Another Massacre At A "Gun Free Zone" College Campus | KXNet.com North Dakota News
|
||||||||
 Another Massacre At A "Gun Free Zone" College CampusDisclaimer: This article is a blog post and does not represent the views
or opinions of Reiten Television, KXNet.com, its staff and associates and is wholly owned by
the user who posted this content.
Feb 15 2008 12:00AM
http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php One gun, one person trained how to use it and willing to do so could have stopped most of this:
save this article / add to your favorites list
More blogs | ||||||||
email to a friend
printable version
discuss in the forums
upload new photos for this story
Marines
Too damn many, unfortunately. People would rather live in a dream-world run by "feel-good" rules than actually be secure.
That truly is the only solution...
Unbelievable, the liberal democrats efforts to ban ALL guns just about everywhere, shows how ignorant they are and how this could have been even worse if the guy hadn't killed himself.
Also proves, that people kill people, not guns kill people.
Even nuts bent on killing themselves and others hold self-preservation in high regard.
Even nuts bent on killing themselves and others hold self-preservation in high regard.
Unbelievable, the liberal democrats efforts to ban ALL guns just about everywhere, shows how ignorant they are and how this could have been even worse if the guy hadn't killed himself.
Also proves, that people kill people, not guns kill people.
We need to relax gun laws. I am licensed to carry but not in a school. A law officer cannot go to another state with his gun. A law officer upstate New York cannot go to New York city with his gun.
That is how insane gun laws are.
The first question to be answered by the authorities is "Why didn't the people in the gun free zone defend themselves?"
The next question to be answered is "What actions will the authorities take to protect people in a gun free zone?"
The most important question to be answered is "What actions will the people take to protect themselves in a gun free zone?"
The Bible states "the meek shall inherit the earth ...", it does not say anything about the meek being slaughtered.
Dan
Well written! I heartily agree!
Why do people rob banks?
When the blonde former cop shot the shooter in the church the media was quick to say she "only wounded him-that he actually killed himself" thereby trying to diminish her effectiveness with her privately owned firearm.
Obama has even signaled what is to come in his administration by saying he will do "whatever is necessary" to curb gun violence.(Read that-brace yourself for a wave of ineffective, feel good anti gun legislation-)
Gun free zones are innefective symbols of naive, wishful thinking. Every anti gunner politician should be required to post a sign on his or her residence identifying it as a "gun free zone". Don't hold your breath till you see that one........
No guns are allowed so it is impossible for a shooting to take place there.
Teachers that are competent in firearms as well as students who test for capability should be allowed to carry concealed in order to prevent this sort of tragic event.
Wake UP Folks!
Dave
Criminals will get guns legally or illegally. Stop preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Police can't be everywhere, and we shouldn't rely on them to protect us. People need to take responsibility for there own safty.
You understand that all the schools around me have signs prohibiting guns and this makes them safe. A sign with words should be enough to stop this – shouldn’t they?
Besides, Illinois has some of the toughest laws against guns – these laws should be enough to stem all of the violence – shouldn’t they?
Why do the idiots in government give these criminals a place they know they are safe to commit these crimes? Why do we freely give away our right to self defense on the naive belief government will protect us?
I don’t need hope, I need government to get out of the way.
I have no problem with gun free zones but the real problem here is leftist naivety (stupity?): Buy simply declaring something the right thing will just happen. Gun free zone? Sure, guns will just evaporate within the declared area. Please, get real. Reality is that there has to be some means of keeping the declaration and then (in the case of gun free zones) protecting the inhabitants by enforcing the declaration.
With something as serious as people’s lives, you’d think that the left would take things like “gun free zones” and keeping them that way a little more seriously.
There are lots of students and teachers in every university, ex military, retired military and police, sportsmen, who are competent and responisble to carry a gun. Just the knowledge that "This University" is a right to carry zone, would prevent this kind of horrific event from occuring.
Keep America Free,
You are a menace to society - another brain-dead idiot with blood all over you. We all thank you for getting more guns into the hands of more people.
Cowards don't want a fair fight (Even "crazy" cowards.)
If an adult goes to the trouble and training to have a concealed carry permit. Let "the law" allow them carry a firearm and end some of these bulk assassinations in "gun free zones".
That is not to take anything away from the police. They do a thankless job as well as humanly possible. It's just that they cannot be everywhere and connot respond faster than a mad man can attack.
Chuck
How many more times are we going to have to see this carnage before we wake up? And, when will we realize that drugs really are bad as this tragic case once again proves?
Gun control is my finger not being on the trigger but having it ready to be there if needed. I feel so bad for those suffering today because of the stupid laws in our nation. Bad people don't care what the laws of the land are and never will. Only the good people obey them and pay the price for doing so.
My heart goes out to the families of the victims.
When you need help in seconds the police can be there in only a few minutes!
Even entire nations with gun bans (reference England) have seen an upswing of gun related crimes. The criminals will find a way to get a firearm.
So, being the election season, I ask you to take a moment and select one of the following two choices:
would you rather be
A: concealed carry owner
B: victim
your choice.
Article II of the "Bill of Rights"
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil..."
George Washington
"The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion..." -James Madison, Principal author if the United States Constitution
I don't own a gun myself and fear them terribly. But I wish to God someone had them in that crowd. So do the families of the lost.
Too bad all the anti-gun whackos don't see it that way. "If only we make guns illegal..." Uh, last I checked, opening fire on a bunch of innocent unarmed students in a lecture hall and killing several was already illegal!!!
If we oultaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.
Whenever there is a gun-free zone, the person who is going to commit mayhem will almost always be the only one to violate the rule. That cell phone of yours will not be of any use once a wacko starts shooting, except as a means to tell the police where to find the bodies.
"We are going to take things from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton
"...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them..."
George Mason
Of course, that is not what gun banners mean when they call for "common sense" regulation.
Less than a mile from my house Colin Furgeson killed a number of people on a Long Island Railroad train. New York, and especially Nassau County, make it almost impossible to get a carry permit.
THink about it.
WMD don't kill people, people do. Therefore we should all have WMDs?
WMD don't kill people, people do. Therefore we should all have WMDs?
Look, I agree that there should be changes, but this shooter (and the Virginia Tech shooter) was apparently mentally unstable and, ultimately shot himself! Why do you think a mentally unstable guy who ultimately commits suicide will be deterred by the "rational" thought of others on campus carrying a gun?
Where I work, a former employee recently was fired for unstable behavior, and a lot of us fear his 'going postal.' Of course, this is a corporate white-head-lawyer mandated gunfree zone. So I have had to be very careful in my choice of carry weapons, concealability being the #1 consideration. A pre-1968 Baby Browning .25 auto fits nicely in my back pocket, with a spare magazine. It's better than pointing a finger and going 'bang.'
Sort of like D.C. has no guns either.
Let this be a lesson to the dummy's who keep pushing for more laws against inanimate objects.
In the end, whoever wants VICTIM DISARMAMENT, another word for GUN CONTROL, let them not own or carry a firearm. Why should I be forced to be a victim because of THEIR DESIRES? The short answer: I should not. Only they should be.
So, following the prevailing logic, why don't we declare a liar-free zone in congress. Will that, then stop all the liars?
"Or like last week some bad guys tried to rob a grocery store, a customer had a gun and license, and stopped the robbery. The police caught two of the bad guys, and took the third one to the morgue."
Way to applaud killing people, a better way would be, the grocery store gets robbed, the store is out a couple hundred bucks and no one gets hurt.
Turning the country into the wild west is not the answer
"Or like last week some bad guys tried to rob a grocery store, a customer had a gun and license, and stopped the robbery. The police caught two of the bad guys, and took the third one to the morgue."
Way to applaud killing people, a better way would be, the grocery store gets robbed, the store is out a couple hundred bucks and no one gets hurt.
Turning the country into the wild west is not the answer
If drugs can be smuggled into the country by the TON, do not think for a second that every criminal that wants a weapon will not get one.... and you can defend yourself with a spork! No thank you. England is talking about illegalizing freeking butcher knives because they are being utilized as deadly weapons... where does that stop? Is this insane to you?
Really, for you "disarm the public" idiots.. or naive, has to be one or the other... get some common sense. If we had a 100% gun ban in the US, every criminal or psycho with enough money will have access to weapons.. JUST LIKE DRUGS TODAY and we won't. Home invasions, armed robberies, violent crime in general would go through the roof. You couldn't stop the importation of firearms JUST LIKE DRUGS TODAY!
Does this open your eyes at all or are you anti-gun nuts really that naive? Plus, It is our right to defend ourselves and our family.
Who would have had a gun out in a classroom? Who wants to teach students with guns. I have taught in college. I would not want the responsibility to protect my students with guns. Is that the next thing? We need CPR and Gun training? This is ludicrous. An insane man wanted to kill people. That is the bottom line. It didn't matter. Allowing students to carry guns would not have solved this. Do you want an armed guard in every classroom?
The world will never be entirely safe, but having students with concealed guns. As a college employee, this is an absolutely STUPID idea. Get a job at a campus and you will quickly see why.
They stated that while they know it was security personnel's requirment to respond to the scene, an ACLU spokesman said that doesn't necessarily mean that they are allowed to have a gun. They have already sought a congressional investigation into this matter to assure gun free zones remain as that.
i'd also hold a conceled carry permit just to bolster my defense at the trial!
I'd rather be alive and charged with carrying a gun in a gun free zone than dead and legal!
God Bless Drudge for linking to this post "Another Massacre in a Gun Free Zone."
But you're absolutely stupid or a right wing knuckle-dragger if you think lifting gun bans will stop this sort of thing. I have no problem lifting the ban, but the chances of the right person being in the right place at the right time are infinitessimally small. Very few people are so into guns that they'll carry them at all times.
before he killed someone, as it turned out he had been wanted for murder in a previous robbery. i credit that customer with saving five people that day including me.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You'd let this guy stand and reload and shoot all day until he killed himself just to keep "other guns" from the scene. Pathetic and illogical liberal rant.
Another gun would have killed him before he had time to finish the first magazine, thus, saving at least some of those young lifes there.
Gawddd!!!!
Even if guns were allowed in these "zones" by trained and licensed individuals, the chances that there will just happen to be one in the vicinity is small. Albeit a small chance is better than no chance, it's not enough to justify the potential problems that can arrise when lethal weapons are introduced into communities that occasionally display less-than-mature behavior.
There will always be valid arguments for and against gun control, but whatever laws are passed, there will always be crazy people out there who snap and kill indescriminately. Let's focus on fixing the people who use the guns. The article mentioned that he was off his meds. Why? Why was he allowed a gun when he had a mental condition severe enough to require meds? ...Or maybe he stole it from one of those trained and licensed guys.
Do you mean to tell me that not one of you sheep believes that this tragedy would not have been different had we allowed guns on campuses? Are you just hoping against hope that someone in each and every classroom happens to have a gun? If that is your rational for preventing crimes, I'm not sure you have a very good grasp on reality.
I believe you have allowed your hate and obsession with being "right" to cloud your judgement. Maybe you should get to church or something.
The socialist/liberal/progressive view is to conduct more sensitivity training, more candle lit ceremonies and post more "Gun Free Zone" signs.
As for the posters who don't approve of trained and qualified people being armed in such places, what do you propose when the killer opens fire? A group hug?
The blame lies squarely with your neighbors, family members, friends and co-workers who hate guns in the hands of the American People.
To such people I usually say: If guns were so evil and ineffective for self-defense, they why do police officers carry them?
Look just look what one far right gun totting nut case did .. and these morons want to pass out guns to all the students !
The facts are this ..the deaths are terrbile as they are ..extremely uncommon.. but introudce the NRAs proposal of allowing all students to guns into the classes and you'll see kids shooting each other every other day ..
Who do you think is fighting to protect you from this kind of evil in Iraq and Afganistan, most military personel are between the age of 18-24 and are trained on modern small arms and explosives.
students should be given the right to decide if they wish to protect themselves
Your logic
"It is naive to think that an insane person would not go to a mall, school or any other high traffic area simply because a few other people may be carrying a gun"
misses the issue. The intent here is not to scare the insane into not committing the violence. It would be nice if that WERE the case.
We all know that there will always be insane people with a death wish to hurt others then kill themselves. The intent is to have the tools with which to stop them when they do, and take them down so they can't take out multiple victims.
No its fighting crazy people with law-abiding people ABLE to defend themselves.
I believe school faculty should be able to carry. Unfortunately in the "wild" college atmosphere guns would not be a good thing for students. Alcohol, juvenile fights, storage issues, and liberal roommates with no firearm training would be a disaster waiting to happen
This is just another example. It actually makes the place less-safe in an instance like this, but it sounds and feels-good. "Awww, this is a gun-free zone. I FEEL better already."
That's liberalism in a nutshell. On about every issue.
Another great example was the welfare system, especially before the Clinton/Repub. reformation of it.
We can't force people to work, don't reduce benefits... we need to give them MORE money.
That sounds and feels good (We Democrats really care about them!). What did it do? Kept people poor and trapped.
When the system was reformed, we saw the largest percentage of African Americans move from poverty to the middle classes in the history of the US, in the period of three years after passage.
All the while, liberal Demos like Maxine Waters was screaming (and I quote), "If this passes, our children will starve." Sorry, Maxine, it helped them get out of poverty.
I still think Democrats want to keep people poor. Who votes Democratic more often? Poor people. Who needs their votes? Democrats. Who need to keep them poor to get re-elected? Yep... think about it.
Again, feel-good policies that do harm.
BAN violent videogames.
I have a CWP and carry 24/7. The ONLY way to stop a killer like this is to shoot back.
This is just another example. It actually makes the place less-safe in an instance like this, but it sounds and feels-good. "Awww, this is a gun-free zone. I FEEL better already."
That's liberalism in a nutshell. On about every issue.
Another great example was the welfare system, especially before the Clinton/Repub. reformation of it.
We can't force people to work, don't reduce benefits... we need to give them MORE money.
That sounds and feels good (We Democrats really care about them!). What did it do? Kept people poor and trapped.
When the system was reformed, we saw the largest percentage of African Americans move from poverty to the middle classes in the history of the US, in the period of three years after passage.
All the while, liberal Demos like Maxine Waters was screaming (and I quote), "If this passes, our children will starve." Sorry, Maxine, it helped them get out of poverty.
I still think Democrats want to keep people poor. Who votes Democratic more often? Poor people. Who needs their votes? Democrats. Who need to keep them poor to get re-elected? Yep... think about it.
Again, feel-good policies that do harm.
Now we get to see the socialist try to explain why "we the people" are a greater threat to ourselves when armed then when only the government and criminals have the arms. Nice try.. It is really time for America to get a good taste of European Socialism.. Lets elect Obama and keep Momma Pelosi and Daddy Reid in power. Bring us back to the days of Carter once again Merle.. America has forgotten and it is time that she Remember once again.
The only thing that makes this discussion tolerable is that everytime you people say the word gun, I know you really mean "p3ni$." Yes, don't let the "evil liberals" steal that.
In both those cases, and now at NIU, authorities didn't secure the crime scene until after the shooters had offed themselves.
It needs to be challenged!
Robert A. Heinlein thought this was a good idea in 1942. It is a far better one in 2008. The people that died at Northern Illinois U. yesterday and at Virginia Tech in 2007 could have been saved by one legally armed citizen. The ultra-liberal academic community has maintained their foolish notions about firearms at the expense of the students lives. Enough is enough.
They's have to admit they were wrong... it would never happen
Don't the police carry guns? Do you want them to go without?
Why did the guy kill himself? Because the police (with guns) were coming and he knew they'd kill him. He didn't want them to have that win. If the police only carried batons, he would have reloaded and taken out some cops.
he went to the school BECAUSE there are no guns there.
Wake up and smell the drying blood of our sons and daughters. People like you disarm innocent people and make them helpless.
Also, your comment about "us" letting people like him get a gun is outrageous. It was likely to be stolen.
If someone steals your car and runs over someone, killing them, I will not blame you for LETTING that bad guy get behind the wheel of a dangerous car. That's basically what you are saying.
Another feel-good liberal. It doesn't feel-good to know that all these scary conservative people might have guns. Sorry Phil, we don't hate you, we just think you are misguided. We won't shoot you, just the guy like this one and hopefully, we'll not only save your kids life, maybe yours too.
No thanks are necessary. We'd never expect it anyway.
If someone in the room had a concealed weapon, and shot him, many of the dead and wounded would still be around.
You anti gun sheep really make me wonder. Someone else made the comment, "where were the men? why didn't they rush him?" Again, you are sheep.
Don't the police carry guns? Do you want them to go without?
Why did the guy kill himself? Because the police (with guns) were coming and he knew they'd kill him. He didn't want them to have that win. If the police only carried batons, he would have reloaded and taken out some cops.
he went to the school BECAUSE there are no guns there.
Wake up and smell the drying blood of our sons and daughters. People like you disarm innocent people and make them helpless.
Also, your comment about "us" letting people like him get a gun is outrageous. It was likely to be stolen.
If someone steals your car and runs over someone, killing them, I will not blame you for LETTING that bad guy get behind the wheel of a dangerous car. That's basically what you are saying.
Another feel-good liberal. It doesn't feel-good to know that all these scary conservative people might have guns. Sorry Phil, we don't hate you, we just think you are misguided. We won't shoot you, just the guy like this one and hopefully, we'll not only save your kids life, maybe yours too.
No thanks are necessary. We'd never expect it anyway.
Awesome. Just awesome.
I figure if you stopped this fool, some liberal DA would take you to court for wrongful death, etc... You might lose there, but you'd be a hero to the country.
To the sheeple that fail to see the reasoning of protecting yourself and depeding on the sheepdog to save you, keep grazing. I'm sure the wolves will leave you alone.
I'm not all that fast Paul, but from a concealed position (standing) I can draw and fire twice, accurately, in about 1.5 seconds.
There are way faster people out there. Point is, not that he would not have been able to fire, just that he would not have continued firing for long, little less been able to reload.
Note: the coward crazies only seem to attack where they are unlikely to encounter any resistance because arms are prohibited to all law-abiding citizens who are apparently not accorded the 2nd Amendment protections. The shooters may be crazy, but they're not stupid. If they knew, or even suspected that several of the students were armed, they would never attempt the attack. What about this is so hard to understand? Second amendment right shall not be abridged, and if we continue to ignore this, we can expect ever more of this type incident.
The people who think that disarming everyone stops violence still want police to be armed. That's illogical.
You have a right to not own a gun, to depend on the police or to cower and await execution. I am pro-choice on this issue. But I demand the right to choose another way. I will even honor your choice and not defend YOU with my gun. Feel safer now?
Therefore: More guns= More crimes prevented..GOT IT?
Your ignorance amazes me. Next time you see a mass-murder coming after people with a gun, go ahead and use your ax. I am sure he'll drop it right there.
The answer is NOT more guns. The problem is that theives and crooks steal things. Like guns. Heck, a police car at my local station was stolen with several high powered guns and a shotgun.
Yes, get as many guns off the "street" that you can. The problem is that there are some there and always will be. Guns are illegal in the UK, yet there still are some there. DUH!
When you make a 'gun-free' zone, the only people with guns are the criminals that are there to hurt people.
It's not "more guns", it's the possibility that there might have been a teacher or a former cop, or a trained student with access to a gun that could've shot this guy down, saving lives. That's what it's about.
And I am sorry about your lack os p3n!s size. You were the one that brought it up, no? We're here discussing saving people's lives, and your ignorant rant about member-size comes up. Again, a liberal with no ideas, knows these policies make people less safe, but wants to "feel good". Awwww.... a gun free zone! Gee, why is that guy shooting people here? Didn't he see the sign? (HINT: He's shooting people there because they are easy targets!)
Like another poster mentioned, how often do you see criminals hold up or shoot people at a gun range? A police station? An army base? They don't... they go to your local college with the "Gun Free Zone" signs. Fish in a barrel.
Your ignorance amazes me. Next time you see a mass-murder coming after people with a gun, go ahead and use your ax. I am sure he'll drop it right there.
The answer is NOT more guns. The problem is that theives and crooks steal things. Like guns. Heck, a police car at my local station was stolen with several high powered guns and a shotgun.
Yes, get as many guns off the "street" that you can. The problem is that there are some there and always will be. Guns are illegal in the UK, yet there still are some there. DUH!
When you make a 'gun-free' zone, the only people with guns are the criminals that are there to hurt people.
It's not "more guns", it's the possibility that there might have been a teacher or a former cop, or a trained student with access to a gun that could've shot this guy down, saving lives. That's what it's about.
And I am sorry about your lack os p3n!s size. You were the one that brought it up, no? We're here discussing saving people's lives, and your ignorant rant about member-size comes up. Again, a liberal with no ideas, knows these policies make people less safe, but wants to "feel good". Awwww.... a gun free zone! Gee, why is that guy shooting people here? Didn't he see the sign? (HINT: He's shooting people there because they are easy targets!)
Like another poster mentioned, how often do you see criminals hold up or shoot people at a gun range? A police station? An army base? They don't... they go to your local college with the "Gun Free Zone" signs. Fish in a barrel.
How many mass shootings occurred on campuses in the rest of the world last year?
The first rule of gun fighting is to have a gun. A spear, an axe, a club or your penis will be largely ineffective against pretty much any firearm. I'm fairly certain that it will be difficult for you to steal a penis, but I suspect that among your liberal associates you should be able to find someone to allow you to use theirs.
Another tragic, senseless shooting at Northern Illinois University has again brought the gun issue to the forefront. One can only pray there are no more copycat shootings through the rest of the school year. However, have you ever thoughtfully considered just how we got to where we are regarding the ownership of firearms ? Our nation was founded and evolved as a uniquely free society during the same time period that modern firearms were invented and became readily available due to the industrial revolution. Combine those two events with our founding fathers' genuine fear of tyrannical government along with a need for protection on a dangerous frontier and you have the answer - a modern society with an estimated 250 million guns. Reasonable people can debate if it would have been better if guns had never been invented but they're here and will "never" go away. Any future banning attempts (especially handguns) would mean that only criminals and terrorists would have them as they will obtain them on the black market, smuggle them into the country or manufacture them in underground shops.
Gun control advocates like to publicize that in 2005 there were 300,000 cases of firearms related crimes but only 143 cases of justifiable homicide by armed civilians. However, they egregiously fail to include hundreds more justifiable woundings by armed civilians; the perhaps thousands of incidents where the mere "showing" of a firearm prevented a serious crime; or the untold number of crimes that were prevented because the perpetrator thought the victim might be armed. This is similar to protection provided by the United States Secret Service. How many assassination attempts are prevented each year? No one knows for sure. The mere "presence" of the Secret Service makes the difference.
Recent shooting tragedies have renewed an irresponsible call by some to repeal the 2nd Amendment. However, be reminded that other Amendments to our Constitution bring similar tragedy. Vicious criminals are freed everyday because of "technical violations" of the 4th (searches), 5th (self-incrimination) and 6th (right to an attorney) Amendments. As a result, thousands of citizens are later murdered, raped and assaulted. We as a nation hold those three Amendments so sacred we are willing to pay that price. The 2nd Amendment should be no less sacred. Remember the old adage, "if the 2nd Amendment applies only to flintlocks, then the 1st Amendment applies only to quills and lead type."
Some further argue that our founding fathers never envisioned our society of today when it comes to firearms. Perhaps they are correct but they certainly never envisioned the current level of violent crime either. The 2nd Amendment was not included in our Constitution to protect hunting, target shooting, collection or even self-defense. Those rights were assumed. An accurate knowledge of history reveals that the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment (as the U.S. Department of Justice has stated and the D.C. Court of Appeals has recently ruled) was to guard against tyrannical government. That's why it states "the right of the PEOPLE (not the right of the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". "The people" in every other Amendment means just that - individual citizens and not some vague "collective group". Thus, every Amendment and the Constitution itself rests on the 2nd Amendment. Those who disagree with the 2nd Amendment are free to work within the political process to change or even abolish it if they can but don't "cheapen" the Bill of Rights with false interpretations.
Recent shooting incidents show clearly that each state needs responsible handgun carry laws especially for educational institutions. It would be absurd to allow every college student to be armed but responsible students (those over age 21 including veterans, former police officers, trained ROTC cadets, etc.), as well as adult university employees and professors should have that option. And when it comes to handgun crime, keep in mind that many in law enforcement believe a sawed-off 12 guage pump shotgun (easily concealed) is just as much or even more lethal at close quarters than any handgun or assault rifle. You don't always have to kill, wound or even shoot at a perpetrator. The mere showing of a weapon might force a shooter to alter his plan. Many assailants "cower out" or take their own lives very quickly when confronted with someone who can shoot back. One armed citizen, teacher or adult student can make a big difference.
The true villian is our changing culture. I was able to wear my Roy Rogers cap guns to elementary school but you can't even draw a picture of one now. Are you old enough to remember when you could get on an airplane without going through "any" security? If every handgun could be eliminated tomorrow within the borders of our country I believe we would be even more unsafe. Why ? Because vicious sociopaths younger, bigger and stronger than you or I will use anything (including shotguns, knives and impact weapons) to further their criminal acitivity. Murders, assaults, burglaries and rapes would rise substantially. If an intruder breaks into your home and you have no choice but to fight for your life do you want to fight with a club, a knife or a gun? I choose a gun. It's the great equalizer and the intruder knows and fears that!
Several years ago I was invited to the Atlanta office of the FBI to view an exhibit of Holocaust photos. The exhibit began with a photo of a small Jewish store in Warsaw, Poland. Subsequent photos showed Jewish citizens with big yellow stars sewn on the front of their clothes. The photos became progressively more disturbing and the last photo showed naked bodies being removed from an oven at one of the Nazi death camps. However, in the middle of the collection was an amazing photo of a ragtag group of about fifteen Jewish men and boys taken during the 1943 "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising". They had obviously assembled very quickly and were standing and kneeling there on the street with an odd assortment of weapons; a few shotguns, a rifle or two, some pistols and revolvers and even a captured German belt-fed machinegun. As a group of community leaders arrived at that photo, everyone became extremely vocal at the courage displayed by those men and boys. I then stated in a loud voice so all in the exhibit area could hear; "good reason for the 2nd Amendment folks." You could have heard a pin drop.
Many believe that our country is the most dangerous in the world because of guns. I believe I can disprove that many times over but one thing is for sure. As a Secret Service agent I traveled and worked in twenty eight countries on six continents and I wouldn't trade what we have for anything! The police cannot be everywhere and citizens need to have the opportunity to defend themselves. I d
It's a psychological term called "projection" look it up.
Fighting guns with guns is the only sane response. It certainly makes more sense than fighting guns with gun free zones. That has proven to be quite ineffective to date.
Now THAT is a telling statement, Paul . . . you don't want the responsibility? See that's the problem . . . in a free nation we all need to be responsible . . . we can't rely on the nanny state to protect us, because as soon as she gets the power she gets mean!
guns.Train some people to carry and mingle in a group.Veterans,retired cops,wearing civilian clothes.The mass killings will stop,because of the unknown factor,that someone
may be carrying.No change and it will continue.
I'm glad I don't live in a place with random shoot outs. Los Angeles is MUCH safer than anywhere 'red'.
More guns is clearly not the answer.
http://360.yahoo.com/guns_are_soooo_great
Don't choose to be a victim, the life you lose may be your own.
Let's play a game.
Let's imagine a campus in which everyone is armed.
The gunman comes into the room, pulls out a gun, and shoots a few rounds. It takes a few seconds for people to realize what's going on, and a few people are hurt, but the gunman is guickly brought down.
Now imagine another day on the same campus. Someone finds his girlfriend with another guy. He confronts him, the situation escalates. Instead of fisticuffs, the guns come out.
Now let me ask you this:
How many times a year does a lunatic go an a rampage with a gun?
Now, how many times a year do people get into fights of passion?
If you give a thousand people a thousand guns, in comparison to a society where only 10 per 1000 citizens are armed, it is just simple probability statistics that more guns will be fired in the 1000 with 1000 guns scenario.
The problem with arming everyone is that crimes of passion can escalate to deadly consequences. For every one school shooting lunatic you take down, you'll have thousands more dead from crimes of passion. And that's a fact.
I understand that this kind of massacre tweaks everyone's thinking, but the evidence points very clearly...no, unmistakeably, to the fact that severely restricting access to firearms prevents gun related deaths.
Think what you want, but I'd suggest that you be careful while travelling in countries where guns are outlawed to be polite
You're a lot more likely to get your teeth kicked down your throat for being a jerk in a country where people aren't afraid of being shot for confronting obnoxious behavior.
When only criminals and cops have guns, law-abiding citizens die.
Gun free zone on campus my ass, you can throw me in jail after i kill the SOB that walks into my lechture hall and opens fire.
Here in the great state of Texas live by the 12-6 rule.
I support gun training, permit to carry and use of lethal force for school personnel such as janitors and vice-principals in our primary and secondary schools in order to protect our children from the violent crazies.
The real Americans need defense from liberal wussies - give everyone a gun and the criminals will have a short career.
Are the posters on this that oppose guns, the real criminals and dont want someone hindering their crime sprees.
Second, our public schools are woefully under funded. In the past academic year, I have not seen ONE campus security member (Aside from parking police). Arming the tiny amount of security patrol on our campuses won't make a difference either.
I am not against guns on campus though, but there would need to be a system that would work. Perhaps a panic button, or multiple buttons, in each classroom that would immediately signal a specially trained team on each campus for immediate action in case of a shooter. Even though this won't stop a shooter immediately, it may deter someone if they knew a trained officer would come immediately within a minute or two of the button being pressed.
This comes to the issue of funding. Our public high schools and colleges have absolutely no money to begin the tough task of increasing security (we don't even have enough desks and classrooms). Our government's priorities need to be changed (how much money have we spent in Iraq already?)
Finally, those of you who are raving and ranting about arming "gun free zones", how many of you actually work and live in a "gun free zone" and know what the issues involve? Again, I'm not against guns in these zones, but really, please think how it would actually work instead of repeating the party line - too many young innocent people are dying here, we need real solutions and less loud grunting.
Had a teacher at the school had a gun, we'd be looking at a couple of poeple shot, instead of 20+. Aren't those lives worth saving?
The system they use is much like tethering a goat to attract a man eating tiger so you can kill it.
The unarmed citizens, and all students schools and colleges, are put out as bait. When the bait attracts a criminal, the "authorities" put yellow tape around the fallen bait and make a plan to catch the killer, assuming they have the budget and time, which they often don't. Catching killers is what they do, preventing "your" murder is not their concern.
Every murder victim is really bait that lost.
Either be prepared to defend yourself, or to be bait. Those are the only optons.
Fitch
However, if security guards or teachers were allowed to arm themselves, and were properly trained to handle a weapon, they could have taken him out before he could hurt anyone.
However, if security guards or teachers were allowed to arm themselves, and were properly trained to handle a weapon, they could have taken him out before he could hurt anyone.
Apologies if this was posted twice, the server was slow.
The question is that is an adult, duly licensed to carry anywhere else in the state, suddenly become a danger when he crosses the invisible line we call 'campus'. I would argue that such a person is, at worst, no additional threat, and most likely an additional asset in an active shooter situation. By going through the license procedure, he has already demonstrated knowledge and desire to be a responsible, law abiding, person.
or:
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
How would drugs and guns mix in a school? All disagreements would be settled by gunfire. Teachers would not be safe. Remember, the one who gets the first shot off is the winner, you don't get a second chance. People carry loaded guns in their cars, for what? To protect themselves from another person cutting them off in traffic? Is that self defense? Carrying a gun for self defense is a joke. It only makes the carrier feel good and helps to build his ego. But don't worry, no politician will take your toys away.
As for Liam in IL asking "what exactly is the point of ANY gun store selling a glock or any other semi automatic weapon???.
The point is personal protection, & that is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the bill of rights.
"What does a person shoot with a glock except other people?", That's right, people with intent to harm other people. Guns sold for hunting are, more often than not, used for hunting & guns sold for personal protection are for just that, protection from harm commited by others against us.
Pat McG in CA
I am retired law enforcement, live in Florida and have a concealed-carry permit. I will not enter an area armed if the law says that I may not do so. College and University campuses often are designated as gun-free. I would not carry my weapon if I entered one, because that is the law. If a shooter were present, I would be unable to offer resistence and be as helpess as others. I would only be able to stay out of the line of fire and watch as people were gunned down.
My experience in Florida has been that virtually no one with a CC permit has ever created a problem involving use of the weapon. If adult students who have been properly licensed were permitted to carry their weapons, two things would happen: (1) a shooter in the act might be met with some degree of resistance and (2) an individual contemplating becoming a shooter would be deterred by the realization that some person or persons around him would be armed and would probably take action against him.
Why is this so hard to understand?
First, I'm not sure of a more effective way to defend against firearms than possessing a firearm yourself. You know that saying, "don't bring a knife to a gunfight," well, there is a reason for that.
Second, I read a comment about somebody being responsible for protecting their students with a firearm. There are a couple things wrong with this statement:
1) I would guarantee that if you were trapped in a room with a gunman, and you had the option of having a firearm or not, you would opt for the weapon.
2) Having a Concealed Handgun does NOT make you responsible for protecting the lives of others. You can run just as fast and far from an incident as anyone else if that is what you choose to do.
Third, what about MY choice? Shouldn't I be given the choice of carrying my licensed handgun to class if I feel safer with it? If people like the one mentioned above isn't going to take responsibility for defending me, should I be given that opportunity? I feel that it is my responsibility to help those around me if I can. All the current policy is doing is allowing for another massive tragedy so they can say, "That's too bad..." and then DO NOTHING ABOUT IT.
I am a Concealed Handgun Licensee. I am in the US Navy, and I train two times per week in a sport called IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association). Yet for some reason, I am unable to carry my firearm onto my college campus. I can see no reason for this. If I were in that room when the gunman opened fired, there would have been at least SOME chance to stop him before further damage was done. If anything, it would have slowed him down and forced him to concentrate his fire on a person shooting back at him. That is one thing I am most certain he would not have been anticipating, thus *gasp* giving ME the element of surprise.
So that more unarmed sheeple can go to colleg.
Mike
I don't think it's right to take away someone's choice to carry a concealed weapon. If you don't want to carry one, fine, don't do it. But don't take away the choice of someone else who took the time to get trained on how to properly carry a gun.
Does that apply to car dealers because criminals, crazy people and drunks drive cars that kill others?
Doe that apply to outdoor power dealers because criminals and crazy people by snowmobiles, motorcycles and boats used to commit crimes?
How about general merchandize businesses like Targe, WalMart, KMart and even your local grocery store? They sell tons of stuff that have been used to kill people; poisons, rope, knives, bats, tape, electrical devices, drills, etc.
Should they all be held accountable.
I've dealt with so called "crazy" people all my life and they very seldom outwardly exhibit dangerous behaviors that would create such concern that any retailer would not sell their goods to them. If that were the case, then women would never be able to shop several days of the month.
In other words, our country, with 300,000,000 people, has a higher murder rate with firearms than countries with a combined population of over 650,000,000 people, more than twice our population.
And rather than trying to get to the bottom of why America is more murderous than any other First-World nation on the planet, I'm supposed to buy the idea that flooding the country with even more weapons is the solution?
I would never support the wholesale illegalization of firearms in America. By the same token, I could never agree with the opinion that it's better to shrug and give any idiot a gun rather than getting to the root of our nation's fascination with, acceptance of, and lust for gun violence.
The guy who murdered these kids is a symptom of our disease, but he's not the disease itself. To belabor the point, our disease is a national psychosis in which our love of violence is worn like a badge of honor. Until we accept this and move to alter our attitudes, we can arm ourselves to the gills and nothing substantial will change. The body count at your local morgue certainly won't.
That said, there is a MAJOR FLAW that is not being brought to light by the media: Nearly ALL cases of school shootings and/or mass murders involve medication. This kid here - had just stopped taking his meds. When are the "finger pointers" going to stop looking at the guns and start looking at the pill-popping society we've become? Antidepressants weren't meant to be given out like lollipops at a doctor's office. Too many times doctors RACE to hand out a prescription without properly diagnosing the individual. I mean really, what does it REALLY SAY when over 75% of the mass murders involve people who've gone "screwy" because they were on, or just off, of meds???
When was the last time a SANE person went on a shooting spree like this?
Of course the ONLY way to get your hands on a firearm is to meekly apply at the gun dealer's... exactly which planet are you from Eric? That level of naivety should automatically qualify you for a high-level administrative position within the Illinois school system.
You must answer the true question: Does the individual have the right to defend his life with the use of force? Regardless of your opinion, the founding fathers answered the question: yes. In fact, the States refused to ratify the Constitution without that specific protection (i.e. the Second Amendment).
Thanks
You must answer the true question: Does the individual have the right to defend his life with the use of force? Regardless of your opinion, the founding fathers answered the question: yes. In fact, the States refused to ratify the Constitution without that specific protection (i.e. the Second Amendment).
Thanks
Point of Sale. yep, I'm sure that he, and every other criminal walked into a gun shop, ran through a background check, when home for 5 days, came back to the gun shop, picked up his gun, and walked into a classroom banging away... Right :(
Just like the pot head is going to go into his local drug store, and walk out with a dime bag, smokin it up!
Stop and think - just for a second - it shouldn't even take that long - I'm sure your IQ is REALLY high! Ever heard of the black market?
You may be a anti-gun'er, but all it takes is a gun saving your life, or a life of a loved one, and you're whole attitude will change in a bang...
But you know the devils in the details. He could have bought the weapons illegally. Criminals never wait for the background check as you know and they always are off their medication too. Then there is Dylan Klebold and what he had in his room. Four propane tanks with a five pound black powder charge. Explosive force? 500 sticks of dynamite.
The Problem? Too skinny to haul it into Columbine. So no one checked the kid out when he was stealing or buying tanks of gas either. I am glad he only had a couple of weapons and no multi round weapons such as a Mac 10.
For those of you who would outlaw guns. Remember a few years ago when a guy got pissed at his girlfriend and then drove his Ford 250 into the lobby of a Lums? Killed 8 people. Now I dont see them outlawing gas grilles and Ford Pickups. Short of a knife and fistfights seems to me that we want them to keep it at the lowest common denominator.But thats just me.
If someone decides that they want to kill as many people as they can and decides that they will ultimately die in doing so, how will having armed students and teachers act as a deterrent? The shooters have all decided that they are going to die when they act, so knowing that they will be shot by an armed student is an unlikely deterrent. That line of argument just doesn't add up.
Further, how can anyone argue that the current gun control system is effective when the NIU and VT shooters, both of whom had mental health issues, were able to purchase guns with no problems?
Now, I support the Second Amendment. I understand most of the undergirding of that Amendment. In fact I wouldn't mind if every household in American received a .22 courtesy of the Federal Government. But I think it goes without saying that the Second Amendment is not intended as an arms free for all. I have never felt entitled to arm myself with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. If we all had those types of rights, I think it fairly clear that a few unbalanced people would have dispatched the rest of us long ago.
At least in my youth, I'm glad I never owned a gun. I had too much concern, probably misplaced, that I would have been an irresponsible gun owner. The same thinking led me to avoid scores of other legal problems. Now I never let my self-denial grown into a drive to deny others the right to own guns, but there has to be a better answer than everyone arming themselves.
I don't think the answer to NIU is repealing the Second Amendment. I hope the answer isn't that everyong having to arm themselves.
If all that is seprating us from killing one another is the fact that we can kill eachother, we have become something more base than animals.
Greg W.
People need to take responsibility for their own safety. Change these stupid laws in the gun free zones. When it comes to life and death seconds count. For Police response it takes MINUTES.
No, Eric. Millions of people buy and sell meat cleavers, cars and even guns with no crime ever being committed. Maybe if we're going to ban people from doing things we could ban people going to college. That would have prevented this event entirely. End college shootings! Ban colleges!
There are plenty to blame here: the shooter and the school officials who created a defenseless victim zone. None other.
You wouldn't send your child to school if you thought it was a target and you knew no one there would protect them, would you? Well it is. Welcome to the new world.
Anybody that wishes to discuss this further can email me at stdnrs12@shsu.edu. That's Sam Houston State University where I am a Criminal Justice professor.
Gimme a shout.
You're right! Let's fight guns with plastic unicorns! Or maybe with Nerf balls. Heck, let's all just sing songs to the murdering nutcase and maybe he'll just give up and go home.
Let's see what happens if you're put in this situation. Are you going to be glad you don't have a gun? It may be the last thought that goes through your head.
The media needs to stop informing the public about who is responsible since many of these people wish to be famous atleast for a while. And dead at the same time doesn't seem to matter..
Schools also need to have some psychology and stress relief classes and not just more knowledge after knowledge.
"...BAN violent videogames."
Video Games have never loaded a gun for anyone, nor convinced them that killing people was consequence-free. Pointing and clicking with a mouse is nothing like actually using a real weapon. I like all this talk of violent music, movies and video games being responsible for murder, especially with guns.
Trained, armed students could've stemmed the bloodbath that occurred. I, for one, am not inclined to wait for the police while my classmates get mowed down by someone who obviously doesn't care about who he kills. Just firing into a crowd of fleeing people is the sign of someone who loves death.
Removing the rights of lawful carriers to defend themself puts power back into the hands of those who disregard laws in the first place. Put punishments on those who deserve it; those who violate laws in the first place.
On the other hand, pro-ban posts tend to spout illogical lines of reason such as "Too many of you, "gunna git mah guun 'n' blaehst eeyut" types are missing the heart of this problem"
We are not missing the point! The kid would have gotten the gun somewhere. That is what sick people do. Hell, were you never told when you were a kid that if you put your mind to something, nothing will hold you back?!?!
This kid was sick. He might have been misguided and abused. It doesn't negate the fact that if JUST ONE person in that lecture hall was trained and qualified to carry, we might only be morning one unfortunate death and not 6!
No one stating that someone should be allowed to carry is saying when you sign up for school they give you a gun in your welcome packet. For those that think that, maybe you should read the whole argument rather than the first sentance (We all know your attention span only lasts for two seconds.)
I have a six year old and I am doing what ever it takes to keep him safe. Damn be the government to hold me back from protecting that which I love.
Long live the Constitution!!!!!!!
you are a fool if you think having *more* tools designed to kill people around will result in fewer people being killed. sure maybe tragedies like this would become more infrequent - but trite arguments ending in one person shooting the other would become much more common -and i'd bet, outweigh the loss of life from this one incident.
the ONLY solution is to ban all guns, period.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/1001214.html
If you're talking about another cafeteria shooting in Texas, please share the details.
Ya'll are sooooo hot to be the hero with the gun who gets to "take out the shooter." Grow up. In real life, ain't gonna happen. That doesn't mean people shouldn't have the right to carry guns, it just means in won't do any good. It takes more than a permit to be able to enter a fire fight. But, I know it makes you all feel good and big to talk tough about guns this and guns that.
What I have found is that I pay considerably more attention to my surroundings when armed. I will avoid areas which are known for having crime rates (no Death Wish syndrome). And while I am a generally pleasant and respectful person (I am a Southerner after all), I find myself even more courteous and respectful when going armed. I know I am not unique in this behavior since one of the gun forums I visit has people who voice the same sentiments.
What all of this means is that law-abiding people who go through the trouble of submitting applications and money to receive a carry permit are not the ones you should be worrying about. Quite the contrary, these people are staples of our society and guards of our freedoms. In the final analysis, where does a school or a police department or a government get off telling the owners of this nation that they cannot use one of the most effective tools available for defending themselves?
Why not? Does one lose all rational thought when they step over that campus property line?
For everyone who thinks ND's at keggers will kill every college student you are way off. College students who are over 21 and want a gun already HAVE a gun. And by the way, not all college students are 18-22.
When are we going to wake up? Only YOU can protect yourself.
The audacity to think you can take that right away from me...
and you think you are American??
You are deluded.
ALSO, all you women....Guns prevent rape, but don't take my word for it. Just sleep alone at night and DON"T have a gun. When someone breaks your window...relax....you don't have a gun so he probably won't kill you....
I think that your liberal, pablum puking, tree hugging butt is missing the heart of this problem. Guns are here dude. They are not going away. This same nut job who killed all these innocent people could have bought even more lethal gun or guns on any inner city street corner in America. I can buy a totally automatic weapon (capable of killing 3 times the amount of people) of my choice anytime, anywhere in this country (or any other country) in under 24 hours.
The heart of the problem is that gun control freaks think that they can stop this by "declaring" places "gun free zones". Point of Sale doesn't matter when it is the black market selling the weapons. We made a lot of drugs illegal in this country yet they are easily gotten almost anywhere. No one checking for a doctor perscription or a gun permit in those circles. GFR's are very warm and fuzzy on their surface. But they don't work. Rational, honest people obey the law and don't carry thier gins in these places. Nut jobs who want to be on CNN after they kill people seek these places out. Why do you think that there has never been a mass murder at a gun range? Hhhhmmm? Maybe you should think on that a while. In the meantime, "i'll jest go giit muh guun an make suur that I aint no victum".
I wonder how many people would walk into a place that was labeled "TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT" instead of "GUN FREE ZONE"? Target Rich Environment is a lot more honest and descriptive, I think.
One person legally carrying a gun who is trained and willing to use it would end all these senseless killings. No gun law or ban ever will
Im in the military and although I trust the people next to me to do their job, ultimately it is my responsibility to remain safe and secure.
Same goes with police. They are not on the scene instantly, so really, they are useless in a situation like this. I feel bad for them because they are following rules that don't allow them to go in there and take the guy out. I would feel like crap sitting outside a building and armed knowing that I can't go in there to save lives without losing my job. Then again, it would be worth losing my job to save even one life. Hell, even if it was the psycho's life before he could eat the end of his gun.
What makes me swell with pride is all the remarks that give logical, intelligent reason on why guns should be allowed within school grounds.
You're welcome.
Gun Owners of America is the only major non-compromise firearms lobby in America.
Life is not the non-animated version of Winnie the Pooh. Evil, rotten, soulless predators with black holes in place of what should be a heart will, for the foreseeable future, ALWAYS get access to guns and will wreak their havoc. And they don’t give a rat’s frig about the niceties of “gun control” and “gun-free zones”. The cops? They are there to mop up AFTER the s**t hits the fan.
Perhaps even the most reckless of murderers would think twice about rampaging before touching the Third Rail of not knowing which one of their intended victims is packing.
If a student is 21 or older and has demonstrated an interest in becoming a campus guardian and has exhibited sound mind and body, practical/tactical firearms training should be provided for them for the purpose of carrying concealed on campus. Faculty and administration should also be afforded this opportunity.
ANY politician who distrusts me with my God-Given right to keep and bear a firearm in defense of myself, family, friends and state is UNFIT to hold elective office and should be immediately removed from their position, and be stripped of their armed escorts, gated communities and special perquisites.
It’s time we stopped kidding ourselves. “Gun-free zones” are “safety-free zones”. There’s a HUGE difference between “feeling safe” – and BEING safe.
Sure makes sense to me...
Instead of one guy shooting, now we have 300 kids all shooting and bullets flying everywhere.
Hey gun lovers...do you really want all those people who can even make the right choice in a president(those who voted for Clinton, Gore, Carter etc.) making the choice on who to shoot. I for one don't.
Maybe Bush can pass a law before he leaves that only conservative republicans(sorry McCain..you're too liberal) can have guns. I will sleep well at night knowing that Rush Limbaugh ,all sedated on Vicodin and Oxycotin has my back....
Erich, you are on the correct side of the argument but apparently subscribe to the leftist mentality. A US citizen has the right to possess arms, without exception. No entity, not the government, the storeowner, the police… can deprive you of the right to bear arms. You cannot be deprived of a right to prevent a crime you have yet to commit. Due process must be served. The government must protect the citizen; it is its most important function. If the government fails to act:
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government.”—Alexander Hamilton.
“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”—John Adams.
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. - - George Washington
Oh yeah, and I am the one with the firearm who ensures that the "militia" remains well regulated, lest the militia begin to take advantage of the citizens. I'm afraid many out there fail to understand this concept.
If you will not accept responsibility for your own safety, fine- be a sheep. Feed the wolves and buy time until the wolves hunger for my children. I will be even more prepared.
I have spent a few years overseas in combat. In places and neighborhoods most whose names will never be heard or remembered. I know evil.
Hey look I'm not paranoid, I'm mentally prepared to do what it takes to protect my family, the wealth I have produced (through time I can't get back), and then by either by proxy or by decision- Yours.
Support Barrack Obama!
Ban Guns Now!
Signed, A Proud, Progressive Democrat
Background checks don't flag people with mental health issues unless they have been reported by medical personnel to be mentaly ill and a danger to self or others.
In the case of Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho, he was ordered by a judge to spend a night in a mental health facility in 2005, after which he was remanded to outpatient counseling, the court record of the incident should have been sent by Virginia to the FBI. It was not done as required by Virginia law.
As for Stephen Kazmierczak, he was taking meds for a possible mental health problem but had not been reorted as a danger to self or others. Six background checks were done on him shortly before he bought the guns at two different stores.
The sellers of the guns didn't have the information they needed to halt the sales. The gun store owners did all they could to check these people out, yet you want to blame them.
Let's go even further and blame the shrinks who didn't classify and report these people. Let's blame the bureaucracy. Let's blame the 20,000 gun control laws that are on the books.
Lets blame everyone but the perp.
A little self-education might be in order before you post again.
You haven't quite reached the "sell" point yet.
The problem I have with the blind embrace of the 2nd Amendment as justification for packing heat is that the times ARE different. First of all, the amendment specifically says owning arms is a right so that the people can form militias, with the intent on preventing the government from coming after them. With respect to that notion, I ask you to consider a couple of things. Do you remember reading any stories in the news lately about local militias? If so, you probably will also recall that they all end up being broken apart, their members arrested on Federal charges for various reasons. Where are your outcries then? They're the ones who are really following the letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Yet, you only cry fowl when a "liberal" wants to restrict gun access to individuals, who 99% of the time have nothing to do with militias. Additionally, another reason I think the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic is that if they government (i.e. US Military) came after you today, what would you really do? Even with automatic assault rifles, what are you going to do? Are you going to take out a tank with your right to bear arms?
Call me liberal and call me anti-American, but I really think we'd all be better off if the average person had no access to guns. Your idea is that we'd all be better off if we all had guns, because then no one would try anything. But if you replace we with all the countries in the world and replace guns with nuclear weapons, would that make you feel secure in the same way? America already has them, so why should Pakistan and Iran not have them, too? Wouldn't that make the world a safer place? It would, by your argument.
I favor what Australia and Britain have done in recent years. Their citizens said enough is enough; we don't want this to happen again; no more guns. And they've done so. I live in Japan now, where not even police officers carry guns. Only hunters and gun instructors can obtain licenses, and you know what? Jr. High school age girls can walk home at 10 o'clock at night without looking over their shoulder, and their parents don't worry about them either. It's a pretty amazing feeling that I bet most of you probably can't even imagine.
How about making it more difficult for the mentally ill to obtain weapons? I think that would have nipped this tragedy in the bud.
I carry a gun for the good of society because guys like me are good for society. I work hard, raise my kids right, pay my taxes and volunteer my time. I have an education and a productive life. If you try to kill me I will bury you for the good of society. My neighbor was good for soceity too, but he's still dead.
Safe zone my ass! It was a turkey shoot for that gunman.
To prove they're convinced of their arguments, I'd like to see all the Kumbyah crowd wear little badges, "Unarmed. Hate Guns. Please Do Not Defend Me." Voluntarily, of course. Wanna bet how many choose to do so? If they love gun-free zones, why NOT? What's the difference?
I absolutely promise to you that I would honor their wish and never defend them with a nasty old gun, no matter how much they're getting stabbed, raped, shot or beaten.
Finally, I love the claims touting gun-free, placid and crime-free countries - like Colombia, Mexico, the Phillipines, Chile, Indonesia, Pakistan, Serbia...
1. Assume a gunman (including if you're their hostage) will kill everyone at some point soon. This is particularly relevant in light of 9-11
2. Attempt to hit them and/or distract them with anything you can. Cell phone, shoes, backpacks to the head etc... go for the nose and eyes if possible. You might be able to knock them out or hurt them long enough at least for others to escape.
3. Carrying mace, a taser etc... if you prefer not carrying a firearm.
4. As mentioned by someone on this thread, people need to be mentally prepared to rush the perpetrator(s) and attempt to disable or preferably kill them by any means available. This is tough because it's such a frightening prospect. Imagine what D-Day marines had to go through.
5. Keeping your cool during intense pressure will help others as well.
Step up and be a leader to counter the threat. Assume you're the only one that will, and if you don't, everyone dies.
One day, maybe someone will get the courage to do the right thing and either change the state law regarding educational facilities, or the school directors will change their opinion. Either way, somthing needs to change.
Narcotics have been outlawed in the U.S. many decades. But you can still buy them in any city, sold by criminals to criminals. Outlawing guns will do the same.
Why is it OK for police to carry guns, but not trained and qualified citizens? No one is suggesting guns be handed out like candy and anyone who brings up that argument just shows their ignorance.
I know CCP gun owners and they are the nicest people around. I would welcome them to be sitting next to me in class anytime anywhere.
Nice piece...too bad KXnet.com & Reiten has to take what they perceive as the PC route and distance themselves from this writing!?
Nothing accidental here! Do you mean accidental sexual discharge?
Ill bet Illinois lawmakers are running around with erections now, excited that this could help them pass more gun-control laws. In fact they already had several on the floor already.
ISRA Alert:
AMMUNITION BAN BILLS ON THE MOVE IN ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
A pair of ammunition ban bills are up for hearing in the House Executive Committee this week. If enacted, either of these bills would effectively ban the purchase of ammunition in Illinois. The bills in question are HB 4269 sponsored by Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), and HB 4349 sponsored by Rep. Naomi Jakobsson (D-Champaign).
Here is what passage of either of these bills would mean to you:
1. Ammunition manufacturers would be required to imprint a secret code on
cartridge casings so that the purchaser of the ammunition could be identified.
2. When you purchase ammunition, th at secret code would be registered to your name.
3. All your ammunition purchases would be registered with the Illinois State Police.
4. You would be responsible for all eternity for ammunition registered to you.
5. It would be in your best interest to destroy all expended ammunition casings because an unaccounted for empty casing could be used to frame you for a crime you did not commit.
6. You would have to surrender all unregistered ammunition you now own to the Illinois State Police.
7. Reloading would be banned.
8. The Illinois Department of Revenue would be authorized to place a tax on ammunition and raise that tax any time for any reason.
9. Taxes and increased manufacturing costs would raise the price of a box of .45 ammo to $200 or more.
10. Gun ownership would become too costly for most
people.
WHAT YOU MUST DO TO HELP SAVE YOUR GUN RIGHTS:
1. Call Rep. Monique Davis’ office at (217) 782-0010 and POLITELY tell the person that answers that you are a law-abiding gun owner and you would oppose Rep. Davis’ attempt to ban ammunition.
2. Call Rep. Naomi Jakobsson’s offce at (217) 558-1009 and POLITELY tell the person that answers that you are a law-abiding gun owner and you would oppose Rep. Jakobsson’s attempt to ban ammunition.
3. Call each of the following members of the House Executive Committee and POLITELY tell whoever answers the phone that you OPPOSE HB4269 and HB4349 and that you would like them to vote against those bills in the Executive Committee. Remember, you represent the gun owners of this state, so BE POLITE:
Rep. Dan Burke (D-Chicago) (217) 782-1117
Rep Joseph Lyons (D-Chicago) (217) 782-8400
Rep. Dan Brady (R-Bloomington) (217) 782-1118
Rep. Eddie Acevedo (D-Chicago) (217) 782-2855
Rep. Maria Antonia Berrios (D-Chicago) (217) 558-1032
Rep. Bob Biggins (R-Elmhurst) (217) 782-6578
Rep Michael Bradley (D-Chicago) (217) 782-8117
Rep. Brent Hassert (R-Romeoville) (217) 782-4179
Rep. Jim Meyer (R-Naperville) (217) 782-8028
Rep. Robert Molaro (D-Chicago) (217) 782-5280
Rep. Bob Rita (D-Crestwood) (217) 558-1000
Rep. Angelo Saviano (R-River Grove) (217) 782-3374
Rep. Arthur Turner (D-Chicago) (217) 782-8116
4. Please pass this alert along to all your gun-owning friends and ask them to make calls as well.
5. Please post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards to which you may belong.
Remember – gun control is a disease, you are the cure!
Listen folks, HE'S the crazy one. He's one of the most immature, irrational, short-tempered guys I've ever met. It scares me to death that he is able to walk down my street here in Kansas City with that thing under his shirt. I always worry that my son and his friends in the neighborhood will be goofing off and startle him when he's in his garage someday, causing him to abruptly react and leave a couple 8 yr olds dead.
There's no possible way to quantify it statistically, but I'm sure the number of wrongful deaths that would occur from having EVERYONE armed, allowed to use deathly weapons on impulse like in the days of the old west, would exponentially outnumber those that unfortunately perish in acts like yesterday's.
Furthermore, can you imagine allowing conceal and carry on a college campus? Do we really want 19 yr olds armed when they're at a house party on a Saturday night and a fight breaks out? Instead of using "common sense" and rushing to judgement on this issue.....please think about the consequences of such a proposal!
how about perhaps fixing your problem with your healthcare system and the help needed for those people before they snap and shoot dozens of people. Rather then arming everyone ?
what kind of logic is that ?
but i guess easier violent solutions are what the american culture gravitates to , before common sense and empathy .
probably find that his "sickness" wasn't reported to the state.
It would not be"PC" to stygmatize a child( the PC defenition). Anitdepresants, I'm afraid,
will turn out to be an underlying cause for many future massacres.
But let's keep giving them out for every bump to our psyche.
If you'd like some background for the stats and argument about
guns and their effect on society, take a look at "More guns less Crime by Dr. John R. Lott Jr. It's a little dry but the stats and how they were compiled are impressive.
Note: Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
I remember an occasion where a woman with a permit went into a berger joint leaving her weapon in her car due to the store policy, a shooting occured and her mother and other customers were killed because it was a gun free zone, for the victims not the shooter.
There are no reports of any person with a CWP being involved in a shootin like the schools, the recent shooter in a church was stoped by an armed church volunteer, a fact that will be ignored by the gun control crowd.
To those who claim "more guns mean more deaths and that's a fact". Really? Cite your sources. All of the statistics on post right to carry states show the opposite.
School shootings have already been stopped by armed citizens. Why wait for the murderer to commit suicide if a citizen can stop him sooner? The last people murdered in these rampages should haunt the advocates of "gun free zones".
Great Britian is a very poor example for advocates of gun control. Recently the gun violence rate there has exploded. Check the British papers.
There are no guarantees that an armed student would have been present, or if present could have stopped the murderer. But disarming everyone guarantees no onc can do anything to stop it.
The only opposition I see from people promoting the "Gun Free Zones" is that they feel more guns would cause more accidental shootings. Well what stops accidental shootings.?? Safety Education does.
You would be surprised if you know how many people you pass daily that are carrying a concealed weapon. Surprisingly enough, not shooting themselves.
“Do I believe that violence only begets more violence? not only do I believe in it, I count on it. If a man comes against me with Violence, I trust he will receive a lot more then he can handle in return” -The Late, Jeff Cooper
Pease through superior firepower.
There are no murders by gun in the entire city.
Yeah, but it's also naive to think that this piece of human garbage would've racked up the death toll he did if someone else in that classroom would've been able to stop him.
"The day my students can be armed is the day I give all my students A's. I'd simply avoid the confrontation that comes with handing out failing grades, or worse, confronting students for cheating, plagiarism or any other offense that can result in suspension, expulsion, loss of scholarship, academic ineligibility for athletic competition, etc. They don't pay me enough...."
Yeah, because the minute you upset someone he's going to go half-****ed and shoot you. That's the problem with you anti-gun nuts. You think that those of us who understand and support a man or woman's right to defend him or herself simply want a live-action Clint Eastwood movie. Nothing could be farther from the truth; a responsible gun owner never wants to fire a single bullet at a fellow human. He only wants the ability to do so when that same human is firing at him.
oh and do you think none of your students carry knives?
So...how d'ya think this Great Big Gun Ban is going to 'happen?' Bah-rock gonna sign an Executive Order...stroke of the pen, law of the land? What happens then? I know how much pansy-sniffing leftists, always simpering about peace and justice, love their NKVD (look it up) and KGB jackbooted thugs breaking those few recalcitrant eggs so there can be a peaceful societal omelet.
People die in mass shootings about as often as they die in lightning strikes. The same won't be true of any attempt to enforce a gun ban, my friend. But you're welcome to the effort. I hope you are one of the first black uniforms to try....
I hope you teach something fuzzy like Sociology or English Lit, not anything that requires...logic.
Wow, you were as intellectually numb as the anti-gun zealots were. What the hell were u thinking? Too bad you didnt change your mind before those kids were killed.
Do you think that if you had a crazed and disgruntled student, angry enough to shoot you, that he/she would only be deterred because of a ban on guns on school grounds? Do you ACTUALLY believe that? The fact that we're talking about a shooting in a "gun free zone" should put a hole (no pun intended) in your theory.
Why won't you try and accept the fact that not all who carry guns are trigger happy lunatics? If police and military personnel can be trained on the proper care and use of firearms, why isn't it possible to believe that citizens not in law enforcement can be as well?
Do you think that if you had a crazed and disgruntled student, angry enough to shoot you, that he/she would only be deterred because of a ban on guns on school grounds? Do you ACTUALLY believe that? The fact that we're talking about a shooting in a "gun free zone" should put a hole (no pun intended) in your theory.
Why won't you try and accept the fact that not all who carry guns are trigger happy lunatics? If police and military personnel can be trained on the proper care and use of firearms, why isn't it possible to believe that citizens not in law enforcement can be as well?
Put up all the "No Weapon" signs you want. Create gun free zones. The only people who respect gun free zones are law abiding citizens. Criminals for some reason tend to ignore these zones. I wonder why???
Not to be flippant, but we know this statement to be true... An armed society is a polite society.
Let's declare Illinois to be a 100% gun-free state. None allowed. No exceptions. Everyone who owns a gun, just move away. Companies that have anything to do with guns, move away. Set up check stations at every road entering the state so none can be brought in.
I will bet you any amount you care to wager (ANY amount) that the crime rate will skyrocket.
Takers?
If not, justify WHY not.
All of these shootings are cowards ways out of the problems of life. They can't stand the idea of just dying alone, when they can have company in the form of a helpless, captive audience.
Those who would legally carry self defense arms must be properly trained and practiced. That is serious stuff, not just going out and going bang, bang, but training and practicing various scenarios of self defense. Even then, who knows how they would react when the time comes?
I am in complete agreement with those who would be armed. Our problem is getting someone in authority to listen to our logic. We have a senator from Texas that is one who would listen, and has already spoken out for self-defense. Look for more, cultivate them.
For over forty years I have been following our downward spiral into a ever increasing world of violence.The emergence of a new social conscience founded by many well-meaning citizens during the sixties has been overthrown and taken over by self serving radicals who believe that individual freedom and responsibility and efforts of self protection from violence are anti-progressive.They have championed the rights of drug users,no matter how often they turn to violence and guns in order to self-protect their turf and supply.They have guaranteed the rights of the insane and their privacy in order for them to reach their full potential,free from the scrutiny of all but their own therapist,if they freely choose to have one, that is.Involuntary committal has disappeared from our vocabulary along with the term "criminally insane".Many a grand discourse has been held in dorm rooms and at "prof parties" throughout this country this past forty years,attended by many of the current crop of political and media celebrities,where,accompanied by the haze of smoke from a few joints,doobies,splifswhateverand the relative merits of each brand by country of origin,it was the agreement by concensis,that America was a "gun culture" and needed to be steered in a new direction.The only time that voices of protest might be heard would be if someone lower on the ladder of revolutionary evolution would have the temerity to suggest that perhaps they should object to the sawed-off on their dealers' coffee table.
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts...
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!
Typically, only seniors, grad students and staff would be old enough to own a handgun. By federal law you gotta be 21 to buy a handgun.
It has been this way for almost 40 years.
Do you havea right to protect yourself? Why does that right end at the college doors?
I have carried a gun with my CCW license for 7 years and have stopped 4 robberies and a rape.
....wake up, stand up, and buy a gun so you can protect yourself, no one else will.
The shooting in WV, two students "over powered" the gunman, was how the news reported it, the truth was those students had carry permits.
As an aside: someone knew the perp...his family? some friends?
Did they know he was unsable? Did he have a history of acting or sounding crazy?
We don't have a problem with guns, we have a problem with crazy people.
Gun Free Zone = Call 911 and die.
However, if there is any chance she is unstable, a criminal, on meds, needs to be on meds and isn't, or is too immature to handle her responsibilities as a gun-totin' American, she will be relieved of her firearm and the responsibility that gun ownership demands.
I won't leave it up to the government to tell her she's unstable and take her gun away, I'll do it myself.
The key words regarding gun use in this post are "Respect" and (personal) "Responsibility". Liberals can find these words in a dictionary, since they don't seem comprehend their meaning.
Yeah, that ought to do it. Even crazy people would obey that.
You gun advocates make me sick. The safest societies are the ones without guns. The right to bear arms was meant for a time of war.
Sound crazy? Almost as crazy as "The way to solve public shootings is with more guns."
This country is doomed.
If someone is shooting at them or hitting them, their fantasy is shattered. They could end up on the floor screaming in pain, possibly maimed. And they would go to jail. People would shun them for the rest of their lives. This would be worse than death.
Thus a rock, a paperweight or a small derringer would be enough deterrent if they know people will effectively counterattack with what they have. People who are fighting for their lives have a greater motivation than someone who is out for jollies without any pain to themselves.
I personally do not want to go to class knowing that several people in my class have a gun. I am not anti-gun ownership, I think if used responsibly they are a perfectly acceptable thing to own. That said, I am in class to learn, not to be afraid or threatened by people in class with guns. If widespread gun carrying becomes common place, people will become desensitized to guns and soon you'll have kids threatening others with guns instead of fists. You'll have gun fights after school instead of fist fights. You'll have false alarms and incidents of "self-defense" being taken out of context. I don't want to live in a society desensitized to guns, and I assume neither do you.
The problem lies with society. It lies with individual responsibility. It lies with proper upbringing and parenting. It lies with the fact that it takes a village to raise a child and that we are all responsible for those who fall through the cracks. Please remember the common good, not just your own.
Erase the borders and make this planet one world. We could be one of the advanced civilizations in the galaxy if we could let go of our primal urges.
I AM THE PROUD OWNER OF A GUN FREE HOME
Or
Learn To Survive In A Gun Zone With Reasonable People Knowing How To Protect One Another!
Gun Control does not control guns, but people with Guns do know how to protect themselves from the Nuts!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/1001214.html
If you're talking about another cafeteria shooting in Texas, please share the details"
Hank W - you are correct in correcting CH. But there is more to that story. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, the daughter of two victims of the 1991 Luby's massacre, was also present in the restaurant but had left her legally owned handgun in the car because it was illegal to carry a handgun at that time. She has stated she regretted abiding by the law and having to watch her parents and others die in front of her, unable to do anything. She later was elected a state representative and authored Texas' current Concealed Handgun Law.
Since many on both sides don't understand what a Concealed Handgun Law entails here is a sample. In Texas it requires an extensive background check, fingerprinting, training and demonstrating safety and proficiency with a handgun. You are also required to undergo an new background check, repeat training and testing every few years. The holder of the CHL in Texas is required to identify themselves to Law Enforcement even when not carrying at a traffic stop and this will give probable cause for the officer to search vehicle - something a non-CHL holder is not subject to. It is illegal to carry a firearm anywhere alcohol is more than 51% of the businesses sales. There is a long list of other places that are illegal to carry a firearm into and any business can post a specific sign in English and Spanish to ban firearms from the premises. It is illegal to reveal the firearm in any away that is menacing or threatening unless you are reasonably believe that you are eminent danger.
And please don't use the "Old West" as an analogy - it only shows you as ignorant of American History. The "Old West" as a violent and lawless place was largely the creation of Hollywood. Many of those who settled the West between 1870-1900 were Civil War vets and owned a gun which they were very comfortable in using.
BTW - I am not a CHL holder as I have found that I drive the most lethal weapon on the American landscape - the automobile. In most cases, I can flee or use it as needed. And I live in a "gown" town and work at a university, have eaten at the Killeen Luby's and unfortunately have known too many murder victims in my life.
Something to ponder: If the 2nd Amendment was read and interpreted the same way as the 1st Amendment, gun ownership would not only be permissible but mandatory.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/1001214.html
If you're talking about another cafeteria shooting in Texas, please share the details"
Hank W - you are correct in correcting CH. But there is more to that story. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, the daughter of two victims of the 1991 Luby's massacre, was also present in the restaurant but had left her legally owned handgun in the car because it was illegal to carry a handgun at that time. She has stated she regretted abiding by the law and having to watch her parents and others die in front of her, unable to do anything. She later was elected a state representative and authored Texas' current Concealed Handgun Law.
Since many on both sides don't understand what a Concealed Handgun Law entails here is a sample. In Texas it requires an extensive background check, fingerprinting, training and demonstrating safety and proficiency with a handgun. You are also required to undergo an new background check, repeat training and testing every few years. The holder of the CHL in Texas is required to identify themselves to Law Enforcement even when not carrying at a traffic stop and this will give probable cause for the officer to search vehicle - something a non-CHL holder is not subject to. It is illegal to carry a firearm anywhere alcohol is more than 51% of the businesses sales. There is a long list of other places that are illegal to carry a firearm into and any business can post a specific sign in English and Spanish to ban firearms from the premises. It is illegal to reveal the firearm in any away that is menacing or threatening unless you are reasonably believe that you are eminent danger.
And please don't use the "Old West" as an analogy - it only shows you as ignorant of American History. The "Old West" as a violent and lawless place was largely the creation of Hollywood. Many of those who settled the West between 1870-1900 were Civil War vets and owned a gun which they were very comfortable in using.
BTW - I am not a CHL holder as I have found that I drive the most lethal weapon on the American landscape - the automobile. In most cases, I can flee or use it as needed. And I live in a "gown" town and work at a university, have eaten at the Killeen Luby's and unfortunately have known too many murder victims in my life.
Something to ponder: If the 2nd Amendment was read and interpreted the same way as the 1st Amendment, gun ownership would not only be permissible but mandatory.
Two neighborhoods side by side. One, Second Amendment Estates has a huge sign stating "Every homeowner in this subdivision is armed and knows how to use their weapon." The other, LiberalalaLand, has and equally huge sign stating "We do not believe citizens have the right to bear arms, Guns kill people! Question? What subdivision do criminals go to ?
And someones so paranoid they're going to work packing heat because an ex employee had gone loopy??
They would have carried legally if that was an option, but they made the rationalization that as females taking night classes, the would rather run afoul of gun control laws and stand a chance at dissuading a violent attack upon their person, than be an unarmed and assured victim. I always made it a point to know their schedules and where they were in then building when possible.
It wasn't because I was scared of them.
It was because I knew that if something like VT or NIU ever happened on our campus, in our building, that finding one of them was my best chance of making it out alive.
My personal opinion - There are a hundred people That I know that I would not trust with a gun, and unless they wise-up I hope they never own one. But I do know this, one gun, in the hand of one responsible student could have stopped this.
The criminals will always be armed, the question is, do we want to be able to defend ourselves?
My personal opinion - There are a hundred people That I know that I would not trust with a gun, and unless they wise-up I hope they never own one. But I do know this, one gun, in the hand of one responsible student could have stopped this.
The criminals will always be armed, the question is, do we want to be able to defend ourselves?
gun rights advocates should look to their legal future. it is gun rights advocates that must figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of psychos before parents vote guns away permanently. you've been warned. ballots beat bullets every time.
exactly. everyone having a gun its the most retarded thing to do.
...how about..where was campus security making sure this nut didn't have a gun?? great job keeping the campus safe...just because its a "gun-free zone" doesn't mean people (like this nut) won't bring one in. there should be someone making sure none of this is happening. isn't that the point of campus security???
You do not see these shootings in gun stores or at gun shows. You don't see people rushing into police stations and opening fire. I am not saying that everyone everywhere needs a gun or that teachers should be armed, lord knows that I pray that most of the teachers and professors I suffered with kept a healthy distance from guns, but that cowardly, soulless bastard would have never opened fire there had he thought that there was even the slightest possibility that there could have been someone else there who was armed.
Gun control does not work. It will sooner or later become the law of the land and we will all still find ourselves cowering in fear of those who have guns.
I fully believe in the right of every citizen and/or approved resident to own and carry a weapon. If classes are deemed required, fine, that's not a problem, as long as the costs do not make it prohibitive toward majority of the population.
The reason? Regardless of my political leaning, I believe in the inalienable right of every person to self-defense and preservation of their own life. I do not, for one, want to wait until the bunch of teenagers are done playing tough with me at the wrong end of a barrel or a blade. I do not want to wait for the police to arrive when somebody is breaking into my apartment. And, since this seems to be the buzzword nowadays, I certainly do not want to wait for the terrorists to decide what to do with their hostages without having a fighting chance.
I could never, and still do not, understand the idiocy of pretending that inanimated objects are the cause or catalysts for social problems.
To all of you gun nay-sayers, read a bit about Switzerland before shooting off claims about crime rate and "accidents":
"Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols. "
from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
Somebody hit the nail on the head with explanation why firearms ownership is so carefully controlled, and it has everything to do with purposefully acting against the implied threat of a government focused on its own agenda rather than that of its citizens. Precisely why the right to arms was included in the Constitution, muddling the meaning with "militia" duties notwithstanding.
You gun advocates make me sick. The safest societies are the ones without guns. The right to bear arms was meant for a time of war.
ASK THE JEWS IN GERMANY HOW THEY LIKED THE SAFE SOCIETY WITHOUT GUNS!!!!!! That is not the only example of "total gun control" ie ban leading to genocide.
governments can have greater control of their citizens.Many of these safest societies also manufacture and export the "Glocks(Germany)and SIG Sauer firearms{Switzerland)" that the gangbangers and mass shooters prefer,and I should not forget the most popular assault weapon of all time and a clear favorite of many who would terrorize us into disarmed submission,the "AK 47",manufactured in mass quantities and freely available to those with the correct amount of cash or ideological motives by several more of those "safest societies".
That depending on ones point of view, their opinion is correct. Either pro-gun or anti-gun.
What this tragedy should teach us is that in a free society, such as ours, a certain amount of risk is presumed upon its citizens. To deny a basic freedom, that of self-defense, hinders that freedom that is our birthright. As it is if we choose to deny a persons choice in religion or to peacefully assemble. When we start denying the rights of most to give rights to some, we degrade all rights given to us.
The argument of "If we just got rid of all guns, then we would be safe" fails. Those who spout that idea forget the basic principle of "Once an object has been produced, the only way that object will never again be produced, is to eliminate all knowledge of that product" meaning all accounts on its manufacture and assembly has to be wiped clean from all sources, to include books, movies and humans themselves, etc.
I live in the State of Illinois, actually I live about 25 miles north of NIU and have a sister that attends NIU.
I feel that within a few weeks, our govenor, gov. blah-blah, will try to force into law, a gun-free zone throughout the entire state. Gov blah-blah, like so many other politicians, fail to tackle the tough challenges, instead they prefer to pass "feel-good" measures.
The lesson to be learned is not whether one should be allowed to carry a firearm or not.
The lesson to be learned here is to find the cause behind why individuals behave like this and to fix that problem, whether it is social, economic or political or a combination thereof.
In other words, it is time for our politicians to get off their lazy butts and stop passing "feel-good" measures and tackle the tough job of correcting the ills of this great society.
In most of the colonies it was required that all able bodied men were to be armed at all times, after all, there were the Indians to contend with. In todays world, we face a determined foe, who wants to kill us just for being who we are! They are infiltrating our country, and more than ever we need protection. The facts can't be disputed, the police do the best they can, but they will not rush into a mall or school to take out a shooter, they will wait for the swat team to get there. By the time swat arrives, you're DEAD! I am a CWP holder. I had to pass a written test, show proficiency with my firearm, have my fingerprints taken, and pass a back round check. If I had any arrests or criminal charges on my record, my permit would have been denied. Each time when I buy a new gun, Pistol or Rifle, my written application for purchase has to pass the instant back round check or I will not be allowed to purchase the gun. I suggest the people who do not wish to own guns, or anyone else to own them for that matter, take heart. You can move to one of the places or states that don't allow for personal ownership of firearms, like England or Australia, or China or Russia. You will feel much safer there! Of course, you will not be safer, as the crime rate in most of those places is much higher than here, but you will feel safer! I guess that is what really matters to you, feeling safe. Remember the words "Those who trade liberty for peace usually end up with neither" Peace at any price is something you may be willing to pay, but I would rather not be a slave. Iceman58, free until I die.
I also carry a concealed pistol with extra ammo just in case.
Should it ever occur, I hope to survive such an attack and will be judged by a jury rather then be carried in a casket by pallbearers.
No, if it were the founders would've clearly stated thus in the Constitution.
This is the majority thinking of the founders, ""Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."- - George Washington
Making firearms illegal will only create a black market.
Cocaine has been illegal for a long time, but if you know the right people you can get as much as you want.
i.e. troubled people, on dangerous drugs, "kill" , not guns.
Look it up.
The Police have no duty to protect individuals.
But nobody in this seems to care about the facts unless they happen to agree with already-existing opinions. My post won't change any minds.
1st We do not advocate everyone carry a weapon, that would be stupid. HowEver Those of us whom do have CC permits under go extensive background checks. My permit was issued by My county Sherriff.
2. I Have undergone training with guns my whole adult life> I am a 22 year Army vet. Almost all CCW State's will not allow an unqualified person to carry. Many pay for training. It is not cheap to get a permit.
3. A trained teacher in a school with a gun would be more effective than an unarmed security guard. In a shooting we call unarmed security guard's victoms.
4. Police take normally 8 minutes to get to the place of an incident , The incident normally over in seconds In 8 minutes. I wonderhow many people can die before 911 is even dialed.
Let us qualified and willing defend our ownlives, and others will also be saved as a result.
You Should be more upset that this killer will get more fame than that beautiful armed security guard at the church. If these dissfunctional killers name were not published most of these incidents would stop.
Having armed students and teachers would have only added to the violence. There's already too much killing.
Violence only beget violence.
Now don't you feel better
Sincerely,
B. Obama
Remember, the VT shooter was also known to have been mentally unstable. Why are the doctors never held to some degree of fault in this case - and all the others?
Let’s begin holding doctors and other professional “caretakers” who have people like this murderer and other potential murderers under their “professional” care responsible and not give them a free ride.
There was a time when truly dangerous people such as these were held in institutions and monitored to make sure medication was taken. But the bleeding hearts claimed that it was inhuman to place people there. It is past time for this to be reversed and protect the general population.
Not oly was this a "gun free zone" it happened in the Northern Part of a "Gun Free State" Illinois is one of two states in the union that has NO Carry Permit of any kind. All gun owners are registerd, and you must be liscenced to own a gun or shells of any kind. Gun Control only controls the law abbiding.
It should be recognized, as a point of law, that when you deprive individuals of their right to self-defense, you assume the responsibility for providing that protection. And failure to do so results in civil and criminal penalties.
And Legislators should be included as well. We need to put a stop to irresponsible legislators passing inane, or downright dangerous, laws, and then walking away from the results with a wink and a grin.
Plus, it is a mistake to assume that there weren't guns present in that room. Having worked at NIU as an instructor, I happen to know that the population served there often is armed. Inner-city women quite often carry guns in their purses (NIU isn't inner-city, but it draws a large population of lower-class from Chicago and Rockford). I think that what we learn here is that the first instinct is to get out. To run. I don't want to live in a country where anyone's first instinct is to pull out their gun and kill someone.
If the US wants to be the tough masculine country it believes it once was, we should aspire to be the people of the 40s, who, when reporting to duty in WWII 50% couldn't pull the trigger to shoot someone else. Yet, now, we want everyone poised to shoot, on classrooms. That doesn't seem sane to me.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself! They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and keystone under Independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good!"
President Geo. Washington, in a speech to Congress. 7 January, 1790
Gee, are drugs legal to have...Heck no but they are there, and easy to get...
Think banning guns will make them hard to get, think again...
PS. I carry, (legally)
If someone there had been armed, odds are high that there would have been no more than 1 or 2 casualties rather than the 7+ growing list we are seeing. In fact, actual incidents show that armed persons present frequently stop violent incidents before they even begin.
Those who argue that we have to have guns in our laps are simply demonstrating their own ignorance of firearms.
Hank Reardon - Reardon - Reardon Steel Co.
oh, and to the poster above who does not object to hunting weapons but does object to handguns: people buy these guns because they enjoy shooting them at targets. it's fun, you should try it yourself some time. what better way of protecting yourself do you have than a weapon that you know how to use?
And the next time an NRA protected gun terrorist kills 5 people at a mall - we kill 10 people in the offices of the NRA. Soon enough - they would get the message.
Go figure!!!
The last places you would think you could go unprotected has been exposed. Classrooms and churches. They know for almost certain they don't have to worry about return fire, until they can kill enough to put their name up close to the top of the "killers hall of fame".
The only guy that was unsuccessful was the idiot in Colorado at the church and you remember what stopped him short of his goal. It wasn't someones warm fuzzy feelings!!!!!!!!
All of these wackadoos KNOW that law-abiding folks will not break the law and take their firearms into these places which makes them the perfect place to inflict their eveil. I don't know how you would consdier this naive.
You gusy are ridiculous with your students should be able to acrry guns..that will make the situation WORSE.. or are you too uneducated to know that.
Sure maybe this killer wouldnt have done what he did, but what you will have is a campus with 1000 kids with guns. Thats really brilliant solution
Al Lucas
I personally think this reflects the mindset of many of the Hollywood types. They use their fame as platforms to push agendas that assuage their "guilty conscience" in order that they can feel like they are doing something that would actually justify the money they make for "acting" Unfortunately many of those actors do not have a real connection with reality and thus have to do something that satisfies their emptiness.
Why do actors so often lean toward the left or liberal mindset? All of the above comments reflect in one way or another, the desperate situation that we as a country are in. We have reached the pinnacle level of distrust of our countries leaders, both Republican and Democratic. God have mercy on us regardless of the outcome of this election. If we don’t, through our votes, rid ourselves of the "political cancer" that pervade our system, we are destined to find ourselves in a place we could never have imagined being.
I wrote this piece for Say Anything (Sayanythingblog.com) and it was picked up by KXMB and subsequently by Drudge.
From reading the above comments it seems that a majority of people are changing their views about Gun Free Zones. I was VERY against arming teachers and allowing properly permitted students to carry on campus - until Virginia Tech.
Those guys KNOW the people in those classrooms are defenseless. That's why they go there to end their life in as dramatic way as possible. They can make their mark before killing themselves. If not - then why not go to a police station and open fire? Wouldn't last long, that's why.
One note: Recently a man went into a church to kill people. There was an armned woman there. He didn't know that. He was stopped.
It's a lesson we should learn from.
Pilgrim
Sayanythingblog.com
illegal guns stream into the streets. somehow they go from legal manufacturing or importation to a crime scene. my argument is with the 'radical purists' who say the govt has no right and insist on laws that prohibit law eforcement from finding out how a gun a rrived at a crime scene or how a gun got itno the hands of a criminal.
The only people that follow that ordinance are the victims.
The criminals-killers don't.
Let's level the playing field and give these students their right to defend themlselves and live back.
It's an inalienable right. Why would any official ever think about taking the right to live from someone ?
"Glock - Don't leave home without it!"
"Glock - Don't leave home without it!"
May I suggest your refusing to give the body of the killer up? Bury it in a non-descript grave, somewhere in Potters Field. If the potential perp realizes his body will be 'disposed of', it might cause one or two (not all) to reconsider their action. (In fact, as gruesome as it sounds, I'd approve it being shredded.) Your action could be justified as wanting to maintain evidence, I believe. Or give it to a medical school for dissection by the medical students.
So when you think parents of a responsible young adult would vote away their right to self-protection, I'm saying - as kindly as I can - that you either don't know what you're talking about or you don't know the kind of person my daughter is. She has the courage to stand up for herself and the judgment and training to know when and how to. The people in her classes don't know how well off they are with her among them.
My wife and I would never vote against any responsible person's right to self-protection, and never against our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Any loving and well-informed parent would feel the same.
Much of the rest of the world has managed to improve on that model. I wonder if the right wing is still against flush toilets and flouridated water?
But I must say this also:
When a crazy shooter when to a church a few months ago, a volunteer at the church, with a gun stopped him cold. That women saved real lives, not hypothetical lives......
It is a fact that she could not have had her gun at the campus. Due to the schools policy.
NIU and other schools need someone armed on site and a more secure way to enter 'campus' so detectors can be used on everyone entering the campus.
A man killed a women in NY with a meat cleaver a few days ago, it's not so much the gun, it's the nut. And the system that places the crazies medical privacy above the safty of others. And policies that are designed to make us feel good, but are empty words instead.
You New York street punks should be a bit careful of who you call redneck. First, you don't know a damned thing about legalized carrying of firearms, probably unable to guess one out of three which end the bullets come out of. Tell us all, GENIUS, one instance of where a legally carried weapon was hauled out in a street fight and killed anyone. Yeah...I know...we should have much more sane, harmless street altercations like New York City where people are stabbed or bashed to death with baseball bats and bricks.
Sincerely, Texas Browserdog
One, nobody here has changed his/her mind. That's a shame.
Two, everyone who extols the utopian virtue of gun-ban countries ironically lives -and remains- here. That's a shame, too.
Three, it is curious that every poster who opposes guns and/or takes a liberal stand uses phrases like "all students carrying guns" or "everyone armed". Their preferred option is "no one armed" or "everyone disarmed". The salient fact is not about their gun beliefs, but rather that they see everything in totalitarian perspective. Totalitarianism is the polar opposite of what America is based on. If we listen to these socialists, we are doomed, and I do not mean at the hands of a psycho. That's the biggest shame of all.
Finally, before I post and delete this bookmark, allow me to make one last analogy. A flock of defenseless sheep will be slowly but surely exterminated by a single wolf. A sign or a law banning wolves has no effect. You defend them with a dog. You do not need a flock of dogs. One or two brave dogs -with teeth- is enough.
Unluckily for all concerned, Students trained in Firearm self Defense are prohibited by law from carrying on-Campus the means to protect anyone with anything other than perhaps their ball-point pens.
If this most recent Illinois terrorist had not obligingly killed himself, he would have no doubt later sued the students (with the assistance of a glorious trial Lawyer) for attempting to defend THEM-selves.
So it is now-days, and Columbine was surely not the first time, but it was a long enough time ago to be prepared for this next time.
Top shrink concludes liberals are nuts!
Makes case ideology is mental disorder
WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
The scary truth most sheeple don't know is the Police have no legal responsibility to protect you. If you call and tell the po-po someone is coming to kill you, they will ask you if that person has arrived yet and request you call back when they do.
Self defense is your responsibility, not the cops', and a firearm is your best bet. If you don't own at least one and know how to use it and keep a stock of ammo and spares on hand, then you're irresponsible and really deserve what happens to you. Get a 12 gauge and keep it by the bed for those "chances to excel" as the Marines call them.
I used to have a pump with 7 round extended mag tube loaded with a mix of #8 and #00 (if you don't know what that means, learn), a butt cuff with an additional 5 rounds at the ready, and a bandoleer of 50 rounds, including slugs, just in case. I have since upgraded to a Saiga 12 which essentially an AK-47 firing 12 gauge shells from a 12 round mag. THAT is peace of mind.
For you ladies afraid of recoil or not strong enough to heft a shotgun, why not invest in some training at the range and a small caliber pistol. The new 5.7mm round is incredible, low-recoil, and according to a friend of mine it will penetrate at least 47 layers of kevlar. I watched a woman in her late-60s run 30 rounds of 5.7mm through a PS-90 carbine last August without flinching. If she can do it, so can you.
Just remember-It's better to act than wait for permission and it's better to be detained by the cops than to be hauled away by the EMTs.
Enjoy-Paul R. Bear
As an NRA member for 30 years, I do so look forward to your visit... ;)
A: For the same reason that they don't happen at gun shows and shooting ranges.
Tiger
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8URH42O0&show_article=1
Should we ban car racing too ???
How about the 300 or so killed on our nations highways.....EVERYDAY. About half are alcohol related. Where are the do-gooders here?
It just makes good sense.
So if you think we have a problem with crime now in the U.S just wait till a "lefty" gets elected.
"If you start to restrict are second amendment righ,t are rights, there not unalienable, there just on loan from the government."
I've already signed up to get a CCP next month.
i.e., 24 of VT's victims would still be alive (statistically speaking), and there would be 4 fewer deaths at NIU and around 14 fewer woundings - had the attack occured at all.
Any questions? Or are we still considering the 7-year-old soultion?
To everyone except the killer.
Sad, but this is the fact and it will continue.
And, yes, I bring my gun to church.
How compelling it is to be dressed down about ones level of academic achievement by a gen-u-ine New York Goombah who writes like he , y'know...tawks...
Have news for you Paisan...to surpass this New York expatriate "redneck's" level of college degreeship, you'd have to be "Dr Maz..."
Yo, Dr Maz? yeah....thought so...
As for your imprecation (look it up Doc) against armed students...well, maybe we should just ban alcohol on campus, yes? Then you'd remove about 90% of the causation of violent altercations. And the presence of armed citizens- limited to those who, as in everywhere else where CCW is lawhave demonstrated their competence and stabilitywould transmogrify from an imagined bogeyman to an expected and trusted part of the landscape.
The reason is that some people need killing, specifically when they are trying to kill someone else in cold blood. The notion that you can negotiate with criminals is fallacious. The only reasoning some of them understand comes out of the barrel of a gun. Naivete can get you killed.
If carrying concealed is the prudent thing to do, then I'm all for someone going armed. I've yet to see an otherwise lawful CCW holder causing problems. Believe me, society is full of far more law-abiding folks than criminals by far.
Police are not intended to guarantee the safety of every individual in society. We just can't do that and certainly wouldn't be foolish enough to say so. A police force can pursue criminals, but we can't be some kind of uber bodyguard minder of every member of society. Folks wouldn't like it very well if we were.
Not me. **** laws that are unconstitutional - and I'll decide that for myself, thank you...
Has anyone mentioned the meds? Or are you just fixated on this lost chance for a good ol' fashioned western shootout? I expect that part of the story to vanish. A perfectly normal person stops taking a "medicine," buys a bunch of guns and goes hunting in a lecture hall... Hey, nobody ever does that with pot...
Rights... Your sorry asses, thanks to the Federal state, belongs to the AMA and big pharma, which only sell patentable poisons. And the next president will probably make it illegal to not be a part of the system.
And it'll only get worse, until the government as we know it today is eliminated.
If you want to ban guns, do everyone a big favor and plant a sign in your front yard that you are gun free. It will make is so much easier to purge out the mindless sheep.
Crawl back in your hole.
Ron Reale
realetybytes.townhall.com
realetybytes@yahoo.com
I don't see how what happened is an argument either for or against gun control. Surely no one supports the idea that the killer was entitled to use his weapon under these circumstances.
The other comment that is strange is that a number of current and former firearms users suggest that only law-abiding, trained and screened individuals be allowed to carry a sidearm. While I understand that extraordinary "screening" may have detected this shooter, I don't presume that a law-abiding, trained and screened individual couldn't have done the same thing at some point. And the suggestion itself is a massive form of gun control - who is to decide what "law-abiding" means. Who is to decide what "training" is necessary. Who is to decide when and how "screening" will take place. Are you going to deny concealed carry to frequent speeders? How much training do you really need to fire a bolt action rifle - If I recall right - not much. Can you ever train someone to always be safe and responsible? When are you going to screen people - when they buy the gun, after significant events in their life (e.g., the infidelity of a spouse, the loss of a child)?
If you are for the type of gun control currently in place - this guy got a gun. If you are for extreme gun control - there is no guarantee this guy wouldn't have had a gun. If you are for concealed carry - this guy, and likely others like him would be as armed as you. I don't see how any of those situations are beneficial. There has to be some other answer.
Meet with your local Chief of Police and ask him to give you, in writing, a guarantee that he can protect your safety and security 24/7. Require that he post a million dollar bond to guarantee this pledge. After he quits laughing, ask him what he suggests you do to provide for your safety since he has no intention of promising you anything.
I won't even bother suggesting that you contact the President and getting his written pledge that he will protect your civil liberties for you. The government would stomp your liberties in the ground in a New York minute if it made life easier for them.
I'm a liberal, a cop, and I'm no fool. The second amendment is an individual right. I've yet to run across an otherwise lawful CCW holder that presented a danger to the public simply by the virtue of the inanimate object he or she had on their belt.
Such demands to create a gun-free country (and in so doing remove the 2nd Amendment) have nothing to do with trying to reduce crime, but instead have everything to do with control. If (and one of these days it will be when) Congress does away with the 2nd Amendment, along with the others for when one is impacted, it impacts all, we can all expect to see a rise in crime.
We can also expect that the people who took away our rights will not live under the same conditions they impose on the rest of us. Just like in the old Soviet Union, when socialists ruled.
Its really difficult to 'go back' to a gun free society. The reason it works in some of the other countries is because they have never had guns and are extremly strict on those who are caught with them.
I have some friends that are from somewhere over in Europe where the police don't even carry guns, only batons. There is a special unit similar to SWAT that does have guns, but they are they only one.
This works there only because there is a different attitude over there. Taxes are high, but most people are taken care of through Socialistic programs so there isn't the need to rob and steal as much. The respect for police is much higher.
Though my friends say it is a nice feeling living over there, they still perfer it here in the USA.
The reason there is such divide on this issue is because of upbringing. I moved to North Dakota as a teenager after living in California. The difference of opinion on guns is huge. Everyone really does have a gun. They have them in the back of their trucks, in the glove capartment of their cars, and they're loaded.
BUT...everyone respects the guns and the right and ability to have them. People hunt, and shoot for recreation. Once again, these people are much more likly to help eachother out.
Now look at the West coast or larger states. People know guns only through crime. Very few have guns for recreational purposes. They either have them to protect themselves, or to commit crimes. That creates a lot different attitude towards guns. If the only thin you ever see is bad things, not the hunting and shooting, then you are more likly to want to get rid of guns
1) guns in the hands of the victims wouldn't have made a difference
2) guns in the hands of the victims would make it too dangerous
So, somebody help me out. Making it more dangerous sounds a lot different to me. But, on the other hand, it already is dangerous because they can't defend themselves, so I think I may see your point. Right?
Its okay for it to be dangerous as long as the only danger is coming from crazy nut-jobs. If its dangerous because of normal people ... well we can't have that! That would be ... dangerous!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3kUD6W8QaQ&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8&NR=1
Talk about having no guts. The republicans were cowards and were to busy spending money to do anything to help gun owners!
Republicans have turned into liberal, pan ty wearing, big spending communist. They want to protect Iraq and Afganistam but won't protect americans by get rid of those laws that take away our guns.
you can't blame the democrats folks, the republicans had control for 8 years and didn't do nothing. right after 9-11, it would have been easy to pass new laws to make it easier to get guns becasue everyone was scared.
but the republicans were to busy chasing men in bathrooms and not trying to help our country. they are worse than ANY democrat i know. VOTE INDEPENDENT!!!
Then train students to use them. Why are you perpetuating murder? This is nothing more than an attempt to promote gun use without actually trying to resolve other underlying issues.
Judgement and Justice is not to be held in the hands of one person necessarily. We have a judicial system for that.
Non lethal weapons would make sure people like this are brought down, and brought to justice, so they can face their crimes, not run away from them.
That being said, how many additional deaths would be caused if handguns are available and accessible in schools and universities? How many fistfights that now end with one humiliated guy on the ground with a bloody nose would end in the future with the other guy getting shot as it escalates? I don't think I need to remind you that young folks often lack impulse control.
The thing that bothers me most about this event and these posts is why we're reduced to a false choice of "nobody should have guns" and "everyone and anyone who wants a gun should be allowed to carry one at all times?" I suspect there are more pragmatic middle ground positions to a) protect our rights and b) protect our saftey, but people would rather grandstand and make this into something political.
People inexperienced with weaponry tend to miss more rather than less, and compound that inexperience with a situation of complete chaos and fear. I never understand why people that are pro "protection" never seem to take into account the possible carnage that would result if everyone was armed and bullets were whizzing around the room from all directions as panicked students fired in "the general direction" of the assailant.
You can't look at a situation as unusual as this and think that the norm must be altered in order to protect from the abnormal. When there were looser gun control laws there were more murders and shootings, period. The more difficult you make it to purchase deadly weapons, the more difficult it is to obtain them. You wouldn't want to go back to living a life where you answered your front door with a shotgun through the mail slot before asking who it is.
all we want is to have the right to arm ourselves and protect ourselves.
The simple fact is that this man was able to easily purchase multiple fire arms despite having known mental problems. In other industrialized Western countries around the world where gun ownership is illegal, these types of instances happen with much less frequency than in the United States, if at all. The answer to protection isnt to allow everyone to have guns in all places, but to remove the implements of massacre from public use.
Forget this crap about judgment and justice. The second a thug or crazy demonstrates the ability, the opportunity, and intent to kill another innocent individual(s) their life is forfeit if they continue, regardless of their motivation or mental state. They are simply a threat that needs to be neutralized by the swiftest and most effective means necessary... ie a gun in the hand of someone who knows how and is willing to use it.
But my real problem with your taser/non lethal weapon idea is that the range of the non-lethal devices tends to be short and their reliability inversly porportional to the distance from the target.
Even the .38s, 9mms, and .45s tend to be non-lethal unless you hit something vital. If I want non-lethal, I can just shoot him in the shoulder or leg. Of course, if I am shooting at an armed person, I am shooting to kill.
And to think the police are going to protect a citizen is a joke. They have massive parades, massive outcry, and massive mourning when an ARMED and TRAINED police officer is killed by a criminal. But when a dis-armed law-abiding citizen is killed, where are the police?
We cannot cede our personal self defense to the government as they treat all people as part of a heard. Loosing a few here and there is not a true concern of the government. Yes they will play lip service, but what to they really DO to improve your personal self defense.
Do they lock violent criminals up and make them serve thier full terms?
Do they apply appropriate control and restrictions on the criminally insane?
Do they apply appropriate control and restictions on sexual predators?
The answer to all of these is no. Consider how many crimes are committed by REPEAT offenders. Why are these people allowed back into society?
And before you state that this kid was not a known threat consider that the kid was under the care of a government licensed physcologist/doctor who is supposed to be an expert on human mental condition. This doctor saw fit to prescribe drugs to treat mental illness. Why is this person not better supervised? Where is the law and enforcement effort to deny a person with a mental illness the right to purchase a gun?
I am 100% in favor of free and clear gun ownership by law-abiding people. We need guns to protect ourselves from criminals and in-case we need to overthrow the government or defend the country from a foriegn invader. Criminals and people with unstable mental states should not be able to get a permit and should be subject to random inspection and search by the police.
Logic is a *****, ain't it ?
I wish I would've been there with my .44. Save lives. Buy a gun.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" -B. Franklin
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty"-T. Jefferson
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master"-G. Washington
I hope we never forget this wisdom.
The problem is society. Take all the broken homes reqarded by Liberal welfare, combine them with lousy parent(s), bad tv, porn sites aplenty, videogames that glorify violence, death, mulitation and female degradation, expose little humens to that at an early age ... you can pretty much see the end from there.
10:06 AM CST on Friday, February 15, 2008
"Two men obviously thought James Pickett, 80, was an easy target "when they showed up at his home on Saturday with a knife."
"Captain Clint Pullin said it looked as though the men wanted to kill him."
"What the men didn't know is Picket had taken a pistol and put it in his pocket before opening the door."
"He just came through that door, stabbing and beating," said Pickett.
"He jumped and turned and I shot him," Picket said.
This guy didn't live in a Gun Free Zone.
He's alive today because he had the God given common sense to protect himself.
It tells me the bleeding-hearts are in control today, and I will not have anything to do with them!!! Wake up, people, before you have the right taken from you!!!
They go into convulsions, twitch, involuntarily pull the trigger.
In defense against weaponry, one survives by using overpowering weapons and not powder puffs. If any training applies for students, it is in the responsible use of weapons so that a cowardly adversary cannot afford the risk. No killings have come from sane people who legally own guns. We need to be able to take the crazies out of society before they commit such deadly crimes. We know how to identify them but our backward slant on medical privacy prevents us from interfering with killers before they kill.
As far as professors are concerned nobody is saying you should be required to train and carry (although that's a great idea). I live in Colorado and despite what you may here about Boulder and the hippies this is a great state where someone with a CCP can carry on campus. All I can say now is get trained and get your permit now. Before the bleeding hearts politically restrain those that are responsible and trained.
If you recall the VT massacre, while TV cameras were rolling, the shots were continuing to be heard and the police were on site hiding behind their vehicles. It was only when the sound of shooting stopped that a large number of police actually entered the school buildings. If only one of those poor unfortunates trapped inside had been prepared and armed, many lives may have been saved.
Listen, I don't want a single soul to be armed unless he or she is willing to take on the awesome responsibility of carrying lethal force. But I will not bow to anyone who wants to deny 'We the People' our God-given and Constitutionally ensured right to bear arms and defend ourselves.
The problem is paramount, going back to the known nut cases at Columbine and most all other mass killings. The mental cases are not reported to the authorities beforehand so that weapons cannot be legally purchased. This does nothing to prevent underground trade in firearms but was the intent of our gun ownership restrictions. MENTALLY DERANGED PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LAWFULLY PURCHASE GUNS! Whoe are they? Only their therapists know and THEY TELL NO ONE!
We need a serious overhaul of such a glaring hole in our privacy laws for the protection of us all. Somehow, psychopaths should be known and controlled in our environment so that they can be dealt with before they create havoc. Trusting them to take their meds cannot possibly do it. Before attacking our Second Amendment to keep guns out of the hands of sane people for the sake of disarming a looney-toon is a blind and pathetic reaction to disasters like NIU. It is almost as worthless as accepting their affidavit of sanity on a firearms application.
If we are going to overhaul laws to prevent crimes like this, it is time we look at the individual and stop wringing our hands about guns. The whackos are the killers! Let us press for legislation that requires professionals in the mind sciences, police and teachers report those deranged individuals appropriately so that at least they are known and cannot legally own firearms. Leave the rest of us ratiional, law-abiding citizens alone!
"The simple fact is that this man was able to easily purchase multiple fire arms despite having known mental problems. In other industrialized Western countries around the world where gun ownership is illegal, these types of instances happen with much less frequency than in the United States, if at all. The answer to protection isnt to allow everyone to have guns in all places, but to remove the implements of massacre from public use."
Works for China, Russia, Cuba, and other countries where oppressive governments rule. If the masses object, just round them up and make them disappear. There will be no resistance, just assimilate to the government will for the good of all.
Before anyone starts spouting about Europe and England's gun rules, remember that their violent crime/murder rate is escalating and of course, the French just love their annual riot season. Japan's lower rate is due to a more homogeneous society.
Remember, the police can not protect you. They are there to take a report after the fact just like Columbine, V-Tech and now here.
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_better.jpg
Re-read my post and you will see that I'm very much pro-2nd Amendment. The first part of my post was in quotation marks to indicated that the writer, Jason, was the source.
I was noting that Oppressive governments love gun restrictions. Please review my post again, carefully this time. At no time was I supporting making guns illegal.
The NRA just helped pass the largest gun ban in American history...yes, THAT NRA.
Look up the "Veterans Disarmament Act"
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/28189.html
http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm
Posted by Preston Page ..but I had a .357 Magnum in my flight bag, and no-one was ever highjacked on one of the aircraft when I was in the flight crew...what does this tell you??
It tells me you are a moron. You know what else works as well as your imagined hijack deterrent? This rock I have. It protects me from Tiger attacks. You know how I know that? I've never been attacked by a tiger.
Gun violence is so high in this country not because of the availability of guns but because of the unavailability of guns.
http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQuotes.htm
You can't rely on the honesty and accuracy of the fringe element of the right wing. They aren't discerning and the aren't journalists. They hear something and they accept it as gospel.
If you hate guns, hang a big sign in front of your house that says "GUN FREE ZONE". and be done with it.
let colleges can do the same thing; Have "gun free classes" and "guns allowed classes".
Which would you send your child to?
Some of you have talked about target rich environments as opposed to police stations and shooting ranges. Everywhere I look is a target rich environment (for those whose use of the jargon makes them feel stong). Sporting events and malls and supermarkets have plenty of targets. Now, if you think you're ever going to have a significant number of people to deter a suicide shooter, you're either living in a fantasy world or you're stupid. Hate to disappoint you cowboys, but you're never going to get your chance to "take out the shooter." These tragedies don't happen that often in proportion to the population and geography.
HANK=There is no point in positing these absurd scenarios, such as Vollmer did. Gun free zones or not, classes will never be labeled as such.
RV=Hello? Absurd? these murders are happening in GUN FREE ZONES. GUN FREE ZONES are the topic of this post.
HANK=(My child would make her own decisions and she would take the classes that she needed and wanted because that's the way to pursue an education.)
I never said math would be gun free and knitting would not; the implication is that there would be an actual choice between "gun free math" and "guns allowed math". snap! snap! stick with the subject.
I did not invent gun free zones. Gun free zones tells every one that no one inside can protect themselves. A sign that says "GUN FREE ZONE" is silly indeed, that's my point. That's why people don't put them on their houses. Duh!
I also stated that debate is useless as I am not going to disarm myself because of anything you may say.
Like it or not armed citizens protect them selves or others over 2 million times a year, most of the time by only pulling their weapon.
But this is not newsworthy.
As for me, you have no idea how much training I've had with firearms or even if I teach personal protection with a firearm, but rest assured I do not carry my firearm to be a cowboy, a hero, or even to protect you, I carry it to protect me, and hope I never even have to show it to anyone so you see debate is useless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beUQBXI22CA
gunmap.org
gunmap.org