Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Doug Giles :: Townhall.com Columnist
College Presidents: How Many Students Have to Die Before You Allow Guns on Your Campus?
by Doug Giles
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


“Fear no man of any size, call on me and I’ll equalize.” —Common engraving on Frontier firearms

“Call me simple. Call me a redneck. Call me whatever the heck you wanna call me—but until we allow credible and licensed, proven and protective professors and students to carry a weapon (gun) on campus, we will see this murderous madness occur again and again and again.”

That paragraph was lifted from my April 21st, 2007 column from Townhall.com right after Cho Seung-Hui (or Seung-Hui Cho, however the heck you arrange his name) killed 32 students on Virginia Tech’s campus. Remember that?

As I easily predicted back in April 2007, here we are, less than a year later, being forced to watch (one more time) a bloody yet easily-remedied BS scenario from hades unfold upon our nation’s young people.

Last Thursday at Northern Illinois University, the now resident of hell, Stephen Kazmierczak, strolled into a class packed with 162 students and opened fire with a shotgun and three handguns, killing five students and wounding sixteen others and firing over 50 rounds before the toad killed himself (why can’t they start with suicide?).

Un-be-lievable.

The victims, Gayle Dubowski, 20, Catalina Garcia, 20, Julianna Gehant, 32, Ryanne Mace, 19, and Daniel Parmenter, 20, were accomplished students full of life, hopes and dreams that were cut down before they ever hit their stride. If that happened to one of my kids I would be gutted and extremely PO’ed that their campus had pretty much nothing in place to stop this kind of mayhem. No one was there to stop Kazmierczak. A prof or an “of age” licensed to carry student with a pistol probably could have.

The NIU slaughter—which was, by the way, one of 45 shootings (five this week) since 1996 that have occurred on campuses in the United States in “gun free zones”—will not be the last. The mass murderers among us have taken quite the shinin’ to shooting up our students at their schools. The principal reason is that it’s so easy for them to carry out their death wishes because university officials will not allow good guys with guns to carry in class and be an onsite deterrent to death-dealing dillweeds.

Hey, “all wise” college presidents and other admin wizards: Until you allow guns—real guns, guns that go bang and kill bad guys—you (to make it personal), your faculty and the students you’re responsible for will continue to be sitting ducks, potential fleshy sponges to soak up the hot lead from some pathetic loser’s happy trigger finger. The gun free stuff ain’t working.

I know what you’re thinking: “It’ll never happen at my school.” That’s probably the same smack the chiefs at the 45 schools and universities since ‘96 thought right before their students were perforated by bullets flying anywhere between 1200 – 2800 feet per second.

Now I’ll be the first to admit, I am not nearly as astute as the suits that head up our nation’s bastions of higher edumication, but as a simple man, I’m smart enough to know that you should never bring a knife to a gun fight, and if the mass murderers are using guns, maybe, just maybe, you guys ought to get one—or ten.

Listen, Dr. Numbnuts, all the talk you guys have been doing about proper precautions on campus, all the extra fat security cops you’ve recently employed with faster golf carts, shinier badges and long range pepper spray are no threat to a perp with a gun and the attitude to use it. A chunky butt security guard with a plastic dollar store badge and a 6-year-old can of mace on a golf cart is no help when the hellion shows up in your auditorium with a 12 gauge and three handguns.

Yes, if your foe has a gun, then he has a solid and deadly advantage, and the cops can’t get there fast enough to do much about it.

Yes sir/madam, when this type of stuff hits the fan your campus must have deadly force on the spot to counter deadly force. Duh. That is unless, of course, you’re cool with our kids being killed. I, However, am not. And as a parent of a college student I will go so far as to buy my daughter’s entire campus pistols for the guards, trained profs, and legal students if they will finally do the math and realize that putting guns in the hands of trained good guys is the only way to daunt murderous goons.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
A question on guns on campus
Just an idle thought as the title of this column caught my eye: Have any of the military academies ever had an incident like the mass shootings that have occurred on campuses in recent years? I certainly don't recall ever hearing of any, but I suppose there could be some from years ago I am just not aware of.

I did
I carried when i was in college. I figured that I would rather be kick out of school for saving the lives of the people around me than be toe tagged at the end of the day.

Lucky for all of us, I never had to use it but I was ready to defend myself and those around me with deadly force.

FYI I went to a school not too far down the road from Virginia Tech.

It's about time
You know what the counter is going to be. "Guns kill people. Therefore, the less guns, the less dead people. By putting guns in the schools, we are just contributing to the deaths of more people." These turkeys need to get past the immature idea that a man who carries a gun is wrong.

Does anybody remember when that guy came into an El Al terminal in Los Angeles with a gun? The second he pulled it, he was on the ground. Those Israeli guards are armed and trained.

So if some emotionally distraught psychopaths decide that he's gotta make a point by killing perfectly decent students, I say it's time we go El Al all over their asses.

Thanks Doug.

Campus arms race
Thousands (millions?) of students safely attend thousands of classes at thousands of schools daily in the U.S. The last thing we need is a bunch of questionable gunslingers playing Wyatt Erp in the classroom. A campus arms race is not the answer.

Typical Jimyz
Not reading the article. Just jumping up and screeching about the proliferation of guns on campus. TRAINED, LICENSED, RESPONSIBLE individuals would be allowed to conceal carry. Grow up and out of your cocoon of liberal make-believe.

Ok, But what about the cause?
Call me crazy, but our culture, which is more and more defined about what is on the TV & in the movies, is inundated with images of violence and murder. CBS will be running a series previously on cable called Dexter. He is the main character and is also a serial killer. The debate has to be what we are filling our childrens' mind with. I am not for censorship, but if we all decide we are not going to support these programs, video games, movies, then they will not be made or there will be less of them. Let's give people the tools, but let us also discuss the cause.

Some motivational jurisprudence?
The issue is people taking responsibility for their own safety. Colleges and other institutions that insist on one leaving their guns at home to take advantage of their offerings should be held legally accountable for the damages incurred in attacks on the people in their facilities. Criminal negligence at least, and denial of civil rights charges should be brought against the administrators of these schools. Put them in prison and fine them heavily... because IT IS their fault.

Once again, the students were helpless.

The best answer is self defense; it would have been the best deterrent.

And the names of the victims and survivors are the only people who should receive any recognition in the MSM. Listing the shooter's name only produces more copycats.

We've become a society that believes a pill will solve everything. An article said that the shooter had come off his prescription meds; evidentially, the drugs didn't solve any of life's problems for him.

My condolences to the families and friends of all the victims.

Economics speaks...
There are two ways to solve the problem:

1. Deny all people guns.
2. Give all people guns.

The gun is the factor that either exacerbates or solves the problem, and either liberal or conservative method makes perfect sense (If there are NO guns, there will be no shootings- just as if there are lots of guns around, there is the high probability of a MAD situation which would prevent more deaths).

But how about a different solution?

In Switzerland, every man is issued an assault rifle and is allowed to keep it at home. He is also issued with a box of ammunition. It is an offence to open that box, or to use that box, or to buy other ammunition, unless he can explain why he wants to use it.

Ammunition control, perhaps? It certainly would lower the number of deaths. And a "good guy" only needs one clip to make sure people are safe...

Fallacy
As I understand it, the argument is that if college students and professors were allowed to carry guns on campus, one armed person would be able to stop a shooter like the ones who created massacres at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois.

On December 6, 2007 a 19 year-old gunman opened fire at Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska. By the time the massacre had ended, nine people were dead. Nebraska allows concealed carry. It is largely a rural state and rural states often mean hunters, so I would assume a high level of gun ownership and gun savvy in Nebraska (am just guessing; have never lived there). I would definitely expect it to be a gun-loving state.

Westroads is a big mall; I just looked it up on google. It has three levels, three big anchor stores, many restaurants etc; it would have been crowded with people. This shooting occurred during the Christmas shopping season and was described in the news as "a busy mall" so I think we can assume that more people were present than would likely be found in a college classroom. Chances are that some of them were armed. And yet, among all those people, nobody drew and took out the gunman: he shot himself.

So I see a fallacy in the argument that permitted carry on campuses would stop shootings. Maybe people are too stunned to react in such a crisis. Maybe they are focused on escape. I am guessing that a casual bystander who was not only armed but happened to have been trained as a policeman, soldier, or commando might quickly react to shoot, but a civilian population doesn't seem to be that way. The fact is that it wasn't carry law or any other gun control law that prevented a bystander from shooting the Omaha gunman. Why would the situation be different on a campus?


Guns?
Not saying its a bad idea. But this issue goes a lot deeper.If you look at 99% of the shootings that have happened, they all have one common denominator. Mind altering drugs prescribed to people.

In each case you will eventually hear that anti depressants which all cause permanant brain damage when used over periods of time, are involved in these irrational acts. Want to read more?

http://www.psychologydebunked.com/news.htm#2007

a list of articles regarding this stuff. So before you call someone a "toad", see what has been a common factor in all of this violonce

Missing from all reports
Yesterday's columns and reports about this case in the Charlotte Observer and I assume other newpapers and TV said that "no one can understand this, the shooter was a wonderful person, etc". The missing part of the report is that it said he had supposedly stopped taking his medication. No details, the most important detail left out is "why was he taking medication?" Pretty obviously, the poltically correct idea that you can't tell a person's medical history is out of place when a nut can walk into a college lecture hall and mow down 5 people and injure scores of others and we can't be told that he was on medication for what will no doubt turn out to be some kind of serious mental condition, for which, if known beforehand, this massacre could have been prevented. Sure, I am all for allowing guns instead of the "gun free zones", but I'm also for the rights of people to know beforehand if people in their midst have serious mental conditions. Had I been at that college and known this nut-job was previously on RX for some serious mental condition, I sure wouldn't have been at that lecture. When are the college authorities going to protect their students?

When guns are outlawed...
Would it be ok with Diane Feinstein and Chucky Schumer if I kept my bow and arrow ?

Mr Difar
I would ask you to consider the logistics of arming college students and their professors. First, if I were running such an operation my aim would be to make sure I had an armed shooter (who for brevity I will call a guard) in every general location---if not every classroom, then every wing or at least every building. But if you have spent much time on campuses, you know that everybody moves around a lot. The constantly shifting combinations of people would make it just about impossible to assign, reliably, a guard to each area. Professors move around as much as students, sharing time among perhaps three or four classrooms, labs, sports facility, library, their office, the parking lot, the restroom, the cafeteria, and meeting rooms as the day goes on. Meanwhile schedules change, special events alter the calendar, people are absent for illness or jury duty or whatever. I can't imagine how you could be certain of having a guard where you need him. And if you were advertising to parents that your school was safer because the personnel were armed, then you might have a legal liability to make that true.

Legal liability: student steals professor's gun and shoots cheating girlfriend. Guard (who is an amateur, remember, and not a Marine) panics, misses his aim, accidentally kills a student. Or his aim is true, but panicky student gets in the crossfire. Difar, we are talking about Lawsuit City.

Nice Lilly
Did you forget about the guy shooting at the church a couple of months ago? The lady working security for that church was carrying, and she took him down. The thing that people do not understand is that you can only take guns away from those of us who own them legally. If i wanted to get a gun to go shoot up a place i would not have to look far. If you did manage to take away everyone's guns, they only people left with guns would be the government. Orwell really was ahead of his time....

DLT
If you are suggesting that it was prescription medications that made this guy kill people in a fit of violence, think again. There's been a lot on TV today about his history. As a teenager he was in a residential facility for violent, out-of-control kids (where his father put him because he was so violent, no details provided) and also he was a self-cutter (a very, very serious psychiatric symptom). It was drugs that kept him under control. TV also said his girlfriend recently broke up with him and that he had stopped taking his meds two weeks ago. If that is true, there's a good chance he stopped taking the meds in response to the breakup.


Point of Information Please
Giles' article is addressed to college presidents, so apparently the say-so rests with them whether guns are allowed on campus. Let's take a look. Liberal gun laws are espoused by the political right. Christian fundamentalism is also associated with the political right. There are Christian fundamentalist colleges conceived and dedicated to the political right---in other words, guns, the political right, and Christian fundamentalism seem to be entwined. Does anyone know whether the Christian-right-wing schools allow guns on campus (examples: Patrick Henry, Liberty, and Bob Jones, although there are many more, including Huckabee's alma mater, Pensacola Christian College? Please do not read this post as snottiness: I wonder about this. Does anyone know?

Lilly
Thanks for providing the information about this shooters' past juvenile history of incarceration in a facility for violent kids. This information was not in the newspaper I read yesterday morning. Authorities always seem to protect the guilty and put innocents at risk. However, according to you, while this nut's medication supposedly kept him under control, it is the fact of his problem being kept from innocent people at the college that I was angry about. Now that the facts of his past violent history are out, it is even more important that we realize these innocents were murdered by someone who, if the true facts about his violent past had been made known to those involved beforehand, this massacre would never have happened.

Solo
You have no problem with me if you want to hire armed guards, which is what the lady was in the church. In that case the guard would not only be armed, he would be trained and currently qualified on the shooting range (or I like to think so) but he would be in a known location. The point of my post was not that there shouldn't be protection but that professors and students are ill-chosen to be the protectors because they move, travel, and shift all over campus all the time and, in any case, most of them would be amateurs. Parents would gladly pay a few hundred extra $$ per year to have guards in place, "IN PLACE" being the operative words.

Many years ago we lived seven years on a very dangerous campus (long before school shootings, just a dangerous part of town). We had four murders in our BLOCK, an arsonist, many muggings and thefts, battery assaults, a rape. I was often alone late at night as my husband was at the lab. I was scared alone, and he was scared walking back at night. And that says it for everyone, as we were all chronically terrified. Trust me, we would have LOVED having an armed guard at the corner.

Concealed carry works
Arming or disarming everyone is a false choice. Schools, churches, airlines, etc. simply need to allow those who have legally qualified for concealed carry to do so. It's a self-selecting group.

It's no coincidence that mass shootings disproportionately take place in "gun-free zones" rather than shotgun ranges. Criminals and sociopaths seek defenseless victims and are lured by the bait.

Surprisingly, armed civilians foil far more felonies than the police yet have a far lesser rate of wrongfully injuring others when drawing their weapons, despite police training. Perhaps this is because civilians are more reluctant to draw their weapons and are acting defensively rather than seeking out perps. Still, the actuality belies popular assumptions.

Even if it were possible for a semi-free society to disarm everyone by passing a law (it's not, look at the anti-drug laws), it would not prevent mass murder. A sociopath would simply use other means, e.g., drive his car through a crowded playground, or throw a gallon bottle of gasoline into a classroom and block the door.

The problem with college campuses
This rash of shootings at colleges and universities, which are the forefront of liberalism, shows its fatal fallacy. Liberal thinking assumes that, if people are given economic support and guns are outlawed, there will be little or no crime. All of these shootings, and Columbine, have been done by middle class students at high end schools.

What do we learn from this? First, poverty is not the motivation for violent crime, nor an excuse for it, as liberals would like to believe. Second, banning guns will not reduce crime, it will only make criminals safer. Look at Washington, DC, which has banned handguns altogether, and "enjoys" the highest violent crime rate among major cities in the US.

Universities are the breeding ground for idealist liberalism, and demonstrate what is in store for the rest of the country should it spread.

Lack of Common Sense
Liberals lack common sense. The only way to stop criminals and nuts from shooting innocents is to have the unknown factor of concealed carry for them to consider. It is too easy to spot a uniformed guard or track the patterns of security patrols.

Even the nuttiest of nuts will think twice before pulling a gun on an unknown number of armed "victims".

It has always puzzled me that liberals think you can get criminals to follow a law banning guns. It is so devoid of logic, it appears liberals want criminals to murder innocent people.

Lily
The mall in Nebraska probably had a no concealed carry policy, like most other malls in the U.S. This will assure more violence in the malls, but it protects the insurance companies from claims arising from permitting concealed carry.

No Guns Allowed Zones equal open season
When a criminal (one who knows they are going to violate the law and don't care)sees a no gun zone, they see easy targets.

How many of these killers have pulled these stunts on Army bases, police stations or gun shows/stores? The reason gun free zones are usually picked is because there ARE NO guns there!


guns on campus
Let's give scholarships to all cops. They could attend classes with their legal firearms and would then be present the next time a killer decides to open fire. There's almost always an empty seat in any classroom. Let's encourage the good guys (all cops) to park their butt there.

I have a question...
...How come universitys don't have "Rape Free Zones"?

..."Mugging-free zones"?

..."Auto theft free zones"?

..."Cheating on tests free zones"?

..."Alcohol free zones"?

I mean,all it takes is a law or policy,and then campuses are safe.

And even a gun isn't necessary
For the genuinely determined psychotic determined to (a) end his own life and (b) take a number of innocents with him at the same time.

Why do you think "suicide bombing" has become the "political statement du jour" throughout the Second and Third Worlds?

(And BTW, if anyone thinks outlawing explosives will stop that, they are totally ignorant of the science of chemistry.)

I might add, most countries outside of the developed world have a very simple policy on gun ownership. If you are a civilian, and you are found to possess a firearm, the authorities (Who probably did NOT become the authorities as the result of a "free and fair" election) stand you up against a wall and shoot you.

The study of history makes it quite clear that the purpose of "gun control" is to protect governments from potential "problems" with their "subjects". It is emphatically not "public safety", and anyone who states otherwise is either "stuck on stupid", or is a liar.

Considering the number of college professors, deans, etc., who have had a long-standing romance with "enlightened despotism" and its handmaidens, "multiculturalism" and "Political Correctness", the logical inference is that they are too blinded by their own biases to see reality, even in their own bailiwicks. Or else, they are perfectly well aware of the illogic of their position, but maintain it to sustain "ideological purity" and their own visceral desire to have absolute power over THEIR "subjects"- the students.

I say the odds are six-five and pick 'em.


cheers

eon

doug, doug, doug
you will never get it.... student lives are secondary to liberal ideology.

Free scholarship for vets?
Good idea David, lets take it a ste further.
All colleges should give a free three-year scholarship to returning vets, God knows they earned it, and allow them to carry a concealed weapon.
They would be doing a great civic duty and at the same time make the schools secured rock solid!
The Vets wouldn’t pay tuition,
The schools wouldn’t have to pay for the best security on the planet.
What better security could they ask for then having a couple hundred armed Marines in plain clothes in their midst?
One of them can end any situation pronto!
They’ve been there

so you are OK with
So you are OK with every hothead student carrying? I can name several classmates I would never allow to carry a gun to school, and that was 20 years ago. If they are capable of rape, drunken brawls, fist fights, and vandalism without guns, think of how much fun it would have been for their victims and their entire school if they were packing. We all know that these are the very students who would, and the calm ones would not.

Why is some assumed fantasy of peace on campus imagined if students could carry? Why can't I assume that I would have been shot for ruining the curve? Every bit as possible (and far more likely) than some Texas Ranger saving the day.

The Fallacy of Lilly's arguments
lilly writes: Sunday, February, 17, 2008 3:56 AM
Fallacy
-----------

AND those of others like her, is that whether or not CCW Holders were allowed to carry their weapons in the Westroads Mall at the time, the location of the shootings was in a spot where even if legal CCW holders who were in the mall at the time were able to have their weapons on them, there might not have been any of them close enough to that location to do anything about it.
Your comment that some CCW Holders, even if there and having their weapons on them might have momentarily frozen up in shock is partially valid for SOME but not all CCW holders.

The situation at Westroads is/was different from the shootings at our Trolley Square Mall, but similar to the most recent shootings at VT and NIU for the following reasons.

In the shootings at the Trolley Square Mall, the shooter was out in the open most of the time but the policy of the mall at that time forbade CCW holders from having their weapons on them.
(As far as I know, that policy has been changed so that legal CCW holders in Utah may now carry their weapons in the mall.)

On the school campuses it was the policy that even licensed CCW Holders are not allowed to carry on campus.
But the shootings at the schools were also in an isolated enough area that even if you were allowed to carry, if you weren't right there at the exact time, or didn't have your weapon with you, there was no time for either security/police to get there, or someone to run and get their weapons.
THAT is exactly what these shooters were/are counting on. UNARMED targets.

Always remember this. "When SECONDS count, the police are only MINUTES away."

Inthemajority

The "hot head students" would never pass the mental screen required of CCW holders.

Right now students at Univ of Kentucky can not have firearms in their car, even though they would be legal else where in the state.

The antis have come up with the same arguments about how unstable college students are.

PS Lilly, when Texas approved CCW permit, the crime rate went down. And there were no wild west shootouts as predicted. Those that are going to commit bad deeds will not let a little ordnance stop them. That's why they are called criminals.

Inthemajority
Those who break the laws against rape, drunken brawls and vandalism will have a gun if they want one. Allowing those honest citizens who obey anti-gun laws to have a gun would arm exactly no hoodlums beside the ones who have a gun already. The record shows that rapists avoid areas where victims might have a gun.

When guns are outlawed
more unarmed civilians will be murdered by the "Democrats" (aka communists/nazis) than were murdered in Waco, TX buy those same Democrat murderers.

Libs don't fight "man to man" but rather use weapons against non-armed people (before they destroy themselves). Fortunately, libs kill more of each other than they do conservatives as conservatives are frequently able to defend themselves against these liberal murderers.

I'm an airplane driver and could only ..
.... ever be truly happy on the job if my every crew member and I and our every law-abiding passenger packed a weapon or carried one in his carryon!

Just as Mr Giles has pointed out, the fish-in-a-bowl shootings will go on as long as there are signs outside schools that advertise "No Weapons Here." And, more food for thought, had the Second Amendment ever been observed on airports and in the air transportation industry there would never have been a highjacking.

Not one.

Let alone the Cli'ton/Osama-facilitated/perpetrated atrocities of September 11 2001.

That much is Black and White

I'm an airplane driver and could only ..
.... ever be truly happy on the job if my every crew member and I and our every law-abiding passenger packed a weapon or carried one in his carryon!

Just as Mr Giles has pointed out, the fish-in-a-bowl shootings will go on as long as there are signs outside schools that advertise "No Weapons Here." And, more food for thought, had the Second Amendment ever been observed on airports and in the air transportation industry there would never have been a highjacking.

Not one.

Let alone the Cli'ton/Osama-facilitated/perpetrated atrocities of September 11 2001.

That much is Black and White

I posted this a few days ago on another

thread....

How many times is this going to happen, and how many more people are going to be killed before we learn this lesson.

Any "gun-free" zone is an "open-season" zone.

Enough!!!



The media has blood on its hands, too...
... and their crime is overexposure of every detail whenever incidents like this happen. In their haste to "inform and educate" the public, they unknowingly inform and educate future copycats as to the latest shooter's errors... and how to avoid them.

"At Columbine, the killers' fatal error was ending their rampage way too soon."

Ten will get you twenty that was something Cho Seung Hui was thinking when he was planning his murderous rampage at VA Tech. And twenty will get you forty that Stephen Kamierczak took Mr. Cho into account and did a better job of keeping his "red flags"... the warning signs that everyone ignored or dismissed in Mr. Cho's case... hidden from public view.

Add mind-altering drugs and the attitude that a pill can solve everything to the mix, and campus massacres will continue to happen, with the killers getting smarter and hiding their murderous plans more effectively each time. Every time the mainstream media covers EVERY angle of incidents like these, they inadvertantly create smarter copycats... and kill innocents with their ignorance.

Re: Gun Control
A wise man once said "Gun control is not about guns, its about control". I live in NYC which is the least to say not the most friendly gun place you could imagine yourself in. In fact our mayor, Mike Bloomberg, has recently cracked down on guns for law biding citizens. My guess is to make the jobs of robbers and murderers less dangerous. The NYPD has taken away and charged clerks and store owners who have dared brandish a gun to fend off robbers but do not have the competency to find robbers who kill unarmed shopkeepers. The murder rate in NYC close around 600 last year and everybody was ecstatic it was so low. But to be fair you would have more a chance of being shot on the subway on your way to a NYC college campus than actually being shot on campus.
As long as the politicians have the interests of criminals in mind and the decent people in the public domain remain silent, these massacres will happen.

I disagree Wild Bill
The media doesn't "unknowingly" give us every sorted detail. They do it on purpose hoping for another such incident to happen so that their anti-gun friends will have yet another gun crime to seize upon in their quest to outlaw gun ownership completely and justify the confiscation of our guns.

There's no way it could be an accident that they're doing this.

Inthemajority
No person who advocates concealed carry be allowed on campuses assumes a fantasy of peace. All they "assume" is that if legal carry is allowed, these horrible massacres will not occur as often, or if someone tries one, there will not be the total chaos we see now and there will be less deaths. Most important, one death WILL occur for sure - the death of the perpetrator and that will occur before the massacre has time to run its course and not at his or her own hand, but at the hand of a trained shooter.

My own newspaper of record, the Charlotte Observer ran a touchy feely editorial today, praising the schools that forbid concealed carry. They use the same argument others have used here - thousands of students go to school daily and suffer no deaths. Tell that to the parents of the innocents who were killed by this animal at Northern Illinois, by a man who numerous people knew had a violent past. He should have been behind bars or in a mental hospital, not free to walk into a lecture hall and wipe out loved ones. People who advocate against allowing concealed carry should be given the task of telling a parent their child has been murdered by someone who should be in custody.

King liberal
Yes, that's what we need. Not everyone armed everywhere at all times, but one or two good guys everywhere at all times. The situation is not that difficult to comprehend.

So if more guns are the solution
More guns need not be the ultimate solution. It is the POSSIBILITY of more guns.

All those situations (malls, campuses, city hall) are gun-free zones. In an non gun-free zone a gunman would be playing Russian roulette. Not a good game to play.

LILLY
A guard on every corner?? Sorry but that demonstrates more of the liberal "let's pass a law and let government (we the people) pay for our security. I feel that I am responsible for the safty of my family and my self. If it just happened that I was present during one of these nut jobs trying to kill people, I would put in to practice what I've practiced for many years.
I've had a CCW for 45 years and have had to pull my weapon on 2 occcassions. Never had to fire it tho. Fortunately the idiot that I was facing didn't want to die.
A gun in the hand is worth much more that a cop on the phone.

More guns?
When was the last time a cop-car was carjacked?
When was the last time a woman cop got raped?
Old bumper sticker: "YOU CAN'T RAPE A '38"

More concealed carry won't cause shootouts,
it's just the best deterrent.

tony54...

Exactly the point!

And who trusts the Police? An Idiot!

Sgt. Peterson killed two wives, and his Police buddies looked the other way. Imagine how the Police would act if they had zero threat of retaliation.

Imagine Black America when we tell them, "Trust your local White Policeman".

Liberals are Idiots!

It's not 1780
The answer is not more guns for everyone enerywhere and the answer is not gunfree zones.

Advocates of unfettered access to guns for society at large(the right of every citizen to bear arms-see above) is met by advocates on the other side for even more restrictions.

Teenagers in this country are required to take driver education classes, then pass a driving test before they are allowed to legally drive a car. When they buy a car, it must be registered with the state and renewed every year. Insurance is also a requirement. These hoops are a pain in the butt, but it hopefully makes the roads safer and easier to locate stolen vehicles.

The arguement that that denying gun ownership to certain members of society is unconstitutional is grounded in a bygone era. If driving is a privilege, not a right, then so is gun ownership.

Responsible gun ownership and accompanying professional instruction should be the key, and, with a few obvious exceptions, these gun owners should be allowed to carry these weapons on their person.

Will this eliminate gun violence by bad guys, the mentally unstable, or jealous boyfriends? No, but if we want to eliminate gun free zones, those who do have the guns need to be responsible, trained and licensed.




Doug Giles, count on stupid!
I KNEW it would not be long before our GUN NUT buddy Doug Giles would write some PRO ARM'em to the teeth stupid comment. This is from a man who threatened a guest in his home with a gun, who said he listened to NPR.

Yes, we must ARM all the college kids, kids with raging hormones, pot smoking kids, kids with the pressure of academics and being away from home for the first time, with GUNS GUNS GUNS!

Yea, "Here's your class schedule and a clip of Ammo. The book sale starts at noon and you can purchase extra Ammo there at a 20% discount."

That is the most stupid thing I have read Doug Gile write, and that is a tall order, because he is a vast fount of stupid.

Like inner city high schools have had for decades, colleges need more armed plan clothes security, metal detectors, CCTV and auto locking doors. With wireless technology this would be easy, not cheap but technology wise, doable, affective and better than ARMING STUDENTS TO THE TEETH!

PUT GUNS IN THE HANDS OF PROFESSIONALS, NOT HOBBYIET, AMATEUR'S, STUDENTS AND NUT JOBS LIKE DOUG GILES.

You know Doug Giles will be walking around the campus, HOPING he can get in to a gun fight, and may be, if lucky, he'll shoot a liberal or feminist!

lilly
The Mall shooting I do believe was a gun free zone. But even then, it means that there is at least a chance that somebody will be armed.

However less and less people are learning to use firearms. Firearms have been demonized in the media and it has turned off a whole generation of good guys to them.

To a gun control wacko extremist that might be great news but when less good guys have guns and crime goes through the roof, then they might want to rethink that. (Good example of only bad guys having guns and crime through the roof... DC.)

Dr.Numbnuts
Boy did he hit the nail on the head with that line.In real life all these college killers had mental problems.My question is why are they out running aroud?

Detroit Gun Laws...

It is nearly impossible to have a CCW permit in Detroit. There isn't a single Gun-store in the city limits.

Our ranking: "The Most Dangerous City in America"


In the words of Dennis Prager
A quote from Mr. Prager,

"The notion that bad guys should be armed and good guys shouldn't takes a college education to believe."

Owning a weapon doesn't make people more inclined to murder someone. Liberals have it backwards. You have a motive, then you have the murder weapon, not the other way around. Has there ever been a court case in which the motive was that the defendant owned a weapon?

Brad
kgj08@comcast.net

jetpilot...

Experts like Sgt. Peterson, the wife killer?

I've worked with dozens of these "Government" experts over the years. About 20% have serious emotional issues... Funny they all pass the test?

I know a 40yr old guy who was rejected over the past decade by several local Police Departments on the basis of his Psychological Exams. He is so mental, he cannot even fake the answers.

I recently found out... The Michigan State Police hired this lunatic!

He'll kill some unarmed citizen soon enough.

Experts?



to all the outraged anti-gun zealots
I have never read that ANY of these mass murderers had a concealed carry permit. I assume that some anti-gun zealot would have screamed it to the rooftops of one of them had, and that the media would have echoed his outrage.

Therefore, I do not believe ANY of these mass murderers had bothered to take the time to obtained a concealed carry permit.

From this I deduce that concealed carry permits do not cause people to murder. There must be some other cause (like insanity, perhaps?).

Is my logic faulty?

Just Say NO, to STUPID REGS!
While the debate continues whether University Administrators should allow students to be armed, the shootings also continue. And I can absolutely guarantee, as Doug Giles predicts, they WILL continue. So while nothing is being done to solve the problem, students should simply do what I did as a student: Say screw University regulations and carry a gun anyway. And No, not every student will or should be armed. But I was trained from age 5 to use guns. By the time I was 17 in college, I was better trained than most cops. Will having well trained students like me completely eliminate the problem of school shootings? No. But until theres a better solution, its a step in the right direction. And to those who say I was breaking the law and could have been expelled; I say: Yes; IF I had to use my gun. But under those circumstances, Id rather be expelled and charged with a misdemeanor for illegal gun carry, than risk death or the death of others.
Note: My kid, also an expert marksman, and at my urging, also carried a gun to school illegally and without incident, during 4 years at UC Berkeley. Surprise, Surprise. Not all Berkeley students are libs. LOL

Trust?
I made this comment a couple days ago.

As with other motorists on the highway, it is hard to trust them every day with my life. Yet by choice, I do it...accepting the risks implied.

Public/campus shootings indicate I must also "trust" that the guy on the stage is not going to crank out the firearms and kill me. Clearly, that gets more difficult any time tragedies like NIU and others mentioned happen.

As for vulnerability on the highway, I can (and have) taken advanced defensive driver training. Why should I not be allowed to do the same with a defense against gun-wielding nuts?

The bottom line would suggest I should be have the right to choose to be either the pigeon or the statue.

Woody from Iowa

Guns on campus
Please address the right question which is NOT how many students will have to die on college and university campuses before .....but how in all that is reasonable and justifiable can anyone purchase guns on the internet, have anyone sign for them (UPS we presume), and not be held responsible for putting these weapons in the wrong hands (whether the drugs are legal or not). Supposedly after the VA incident, that state made important improvements in their gun laws, yet we are told the very same internet gun dealer sold to the NIU person. ????????????

Shalom

Campus Carry?
The blood of any and all students is on the hands of school administrators and those who make rules preventing the basic human right of self defense.

Why they are so stupid is easy to see. The leadership of most of these schools and many of their professors are far left liberals. (i.e. Ward Churchill types)

These far left liberals are not constructionists, they are DIStructionists.

Distruct the Consitiution, the Bill of RIGHTS and slowly implement a socialist form of government by brainwashing students. Meanwhile they profess freedom of speech while suppressing LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

Carlos: Speaking of experts...
My Mother was a Psychiatric Social Worker, working for the county of Ventura, even though she had some kind of mental thought disorder.

When she took me to work with her, my impression as a pre-adolescent was that everyone who worked with her were more or less nutty as well!

One of the huge problems with our inability to spot mental cases in advance before they go postal, is that whe are literally letting the inmates run the asylum.

I have also found this to be true on campus. Did anyone notice how crazy the Poetry teacher at Virginia Tech was, and she was permitted to give a eulogy. This reveals to me that the University administration lack discernment.

In addition to allowing well-trained campus militia groups to be armed on campus, we have to do something about the fact that so many nutty teachers and administrators, who can't spot a nut when they see one, are in control of the campuses.

There is another problem as well.

The child psychologists have been teaching parents for decades to not inhibit their little ankle biters. Therefore, when one of these nuts blows a gasket, they have no internal inhibition to tell them to stop.

I guess in a sense, the inmates have been running the asylum in this entire country for too long, and it is time for normal people to take back the culture!

I'lll blame the liberal idea
that EVERYONE has to go to college.

Not so long ago, few people attended college except ones who wanted to enter the rofessions.

Now, "colleges" teach x-ray technology and dental hygiene certification. They are just short of a "plumbing arts" degree.

And, EVERYONE is accepted, altho' 10-20% need billions in dollars of remediation before they ever get transcript credit for anything.

Too many go to "college" because they don't have any other preparation, as the public schools that have been busy teaching them how not to read or compute haven't prepared grads for anything except "college."

Lib. campus policies also mean no one is caring for or watching anyone's behavior or threats. Major institutions are under suit as I write for allowing distutbed students to disappear or commit suicide while vigorously fighting any communications with familes or public authorities under idiot "privacy" and "confidentiality" policies.

Ergo, tons of people in "college" can't actually succeed, have few alternatives, and the extremes find shooting someone an answer to their inabilities and frustrations. Maybe we can call it psychological compensation.

One answer besides arming all of us is a return to "in locis parentis," where universities recognized they have duties as leaders to students beyond offering academic credits and abnormal sex weeks.

King Liberal, jetpilot
Are you REALLY as obtuse as you pretend to be?
(well I know jetpilot is)

Policemen and other "armed guards" are nothing more than citizens in a uniform who are hired to do a job. There is nothing special or unique about them that a "civilian" volunteer cannot obtain. There are plenty of teachers, administrators, coaches, lawyers or whatever who either have military, or other experience that would make them just as qualified to carry a firearm as a uniformed policeman.

You don't have to arm very many people in order to introduce the possibility, in the mind of the would-be killer, that his intended victims just may not all be unarmed sheep.

LOGIC
Socrates would not have suggested, that we stop flying after a half-dozen plane crashes.Yet we seek to find it logical, to allow "GUNS" on college campuses.I would much rather have 1 insane person, as opposed to an asylum.These incidences are not being driven by LOGIC, but by a conservative agenda...

uwcharlie
uwcharlie writes: Sunday, February, 17, 2008 9:29 AM
"No person who advocates concealed carry be allowed on campuses assumes a fantasy of peace."

More assumptions in 3, 2, 1...

"All they "assume" is that if legal carry is allowed, these horrible massacres will not occur as often, or if someone tries one, there will not be the total chaos we see now and there will be less deaths."

Yes, I agree. Complete assumptions. All very tilted towards a strange definition of safety that would spell disaster. Please try this on some far-right campus and leave the rest of academia alone.

"Most important, one death WILL occur for sure - the death of the perpetrator and that will occur before the massacre has time to run its course and not at his or her own hand, but at the hand of a trained shooter."

BS. Total assumption. WILL occur? BEFORE the massacre? FOR SURE?

I'll take the same assumption-brush from your hand and make another broad stroke. If you get your way, more deaths will occur because far too many people who should not be carrying guns will be strutting around campus! Please don't tell me that idiots would not pass a screening test (one that gun nuts do not want because it is another rule they wish to abolish anyway.) The idiot who punches a teacher -- WAS bloody noses, BECOMES a shooting. Oops. The idiot who falsely assumes anther student is pulling out a gun -- WAS: nothing happened, BECOMES a shooting. Oops.

I'll take my extremely low chances with my university which has the no-gun rule and has NEVER had such an incident (along with the huge majority of colleges and universities) and you create your own potential catastrophe and we'll meet up later if you are still alive.

Non-persons
One idea to disourage and reduce spree-killings it to place a moratoreum on broadcasting the names and images of the killers. The shooting rampages are usually cries for attention, and the shooter is usually trying to teach us all a lesson (I'm surprised that the ACLU hasn't tried to declare it "protected speech").

The 24hr news channels actually encourage spree killings and copycats by showing the shooter's pictures, and explaining the shooter's views and grievances. If they were to refuse to give any more than a general description of the shooters in these cases, it takes away one motive for the large-scale shooting spree.

Instead of becoming infamous, they should become what the Soviets termed "non-persons", whose names would never again be spoken.

Carlos you are right, sigh, what to do?
>Carlos writes:
>Experts like Sgt. Peterson, the wife killer?
>
>I've worked with dozens of these "Gov" experts
>over the yrs. About 20% have serious emotional
>issues... Funny they all pass the test?

Sigh, Carlos YOU'RE RIGHT! I'm NOT anti 2nd Amend, I am anti Crazy people having guns.

Crazies can come in the form of Cop, security guard or the Texas man, Joe Horn, killing two wood-be-robbers on his front lawn. Another man, Charles Martin, killed a 15 year old neighbor boy for walking on his lawn!

You don't hear NRA celebrating these in the open; they know better but in guns circles, high 5'ing and "MAKE MY DAY" is common.

How do you keep guns out of the hands of crazy people?

Britney Spears can get a GUN TODAY or a concealed gun permit!

Better background checks (mental) and mandatory training with "evaluation", including re-current testing ever few yrs is needed. If it saves one nut from killing, its worth it.

We know who fears & panders for the NRA vote. If people are on "MEDS", they can't drive, but having a loaded gun under psychiatrist care is cool?

When the "founding fathers" wrote the 2nd Amend it was in the day of Flintlock rifles that took 20 to 60 seconds to load a shot. The nation needed to fight off the Brits. Now semi-auto guns with 16 round clips and powerful ballistics, which can put grapefruit sized holes in a Doz bodies in 4 seconds, are common.

You want a 14 clip semi-auto handgun? Get training & deeper background checks. It's a machine gun!

Many buy guns & put them in a drawer or closet to collect dust, get stolen or tragically be found by kids who accidentally OFF them-self or others, 100's a year. Some school shootings where w/ guns stolen from Dad. Dad should be accountable.

Guns, a right or privilege? May be both, but lets get some common sense.

Liberal ideology is mental disorder

As if we didn't already know it, and these are the folks who can't understand protecting oneself!

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals are clinically nuts!
Makes case ideology is mental disorder

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494


"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."


Do read on. There's MORE! :-)


killer, your suggestion is INSANE!
It wouldn't take a Socrates to figure out that plane crashes are not a good thing and there may be ways to reduce their frequency.

You already have guns on campuses, but in the wrong hands. The University of Utah had a gun-free policy until the Utah Supreme Court ruled against them. It has not turned into a shooting gallery just because there happen to be a few guns in the hands of responsible citizens.

What do you mean by "allow "GUNS" on college campuses"? Do you really think we should ALLOW "FREE SPEECH" on college campuses?

BOTH ARE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!

CC
You can't order a gun over the internet and have it delivered to your home unless you hold an FFL. The transaction has to be done through a gun dealer and you have to pass all the regular backround checks.

The anti's just don't get it!
Excellent article. I did the training and will shortly have my CCW. This is one 64 year old who refuses to be a victim. I'm getting to the age where I might seem to be an easy target. Well....suprise! Me and my .380 Bursa Thunder will be more difficult than they thought! The idea that people that carry are hot headed idiots just looking for a chance to use their gun or that it shows a lack of male genitalia (sp) is totally stupid. People that carry are people who watch out for themselves and their loved ones. They know that they are the only ones they can count on in emergencies. Libs are always wringing their hands waiting for someone else to take charge. When that doesn't happen fast enough ....They sue! That'll show 'em!


Conservative admires Soviets
>cleverness_of_me writes: 12:07 PM
>Non-persons
>One idea to disourage and reduce spree-killings
>it to place a moratoreum on broadcasting the
>names and images of the killers.
>
>Instead of becoming infamous, they should
>become what the Soviets termed "non-persons",
>whose names would never again be spoken.

A conservative looks lovingly to the Soviets and suppressing free speech and media. Why am I not surprised conservatives admire parts of communism and hate free speech.

Yes, head in the sand method, IT DID NOT HAPPEN. Brilliant.

Next we need the secret police and neighbors being turned into informants.

And if some one commits one of these crimes, we will kill their family and any one they knew!

I always knew Conservatives hate the constitution and those darn laws and most of all the VOTERS, who have a say and power. It would be better if we had an all powerful Gov....... oh wait that is fascisim, never mind.

You have a point, but did you notice this last tragic case got much less coverage than the VT mess. Killing people & your self is a heck of a way to "get attention".

College campus guns
How do we keep guns from being carried onto airliners? By allowing access to the airliners only through portals through which every passenger and his baggage must enter. These portals have metal detectors with armed and trained guards. This has certainly cut down on the number of gun toting hijackers. Even the so-called sofisticated terrorists had to resort to utility knives.

Why not install high chain link fences around the campus, where feasable, with barbed or razor wire on top, along with breaching detectors. They can then provide two or three entry portals onto campus, with metal detectors and armed guards. Unsightly, inconvenient, does it look like a war zone, sure, but wasnt' it like a war zone when the wacko started shooting? Would it make it more difficult for a wacko to get through? Of course. Its not the 1950s anymore and things have to change to suit the present enviroment. I would much rather have to walk through a look-alike war zone that be sitting in class when some nut comes in shooting away. Too expensive? Ask the parents of the shooting victims. Unsightly? Ask the parents. Too extreme? Ask the parents. To troublesome? Ask the parents.

I believe it is true that most of these wackos just cannot be detected and their potential for such acts known beforehand. It is impossible to know, follow, keep track of, of all students/visitors/staff coming on campus. Even if it is suspected a person might go wacko, how would they be kept off campus, under what law, what would they be charged with? Under these circumstances, such a situation requires a first line of defense, a barrier, before that last line of defense, armed staff and students.

I am a CCW supporter and would support certain people being armed on campus.

Indiana has concealed carry,
and one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

And in my county in NJ, everyone used to have closets full of guns and rifles (not handguns), as everyone had hunters in the family. From 1900-WW II, there was one murder in the county, and it wasn't by gun. It was a love triangle, and the victim was stabbed.

I've never known anyone who was killed by handgun.

The problem isn't too many guns, but too few.

inthemajority
I like your suggestion: allow students to carry weapons ONLY on far-right campuses and let the liberal colleges advertise that they are gun-free zones.

I like your assumption, too (and assume it's because you mainly frequent liberal colleges): most of the students are "idiots" who would happily shoot anyone for any reason, if only they were allowed to carry a gun.

I would further suggest that you protect your own home with a large sign posted outside: NO GUNS ALLOWED IN THIS HOME.


There is no clear solution
There is no clear solution to the problem of random shootings on college campuses. We all probably need to know how to use a firearm, I certainly do. More guns on campus? I just don't know.

wally: re: King Liberal & jetpilot
Re: your comments about King Lib and so called Jet Pilot, (who is NOT)......
You’re right on target.

FACT: most “civilians”, including myself, who train regularly with guns are far more proficient than police officers or rent-a-cops who are required to qualify at only minimum standards. I and other civilian shooters, some of them college students, usually outshoot cops at competition matches. WE are the ones who should be armed on campus with CONCEALED weapons. An armed UNIFORMED rent-a-cop, who is the first obvious threat to a deranged killer, will simple be his first target; leaving the rest at risk. Well trained Civilians don’t advertise themselves as targets. Note: The operative word is WELL TRAINED.

Killer Logic?
killer writes: Sunday, February, 17, 2008 12:02 PM
"LOGIC
Socrates would not have suggested, that we stop flying after a half-dozen plane crashes.Yet we seek to find it logical, to allow "GUNS" on college campuses.I would much rather have 1 insane person, as opposed to an asylum.These incidences are not being driven by LOGIC, but by a conservative agenda..."
********************************************

Dear Killer, you have come to the OPPOSITE conclusion that your chosen illustration would suggest.

It is the Left that abandons gun use just because a nut uses a gun wrongly.

THAT would be the same as abandoning air travel because one nutty Egyptian pilot crashes his plane into the sea.

Logical people seek logical solutions, not extremist solutions. Forbidding ALL guns on campus is an extreme position, just as letting every tom, dick and hairy bring an Uzzi to class is an extreme position.

I suggest the balanced position is for Campus Police to establish a militia of mature, level-headed students on campus. In my scenerio, these students would take an in depth screening including a psychological test, and then would be required to take and pass an intensive course. I also suggest that the students who would be permitted to carry must put in a minimum amount of time on the gun range every single week: if they miss too many times, they lose their permit.

If this program was widely known throughout the community, that reputation alone would cause some nut bent on shooting up the place to go elsewhere.

Jetpilot. Granted.
Crazies come in all sizes, shapes, denominations and colors. But I see you've included Joe Horn, the Texas man who shot two burglars for robbing a neighbor's house. The question of whether Joe Horn suffered an error in judgement is one thing, and it is up to the local DA to decide whether he is guilty of a crime. But to equate his actions to shooting down unarmed students in a classroom is patently ridiculous, unless of course you are of the opinion that any homeowner who owns a gun is crazy.

Ann
Any psychiatrist who cannot tell the difference between political ideology and mental illness should have his license taken away.

Any competent psycholanalyst or psychiarist will tell you that practitioners who are borderline crazy like Rossiter are not common, but do occur within the profession. I have heard stories from successful psychiatrists about other shrinks who beat their wives, believe in voodoo, and all sorts of wierd obsessions.

In Chicago, where Rossiter works and acually has people pay him for treatment, he is considered by professional mental health workers to be a certified nutcase who is an embarrassment to the community.

I'm not shocked that you take a book like this seriously - I've read your other posts.

Giles is saying what?
That the answer to our treatment of mentally ill people is to blow their brains out?

Here's a motto for him: less mental health care, more guns.


jetpilot
Just wanted to do a "drive-by", like you typically do (I'm SHOCKED to see several posts here today!).

Having read your cogent comments, I must repeat myself and reinforce what I've always said about you.

You're a total leftist jackass.

Have a great day...

no ultimate solution
There is, of course, no ultimate solution to this problem. If students of legal age are allowed to carry on campus, eventually a dispute over a girlfriend, some personal affront, possibly even political differences, will lead to a gunfight in the classroom or the dorm. Also, don't forget that student who is angry about the low grade he or she got and goes the profesor's office to get some payback.

What's an acceptable level of deaths and injuries on a college campus?

Realistically, it might have (no sure thing here) saved some lives if some student or instructor in the NIU classroom had been carrying, so the pro-gun position does have a point. However, there is no way to insure that armed and properly trained civilians will be on the scene when some shooter starts killing people.

The standard liberal cry to ban handguns is not reasonable; it is impossible to confiscate or control access to weapons without massive impositions on individual liberty. I completely agree with the conservative opinion that the 2nd Amendment does allow individuals to possess and carry firearms. I don't agree with this for ideological reasons, but simply because that is the constitutionally correct interpretation.

I note that conservatives usually insist that the easy availability and widespread carrying of weapons is essential for our freedom. Let's stipulate that there is some truth to this. Given that it is absolutely impossible to make sure that persons with psychiatric disorders--whatever their cause--cannot get weapons, I suggest that we start referring to people killed by mass-murderers as casualties in the cause of protecting American freedom.

Too easy of an answer.
I teach at two universities and do not want guns on campus. I'm also a conservative Republican whose Dad owned many guns and who taught her to hunt. This is an easy answer, but absolutely not workable. What are the "rules of engagement" (if I may borrow that military term?") Exactly when would the supposed defenders begin firing? After the murderer begins? Would they be trained to take cover, not shoot more innocent people, and not provoke more carnage? Do you really want drunk, partying college students to pack? Or would they have to check their weapons at the frat house door?
Though horrific, these tragedies are rare. Perception rules. If we really want to protect our children, raise the driving age to at least 17. How many tens of thousands of teens die each year in car accidents? But there's no outrage, at least in the media. Now there's real risk. But we'd rather let sensationalism drive public policy. Not reason and argument.

Them thar INTARWEB gun sales
CC, I defy you to purchase a firearm on the internet and "just have it sent to you" without going through a Federally Licensed dealer, filling out the applicable forms, complying with the local laws, and undergoing the NICS background check.

Not gonna happen.

Don't believe me? Just try it.






Motley Crue: Joe Horn
My impression about Joe Horn was that he went out and shot the burglars out of frustration with the 911 operator.

While I listened to the 911 call, I was struck by the fact that the operator did not reassure Horn that help was on its way.

911 operators are trained to keep the caller on the line, while they signal for help with the computer. However, they fail to tell the caller that.

The operator sounded like he was spending all his energy getting Horn to chill, and unless you knew that he was using a computer to signal officers to respond to the call, it would appear that he was wasting time and letting the criminals get away.

I have found that when I have called the LAPD, I get an operator that is condescending, and often scolding, as if I am the problem rather than the criminal.

HERE'S MY POINT: As Americans witness the authoritites fail to enforce the law, and in many cities the authorities side with the law-breakers over the law-abiding, it tempts frustrated citizens to start taking the law into their own hands.

If governments don't want a return to the wild west, then they should show more concern for law and order.

JOHN MCCAIN, TAKE NOTE. Build the friggin' fence!

Good point, Mountain Rose.
:-)

LZ- Read my 11:54 Post
About halfway down, I suggest a training program for a student militia, who would be the only ones allowed to carry.

It doesn't have to be too easy of an answer, if we use our heads.

If students are old enough to vote, why not allow some to carry guns on campus?

If they are too immature to carry guns, then they are too immature to vote. It does more damage to the country to let the kids decide who is in charge.

Touj: I'm not surprised you took the

stand you took....

I've read some of your ridiculous, inane, psycho posts... which, by the way, is why I don't even bother with you anymore....







Mountain Rose

What King Dumb-Dumb doesn't understand...

Urban areas have the toughest gun control laws...

Enacted by White Democrats...

To disarm Black men...

Whom they do not trust...

Grow up dumb-dumb! You're not as stupid as you think!

King Liberal writes:
"liberals want government crontrol and more police authority while conservatives would rather break the law for the sake of personally safety. Why are conservatives such lawbreaks when it suits them and then law and order types when in the closet?"
-----------------------
Duh... Because conservatives, on the whole, want to live, and defending themselves is a better alternative than getting done in by some armed criminal. Better to be judged by 12 of your peers than carried by six.

Silly question.


King Liberal re: Crime Rates
King Liberal wants to be “shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that arming the populace of a major urban city-like say Dallas or Houston- actually results in a reduction in the crime rate”.

I could direct his attention to National statistics on violent crime compiled by the DOJ and available on Google; showing steady decline since 1995 when mandated Shall Issue laws for CCW permits began being implemented in 40 of 50 States. Further breakdown by State and City only re-affirms this data. But its doubtful this IGNORANUS lets FACTS get in the way of his preconceived ideas. LMAO


Illinois Concealed Carry
Illinois is one of only two states in the Union that does not have Concealed Carry protection. So the students/faculty/staff at any Illinois college are doomed from the start!

In fact, the "Socialist Republic" of Chicago/Cook County are trying to get legislation passed to deny ALL LAW-ABIDING citizens of Illinois ANY firearm. (Then, only the police, politicians, and other criminals will have guns.)

So anyone who wants to commit mayhem can come to Illinois and "feed" their hunger for control until they burst.
Above all else, these shootings are mostly about CONTROL! It may be the only time these freaks feel in control - deciding who lives (if anyone), and who dies, AND when their own life will end and how.
They KNOW that the police will not arrive in time to stop them and they count on that when choosing their victims/location.

I'm quite sure that the Colorado killer didn't expect anyone at the church to be armed - a total surprise. He thought he had a fat "feeding ground". He was wrong! He came up against a HERO and lost!!

How many mass killings are done by those who have the CONCEALED CARRY permit? None.
Guns are a RIGHT not given by man. But SECURED by the CONSTITUTION.

Mountain Rose
You would be my Secretary of Defense.WHY?Because you THINK!However, I disagree with your evaluation of my post.None the less,I agree with your IDEAS on this subject.Since Land-Grant colleges were founded in part to teach Military Technique,the ROTC would be the appropriate entity to provide MILITIA services.I personally would be uncomfortable,but I would not allow, that to deny your ideas,if this condition persist.

oh, here we go
Doug Giles is at it again with his fantasies and unworkable solutions that lack common sense.
Plenty of school shootings involved ADOLESCENTS. I'm SO SURE, parents would just LOVE to know that a teacher or guard will shoot a child. It's possible as has happened that something other than a gun could be mistaken for one by a gun happy would be vigilante.

What Giles isn't mentioning is the LACK of restriction on the availability of firearms to the mentally ill, children or those who bought their guns legally but lost track of them.
Puh LEEZE!
There was a mass shooting in Scotland over fifteen years ago by an adult on children. Once a STRONG ban on hand guns was enacted, it was the LAST shooting.
Our country is so big, we need a SINGLE set of laws that are the same for the whole country, AND holding citizens accountable when they let their guns get into the wrong hands. Like their angry brats. I'm not against responsible citizens being armed. It's all the OTHER knuckleheads that can have and get them I worry about.

friendly fire
I work in law enforcement people, and Doug Giles is a fool to think that an armed citizenry is enough to stem the mass and serial killings we have here by gun.
Los Angeles just lost a good man on the SWAT team because of a mass shooting at a domestic violence call.
The shooter had a history of socializing with gang members. He killed his own family!
Not everyone is able or prepared for the psychological impact of being able to shoot someone. We have MANY avenues that have to be taken to deal with this problem. No one solution will do it, least of which is everyone pulling a firearm in a situation. Death by friendly fire is also a serious risk.
We already cannot account for all the people who have guns. We don't know their fitness for having them. Now some of you want MORE people to have guns we can't account for?!
That's SO stupid!

Solving problems vs paying lip service
I've listened to a lot of the angst and hand-wringing over this latest massacre, and I have to question whether the MSM / liberal anti-guns / choose-your-monicker have any interest in actually SOLVING the problem of gun violence on campuses.

Weapons-free zones means your eight year old can be expelled from school because he forgot to remove his pocket knife from his pants pocket after Cub Scouts (how do I know this? Take a guess.), but shockingly enough (sarcasm intentional), people who are hell-bent on shooting people don't get "caught" in the "weapons-free" net. The only people surprised by this are the people who came up with the "bright idea" in the first place.

The Palestinians shot up an Israeli school more than thirty years ago. Then they stopped. Guess what? It wasn't because the Palestinians got all misty-eyed and embraced non-violence. And it wasn't because the Israelis declared schools a weapons-free zone.

Here's an article, somewhat dated, but still relevant, that explains the situation far better than I could. The question, of course, is whether or not academia really wants to SOLVE the problem, or just wants to continue hand-wringing and condemning "gun violence" by lumping all firearms owners/bearers together.

The problem has a proven solution:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409022215.asp

Navywave61
I agree with you except for the statement that "The anti's just dont get it..."

The fact is they DO GET IT, but they will never admit that they do. They have an agenda. Their agenda is more important to them than the lives of the innocent people that they are perfectly willing to sacrifice in order to achieve their political objectives.

If you actually believe that leftist nut-jobs like King Liberal, Touj, jet(not)pilot et al care about the innocent, you are, I am sad to say, mistaken. They don't give a fig.

King Dumb-Dumb...

Detroit city is part of Wayne County...

The majority of the County population is Black...

CCW permits are issued to Non-Blacks over Blacks...

At a rate more than 200 to 1.

So is it okay with you that I carry and you don't?

I prefer that every Black man in Detroit have the same rights that I have...

Why don't you?

du
YOU'RE JUST PLAIN WRONG.

Joe Horn...
Joe Horn is an example of a person who acted too eagerly and irresponsibly with a firearm. And he's somone that should have known better and understood what immenent danger means.
Regardless of how long the police took to get there, not HE...nor his neighbors were in physical danger. The house was empty and the robbers WERE being watched and noted by Joe Horn. He could have simply remained in his house, out of danger and been an excellent WITNESS.
But nooooo, he had to argue with the dispatcher, be a stubborn mule and behave in the kind of inappropriate gun happy attitude that could have gotten HIM, the officers AND others shot.
This time, he executed actual criminals. Most people eager to shoot ended up shooting someone innocent and unintended.
Even trained police officers have done that.
The best thing we can do is start with the same laws for ALL states and counties. Clean sweep the nation of illegal firearms and allow legal and sane owners to have their property returned after thorough checks and registration. It's not that all the criminals will have guns, it's that we don't know who is or who isn't. At least with a clean sweep and start over, we WILL.
Evidently common sense laws about registration, ballistic fingerprinting and tracking and mental health are something anathema to the NRA AND the ACLU.

wally...SPECIFY
I live in a war zone known as Los Angeles, CA.
I work as a forensic photographer and bear witness to the worst kind of gun violence that's typical to all the country.
You got something to say? Put it up, let's see YOUR bright idea, dude.

It's a free country to state your opinion. Just be reminded, opinions aren't facts, nor a substitute for experience.

du

Gun violence is only typical in Urban areas where guns are banned and liberals rule.

Michigan passed a Texas style law last year. It says, "I can kill anyone who threatens my life".

Not only did gun crime drop in Michigan (except Detroit), but the number of people applying for CCW permits dropped as well.

Just the thought that my neighbor can blow my head off...

Makes me very nice :)

du

Be real
There are multiple laws on the books prohibiting the purchase of firearms by persons with mental problems, ( IE actually seeinf professionalS).

Plus the SCOTUS has already let the police department off the hook if they don't get to the scene in time.
Since I'm sure you studied the following, explain
to me;

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third women, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed that the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs, they saw that, in fact, the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981

King liberal writes:
"Me? I'd rather die being morally right than breaking laws so I could prolong my life"
------------------------
Whatever turns you on, fella. Be my guest.

One more comment

So what if you confiscate every weapon in an area.

google "zip guns" and "homemade weapons of the viet cong" and find out what can be done easily.

du writes:
"Joe Horn is an example of a person who acted too eagerly and irresponsibly with a firearm. And he's somone that should have known better and understood what immenent danger means.
Regardless of how long the police took to get there, not HE...nor his neighbors were in physical danger."
---------------------------
And you know this how?

Packrat ...

Bravo!

This is what happens when Liberals feminize minority men... they become dependent children. They want the government to wipe their bottoms.

Maybe the Dumb-Dumbs actually enjoy the whipping post?










Rapid Resonse Paging
NIU spokeswoman Melanie Magara seems rather satisfied with the schools Rapid Resonse Paging system. I guess it went out just about the time the punk killed himself; the police arrived "no later than" several minutes afterward that.

As in "When Seconds Count the Police Are Only Minutes Away"

Also a spiritual problem
The guy killed five girls! Maybe they froze.

Why doesn't this happen in other countries? This is a spiritual phenomena. Since 911 people are open to there being evil, I mean serious evil in the world.

You cant have perfect security. So the next question is where does the Lord come in to all this?

If someone wasn't crippled by fear Steves daze might have been broken. You know, a guy calmly walking to him saying drop the gun.

Steve wanted the power of holding people in fear of death.

A person not afraid of death could have helped him I think.

Steve probalby had a violent child alter that came up to protect him for some reason, one that war morally impared. You know, his inner child gone wild.

Again, this is another problem that won't go away with more money thrown at it.

I believe we are living in the end times. For evidence of this see my town hall bog called Apocalyptician.

du
So with the strengthening of gun laws in Scotland you would expect the casualty rate from guns to be going down. It has been going up.

I would say the controlling factor in the rate of gun violence is not the availability of firearms. I believe culture has more to do with it than anything and trying to affect the level of violence by regulating a tool is foolish.

The willingness of an individual to commit murder is unaffected by rules against lesser crimes such as violating rules of gun ownership.

Fallacy?
Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska is a gun free zone. Gun Free = Open Season. The shooting stopped at Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska when an off duty policeman ignored the No Weapons sign and returned fire. The shooting at Appalachian State was stopped by students retrieving their handguns and returning fire.

Despite some bad TV police dramas and bad & dishonest newcasts guns in the hands of honest citizens are used several hundreds of thousands of times a year to protect self and home. Most of the time without firing.

The facts are there if you care to do some honest research. You might start with "More Guns - Less Crime" by John Lott.

But people who do not wish to carry or even own a gun is fine, that is your right. But don't step on my right to defend myself. But I am rather confused on why some of the anti-gun type here are so interested in Mr. Giles genitals.

Charliet Crist VP running mate!
According to Tallahassee Democrat today. This man is a hardcore RINO/liberal. See how he has slandered and demagogued the insurance industry. Thanks to McCain for making my November decision easy. I will NOT vote for any ticket that includes a guy who is a fervent global warming crusader. Forget it. Nada, nope. Write-in time.

Gun-free zones
What a joke - as if criminals care what a sign says. I agree with Mr. Giles. One armed, trained citizen could have stopped these murderers.

Sgt Relic
1) If you leave it up to the individual rather than hire armed guards, you have no way of knowing that an armed (and competent to hit the target) individual will just happen to be on hand when needed. That is my point. Whether the armed guy is on hand becomes a matter of chance. If a hired armed guard is always posted in the same place, you know he will be there. This is just common sense. I think maybe you just want to fight about the carry law.

2) Everybody who owns a gun isn't equally accurate or quick. I hear a lot of Rambo fantasy in these posts---everybody assumes he will be a military-quality sniper, successful at hitting his mark with little or no collateral damage. One perfect head-shot will erase the threat. Everybody also assumes he will be quick enough on the draw. Look at the Nebraska shopping mall shootings. Concealed carry is permitted in this very red state and yet nobody stopped that shooter. Everybody just ran away and the shooter killed himself. And at the New Life Church shooting in Colorado it was a hired guard who shot the bad guy. Colorado loves guns: why didn't somebody in the congregation use his?

reply to LZ
Also, just imagine college athletic rivalries if you have hundreds of drunken students who are carrying. The University of Michigan/Ohio State University football game could become a war.

The big problem with making guns as much easier to get and carry as many conservatives would like is that training in how to use weapons doesn't necessarily connect with training in when or if to use weapons. Haaving sound judgment can't be taught the way shooting techniques can be taught.

King -NotSoBright -Liberal
sRe: My stats indicating decline in violent crime since Shall Issue CCW law were mandated.

My post CLEARLY stated the Further breakdown by State and CITIES, (which includes MAJOR URBAN AREAS), re-affirms this data. Heres a CLUE to this CLUELESS IGNORANUS: A city is BY DEFINITION AN URBAN AREA, to which you refer. Yes. CONSTRUCTIVE, INTELLIGENT READING is a necessary skill. I suggest YOU learn to develop it. LMAO

To du
Today, 85,000,000 gun owners did NOT kill anyone.

Arm Everyone
Only when every single man, woman and child has a gun, only then will gun violence cease!

To ROG
Educate me. If a state permits concealed carry and a sign on the shopping mall says "gun-free zone" or "no weapons" do people generally go along with that not take guns there? Does anybody check? If you do carry a gun there and get caught, is there a penalty? How does that fit with state law?

I am not trying to be snotty---I don't know and would like to know. Because a principle I know from my own jobs, which had nothing to do with guns, was that local rules have to give in to local laws, local law has to give in to state law, state law has to give in to federal law, and federal law trumps everything. If the state law is that you can carry, how can a private mall owner reverse that on his own say-so? I understan about when the weapons-free rule is on state land, like a university campus, but a shopping mall or a church is private property. Can a private citizen exempt himself from state law?

Ragnar Deneskjold...

Liberals cannot add...

For every 2 murders in Michigan... One of the 2 victims lay dead in Detroit. For every 5 rapes in Michigan... 3 are committed in Detroit. For every 5 car-jackings in Michigan... 4 are committed in Detroit.

50% of Michigan's violent crime rests in it's only...

"Gun-Free Zone"


No professor
should be allowed to take tenure and not carry a side arm if he or she cannot come up with a peer reviewed refutation of John Lotts "More Guns, Less Crime". Please, I live in the UK in a Muslim area of East London and I have two dogs and a shotgun (we aren't allowed handguns). What are your liberals smoking over there?

Lilly
Lilly
Get your facts correct
the guard at New Life was a volunteer
From the Denver media:

"Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service."

PS Accurate is more important than quick

Liz: wrong on facts and logic
The New Life Church "guard" Jeanne Assam is a church member and volunteer, not a hired guard. The citizens who stopped the mass murderers at the Applachian School of Law, Pearl High School in Mississippi, the Parker Middle School dance in Edinboro PA, and and Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City Mississippi were all armed civilians.

Whether crime still occurs in CCW locations isn't the issue. The issue is whether the crime rate is lower and whether mass murderers can be stopped before killing scores rather than just a few. Notice how killers keep picking "gun-free zones" for their mass murders? Only a liberal would believe it to be a coincidence.

Liberals predicted bloodbaths over parking spaces, etc., if CCW laws passed. Wrong again, the crime rates went down. CCW permit holders are statistically more law-abiding then almost any other demographic group you could name. Why? Because they're self-selecting and virtually all criminals and nut jobs are weeded out during the permit process.

We also need to reverse the policies of leftist jurists and legislators whose oh-so-liberal policies allow violent criminals and the mentally ill to rome loose. Keep violent felons and nut cases locked up, allow qualified CCW holders to act as sheepdogs, and crime will be as low as possible in a free society. Even sheep like Liz and King Liberal would be protected from the wolves.

Cowards

There is no glory in murder. The MSM should stop giving the killers airtime unless they show them for what they really are: cowards! Only a "coward" chooses the easy way out of life and takes innocent, defenseless people with him.

Rejection and disappointment are a part of life. People should be taught how to deal with life and not give up -- instead of popping pills -- like the shooter did.

Human life has value and should be protected; refusing to allow guns for protection does not value people's lives.

The administrators and college presidents are politically correct "cowards" for having gun-free zones on our campuses.

Lilly: Re: Gun Free Zones
Normally I never respond to Lilly. But since she asks a reasonable question and is “not trying to be snotty”, I will answer it.

If a private citizen or organization, declares their property to be a Gun Free Zone, be it an individual store or a large Mall, such declaration is unenforceable, regardless if its in a Shall Issue or a Restrictive State. Since I live in CA, which refuses to issue CCW permits, I and many people I know now carry illegally, so we obviously ignore such signs. Those living in the 40 States allowing concealed carry can also ignore these so called “GFZs”. But in Legally mandated Zones such as schools, bars, (in some states), and court houses; violators if caught, have their CCW permits revoked and are likely subject to fines. In the 10 NON ISSUE States, violation of Officially Mandated GFZs is treated as violation of concealed carry laws, normally a misdemeanor in CA, and most Non issue States, but likely charged as a felony in this case.

:Self Defense Rights.
lilly:
Private property laws rule.
Most stores have alarm systems (eg: Wal-Mart)that can be triggered by such things as guns.
If one gets caught with a firearm, one can be arrested and charged with tresspassing at least and denyed future admittance to the store.
Most people obey the laws and rules, even tho they might be dangerous.

Carlos: (re:2:37 post)"RIGHT ON!"

Packrat:
I, too, read the court decision, but applied to another case.
I have learned a long time ago, that I can't depend on anyone but myself.

Just like the old story:
Man calls 911, reports two men breaking into his garage. 911 operator: 'The officers will be right there'
The man waits several minutes, the police haven't arrived. So he calls again. Same response from operator.
He waits several more minutes, no cops. So he calls 911 again. "Send the police, I've just shot the two men breaking into my garage". Within a couple minutes the police are there.
The police arrest the two (unharmed) men.
"I thought you said you shot those men." the officer said.
"I thought you were too busy to respond" said the man

The citizen is the first line of defence!

Black & White Brian. Your post of 8:58am
As a fellow airline captain I have this comment re: your suggestion. If we could be sure that ALL or even a majority of passenger were armed and PROFICIENT, Id agree with you. The problem is that even in CCW Shall Issue State, only about 5% of those eligible for permits, get them and regularly carry. So my guess is that if carry aboard aircraft were again legalized, few people, other than me, would be armed. Note that Im one of relatively few pilots who took training necessary to be armed as flight crew. But note that few gun grabbers complain, knowing they’re safer because of it. However, once Im on the ground they scream that I no longer have a right to be armed. Yes, being armed is OK when it suits their needs. Why can’t these IGNORANUSES make up their minds? LOL

Concealed Carry States
Ragnar Deneskjold:

Just a note to update you.

There are 48 states with CC laws, not just 40.
Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two (2) that do not allow Concealed Carry. (Shameful as that is!)

Funny...

From 2001,

As for Michigan cops who think their jobs will be more dangerous...

Yale law school scholar John Lott Jr. offers reassuring news: "There has never been a
case where a person with a permitted concealed handgun has killed a police
officer."





du
"Just be reminded, opinions aren't facts, nor a substitute for experience."

QUITE RIGHT and YOU would do well to remember that!

If you had read my posts previous to yours, you may have known better than to say "put up".

I understand that as one who works in law enforcement in L.A., you come into some sort of contact with some of the worst that society has to offer. How many of those people would QUALIFY for a concealed weapons permit? Any?.

What distinguishes a law officer from another honest citizen who has qualified, by means of training and experience, to carry? The uniform? the badge?

Police officers are simply citizens who have been hired to do that job. That alone does not necessarily make them more qualified and no matter how good they might be, they cannot be everywhere they may be needed at all times.

When a rapist is breaking into a woman's apartment, for example, SECONDS count. The police are only MINUTES away. We saw a perfect example of this only days ago. She did society the considerable service of ensuring that he will NEVER do that again.

Read "More Guns, Less Crime". The author started out on YOUR side of the fence, but his research brought him to the inescapable conclusion that his original hypothysis was incorrect.

Pull your head out, and OPEN YOUR EYES!

FlagTag: Re: CCW States
Yes. You’re technically correct.
8 Discretionary States do have CCW laws. Unfortunately their laws are so restrictive that for practical purposes you can’t get a permit unless you’re a Politician, like Senators Perata, Feinstein or Boxer, celebrities like Sean Penn and Barbra Streisand, or contribute heavily to the local sheriffs election campaign. The going rate in Marin County paid to Sheriff Robert Doyle is 5K. And it’s interesting that ALL the above politicians, celebrities, and the Sheriff, are Liberals. The stench of Lib hypocrisy is everywhere.
LOL

wally..

Persons with a valid CCW permit...

Are 5.7 times LESS likely to commit a violent crime than non-CCW citizens.

*Except Law enforcement Officers (they actually have a higher crime rate than their CCW-citizen counterparts)

castle doctrine
In Ohio we have had concealed carry for four years now, though I carried way before that.
My defense would have been my second amendment right to "keep and BEAR arms".
In over thirty yars of carrying a conceald weapon, I never once had to use it or even brandish it.

Now we are about to finally get the "castle doctrine" passed.
So if a criminal is shot in my house in the course of a crime I won't have to worry about being arrested or sued.

No PC observation

The biggest delusion of very well minded people (like Lilly, for example) is that if certain set of rules works in place A (Sweden, for example) and, being that ALL humans are the same (yeah, RIGHT!), MUST work in the place B.

My counterargument is that even if we remove every single person out of our Congress and send them to Sweden and bring here complete Swedish Congress (Presidents included) - in 15 years of time, hardly anything would change.

People are NOT robots and even with magic of marketing you can only make them do so much. That's the reason communism never worked.

And, by the way, Lilly, Swedish government is going to be pushed to pass certain politically incorrect laws in order to deal with invasion of barbarians that invaded the country in the last 15 years. One I know for sure is "zoning laws" that passed because certain lesser human than Swedes decided that he can build the house anywhere he pleases if he buys the parcel. Strangely, Swedes didn't NEED the law to tell them that, they were civilized enough to know that if they wanted to build a house, they will buy parcel meant to build a house upon it. Not so with barbarians.

tony54...

The castle doctrine went into effect here in Michigan about a year ago...

It's like Heaven!

Every time a Demented Democrat Trial Lawyer tries to bring a case to court... It is Rejected outright!

God Bless the Republicans!

You're right Wally
Thanks for the correction. I was trying to be nice and give them the benefit of the doubt. I need to stop being so PC!

MN just passed the CCW a few years ago and to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the libs you just knew Ol Mississippi was gona run red with blood of innocents!! Suprise, suprise....nothing of the kind happened. Kinda took the wind out of the liberal sails.

hehehehe

With all due respect
I am as big a defender of the Second Amendment as one can find anywhere. But I don't think a room full of (potentially) armed individuals is going to dissuade someone who (as in this case) is mentally ill and bent on suicide anyway.

Concealed weapons on campus
Doug is exactly right. Allowing people with permits to carry guns is so obvious to solve this issue.
It's amazing to me that so many people believe the opposite.

Ergum
" I don't think a room full of (potentially) armed individuals is going to dissuade someone who (as in this case) is mentally ill and bent on suicide "

You are obviously correct in that assumption.

SO... I guess that means that if a nutjob pops into a lecture hall and kills five but is taken down before he can kill the next five, that doesn't count as anything of value? Hmmmm?

Gun free zone = defenseless victim zone
If you think a "room full of armed individuals" will do no good against a homicidal lunatic, how is the present situation of students sitting in a classroom like sitting ducks working out?

Is surrounding University campuses with barbed wire, walls and trenches, and enlisting private armies to secure universities REALLY an option?

The twin fallacies you have to believe to oppose self defense is that defense against criminals and lunatics is "someone else's responsibility" and that police have the ability to appear before violence will succeed.

At NIU the campus police are reported to have been on the scene within TWO minutes.

Fast response, but too late for the victims.







TravisABQ: Exactly right!

Two minutes... extraordinary response time... but too late!

Gun free zone = defenseless victim zone = OPEN SEASON ZONE!

I am still asking the question, how many times does this have to happen, and how many people have to die before we learn this lesson???






Gun analogy
Not until every country is armed with nuclear weapons will the world be safe from destruction!
That makes as much sense as CCW laws.

wrightsrong52; DUMBEST analogy ever!
.

Wrightsrong52
So you think that law abiding citizens should be defenseless, and only criminals and lunatics should be armed?!

why are you on the side of crminals?

A modest proposal
Any fans of Robert A. Heinlein's science fiction may remember a novel of his from the early 1940s, "Beyond This Horizon." In a future America, citizens can carry as they choose; if they choose not to carry, they must wear brassards which mark them as people with fewer social privileges than those who are armed. Gunfights are common, and most who carry are quick to take offense at insults.

I suggest that conservatives work to try to hasten the day when the US has such a gun culture. Sounds like a great place for conservatives, right?

So, we liberals retreat to some part of the US (Vermont, perhaps)and hole up for a while. As the guns fall silent, and the number of conservatives dwindles to a handful, we come back.

Anne
Psssst!!

We are over at Jack's!!!

Gestell
Really? You want to point to a work of fiction to support your argument? Tell me this: How is it thatlegally carrying citizens are not constantly getting into gunfights today? There are plenty of states that issue carry permits. I have one. Five members of my family do as well. So do a couple of friends...None of us has ever taken a shot at someone for cutting us off in trafic.

I suggest you look at real world incidents rather than giving us your opinion on Heinleins fictional worlds of tomorrow. Oh, for the record, leftist writers always pen futures where conservatives and religious folks are the bad guys. I have read many books where the theme is "leftist...good....righty...bad"

Gestell
I live in an area where there are many holders of CCW permits. There is less crime here than next door in DC where it is illegal to own or carry and is in fact an example of the scenario you present (gunfights common, *ssholes quick to take offense). What do you make of that?

wrightswrong
Your analogy is that of someone unable or unwilling to see clear distinctions.

Frankly that analogy only makes sense to someone with poor reasoning ability. Try and do better next time. I mean do you really see no difference between a pistol and a nuke?


A challenge.
For those leftists who think issuing carry permits is dangerous or destructive to society, I would issue this challenge:

Find out how many citizens with carry permits, abused their right and broke the law. Now if there is a significant percentage of us robbing neighbors or firing into crowds, you folks have hard data to show us why we are on the wrong side of this issue.

But if-as the data suggests-those who carry legally do so responsibly, resulting in no harm to society...well then you might want to tell us why it is a bad thing.

Gestell
You made a post about college sports events and what might happen if drunken studends came with guns. First off, sporting events are not required. You want to ban guns at sports events? Fine. Students who don't like that can choose not to go.

I have tickets to my city's pro lacross team. They do not allow guns at those events and to get in you must go through a metal detector. Frankly, even if they allowed guns, I would not bring mine, since I see no way of using it safely in a 20 thousand seat venue.

Even still, I have no problem with sensible restrictions, but not outright bans. A student MUST attend classes. As such he or she should be allowed to carry a firearm if they are not felons or mentally ill.

wrightwrong

re: your anology,

we haven't had any nuclear wars in the last 60 years have we?

Enough were armed to deter any foolish action.

Travis
I don't have any problem with law abiding citizens
having guns. Do you feel comfortable with 280 million gun toting citizens? The guy who shot up the college was a law abiding citizen, until his last moments. Suppose someone shot him quickly. The next few people on the scene could think the hero was the wacko and shoot the hero. And so on. I don't think more guns is the answer.

Anne
goodnight, get some sleep.

Security Guards
Many posters are advocating security guards to protect us from the MUDERERS. I worked for several years as a security guard and I can tell you from experience that that is a BAD idea. 90% of the "security guards" are UNARMED and are not even alowed to carry a POCKET KNIFE. They are there for just three reasons:

1. To provide minimum wage janatorial service, cleaning the office, changing light bulbs, and other light duties.
2. To alow the owners to charge their tennants more for rent.
3. To lower their insurance rates.

Lilly has brought up the mall murders to "prove" that gun owners are useless, but she apparently doesn't realise (Or refuses to admit) that that mall was a GUN-FREE ZONE. The law-abiding people OBEYED the law, the murderer

Gestell
Robert Heinlein is a fair 'science fiction' author and a few science fiction books may have proved true, but he is all wet here.

Remember:

Armed societies are generally polite societies!

I agree with the posters who point out the media's part in the trend of mass shootings. These men want publicity. Therefore they should NOT be given any. The news story could read: 34 year old man attempted to commit mass murder today at the hometown mall. He was stopped by John Doe, a well-respected, handsome, buff CCW holder who compared taking out this criminal with killing any small, slow varmit. Mr Doe prefers a 357 for this type of shooting, although he says "any weapon is capable of taking out such a weak, simple-minded creature". He prefers Smith and Wesson does his handgun training at ........... There will be an indepth study tonight on heroes like Mr Doe.....


Bob
More weapons just means more chances of an accident taking place, no matter what size they are. Not everyone should have a weapon. My feet would have many holes in them, for example. I'm not sure it would be safer with Anne having a gun for instance.