Guns on Campus

Okay, folks, firing up the ol' word processor. I'm pissed. Every time I hear about this...this....SHIT, I get pissed. Firearms on Campus, they need to happen, they need to happen RIGHT NOW.

http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S347279.shtml?cat=565

15 injured, suspected 4 dead. It was a friggin' suicide run. Just like all of them. Take as many out as possible, before one goes. Now, that's my opinion on it. Here's the facts as I know them:

1. What the man did was illegal. He brought a gun onto a college campus in Illinois, into a classroom. Murders and Assaults aside, the man was breaking the law, yo.

2. The students were abiding by the law. There is no report yet of any students shooting back. Yup, nobody broke the law by bringing a gun on campus.

3. There was no help. No security, that I'm reading of. There was an attempted slaughter, that's what there was. These students, professors, they had NO HELP COMING.

Tell me, dear readers, what is wrong with this picture?

Guns on campuses aren't a problem. They're carried without problems in a number of states at a number of prestigious colleges, Go to Utah, New Hampshire, Vermont, they carry on those college campuses. It's when some dipshit with a dangerously egocentric view and a death wish comes along, that's when it all goes to hell.

If one of the students had been armed, if only one of them had been armed, tell me, how much worse could it have been? She brandishes her gun? He fires back? Hell, he/she gets shot? oooh, here's the big one. He hits a bystander! Yup, that'd make the situation worse..problem is, the fore-drawn conclusion is wrong.

According to Kramer and Kopel (it's a link) Your average Joe is not likely to hit a bystander. In studies across the United States, the plain ol everyday civilians, have a better record than the police, in hitting what they shoot at, and in /not/ hitting bystanders. In Miami, over six years, and 21,000 carry permits, no innocent bystanders were shot. In Missouri, police shot at the wrong guy at an 11% rate, while John Q Public had a 2% rate. In similar studies, and cited in the same paper above, civilians are more likely to apprehend, rebuke, or subdue the criminal (83%), as opposed to the police (68).

Well, with that settled, I guess she must get her gun taken away from her, then, huh, wouldn't be news fit to print if it didn't happen that way, eh? Wrong, again. Gary Kleck found, and documented in his book "Point Blank", that less than 1% of self defense cases, the, uh, estimated 700,000 to 2,000,000 a year, see guns being taken away from the crime victims.
Well, shit...guess he gets shot, then? Nope, again, Kleck, Point Blank, the lowest injury rates in defensive cases were found with those folks who resisted with guns. The second lowest injury rate was not resisting at all.

Well, shitfuck....we've got ourselves a quandry...

If statistics show that your everyday Dick and Jane are more competent than the police, why is it that people are so against concealed carry amongst these college students who only want to defend themselves and others?

It pisses me off that a criminal can break the law, do their business, and leave a mess behind, and yet if a person who is prepared for an incident like that, who trains, who carries a gun, on the off chance that some shit where a weapon is needed /may/ go down, same as a person buckles up on the off-chance that they might get hit by another car, why is it that the person who carries a gun is subject to prosecution and punishment, when the suicidal mass murderer obviously has no deterrent.