http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html
This is a link about why I feel the need to carry a firearm on campus.
While it is sad that people have died at school, the percentage that have died or been injured is extremely low when compared to the number in school.
As of October 2005 there were 75,780,000 people enrolled in schools in the United States alone, according to the list there were roughly 295 people injured or killed. This number includes the killers, teachers, police, others not directly related, and people from other countries (remember my numbers included
ONLY students in the united states, yet I included teachers and people in other countries in the number of people injured and killed). Take a look at the following percentage:
.00000892295 that number represents the percentage of people that were injured/killed in 11 years of school attacks. I think your arguement is flawed. There is no over whelming threat to your safety and security that would require you to carry a gun on school grounds.
Lets throw in a few more numbers. The information I used above was the number of shootings over 11 years compared against enrollment of one year. Lets make the number a little more realistic. I will take that enrollment number and multiple it by 5 to get a better idea of how many students there were. I used 5 because I was unsure of enrollment numbers each year and I am still be extremely conservative (plus the percentage is getting extremely low).. so that would put us at 378,900,000 students in the United States over the 11 year span that would equal out to
.0000007785 percent chance that you will get shot at school.
I would argue you are pretty safe.
My source for number enrolled
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2005/tab01-01.xlsAnd just because you have a gun does not mean that you can stop a killer from coming and attacking others. I have heard of studies that say those with guns can cause more damage. I believe we have police to protect the security of others not some random people that think its necessary to carry a gun for some odd reason.
Also I believe it is the people that are bringing the guns to school that are the ones that are killing people. I forgot that you all have a perfect shot, were expert negotiators, were trained in matters like this, will some how be able to over power the gun man, and that it was you that were suppose to replace the police.
Dear God
Because if someone brings a cigarette to campus and starts blowing smoke in everyone’s face, no one goes to the morgue. A gun on the other hand.... Also I have yet to see the section in the constitution that deals with smoker’s rights.
No one goes to the morgue, what have you been smoking?
- There are over 4000 chemical compounds in secondhand smoke; 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and upwards of 60 have been identified as carcinogens.
- Lung cancer - 3000 nonsmokers die every year from lung cancer caused by ETS (second hand smoke)
- Heart disease mortality - an estimated 35,000 to 62,000 deaths are caused from heart disease in people who are not current smokers, but who are exposed to ETS
info from
http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondhandsmoke/a/secondhandsmoke.htmNo one goes to the morgue, that sure is funny. If I were you I would be a lot more concerned about second hand smoke the someone coming to school and killing you with a gun.
Its not in the constitution because smoking was not a medium used to defend the nation during that time.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Nowhere in that statement does is specify only when the country is new. However it does say that bearing arms is necessary to the security of a free state, which is what we have, until we strip ourselves of the ability to protect it. A citizen, who buys a gun, goes through the required training, has a background check, and accepts a new, larger set of laws, is a regulated person eligible for a militia. They are also known as people with conceal carry permits.
Are you serious? Because I am sure it was on the minds of those that wrote the constitution (and amendments) that they would need to some how predict the future. The constitution was written shortly after we declared our independence from another nation, a time when we needed people with arms to protect against oppressors. The militia was in place to protect against aggression, if I am not mistaken we have a military for that purpose. The constitution was written in a time where the rights to carry guns (by normal citizens) was required to ensure our nation remained free and secure. I am not against supposed rights, I am saying there needs to be limits.
I am sure everyone that has a gun has gone through all of that extensive training on how to use a gun. They are trained to have a perfect shot, be expert negotiators, trained in matters to stop those on a shooting rampage, and are suppose to replace the police and military?
:BangHead:
You are eligible for a militia? I believe based on the definition of militia, the national guard would serve as this role, not some random person with a gun (though anyone could serve in that role if it came down to it). You like your guns so much, feel free to help us all out by stopping oppression overseas.
Wolves like Cho Seung-Hui prey on sheep, people who choose to believe that a school is a sanctuary of learning where nothing bad ever happens. Personally, I would rather carry a gun, so when the wolf comes for me at least I can have a shot at stopping him.
Or is it the wolves that bring the guns to schools? I never said nothing bad happens; it is much worse in other places then school areas, why dont you do a patrol for us up and down the streets?
Because you have a gun in a classroom means that you are going to be able to stop someone that is shooting people on the other side of campus? Can we say Police?
Changing times? Give me a day when no one is murdered or threatened by another, and then the guns can be left at home.
I believe a large portion of killing going on in the world is done by those with guns. We train police to protect people, not citizens wielding guns.
Why don't we just amend out the First Amendment- or hell let's just throw all 10 under revision since we really are in "different" times.
If you want to do either of those you will need to talk to bush.
You argument is flawed and makes little sense. I stated before that the second amendment was meant to protect the nation right after we became free, when there was a possible threat that the citizens of the nation.
Be sure to read the post below
The First ten amendments are not to be trifled with.
Of course the others are not important. I am sure the population that is not white males would love to argue with you on this one.