Umm, yes they did.

Now, in most (if not all states), you are required to sign a waiver (I signed on elast week) that allows the state to go through your health records for any signs of mental health problems.

And of course, it's being abused to deny guns to Vietnam veterans who sought counseling after the war, and other bullshit

I'm sorry, but when presented with a bad situation I really don't think anyone is going to think that logically. Instinct steps in and a person with a gun just starts shooting because they are scared. Everyone would like to think they would act like Bruce Willis in Die Hard, but they don't.

I have to think about the time I got jumped by this random guy who hit me from behind. When I hit back I wasn't sane at all. I just kept swinging and so did he until other people showed up. I had no idea what this guy's intention was and if I had a gun would I have used it? There is no way anyone can make that assumption. People just react. The truth is, he was just a drunk ass-hole looking to pick on someone. Sure, he beat me up pretty good (I got a few it...hehe) but does he deserve to die for this action? I don't think so. I'm glad I didn't have a gun, and that is why I will never own one.

I'm just not that paranoid.

If I'm ever in a situation like a bank robbery or a mugging there are other ways to deal with it that don't include someone dieing. There are always non-violent actions that often work better then violent one. I think instead people should concentrate on why there are so many violent people in the world and how to lower that number.

My definition of a hero: Everyone who lays it on the line so I can sit here in my jammies and blog freely in an amazing country. That's cops, firemen, soldiers, and especially fallen among them. More, I count as heroes the non-uniformed people who step up every day to speak out, participate, take unpopular stands, and shape the civic debate in this nation. Yes, everyday people, too, who keep it glued together in this crazy world and, when need be, step up to put down violence.

I know two people who carry bullets in them. A skydiver buddy who's a Vietnam vet, and a former LA cop. Heroes walk among us all the time.

I'm gonna go have a great turkey day and hope y'all do, too.

Clearly, you haven't met any of my neighbors.

You read, but you don't know where. Are you sure you didn't dream it? You've got nothing.

So let me get this clear. You are suggesting that stoned people should be armed? You're missing some logic there.

I beg to differ. There are none there now, for instance.

That is my logic.

Yawn.

Fact: It is much, much quicker and easier and much less emotionally impactful to kill someone with a gun than it is to kill someone with a sword. There's a reason the Army doesn't use bayonets anymore. There's a kind of lethargy to gun use; it can be done without any real effort and is the most dangerous weapon of opportunity that has ever existed because of it. The last thing in the world I want is a thousand weapons of opportunity carried by pissed-off douchebags walking past me every day. All it takes is for one of them to go off, and everyone else who has one will fire it off. And I realize that carrying a gun is good for the ego, which is why all these pseudo-machismo college assholes want to carry them, but it doesn't make your fucking dick any bigger nor does it make you any more important. Guns only make potential dangerous situations ten times more probable, which is the entire issue. Besides, I don't really want a guy walking around carrying a fucking saber under his jacket either.

And so we're aware here, the Crusades were an organized military effort, whereas a bunch of small-dicked college dirtbags with little firearm training and overwrought senses of self-importance are most certainly not.

This logic is exactly the problem and it has a name, it's called projection.

Try here.

Our knife crime is higher than your entire violent crime rate.

Methinks it's not the guns, but rather a heterogeneous country with a larger gini compared to a homogeneous country with a lower gini index.

You could give every man woman and child an Uzi with 5 fully loaded magazines and it wouldn't be a problem as long as those people have something to lose by abusing it.

Guns are statistically speaking, very safe, especially for a device designed solely to kill. If you have a child, own a swimming pool and a gun, the swimming pool is 50 times more likely to kill you. Also, im sure some statistics could be derived that show cigarettes and fast food being a lot more dangerous (as heart disease is a major killer in developed nations)

I never intended to imply that everyone should carry a gun nor would I advocate such a thing but there are measures taken to help insure those who legally carry (especially concealed, which is the subject of this article) ARE sane, capable, and rational enough to take on this responsibility. Keep in mind it is local law enforcement that trains and provides these licenses, so they seem to be pretty confident in the ones they approve to carry a handgun concealed around their fellow officers, neighbors, families, ect. and the evidence available in no way shows these people to be anything other than an assets to society and themselves. My question is why do you trust these same people to provide officers with firearms yet not to provide civilians with the right to hold that same responsibility. Your neighbor could be the guy approved to carry concealed or your neighbor could be the police officer carrying in your neighborhood. I dont think I have an overly optimistic outlook on people (far from) but not everyone is of the mindset to shrug responsibility and if they PROVE this is a responsibility they are capable of having then there is no logical reason they should have to wear a blue uniform for it to be deemed acceptable. Keep in mind this isnt a free for a all, half your class wouldnt be packing (nor would half your class be approved to do so), but one has to have some faith in the regulating systems we have set up for ourselves and as people have mentioned before the statistics prove them to be quite effective.

I agree with your following comment:
"Fact: It is much, much quicker and easier and much less emotionally impactful to kill someone with a gun than it is to kill someone with a sword."

It rings true to me and it's relevant, but it's hardly a wake-up call.

What I wonder, Formus, is whether you're going to bring something substantive to this discussion -- pro- or anti-gun, it's all welcome. Maybe we can begin by further agreeing that we're both anti-violence? Certainly I am.

On the more specific topic at hand, I'm open to what you have to say about concealed carry on campus. I invite you to step up. Weigh in. Educate. Perhaps you will articulate a more valid vein of patriotism, or more relevant insight.

As I indicated several times, I have a take, and I have reasons for that take, even though I don't have all the answers. I embrace genuine dialogue as essential to a civil society, and further, as a civic virtue in our republic. Because we all benefit from each other's life experience, I welcome yours and encourage you not to be shy.

Maybe you'd be willing to share a first-hand encounter with gun violence? Or maybe you'll relate how something a friend wrote you from Iraq or Afghanistan helped forge your convictions on the topic?

So do share your insights -- I can always change my mind and thank you for it. Actually, if you make some kind of case, even if it doesn't entirely change my mind, I'll at least have some reason to respect you.

Or are you just going to take a smug shit on other posters and then split?

Think about it -- you have time. It'll be a year or more before you can apply for a CFP.