In strict gun control Japan man kills 7 with knife, truck

Yeah but in Cho's case, it's like a mentally deranged mother who feeds her baby to death because she fears him/her starving. Certainly isn't mainstream. And if other students or staff had a handgun at hand at the time, his rampage very well could have been cut short.
So in that one in a million shot at meeting a bad guy, no one had a gun except the perpetrator. So it's not a good example. In these cases, I'm sure that no social skill would ever save my ass.
Better for self defense than a handgun is usually common sense.

I guess on private property you can have a gun restriction. i.e. "No handguns in our restaurant please." It's like asking that you don't bring your dog and asking people not to smoke in their facility. If the gun owner doesn't like the rule, they can go to another restaurant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is Cho thought he was normal. In his mind he was right and society was wrong and he was just protecting himself. Thats why the "for protection" doesn't work, because anybody can claim owning a gun is for defense, even criminals and the mentally ill.

Secondly I don't accept the argument that arming the student body would have solved the situation. It *might* (not a certainty) have stopped Cho, but the number of shooting incidents on campus would skyrocket. Remember this was a single incident out of the thousands of normal school days each year. Its simple math, Whenever you add more guns in a certain area, the more gun related incidents will be rise proportionally. And besides, Campus police DID have guns.

People always thinks that murder is done by "bad guys" i.e criminals or the mentally ill. But a lot of shootings are done by normal people who simply snap in a moment of anger. Roadrage, work issues, domestic disputes, people having bad days, etc. And while no background check is going to stop this you can limit the damage they can cause.

Thats why *certain* areas need to be off limits. Particularly places of very high stress (work, school, big cities), places where alcohol is served (bars resterants), places where guns can cause catastrophic loss (airplanes, Power plants, anything that doesn't react well to bullets).

Some of these are no-brainers, and yet the NRA is deadset opposed and frankly it hurts their cause because they come across as gun-obsessed nuts. There HAVE to be some ground rules.

I like to shoot. Someday, I will move back to the USA (I'm homesick), I think I will buy a M1 carbine for the country, but I know that rifle does bear responsibility. I know I don't need it with me when I go to the office, not in my line of work in any event.
 
I don't think it should be a law, but on private property, I guess there should be no law forcing someone to allow or ban guns.
What if you live in the city but you like to drive out to the country to shoot?
Most crazy people think they're normal. If they knew they were crazy, they wouldn't be crazy at all would they?
As for places like college campuses, what they may have to include is not just a fire alarm but a crisis alarm. In the event of a shooting, hearing gunfire, smelling something extremely suspect like a chemical spill etc., the school's security monitors will be alerted towards that area and a response team should be on site ASAP. I believe you do have a point about having more gun related problems if there are more guns available. However, the counter argument I have is that if people are adequately armed, it would be like how countries that had nuclear weapons never really have gone to war with one another. It would be a stalemate. The instant someone pulls a gun and tries something, he'd have guns pointed at him within seconds. The PROBLEM is that a panicked person with a pistol may pull his gun in self defense and then start popping everyone in sight who's got a weapon drawn. I guess a faster responding security is a better idea.
Guns for self protection at home is one I don't think requires too much debate, however. There is simply no way the police can respond in time and of if you're real unlucky the perpetrator may cut your phone line and your cell phone could be down stairs.
Like I said, I think more discretion would be better instead of passing yet another law that will confuse the heck out of people.
 
Back
Top