redblueamerica.com

no students should, if you allow students to carry guns then there could be a chance of a fight and then a shooting. If someone pulled a gun on your and some other people you will be to scared to pull your gun out and if you tried then you will die.

the only correct answer to this is yes as long as every other lawful gun owner can too otherwise it just dosn't make sense for the government to decide who can and can't carry a gun.

those who make their guns into plows will plow for those who do not, attributed to thomas jefferson.

an armed society is a polite society

if convicted felons of a non-violent crime still have no rights then no college students should carry.....what if the convicted felon is a college student on a new path new life and has the opportunity to stop a potential ........(Illinois )....but has no means of defending his or herself do to past behaviors........

Pretty much everything in your statement is false. most people with permits can shoot better than the police. look it up for yourself. and people in the military are not experienced with weapon handling. they are taught a lot of other things and they only get a limited time with weapons training. I handle guns everyday and have never had an accidental discharge why? because I make double sure it is unloaded! most young people are untrained but these are not the ones applying for the permits. only 2-5% of a states population has permits to carry and most are better trained than the police or military. in fact most police dept issue there officers moderately powerful handguns like the 9mm because they cant handle the recoil of a bigger round. It is the same reason our military switched from a .45 to a 9mm. the soldiers weren't able to shoot well with a moderately recoiling round like the .45. They are NOT better trained than most citizens who practice shooting! and they wont be there to protect us. Thats why I rely on myself and my Glock .45 ACP for protection
Andrew Toth

I think that there should be no gun's on school property.If a kid or a teen should be depressed they could shoot any student or teacher.All gun's lead to is death there for there should be no gun's on shool property.

Its absurd to think that arming teachers is the answer.
________________________________________________

There is a world of difference between arming teachers, as you put it, (or students) and simply letting teachers (and students) who are licensed to carry to actually do so. How would you even know that one was carrying? What gives a college the right to deny others their rights?

If your idea of self-defense is a college security force that can boast no better than to be on the scene within a minute after the killing stops (a la NIU) then so be it. Why deny others what they believe will make then feel safer?

I'm a 17-year veteran of the Chicago Police Department. On May 10, 2007, my 16-year-old son, Blair Holt was shot and killed by another teenager while he rode a CTA bus from school on his way to work at his grandparents store, as he often did most days after school. Four other students were seriously injured as well. Blair lost his life in a heroic effort when he shielded another friend/classmate.
All of these young people were the unintended targets.
I say of this to say that we as responsible and law-abiding citizens must be very vigilant in EDUCATING THE MASSES AS TO HOW ACTS OF GUN VIOLENCE IMPACTS A COMMUNITY AND A NATION! WE MUST EDUCATE OUR YOUTH AS TO A NON-VIOLENT APPROACH TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION. NOW IS THE TIME WHERE WE MUST MOVE TO ACTION TO PUT INTO EFFECT THE OFTEN USED PHRASE "IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD." We must stress the idea that gun violence has permeated our nation to such a degree that it should be viewed as a public health and public safety issue. This idea should be incorporated into school health programs the same way sex education, cpr and drivers education is studied and learned as a part of its curriculum.
It pains me greatly when I continue to read and see reports of shootings resulting in injury and death, that has affected every socio-economic and cultural level in our country.
If Blair Holt decided to move to action to make the heroic sacrifice to exemplify courage, bravery, sacrifice and honor in giving his life, that another shall live, then we, who are still among the living, can move to action to collectively make our societies a safer environment.
PROFESSORS AND STUDENTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY GUNS ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES BECAUSE IT WILL PERPETUATE THE CYCLE OF GUN VIOLENCE AND KNOW WOULD KNOW THE EMOTIONAL OR MENTAL STATE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL.

... it's usually too late to do much but draw the chalk outline and start questioning the witnesses.

Don't you guys watch Law & Order?

Well, at least let the campus police have firearms! On many college campuses the police are fully certified officers but are unable to carry. Talk about dumb.

Banning guns is not a answer, as the cowardly killer will just find a different weapon to use; clubs and rocks go back a long ways! And yes, we do have the undeinable right to self-defense, yet!
Are we going to become a paranoid society of gun-toters? What? I walk out on my driveway to retrieve the newspaper and see my neighbor down the street. Will I smile, wave, and say good morning? Or will I rack the slide on my P88?
Guns on campus? I don't think so.
We must find a way to determine, before hand, someone who is going to murder, and remove them from society. But how in the world can we predeternine such people. Hospialize and lobotomize anyone exhibting an act of anger, or acting out of the norm? Is that someone who wears brown shoes after dark? Or look for predisposition to murder as an infant? An answer for the predispostion for murder/violence eludes me.

"This is the exact same arrogance that puts guns into the hands of madmen in the first place. So the answer to having guns easily available for any crazy person is to supply more guns into our society and make them even more available for people?!!"

No, not arrogance. One possible answer is to give people more freedom to defend themselves and their families from madmen. Is it really wise or fair policy to deprive all people of their liberties and rights -- specifically, the right to self-defense -- in an effort to prevent the harm done by a handful?

"So lets give them a gun so they can express their anger?"

No. Not anger. Defense.

"People who think we need more guns are just plain backwards. It is thoughts like these that have put more people in jail and killed more people than any terrorist could ever do."

If you read or re-read the comments here, you will find statistics about how citizens have defended themselves lawfully with firearms. Not angry people. Law-abiding people.

"BAN GUNS, NO SHOOTINGS. PERIOD."

Alas, it hasn't worked out that way in Great Britain, Australia and elsewhere. It might be true in China -- but the government there does a fair amount of shooting, come to think of it. I believe you would find that enforcing the sort of total ban you envision would require a massive expansion of state intrusion into people's private lives. Is that the sort of government you want? I sure wouldn't.

This is the exact same arrogance that puts guns into the hands of madmen in the first place. So the answer to having guns easily available for any crazy person is to supply more guns into our society and make them even more available for people?!! What kind of stupid logic is that? Normal "victims" become madmen every day with the click of a clock. So lets give them a gun so they can express their anger?? People who think we need more guns are just plain backwards. It is thoughts like these that have put more people in jail and killed more people than any terrorist could ever do. How can we expect to be a nation that leads a war on terror when we have destroyed more lives and terrorized more people within our own country than any foreign will ever do thanks to our lax gun control laws? Our nation is completely backwards and will not be a leader of anything with mindless thoughts like these. BAN GUNS, NO SHOOTINGS. PERIOD.

Concealed carry permit holders have a lower instance of being involved in a criminal shooting than the general population.

See http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Florida United States

homicide rate
-36% -0.4%

firearm homicide rate
-37% +15%

handgun homicide rate
-41% +24%

I'd say that is pretty clear evidence that concealed carry holders are a benefit for society. They are willing to subject themselves to extensive criminal background checks and training, and are less likely to be involved in a gun-related incident than than the average US citizen.

They should not be penalized because they don't want to play the victim.

I want you to imagine something for a few seconds, yes, you. Anyway, your back in / in college. Now, a drunken butthole you met at class earlier comes up to you and says something insulting about you. You two get in a fight. He pulls out a gun and shoots you in the face. If we give everyone guns, everyone will start to use them. Everyone using guns isn't so good for life expectancy. Just sayin....

I've also lived in high-crime urban areas.

In rural areas, the self-defense argument holds weight. It might be 20 minutes or more between police dispatch and arrival.

In urban areas, and college campuses, what does having more armed people do? When several people start shooting, what's clear is that nobody knows exactly who's the "bad guy." A bullet has no friends.

I say it again: It's insane as a policy to arm professors. Or airline pilots. Or high school teachers.

Defend your home, yes. But to have people walking around armed with concealed -- or openly holstered -- weapons in day-to-day life is an invitation for shoot-outs over increasingly trivial conflicts.

And to arm government employees whose mission is not law enforcement but to teach or heal or other public service is to define every corner of our public life by fear and death.

Like the end of "Witness," sometimes we just have to say "Enough!"

Crazy people will go berserk whatever the gun policy by government institutions, so in the end this whole poll question is a silly distraction that is exploiting the emotional reaction we all have to the Illinois shootings.

How do you deal with mad gunmen? That's a subject requiring a bit more thought and in-depth analysis than can be handled by reactionary polls like this one.

IMHO, of course....

Yeah, real smart, arm professors so we can have real gunfights on campuses!

Anyone who thinks that if Professor Witherspoon has a Glock tucked in his belt that is going to deter the inside suicidal punk from marauding around campus pursuing his death wish has another thing coming. Heck, that's just the thing to attract the crazed nut.

I believe in the Second Amendment, but think it's downright foolish to entertain turning college campuses into Wild West saloons as a matter of policy.

The results of this experiment are coming in, you say, but the number of gun deaths in the UK palls into insignificance as compared to the number in the US. Likewise in Holland, where I grew up, they have, as you state it, experimented with choice number 3, with far less gun crime resulting. It seems to me that you are placing your argument as a choice between absolutes, which obviously it isn't. By making it more difficult to acquire a gun, and thereby increasing the cost of guns, you disincent their profligate use. Admittedly dedicated nutters will be able to get their hands on guns, but the number of people killed by dedicated nutters is relatively small.

The dumbest coward can learn to pull a trigger, but it takes intelligience and moral capacity to know when not to pull a trigger.
The randomness of these violent and tragic deaths I blame on the 'cowardience of mind, and then I say to myself, "that is not a excuse".
For me, the question is how do you protect yourself, and your loved ones, from such random acts of fatal violence? It is not just guns either, fatal violence comes just as easily with knives, clubs, automobiles, and IEDs. So can we identifiy, and thus prevent, such violence prior to the tragedies?
More triggers is not the solution, but what?