My Views on HB1086
As many of you know from either talking to me or reading my past blogs, I am a big time proponent of gun control. But this bill has nothing to do with that type of gun control at all. This bill has to do with protecting college students from being killed. It is ridiculous to think that with the way right to carry laws are set up, if a Virginia Tech style shooting were to happen here it could be carried out legally, with a legal gun and a legal right to carry on campus. That is absurd. There is NO reason for anyone to have a gun on a college campus. College is supposed to be a place where you feel safe and further your education, not to live in fear everyday. To prevent further tragedies I feel this bill must be passed and STRICTLY enforced throughout the state. Just keep this in mind, could the Virginia Tech massacre have happened if he had no guns?
With all due respect, Bill, this is asinine.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that a law like HB1086 would end school shootings! Hell, you can't even tell me that it would make ANYONE safer. It won't.
You can't say that a would-be shooter would say "woops, I can't have a gun on campus, I guess I won't shoot up the school." It's a simple example, but that's the exact point you're making in this post.
This bill WILL NOT prevent any tragedies. It WILL NOT stop determined shooters from bringing guns on campus. What do you plan to do, Bill, put a fence around campus with metal detectors at the checkpoints? Be realistic.
The government needs to GET OUT of our lives and let the individual schools make up their own minds with regard to firearms on their campuses.
You think that you've got all the answers- that you can tell these gun owners their business. That is a typically liberal mindset that just doesn't mix with freedom.
Posted by Matt Hittle on January 19, 2008 at 04:43 PM CST #
Actually Matt, it can save lives. If you see someone now with a handgun you can't report them because they have a right to carry on campus and can go on their merry way. If this was put in place even the suspicion of a gun could cause alarm and therefore the would be killer's plan could be thwarted. Answer one question, why do you need a gun on a college campus? Should we then allow them in airports, sports stadiums, concerts, presidential speeches, going by your logic to protect freedoms guns should be allowed at everything. Your blatant disregard of safety makes me sick to my stomach,
Posted by Bill Muller on January 19, 2008 at 05:39 PM CST #
First of all, it is not legal-under university policy-to have a gun on campus. This is how it should stay. The Class 1 misdemeanor charge imposed on violators of HB1086 will NOT keep someone from shooting up a school, and it's extremely ignorant and naive to think so.
Second, the suspicion of a gun? Bill, it's 0 degrees outside! Do you think that we'd be able to tell under layers of coats? You're daft if you think that is a viable argument.
Third, why do we need a gun on campus? Who knows?! Do you need a TV? No. Do you need a toaster? No. Do you need your USD degree? No. We engage in activities we like because we assign a certain amount of value or derive pleasure from what we do. If a responsible adult who meets the state's requirements wants to have a gun in a shoulder holster while sitting next to me in English, I'm fine with it. It's his right. Likewise, it's my right NOT to own one.
Your blatant disregard of freedom makes me sick. You take away choice of health care, you take away choice of retirement savings accounts, and now you're taking away our choice in defense.
Disgusting.
Posted by Matt Hittle on January 19, 2008 at 07:15 PM CST #
Don't tell us about taking away choice.
Also, if someone sat next to me in English with a gun in a holster, I would not stay in that class long. Guns cannot be compared to a TV, toaster, or a degree because when you use them, you are not killing or physically hurting someone (if you are useing them correctly), but by its nature, a gun is meant to inflict physical harm on another person. It is a weapon and not necessary in any classroom.
Posted by greatbrittany on January 19, 2008 at 09:48 PM CST #
Well, then, let's try THIS on for size-
What if someone wanted to take your car?
Cars can be used both for good and for bad, just like a gun. Do you want to take peoples' cars away because they could POTENTIALLY hurt someone? What about their kitchen knives? What about their pocket knives? What about the sharp tips of pens? What about fists? Should we make everyone wear boxing gloves? Simply, Brittany, where do we draw the line? Your logic is warped at best.
Yes, a gun is meant to inflict harm. However, the state's method of issuing permits for concealed guns is the way we weed out those who would use guns for nefarious purposes. Do you trust that system? If not, why don't we crusade to make that safer, rather than infringing on others' rights?
Posted by Matt Hittle on January 19, 2008 at 11:28 PM CST #
Oh, how to commment and where to start--
A car, a kitchen knife, a picket knife, pens and fists are not intended to inflict harm. Of course they do and that is unfortunate--that's why we have laws restricting the age of drivers. That's why people who engage in fights usually have some repercussion (at schools and such).
The point of the law is to make campuses safe just like similar laws make courthouses and k-12 schools safe.
Posted by greatbrittany on January 20, 2008 at 12:37 AM CST #
Seriously Matt, did you compare guns to toasters and tvs? That,to quote you, with all due respect, is asinine.
Posted by Bill Muller on January 20, 2008 at 03:00 AM CST #
I may asinine, but you two hold the prize for inanity.
Try this-
Is a gun REALLY intended to inflict harm? I had this discussion with a friend last night. He shoots skeet but does not hunt. He uses his gun for target shooting purposes ONLY. He does not like to hunt. He told me that he doesn't use his gun for harmful purposes, unless you count the inanimate targets he's using.
What you are doing is laying a blanket over every gun owner, stating that they INTEND to use their guns for nefarious purposes. Those who conceal their guns MAY have INTENTIONS other than just skeet shooting. That doesn't matter. What you are trying to do is assign them their intentions- like the thought police.
Do you know what people are thinking, Brittany? Like Mel Gibson? Maybe you'd title that "What Gun Owners Want" instead of "What Women Want?"
Next, are k-12 schools really that safe? How many k-12 shootings have there been in recent years, compared to university shootings? There have been several more.
Finally, anyone who thinks that a Class 1 misdemeanor will deter any shooter is deluding themselves. A determined shooter will not care.
Posted by Matt Hittle on January 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM CST #
Guns are meant for destruction Matt. The your friend who shoots skeet, is sport, but also destruction. No matter what a gun is aimed at, the result is destruction. So yes, guns are intended to inflict harm.
Posted by Bill Muller on January 20, 2008 at 12:33 PM CST #
Is destruction harm, Bill? No.
Are you causing harm when you bulldoze a building to make room for newer buildings? No.
Destruction is not necessarily harm. The intent to cause harm cannot be shoved on all owners of weapons. That logic is irrational in unfair.
Posted by Matt Hittle on January 20, 2008 at 01:12 PM CST #
Now, what I find interesting is that no one does their homework, they just conjecture wildly. The simplest version of the truth is, when people carry guns legally, bad guys are less likely to randomly shoot, because someone might shoot back. Read this, one of many true stories (no guns in English class here, just some dead people in a restaurant) http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm
And if you still don't want to do homework, Penn and Teller are willing to do it for you. I highly recommend watching the episode of Bullshit! about gun control. It's in season three.
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Penn_Teller_Bullsh_t_Season_3/70037521?trkid=174833
Posted by Abby on January 24, 2008 at 10:24 PM CST #