Man who sold gun to Va Tech Shooter Speaks there in favor of guns on campus

[mini]

I think it would be flat out unfair, as well as dangerous, not to provide guns and concealed weapons permits for low-income students to defend themselves, if they couldn't afford it otherwise. If it makes them safer, EVERYONE on campus should be required to carry a gun, and to attend weekly target practice. Otherwise, those who remain unarmed fall easy prey.

[JCaoLoveshine]

The guy sells guns for a living so don't demonize him for his livelihood. There would be a much different spin if it was known that although one guy bought a gun and went on a shooting rampage most people who bought guns there used it in self defense, doing more good than harm. We shouldn't punish this guy for what was a tragic coincidence.

Also, the ignorance on these forums with regards to firearms is pretty amazing. It's fine to take an anti-gun stance, but at least do so with a good understanding of the other side of the issue.

[poetsheart]

Regardless of the issue of concealed carry, I find the person who sold the products that killed so many on that campus visiting it to advocate more weaponization egregiously offensive.

I couldn't agree more.

[Triguena]

Sorry, just because I disagree with you does not make me ignorant. I am not anti-gun. I grew up in a family of hunters.

The difference between pepper spray and a hand gun is that no one (inadvertantly or purposely) has been killed by pepper spray. If the campus is that dangerous then the market place (us, parents, students) should speak with our feet and not enroll. I know of campus environments that were shady and the outcry was so loud that the administration took great strides at improving safety that now violent crime is virtually unheard of.

You still did not answer my original question--why do students need guns on campus?

[Triguena]

Mini, please tell me you were being facetious...........

[pmrlcomm]

Trig, you haven't visited the University of Cincinnati have you?

Need isn't the question. Why should a law abiding citizen be kept from carrying one if it is legal in the state? "Gun Free Zones" are about as effective as "Drug Free Zones".

[Triguena]

So vote with your feet--don't enroll. Make the administration handle the problem or face economic disaster.

[pmrlcomm]

I don't care if it is the safest campus in the states. If it is legal why shouldn't a qualified student be able to carry? If you don't want a student to carry then allow the prof's and staff. If just one of these shootings is stopped it would be worth it. It's not like students carrying would turn a campus into the OK Corral?

[smilodon]

You still did not answer my original question--why do students need guns on campus?

Why not ban everything else that we don't need. TV's are more or less obsolete at this point why don't we ban them. And don't pull the danger factor argument, as TV's encourage a sedentary lifestyle which is probably more dangerous as a whole to America than firearms. In addition we acknowledge the danger of firearms, but pay cursory notice to that of TV's.

[mini]

"Mini, please tell me you are being facetious..."

Why should I tell you that? Why should a college deprive low-income students the opportunity to defend themselves just because they are poor? Since the overwhelming majority of crime on campus (70,000 rapes; 600,000+ sexual assaults annually) are committed by student criminals themselves, why shouldn't a college take responsibility for ensuring that female students can protect themselves from students with guns.

This is not a question of individual safety, whereby individuals' rights to carry are the issue. The issue is campus safety, collective safety, for everyone. And if a few guns can stop some crimes, certainly universal and required gun carrying on campus would stop many, many more.

[Faline2]

I also thought mini was being facetious. I live where Cho did his target practice and checked into a hotel and where scores of adults ignored the college kids and Niki Giovani who stood up and repeatedly pointed out that he was mentally ill and needed immediate attention by the medical community. Leaving the endless debate about gun laws aside, I have to say that Cho was a hugely obviously mentally ill young adult and that we can change how we respond as a society to mental illness without resolving the gun debate at all and in that way, we can help reduce risk. So many homicides are also domestic violence with plenty of red flags before they take place as well.

My nephew was in the dorm getting ready for class where the brave senior RA from Georgia and the poor randomly hunted down girl who loved to ride horses...were shot. A girl in my son's class was four doors away on that hall. I thought it was disrespectful to the dead and injured for the man to appear on campus...provocative but not in a constructive way.
Sadly, many northern Virginians sent their children down here to us, certain they were enrolled in college in a less populous, more peaceful place, safer from random crime than ever in their lives.
I was listening to the murder count in Chicago on TV the other night and thinking..."no Univ of Chicago for my boy" when I had to admit that after what happened near my home, there is no way to predict risk anymore very well...and I had no reason to view Chicago in that manner.

[1of42]

Originally Posted by smilodon

Why not ban everything else that we don't need. TV's are more or less obsolete at this point why don't we ban them. And don't pull the danger factor argument, as TV's encourage a sedentary lifestyle which is probably more dangerous as a whole to America than firearms. In addition we acknowledge the danger of firearms, but pay cursory notice to that of TV's.

Sorry, were we talking about TVs here or are you just trying to create a ridiculous straw man as a stand-in for making a viable refutation?

The reason guns are at issue here and not TVs is because TVs cause damage (obesity, etc) only to those who choose to use the TV, whereas the danger from guns comes to people other than the wielder - by analogy, you can't use your TV to make someone else fat.

[raimius]

Originally Posted by Triguena

You still did not answer my original question--why do students need guns on campus?

...because some people do evil things, and campuses are not immune to their actions.
The real question in the concealed campus carry debate is why are licensed permit holders being denied the ability to defend themselves on campus? What reason is there to deny them that ability, especially after the state has judged them competant and safe?

Mini, that is a nice, sarcastic comment. I find it really ironic. Many gun laws have racist and elitist origins. The Democratic Party promoted bans on "Saturday Night Specials" (cheap guns). I guess they don't think poor people are trustworthy enough to have guns. The Democratic party has been trying to place economic and social filters on gun ownership for decades. Ironically, this is exactly what the progressives of the early 20th century fought against.

[mini]

I'm not a Demcrat, and I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking about the need for campus safety and collective security, not some fatuous individual right for individuals to bear the AK-47 of their own choosing.

The real question has NOTHING to do with whether licensed permit holders should be permitted to defend themselves on campus, and everything to do with ensuring the safety of the campus for everyone.

[smilodon]

I was kinda replying to the question why do students need guns on campus. The thing about TV's was showing that we haven't banned other things that we don't need. Also TV's place a strain on the healthcare system, which drives up costs and eats precious resources.

Few people who have a cc permit would actually want an AK47, for among other things they aren't really concealable. Also why should a college campus be treated differently then anywhere else?