Characterizing Barack Obama on Saturday Night Live works because the actor doesn’t have to use black face paint to do it. The actor isn’t even that good at it. Besides, the president is half white and the actor is a mix. It just works without offending people.

Let’s put it this way–black people find it offensive and whether other races think it’s “cultural play,” doesn’t matter because BLACK PEOPLE FIND IT OFFENSIVE. It’s not political correctness “gone mad.” It’s the truth.

Where you say the difference in attitude towards guns is a reflection of homicides you are at least partly correct. Yes the attitude may have to do with violence but the actual reason for adopting that attitude is the growing urban culture of shifting responsibility from the individual by focusing on the infinite other factors that influence an individuals choice to commit a crime. Rather than using the classic assumption that there are millions of others in similar situations who refuse to make the choice the criminal did, it is in vogue today to assume the influences on an individuals choice to commit a crime necessitated the commission of that crime. This creates a culture where the individual is no longer responsible for their own actions, but rather the focus turns to some essentially irrelevant external force.

In relation to the college kids, as I mentioned earlier, the disturbed kids are still going to get their hands on guns. To be able to carry on campus one would have to have already purchased a firearm. Therefore the only difference is that instead of only those with a criminal disregard of so called “gun free zones” carrying guns, the law abiding who actually care about the existence of such restrictions enough to try to lift them would also be able to carry.

Driving a car and learning to proficiently shoot a gun are two very different things. The comparisons drawn relating to regulation are short sighted because the risks of using a firearm poorly (albeit still dangerous) are very different to the risk associated with driving. It is chalk and cheese.

Anyway, I’m enjoying this chat as it is surprisingly rare to find someone with a different opinion on gun control who is able to construct an argument successfully. Usually you are just battered with emotional rhetoric!

The disparity in attitudes towards firearms is a direct result of homicides, which are in greater numbers in cities and in turn influenced the gun laws. These “irrational emotional reactions” towards guns come from those who lost loved ones to firearms and the police’s struggle to control them among the population.

I understand where you said that more people with guns will entail less problems with guns. I agree. In a less chaotic world, this is true. In rural areas where populations are more homogeneous and religious (particularly the one where I grew up), guns are considered practical tools for protection and hunting.

But I disagree with allowing everyone, namely college kids, to have guns on campus for two reasons. First, not everyone will be responsible with a gun. I attend a university chock-full of intelligent students who work on a research teams discovering developments on cures for cancer, but have no idea how to properly handle a car. Second, humans are unpredictable. After all, how can one assume that the sexually and emotionally immature who fear firearms won’t decide to carry one for protection once that bill is passed?

It’s funny you mentioned you wouldn’t trust students at college with guns as that is not the issue. If they are not criminals, they can get guns anyway. The point is, if the intent is to come to college and kill 20 or 30 people, they are going to bring a gun anyway. So why stop those with only positive intentions?

Perhaps I was jumping to conclusions about urban people, but that has simply been my overwhelming experience. I think the disparity in attitude towards firearms is a direct result of gun laws, urban societies have specifically created this negative culture around them.

I have heard your argument about additional casualties many times and it simply is not sound. Are you saying if a policeman was there that he/she should not shoot the perpetrator for fear of extra casualties? Surely it is better to fight a mass murderer killing innocent people than it is to let them kill with impunity.

Finally, why should you trust someone with a gun who isn’t police? Don’t…get your own gun. The more people have guns, the less likely someone is going to risk misusing one. I mean, why not? Like I said, it is the nature of insane or criminal people to criminally possess, carry and misuse them anyway. You have nothing to lose.

Historically there hasn’t been this obsession with the potential power of firearms, they were simply tools that most people had. It is this romanticising of guns, constantly reminding us how dangerously powerful they are that causes problems. This irrational emotional reaction towards the mere presence of firearms, an inanimate object don’t forget, that suggests an emotional problem.

In the eyes of Sigmund Freud, the father of modern psychology, a fear of firearms is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional immaturity (Kates 1990).

However, I wouldn’t call urban aversion to the bill “childish” because attitudes towards firearms in rural vs. urban areas are very different.

I’m originally from a rural area where people are responsible with guns and use them for self defense, hunting or as a hobby (my own father included.) I disagree completely with the total outlawing of guns, but I understand where some gun control is needed in cities, especially schools. Those in urban areas are not “emotionally stunted” (a preconceived notion of the sheltered and selective conservative), but are aware that areas with higher concentrations of people require more restraints in terms of weapons.

The bill calls for the legalization of firearms on campus to ANYONE over 21, not just police or CCW holders. And AZ doesn’t require a CCW to carry a weapon if it’s visible, as stated in the post.

Although I can see why you think it’s a good idea, I don’t think it’s the solution to gun problems on campus as Senator Johnson said. If someone tried to shoot up a classroom of students and someone fired back, what if the situation becomes escalated and more are killed? Why should we trust someone with a gun who isn’t police, simply because he’s “my neighbor?”

Ever been to college? I know I wouldn’t trust half of those kids with guns.

CCW permit holders, somewhat ironically, are checked on and tested more than school teachers are before they teach a class. A minuscule almost non-existent percentage of these permit holders ever commit a violent crime.

Why trust Police and not your neighbour? Police after all are nothing more than trained citizens.
The aversion to this plan is childish, and not surprisingly centered in urban America, home of the emotionally stunted.

Perhaps you would prefer to live in the UK, where even, I kid you not, “pointy kitchen knives” are targeted of the safety brigade.