Gun Control Forum on Facebook Gun Control Forum on Google Plus Gun Control Forum on Twitter

Greetings Gun Control Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

Popular Gun Control Forum Categories

In this Discussion

The Second Amendment on School Campuses

edited December 2015 in Gun Law Facts Posts: 4


           After
all that has happened in the this country over the past few years the issue of
gun control has become more prevalent than ever in our nation. The debate over
whether or not the people of this nation have the right to own and bear arms is
spreading across the nation. This right has been given to its people by the
founders of our great nation through the Second Amendment “A well regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bare Arms shall not be infringed” (Constitution of the
United States). This right is being attacked all throughout the nation and
especially on our schools campuses where the people need the right to defend
themselves just as much as anywhere.



            Our school campuses in this nation
have typically been gun free zones. Anybody who isn’t specifically governed by
the US Government to carry a firearm has been allowed to. This means those who have
legally achieved concealed and carry permits, and those who legally own
firearms aren’t even allowed to possess these weapons through the buildings and
facilities of the campuses (Bouffard). Throughout the history of this nation
and especially in the past decade there has problem with shooting on school
campuses. Whether it be the Viginia Tech massacre in which 32 were killed and
17 more injured, or the more recent Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in
which 26 died, including children (Bennett, Kraft, Grubb). These gun free zones
created huge targets for these murderers who committed crimes. Seung-Hui Cho
was even known to have targeted Virginia Tech as opposed to any other location
because he knew that it was a gun free campus. He knew the police response
wouldn’t be quick enough to stop him in time (Bennett, Kraft, Grubb). He knew
that the people there were disarmed of their Second Amendment right and nobody
could stop him before he had the time to do what he wanted.



This is why I argue that our nation needs to change.
These gun free zones on college campus are hurting its people and leaving us
vulnerable to more and more attacks just like this. Many anti-gun supporters
argue against the saying “more guns means more crime”, but this has no factual background
(Birnbaum). Studies on trends in number of guns in circulation verses the total
violent crime rates actually contradict this argument (Bouffard). Schools all
across the nation have started to see the need for change. There have been
grade schools arming select teachers, and colleges such as the Universtiy of
Utah have gone as far as to lift the ban on firearms and have allowed guns to
be carried all throughout campuses legally with great results so far at these
locations (Bouffard). So, why should we continue to keep guns out of the hands
of those who need the right to defend themselves? School campuses are a
dangerous place and the people of this nation have to right to defend
themselves if they choose.



Comments

  • I agree.  I think it should only be the students who don't carry firearms.  With the exception of college students. 
    Mitchewj
    Thanked by 1Mitchewj
  • Thanks TommiGunn31! I feel that our schools are being targeted because of the lack on guns present on campuses. They are pegged as easy targets to those who want to commit these heinous crimes. I would create a huge deterrent for those considering committing violent crimes and leave our nations student much safer. For college students if they have been licensed to conceal and carry a firearm then I say that too would be a major deterrent to crime. I am currently a college student and I have heard stories and talked to people who have been mugged and every time it involved somebody with an illegal weapon or several people on one, and for somebody to legally posses a firearm this could have been prevented.
    TommiGunn31
  • Posts: 234
    I agree our schools  and kids need to be protected and should be the concern of all,it takes more then a stupid sign to change anything,if you want a sign,have it say our kids will be protected and will be enforced.Then educated and train certain personnel to conceal carry.I believe we owe it to our kids to protect them and those who don't I just don't understand.If you want a place to start understanding why mass shootings are getting worse,the signs and attitude behind them would be a good place to start.Then start with the type of people doing these things,surely not the gun,it is only as bad or good as the user.
  • rbower80 thanks for your input. You bring up a good point about the signs. Anybody convinced on breaking the law is not going to listen to a "gun-free zone" sign, especially when most school campuses have nobody to enforce it. To have faculty and staff trained and licensed to carry firearms then that would offer a huge deterrent and in the event of an incident offer enhanced response time and potentially save many lives. Our nation needs to rethink its views on guns in school greatly.
  • Posts: 234
    I think if they would seriously look at where and why these kind of places have been targeted,and wouldn't be afraid to admit they were wrong,they would see it is because they have left these places unprotected and there is no deterrent for it not to be targeted.It is like leaving your business open with no one there and wonder why it is being robbed all the time,you make it easy for them and they will take advantage of it.If you take any mentally ill person their thinking is not rational anyway,just like a criminal,but it doesn't take a genius to figure out where to carry out there ill will intent,whether a unprotected area or a protected one.
  • I believe gun free school zones were enacted to give us a sense of security in sending our children off to school. And to give the police the ability to this enforce this gun law within a certain distance of the school. I would not like to send my child to a school that allowed open carry on its grounds. Have you seen the underpaid security that most schools have budgeted? I, let alone a healthy 18 year old, could take them and their weapon. Practical thinking about gun controls does not allow for more guns within school zones. It actually should budget for metal detectors and police and bag checks and more environmental protection for our children. School is hard enough without the added stress of open carry within the grounds. I understand the "leave your door open to violence and you'll receive violence" thought but I disagree with armed campuses. There is just too little ability to police it.
  • CherylTorrie you bring up a good point that many schools lack security guards that are well prepared for situations. This is a totally different issue on the effects of security guards in schools. I would suggest you do some research on the topic if you feel so strongly on the topic. Here is a good place to start below. While it is true that our schools need more security and that things such as medal detectors and bag checks would add a lot of security then school almost becomes a prison. There seems to be no trust given to the students. Not only that but the cost to intact that would be well beyond anything our government is willing to pay. I simply propose that a few staff on school campuses be trained properly and have possession of a firearm just incase of an emergency. These aren't designated security guards, but staff members specifically trained to protect students in the event of an emergency. This simple idea that there are none public armed staff would both deter violence and not scare our students. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/21/security-guards-in-school-scared-students-unclear-effect-on-crime/
    Thanked by 1CherylTorrie
  • I think it was a sad day when schools became the target for gunmen. It's really tragic when you're passing through the gates of a high school you have to see all this beefed up security as if your entering a fort. The walls surrounding schools have gone much higher and there are signs everywhere on the compound of possible risks if a child is just having lunch on the lawn outside. The real  issue is that the gunmen are not strangers with grouses who need to sneak into the campus. The gunmen are the trusted peers of the innocent victims being shield in the first place. At 15 and 16 years old there is utter disregard for life, and while all life is important, it speaks a lot to the mental status of these killers as they easily pull the trigger on someone they may have known for a long time from their school. These are not strangers kiling strangers.
    Thanked by 1CherylTorrie
  • Posts: 234
    I agree,to special train some of the staff not the students,they are there to learn and shouldn't have to worry about defending themselves at school,but at the same time they should feel that someone is protecting them while they are there so they can concentrate on their studies.Giving them false security is the same as lying to them and that is what them signs have proved to be.Have anyone bothered to ask the kids if they feel safe or not and not just some hand picked ones,I mean a honest survey.Whether it is done by a stranger or a friend or neighbor or family member protection needs to be there.If it is not this will keep getting worse until something logical is done.I don't mean more worthless signs or nonsense laws and restrictions,I mean something seriously addressing the real problem,and that is the people who do these tragic things.
  • You bring up a good point rbower80. What do the children think about safety and security? I know when my son was in school they had just started bag checks and locked doors. I'm not sure if he and I ever discussed if he felt safe at school. He had a hard time with learning so he really didn't enjoy going but he had a lot of really great friends so I imagine he did feel safe. The area that he went to school in was pretty much violent crime free and it was a different time. Perhaps we should allow children to speak up. Especially in the areas where there has been gun violence at schools. I will mention this to a teacher friend of mind and see if she knows of any studies already done.
  • rbower, while I agree that gun-free zone signs are basically just saying, "Shoot Here First", I think the real problem is lack of accountability and restrictions on punishment.  I don't think you should be able to beat your kids, but most parents have given up with all the restrictions.  They are afraid to punish their children, because if they punish "incorrectly", their kids may be taken away.  As a result, people grow up without a sense of right and wrong.  They end up learning from other sources, who may not always be right.  My mother didn't hit us; she made us sit in time-out.  I know many people are shaking their heads.  My mother put a twist on it.  We had to sit the whole 10 minutes or it started all over again.  This made us realize their are consequences for our actions.  We were also not allowed to get up until we told her WHY it was wrong.  This gave us a sense of responsibility and empathy.  Empathy, because we had to think of how we hurt others.
  • Posts: 234
    There are many kids that just laugh at a punishment like that nowadays.I do agree the kids are not being taught what they should be at home and school nowadays, but society holds a lot of the blame for this.I realize what thinking was behind the signs, but it wasn't realistic thinking though it was wishful thinking.I also believe that all the negativity breeds negativity about guns,I mean when all you do is tell kids that guns are only  for killing, what do you think there first choice will be when they decide to kill,they learn from what they are taught.
  • We didn't laugh because we knew if we didn't take this punishment, there were harsher ones to come.  She didn't like hitting children, but she would if she had no other recourse.  She never had to.  Also, a lot of kids that laugh at this kind of discipline never got any discipline before that.  I get it because it's hard for a parent to know what you are and aren't allowed to do to punish. I have no idea where to find out what kind of punishment is legal and what could get my child taken away.  It's a terrifying feeling.  You want your kids to feel complete and loved, but you also don't want them to be brats.  I don't think that "gun-free zone" signs are wishful thinking as much as half-baked plans. 
  • Posts: 234
    Some may not laugh but many would today there are a lot of problem kids today.When I grew up I got spanked and when I did I knew I had it coming and deserved it.I never thought once my mother was abusing me or even being mean in any way,in fact you might think I'm crazy but when I grew up I told my mother she should have whooped me more maybe I wouldn't have done some of the stupid things I did from 16 to 18.Then society got confused between punishment and abuse and made it all out to be abuse and now look at the troubled kids we have nowadays.I mean look most consider a 18 year old to immature for many things that would have been normal routine in my day.Then for these signs it is just more false security claims they try and make nowadays instead of owning up to real security for the students and public.Life is real and we need to treat it that way.
  • I'm not sure this is entirely the case, at least in my opinion. I feel like they are targeted because of all the innocence, just students going to school. When you think about it, most people go to office jobs and aren't armed. They could be targeted just as well, being also somewhere where no one is likely able to fight back. But that doesn't happen often. Why? Because most shootings like that(school shootings) are either personal vendettas, or they are targets of innocence. It's a psychological factor saying 'Hey look! I'm willing to kill anything in my way, even the innocent!' It makes them feel god like. While I agree at least teachers and other employees should be able to have guns on campus for protection, I don't believe that's why they're targeted for it.
  • I worked at a special secure facility, all armored fron doors, security passes and clearances required to enter, visitors required to have passes, all kinds of security, most of us were qualified and armed with loaded sidearms,, they had a special secured parking lot, then they added a rule, to search vehicles at random on entering the facility, at that point, I objected and started parking on the street, I then had a long conversation with the C.O. and warmly reminded him of due process, even if it did not apply on private property, treating people like criminals would not help anything and make people resentful, causing more hurt in long term issues, after that we went back to no car searches and I parked in the parking lot again, I was able to prove that everyones best interest were served utilizing the secure parking facility, without searches, since the lot had cameras and anyone doing anything illegal would get caught on tape.
  • Posts: 75
    Virginia Tech shootings and others just proves that the issue of gun ownership has good horribly wrong by creating lopsided situations against those who don't fancy them. This is a form of brinkmanship by extension to argue that gun free zones are targeted by dint of being sitting ducks in the face of a deranged assault by am individual from a zone that allows gun ownership. It follows that the only water tight solution is to create a trainee police reserve unit to live within the populace and then ban gun ownership as we know it today. It would then be easier to crack down on gangs and the black market. It doesn't help matters that those who commit shootings are licensed gun owners as illustrated in Virginia Tech university. There is no way to profile a typical offender.
  • Posts: 75
    Virginia Tech shootings and others just prove that the issue of gun ownership has good horribly wrong by creating lopsided situations against those who don't fancy them. This is a form of brinkmanship by extension to argue that gun free zones are targeted by dint of being sitting ducks in the face of a deranged assault by am individual from a zone that allows gun ownership. It follows that the only water tight solution is to create a trainee police reserve unit to live within the populace and then ban gun ownership as we know it today. It would then be easier to crack down on gangs and the black market. It doesn't help matters that those who commit shootings are licensed gun owners as illustrated in Virginia Tech university. There is no way to profile a typical offender.
  • Posts: 75
    Virginia Tech shootings and others just prove that the issue of gun ownership has good horribly wrong by creating lopsided situations against those who don't fancy them. This is a form of brinkmanship by extension to argue that gun free zones are targeted by dint of being sitting ducks in the face of a deranged assault by am individual from a zone that allows gun ownership. It follows that the only water tight solution is to create a trainee police reserve unit to live within the populace and then ban gun ownership as we know it today. It would then be easier to crack down on gangs and the black market. It doesn't help matters that those who commit shootings are licensed gun owners as illustrated in Virginia Tech university. There is no way to profile a typical offender.
  • There is something to be said for campus police. Aka glorified mall cops. I went to a 4a high school, and i tell you that they had three cops (this was well after the increase in public shooting for those of you who may argue) one was a crosing guard, another patrolled the inside of a doughnut box, and another sat in the parkinglot to stop kids from skiping out during lunch. They couldnt take on a 12 year old armed with a nerf gun, much less an actual school shooter. I would much rather be able to defend myself than have to depend on the government. There is only two things the goverment is good at, and that is colecting taxes and hemeraging the money into a specific comunity i wont mention. Rather than teaching said comunity how to work, they add zeroes to there wellfare check everytime they have another kid. I do apologise for going off topic but its frustrating, and there needs to be a change. The taxes the government colects were initialy meant to fund the government. Not run every organization that they can think up an akronym for. For instance the nsa has enough storage to archive the entire internet up to 2035, and who do you think payed for that, and better question (i am impartial on this years election) is why was the fbi investigation against hillary so feble? The nsa should have had all of the information in their database. It realy makes you wonder how much controle do politicians realy have, if they can make something like that disapear.
  • guyguy
    Posts: 25
    I don't give a damn if that right is taken away, this is my life, and I won't let some piece of document determine whether or not I can protect my got damn life in the event of a life threatening situation.

    That is slavery, and the government telling you what you are not allowed to do with your own life. No man or woman will tell me I cannot protect my own life, they are nothing but people who want control over the people, but the ride in heavily armed motorcades, and have all their security equipped with military grade weapons. 

    Sounds like a bunch of Kings and Queens to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.