<p>Legally, it is not too difficult to restrict where/when people protest, as long as it is applied to all protests. For example, St. Charles, the city where one of the funerals was, limited protestors from being within 200ft. of the funeral. They also happened to park some large snowplows in that 200ft to prevent altercations between the mourners and protestors. I'm rather thankful that they did that (both the law and the trucks). We were still rather angry at the protestors, but it was much easier to ignore them and get on with the service.</p>
<p>a bit too SOON>? when then? how many in a row do we need before there is true debate? how close do they need to be together? how many innocent people need to be slaughtered by weapons you can buy over the internet or at shows?</p>
<p>how many signals are missed because we don't want to talk about it></p>
<p>each and every one of these shooters gave out some sort of signals...they bought guns, they said goodbyes, they harrassed people before....</p>
<p>people have very short attention spans, so when the event is current, that is when you can get attention</p>
<p>and if someone goes off their meds, well.....that can cause serious fluctuations in chemicals in the body...and to not think about that is dangerous for those around the med taker...and if I was the Gf, I might say I didn't notice anything either, even if I had...I am not in any way blaming the gf....</p>
<p>and how does someone on serious meds get a gun anyway?</p>
<p>citygirlsmom wrote:</p>
<p>"and how does someone on serious meds get a gun anyway?"</p>
<p>That's the million dollar question here.</p>
<p>So I just heard about the stuff over at that NJ college (:.
Why is there so much violence over in campuses these days?
Maybe I think many people these days don't seem to understand the basic ethics of right and wrong (I say people tht means adults as well as kids)
Maybe there should be a compulsory class introducing these basic principles in schools or colleges.</p>
<p>^ Too few mental institutions! Too many drugs, illegal or not, available, lack of family basic values, a violent pseudo-culture, lack of gun control, extreme stress due to over work and over everything, lax security and wrong attitudes towards safety on campuses (including mid-high schools), etc.
Add your own...</p>
<p>Fine, the funeral happened. I'm willing to discuss it now. What restrictions should we place on gun ownership that will prevent/stop these crimes but still allow civil rights? I hope you are not contemplating one of the over 22,000 current gun laws that don't work (see the study by the National Academy of the Sciences).</p>
<p>Illinois has some of the harshest gun-control laws in the nation, yet Chicago is still a leading city in murder numbers. The NIU shooter broke MANY gun laws...yet they didn't stop him. Criminals break gun laws...</p>
<p>I doubt that gun-control will suddenly start working. I propose that people who want to carry for protection have that option. Addressing a criminal on near-even terms is better than being at a significant disadvantage (the current situation in Illinois, for example). In this case, I would much have prefered if the students had more than books, backpacks, and cell phones to resist with. This is part of the reason why SCCC exists (SCCC--students who are already licenced to carry, and want that right extended to college campuses). </p>
<p>Since 80% of gun crimes are commited with illegally possessed weapons, restricting those who possess them legally (and who, by the VAST majority will never commit a gun crime) doesn't make sense to me. Guns are used to stop an estimated 700,000-2,500,000 crimes per year. Guns are used to commit just over 600,000 crimes per year. Restricting those who will actually follow gun-laws will reduce the defensive uses without significantly addressing the criminal users. EVEN IF you restrict all guns, you would see an increase in successful crimes (based on the above numbers).</p>
<p>If I thought more gun-control would save lives, I would support it. Gun control has failed and is failing. You only need to look at Chicago and DC for some extreme examples. </p>
<p>I support things like instant background checks. If someone has forfeited the right to arms due to their actions, I don't want them to have them. I do not like blanket restrictions. First, they don't reduce crime. Second, they restrict law-abiding citizens. I don't like group punishment for individual acts...especially at the federal level.</p>
<hr>
<p>I don't think the solution is centered on guns. People are the ones killing each other. Knives, swords, guns, cars, bombs, etc. are all used by murderers. They are the tools--the means...what about the motives? People are murdering each other...that is the root of the problem.</p>
<p>^^ Well said! I totally agree. I would never give up my gun. It took a lot of work to get my gun permit. Classes, physical, background checks and a lot of signatures. The criminals will always be able to get the weapons. Illegally!! I would never leave home without mine. If your wondering: I'm in California.</p>
<p>I'm surprised, actually. California is generally very anti-gun...and very anti-carry.</p>
<p>Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states that ban concealed carry (with the exception of law enforcement and politicians). I find it rather ironic that politicians who argue against gun rights often insist that they be allowed to carry. I guess they see themselves as smarter and more responsible than us, and thus recieve extra rights.</p>
<p>^^Cheers to UTAH!!! Darn, my son should've applied to some schools there. I definitely would have encouraged him to carry a gun so I could have peace of mind. In case your wondering: I'm a mother.</p>
<p>And when the urge to kill somebody arises, you wouldn't even have to plan it too much, just go to class and when the teacher is not paying attention, start shooting! Right?
Or during a class break, why not shooting some cans in the backyard!? For training purposes of course. I'm sure a lot of students would love it!
Forget about those star ball players, how about the "best shooter on campus" title!?</p>
<p>Of course, rovision, that was very nice hyperbole and some great scare tactics.</p>
<p>Look at the crime rates for CCW holders. They are significantly LESS than the general population. They have a crime rate (including misdemeanors) of approximately 0.1%. I have not confirmed it, but I think that makes them "safer" than groups like police officers and priests. </p>
<p>How often do you get the "urge to kill?" Have you ever actually tried to murder someone? Do you think the enormous majority of CCW holders can muster the same responsiblity that you (I'm assuming), I, and the vast majority of the public have? Statistics point to a "yes" for that answer.</p>