And who can blame them? With the recent Virginia Tech shootings and other problems that college students face, if they are legally able to carry a weapon, they should be able to do so.
Of course, there are people who want to twist the truth for their own personal agenda:
"I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," said Massengill, a former head of the Virginia state police. "But our society has changed, and there are some environments where common sense tells us that it's just not a good idea to have guns available."
His view is echoed by Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who says campus safety concerns cannot be addressed by adding more guns to campuses.
"If there's more we need to do, we certainly need to do that, but introducing random access to firearms is not the solution," said Hamm. "You have more victims, not fewer victims."
They aren't serving alcohol on college campus' like they do in a bar, they are a federal building with judges and other workers, so there should be no reason why someone should be able to carry a weapon.
And the comments from Peter Hamm borders on the retarded. "Random access to firearms"?, that's not what the students or myself are talking about. We're not talking about putting a gun next to a fire extinguisher in the hallways. We're talking about students and staff members who are LEGALLY ABLE TO CARRY A WEAPON, should be able to do so.
It's very difficult for me to believe, and common sense backs me on this, that when a school shooting is happening, if a legally armed student is near the shooting, that they can bring the rampage to an end before more people needlessly die.
Candace Soya, a 20-year-old student at TSU-San Marcos, said she fears chaotic shootouts. If someone decided to open fire on the tree-lined quad in the middle of her campus, armed students would likely make matters worse, she said.
"It's not a situation where you can fight fire with fire," Soya said.
Really? Roy Balentine, Tracy Bridges, and Michael Gross would like to beg to differ.
All three were involved in two separate school shootings, all three were armed and all three stopped the shooters from killing innocent people.
Perhaps Candace is the type to run when gunfire erupts, which is fine. However, when someone who doesn't run from danger and puts their lives on the line to end the terror, you can't say that your reaction should dictate how others should react.
Campuses in higher-crime urban neighborhoods also pose risks for students, said Michael Flitcraft, a 23-year-old mechanical engineering student at the University of Cincinnati.
He argues, like most gun rights advocates, that weapons-free regulations only deter law-abiding students, not thugs or mentally ill shooters.
"Laws only affect the people who voluntarily abide by them," Flitcraft said.
Exactly. Even Virginia Tech killer Cho had followed the law to the letter when he bought the guns, but then turned around and went on campus, against the rules, and killed 30+ people. So when criminals don't abide by the law, then why not allow the first line of defense in such a situation the ability to carry a weapon if they are legally able to do so?
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment