side of needing to get a gun to protect them from the other people that have guns, but I think it may become a segment of the news that most people would just go pee.
I feel that everyone who says we need to just have "good guys with guns" (aka allowing everyone to be armed which by the way if that works so well what is stopping it from working now? Because most people do not want to have to carry a gun) needs to read Thomas Hobbes. I for one do not want an existence "nasty, brutish, and short" which is the end result in a society dictated by the "Good's" ability to out-power the (temporarily) powerful Evil, instead of a society based in well-founded and legitimate laws.
According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, in 2011 concealed carry license holders comitted two tenths of one percent of crime committed. That includes all crime not only violent crime. The link is wrong, it shows me an article about a shooting at an apartment.
It is hard to comment about the specifics, but as someone else already posted, it is extremely rare that for legal licensed concealed carry permit holders to be involved.