« gammerus : That isn't a bad idea considering how many shootings we have had recently. I am not big on guns, but I do believe people would be less likely to go on a shooting spree if they knew other people in the building had guns too.

Edit: you beat me to it HMTKSteve

« HMTKSteve : If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

It's kind of like the old saying, "a lock only keeps an honest man honest." If a criminal knows the populace is unarmed he will be more likely to commit a crime than if he thinks the people are armed.

« dollyllama : Hmm, except for the people who keep "snapping" like the latest guy in the NIU case. He legally purchased his guns and I doubt he cared whether anyone else had a gun. These instances are becoming more popular as a way to gain notariety. I think it's a really bad idea. Especially since most rapes don't happen to "families camping in National Parks". I mean that's just grasping at straws.

« ArchAngel : There was a case of a shooting at a university I believe.

Gunman came in. No deaths. Minor casualties. He was stopped by two students with guns.

Not saying that a fully armed society is a perfectly safe society, but the ability to defend oneself does have to play in the role.

The police aren't personal bodyguards and most of the time, they'll show up after everything's done. Doesn't really help the murder victim.

« dollyllama : A fully armed society is the furthest thing from a safe society. Think about the number of people on prozac or xanax or lithium.

To think putting a gun in most people's hands will make us safer is foolhardy. Go look at the gun law/gun death map I posted, the lower the gun laws, the higher the gun possession, almost without fail equals the higher instances of death by gun. Hardly coincidence.

« 1thirteen3 : Here's something to think about.

Earlier this year, in Colorado (actually in December) there was a shooting at a church in Denver. Another church (in Colorado Springs) heard the news and brought in a security guard armed with a gun.

After church ended, a gunman came in and started shooting people in the church. The security guard shot down the man almost immediately.

Had the security guard not been allowed a gun, the church would have had many, many deaths. Thankfully it was limited to 5.

If a gunman is not going to obey the law to not murder, what makes anyone think that he's going to obey the law to not have a gun?

« gammerus : Linky please.

« Matoogs : To think people who go on shooting sprees would have any respect for a non-actively enforced law is just naive.

And there's just no historical precedence for people who normally carry concealed weapons "snapping" and going on shooting sprees. Nearly all killing sprees involve a person buying/carrying weapons specifically because they were planning on murder. Don't believe me? Check for yourself. Think how many of those could have been prevented if the victims were armed.

« dollyllama : Um, you're linking to a pro-gun website. How can I trust that? Link to something non-bias and we'll talk.

« dollyllama : Maybe it was the merchandise:

Not a pop up, this is directly related to the site; the same site that claims "This is not a society for Spree Killings"

Uh, I call BULLs**t.

« Matoogs : It's obviously just stupid teenagers doing stuff for shock value. I see no bias that would skew the statistics to be pro-gun.

I gave you legitimate sources, now how about you look them over and address the point I raised in my original post?

« dollyllama : They aren't legitimate. Teens posting a site with made up stats. Prove the stats. I gave a link to my sources, they're verified.