Community | April 11, 2008 | Comment on this video (3)

Gun-free zones don't work. Let responsible people defend themselves.

raimius
"Gun-free zones" don't work. Look at VT and NIU. It was illegal to carry a gun there, but the criminals did anyway. Why?...because a person bent on stealing from, hurting, or killing another does not care if a sign says "No guns on school grounds." "Gun-free zones" only disarm law-abiding citizens. This means that ONLY the criminals will have guns. Why should we make rules that give murderers free reign until police can get there (which is usually several minutes to a half-hour).

Why should we stop law-abiding adults from carrying guns on campus? These people already safely carry in places like churches, movie theaters, supermarkets, and offices. There is no reason to think that they will suddenly change because they are standing on land owned by the school. These people are the ones we want to have guns! Statistically, they commit fewer crimes than police officers, and should they need to defend themselves, miss less often than the police! These are people who want to protect themselves, and in doing so, would protect those around them.

  1. groups:
  2. tags:
    Firearms,  CRITICAL MASS Journalism Project: Guns on Campus,  Campus Shootings,  Guns on Campus
  3.     
    |
    Embed video:
    |

3 comments // Gun-free zones don't work. Let responsible people defend themselves. // Video

  • raimius
    • 0
      raimius  

    • Why do we allow the criminals to have the advantage over the victims? This is the effect of so called "gun-free zones." "Victim disarmament" or "Resistance free zone" is more appropriate. No one at VT or NIU had the best tool available to stop from being injured or murdered by someone who did have such a tool.

      We are limiting the law-abiding, responsible, licensed people from protecting themselves...yet the law does not stop criminals. They use whatever means they want. This is insanity.

      Frankly, I am pissed that law makers in my homestate determined that no one but the police, their body guards, and themselves are capable of safely using a device with as few as 2 controls...and that such a decision leaves innocent people unable to effectively protect themselves.

      If you have any specific arguments besides "inanimate objects (guns) are evil," please let me know.

    • 4 years ago
  • dustinsgunblog
  • blackfork
from the community

top videos