You are comparing skeet shooting & target shooting to drunk driving? Seriously?

I'm saying that both are dangerous.

Honestly, I really don't think we disagree that much. I'm not calling for any new restrictions or laws, just saying that I don't personally feel that people should have a gun just for fun if they don't have a serious use for it.

For God's sake, the main reason I posted was to agree that it's stupid when people respond to this kind of tragedy with a knee-jerk "nobody should have guns!"

You are not being specific. You are not making your point.
What is wrong with it? What is wrong with having a gun to target practice and shoot skeet with, specifically?
If they enjoy it, find it to be a social activity they find beneficial and something they are good at, why not.
I can tell you, that it is something that I have done for many years, and I have never seen anyone shot. So, it is not dangerous when done by sober, responsible people.
What is your definition of "serious"?

I'm sorry, but this argument will not work.

There is no way you can prevent this from happening even if you are allowed to have guns on campus. Do you know how big these campuses are? You would need over 500 people with guns to even get close to stopping this. Then what would happen if a shootout occured and students got caught in the crossfire? Since it was in a building, it would take to long to get there and what would happen if the guy with the gun got shot and now this killer has even more ammunition?

The chances of someone stopping this by legalizing guns on campus is one in a million.

The only way to prevent this is to make tougher restrictions on getting handguns. This guy was obviously mentally sick to begin with and should never have been sold a gun in the first place.

Again, Columbine... it was illegal for them to own, posses or carry handguns and for guns to be carried on the campus they did the shootings on as well as this campus we are discussing. You point is invalid.
Making it harder for citizens to posses handguns legally is just punishing innocent people for the crimes of criminals which have NOTHING to do with them.
Red herring to try to get your agenda validated.

Funny, you state earlier in your post that you would not stop it from happening, then that you should stop selling handguns... feel-good politics is just stealing from taxpayers and freedom.

Yes, cause a philosophy called FEMINism sounds really gender-neutral and equal to me.

Feminism is just as bad as Misogyny. Feminism holds women over men. (I'll admit that I'm somewhat guilty of thinking women are better, but thats only cause they dont try to act all macho, which I loathe... not actually because of any like, inherent things.)

Everything and everyone should be utterly gender-neutral if you ask me. Gender should never be any sort of issue whatsoever (unless you're about to hop in bed with someone, but even then... I'm against it!). Holding men and women to a different standard is discriminatory and stupid, always.


(Realism? What's that?)

C'mon, you use argument tactics like that and call my argument invalid? I never said I want to ban guns but if you want to put words in my mouth fine, it just makes you look bad. This guy (VT) just went out and bought some guns, doesn't it seem a little to easy to get something that only reason of being made is to kill? It obviously won't stop all crime but it will make it a lot harder to get guns for malevolent reasons. For prevention, a stun gun shaped like a real gun that makes a gun shot noise when fired will accomplish the same thing.

That is life. I think I should I am responsible enough to drink and carry firearms but there are people that aren’t' responsible enough to do those things. I really have no problem with it but when they start putting other people in danger is when you have to draw the line.

If someone wants to shoot up a school they will do it no matter what but it could prevent it from happening.

Also, how do tough restrictions on getting guns affect your freedom? You can still get them if you put in the work and show that you are mentally healthy enough and responsible to own one. The ban on campuses should stay no matter what. The majority of campuses are extremely safe and they do have more than just "learn self-defense" to protect you if you don't feel comfortable walking alone including escorts and stations that call police immediately.

Ok, be specific, what do you want to happen?
How are you going to stop criminals from using guns while protecting legal gun owners rights?

There are many more gun owners than there are accidents. Accidents are rare when compared to the number of gun owners.

Ibram, feminism in the sense it was created for DOES NOT hold women over men in any way. You might need to do a little more research on the topic.

Edit: That being said, there will always be people who misrepresent themselves as feminists when what they really are is something similar to what you've suggested.

I want a training course and a test, just like to be able to get a drivers license.

You have to wait two weeks after you buy a gun before you can receive it.

You have to renew it every year up to three then it comes every third year with a short renewal course.

No previous criminal activity, within reason, to be able to own a gun.

I'm not set on these I'm just throwing down some suggestions.

Ok, I have no issue with reasonable training. Three days is fine for a waiting period, more than that will cause logistic problems with people who move around a lot or have busy schedules, have shooting events that call for new guns. Renewal for what? You already can't buy a gun with a violent felony or violent mental illness.

Driving a car is a privilege, owning a gun is a Right. Like it or not that is the way the law goes. A waiting period would not be effective in preventing events like that which went on at VT. It was completely pre-meditated. The waiting period would only prevent crimes of passion and in some documented cases have prevented women from protecting themselves from an impending murder by an estranged husband or boy friend. Courses are available, but you can make people take a course for something they have a right to own, however you can do so for privileges. It would be difficult to standardize the testing without making it a joke, pretty much as the driving tests are today. You pretty much have to be an idiot not to be able to pass one.

Showing proficiency at a shooting gallery and a written exam should exempt someone from training.

The two options are as follows:
Control guns more tightly and risk denying them to those that sorely need them, or
Control guns more loosely and risk giving them to people who will use them for ill.


While I loathe guns and personally, emotionally, non-rationally want them to be completely controlled in every way...

I have to go with the second one. I believe in always picking the freedom over the control. Just as I'd rather a thousand criminals go free than one innocent be put in prison, I'd rather a thousand criminals buy guns than one person in need of one be denied it.

...Okay maybe thats a little extreme, if it was a thousand-to-one ratio I might be in stronger favor of control, but its more the opposite, isn't it?