02-28-2011, 08:56 AM
Supporters of the legislation argue that gun violence on campuses, such as the mass shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Northern Illinois in 2008, show that the best defense against a gunman is students who can shoot back.
I would agree that a sane person would not go on a shooting rampage if they knew they may likely face an armed opposition.
Now we can forget that argument, because sane people don't typically go on shooting rampages. They either plan to get shot by the police or eat the barrel if they get trapped.
After the shootings on the VT campus, the usual arguments were given that armed students would have prevented the tragedy. My counter argument was that it would be more likely for untrained students to shoot each other.
Fast-forward to the Giffords shooting in AZ. read this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/
So, you hear shots and you have a gun. You arrive at a scene and see someone holding a gun (a civilian). You have no experience or training. What do you do?
I would agree that a sane person would not go on a shooting rampage if they knew they may likely face an armed opposition.
Now we can forget that argument, because sane people don't typically go on shooting rampages. They either plan to get shot by the police or eat the barrel if they get trapped.
After the shootings on the VT campus, the usual arguments were given that armed students would have prevented the tragedy. My counter argument was that it would be more likely for untrained students to shoot each other.
Fast-forward to the Giffords shooting in AZ. read this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/
So, you hear shots and you have a gun. You arrive at a scene and see someone holding a gun (a civilian). You have no experience or training. What do you do?