Texas to allow uni students & staff to pack on campus

[avgas]

Can't they just put something in the water to decrease sperm count.
Making them kill each other off seems rather cruel.
Makes them sound like they will be somebody.

[SMOKEU]

I seriously hate the anti gun people. If guns were banned, then the criminals would still be packing heat and innocent people would have nothing to defend themselves with.

[mashman]

and for those who can't afford to buy a gun, they'll be able to take one off someone else... damned if ya do... but it'll open up a can of worms that only the lawyers will be able to sort out... wonder how many extra cases of self defence will be heard when it goes through.

[Flip]

I hate to agree with Smokeu, but he is right.

NZ has a relatively high rate of gun ownership, its just that you don't see them out on the street.

I worked in Texas and home invasion is almost unheard of there. You have to be really desperate to break into a Texans home because they shoot to kill. At this level I do support anybody who takes responsibility of his own home security and safety.

I would be interested to know if any country that has disarmed its population has ever done so for any positive reasons? Finland shot the crap out of the Russians when they invaded, why because they all had rifles and shooting was the national sport. Countries like Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Uganda, Starlin's Russia, Mao's China, North Korea and Labia were all disarmed by the government of the time. I would suggest that only criminal governments disarm their populations. It's easy to be a dictator when the populations can not fight back.

[Buyasta]

I hate to agree with Smokeu, but he is right.

NZ has a relatively high rate of gun ownership, its just that you don't see them out on the street.

I worked in Texas and home invasion is almost unheard of there. You have to be really desperate to break into a Texans home because they shoot to kill. At this level I do support anybody who takes responsibility of his own home security and safety.

I would be interested to know if any country that has disarmed its population has ever done so for any positive reasons? Finland shot the crap out of the Russians when they invaded, why because they all had rifles and shooting was the national sport. Countries like Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Uganda, Starlin's Russia, Mao's China, North Korea and Labia were all disarmed by the government of the time. I would suggest that only criminal governments disarm their populations. It's easy to be a dictator when the populations can not fight back.

Yup, that's pretty much the whole point of the 2nd amendment, as it was written.

I gotta say though, there's a big difference between allowing hunting rifles, shotguns and the like, and allowing assault rifles, armor piercing ammo, and SMAWs as a lot of American gun nuts seem to advocate.
Either way, I definitely see bad things arising if you start arming drunk university students.

It's also worth noting that the rate of gun violence in America has nothing to do with the rate of gun ownership, and everything to do with national character - as has been mentioned, Switzerland has an astronomical level of gun ownership, in large part due to the mandatory national service, and the requirement that all serving personnel must keep an assault rifle and sidearm, with relevant ammo in their houses, and upon leaving national service they can buy their weapons to keep for a nominal fee.
Yet despite this high gun ownership level, they have an extremely low incidence of gun crime and violence - it's been some time since I researched it, but I believe the rate of suicide using guns was higher than average, but every other form of using guns for crime/violence was significantly lower than average.

[SMOKEU]

Either way, I definitely see bad things arising if you start arming drunk university students.

Arming those drunk uni students with a fast car is much more dangerous.

[ukusa]

Ah nice to see Hoplophobia is still nice and strong in good old New Zealand....

I for one support the idea.

-Indy

yeah, bring it on. NZ can do it better, introduce them at Primary school. Yeee Hah

[Flip]

Yup, that's pretty much the whole point of the 2nd amendment, as it was written.

I gotta say though, there's a big difference between allowing hunting rifles, shotguns and the like, and allowing assault rifles, armor piercing ammo, and SMAWs as a lot of American gun nuts seem to advocate.
Either way, I definitely see bad things arising if you start arming drunk university students.

It's also worth noting that the rate of gun violence in America has nothing to do with the rate of gun ownership, and everything to do with national character - as has been mentioned, Switzerland has an astronomical level of gun ownership, in large part due to the mandatory national service, and the requirement that all serving personnel must keep an assault rifle and sidearm, with relevant ammo in their houses, and upon leaving national service they can buy their weapons to keep for a nominal fee.
Yet despite this high gun ownership level, they have an extremely low incidence of gun crime and violence - it's been some time since I researched it, but I believe the rate of suicide using guns was higher than average, but every other form of using guns for crime/violence was significantly lower than average.

The suicide is an interesting point. It is most likely so because men usually choose very lethal ways to end their lives, if a firearm is available it would be a likely method they would choose.

I see hunting or traditional fire arms being about 50 years behind military ones. Thats all. The military adopts a rifle and cartridge (say 6.5X55 LE 303), they flood the market with ammo and low cost ex service fire arms. The same thing will happen with the next level of technology, the Mini 14 ia based on the M1 garand action. Just look at all those rifles and shot guns based on the AK action that are currently on the market. I draw a line at the M16 because it is a expensive pig of a rifle.
The only reason I dont use a centre fire semi for rabbit shooting is I reload and I cant find the brass after it has been ejected from a semi.

[Buyasta]

I see hunting or traditional fire arms being about 50 years behind military ones. Thats all. The military adopts a rifle and cartridge (say 6.5X55 LE 303), they flood the market with ammo and low cost ex service fire arms. The same thing will happen with the next level of technology, the Mini 14 ia based on the M1 garand action. Just look at all those rifles and shot guns based on the AK action that are currently on the market. I draw a line at the M16 because it is a expensive pig of a rifle.
The only reason I dont use a centre fire semi for rabbit shooting is I reload and I cant find the brass after it has been ejected from a semi.

This is a fair point, but while the case could be made for semi-auto's based on modern technology, no matter how serious a hunter (or how poor a shot) you are, I don't see much need for 30 round mags, and definitely no need for automatic or burst fire models - the sole purpose of full auto on an assault rifle is to lay down suppressive fire, if they actually want to hit something they go back to semi or burst fire.

Essentially I'm just saying there is a fair bit of a difference between hunting and military rifles, and while there doesn't seem to be much of a movement for legalizing firearms that are blatantly only useful for military purposes here in NZ, there very much is in the US.

Having said that, if the US statistics are anything to go by, it is unlikely to make a great deal of a difference, and the far more important matter is that of handguns, as they were used in 15x as many murders as rifles and 18.75x as many murders as shotguns, in 2005.

Anywho, I don't have anything against gun ownership - I like target shooting, and while I have no interest in hunting, I see nothing wrong with it. I just think it's a good idea to try to limit ownership of guns that are either concealable or have full auto capabilities or large magazines to those who are responsible enough to use them safely.
Case in point: I tend to agree with having the ability to defend yourself, your home or your family, but a response should always be proportionate to the threat, and if an unarmed burglar were to break into your house, and attempt to flee if discovered, in no way threatening the inhabitants, I think threatening them with a firearm to detain them until the police arrive is plenty, whereas shooting and killing them is still murder, so anyone who seems to get all weak at the knees at the prospect of killing someone who hasn't actually threatened anyone's safety should not be trusted with a firearm.

[SMOKEU]

The only reason I dont use a centre fire semi for rabbit shooting is I reload and I cant find the brass after it has been ejected from a semi.

Rifles are usually a waste of time for rabbit hunting. A shotgun is the way to go.

[p.dath]

At the moment bullies just beat up those they pick on.

After this, they'll terrorise people the guns, and kill them.

I think I'd be scared to attend such a university.

[Flip]

At the moment bullies just beat up those they pick on.

After this, they'll terrorise people the guns, and kill them.

I think I'd be scared to attend such a university.

Why do you think the Swiss are such a polite group of people.

[EJK]

Yay now every student will play CoD Modern Warfare 2 for real

[scumdog]

A law is about to be passed to allow students and faculty members in Texas universities to have concealed weapons as a form of defense.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/america...d#post_comment

I'll say it again as I do almost every other day.

Americans...

Meh, so we lag behind a bit eh..give us a few years bro...give us a few years..

[Flip]

Rifles are usually a waste of time for rabbit hunting. A shotgun is the way to go.

Depends where you are, shot guns are useless in big open paddocks. A mix of weapons works best for us.