AAbout Luke Woodham -- I was a photo editor for the Jackson Clarion-Ledger that day. In fact, the Woodham case was THE first large scale school shooting to take place in the US.
The Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 - two years after Luje opened fire.It was more deadly but still there were 4 school shootings between Pearl High School and Columbine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Sch...School_shooting
But, your point is correct - if it had not been for the armed vice principal many, many more one have died that day. Luke was armed to the hilt.
It is hard to understand that will allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit to defend their planes against terrorists but we do not allow everyday citizens the right to protect ourselves at all times.
Thank you, you are correct, he wasn't imitating Columbine in his dress manner. And right to note it was not a point of the essay and irrelevant to the point. I was shocked to discover only today how Woodham was stopped. It is incredible how the media stories I read consistently failed to mention the fact that the assistant principal used a gun to stop Woodham.
I absolutely agree.
80% of the time I agree with "left" talk radio like Air America because they use reason and logic, and the "conservative radio" use emotion and religion and capitalist ideology.
But the last two days, on the issue of gun control and gun laws, the liberal radio gun-control advocates have been coming completely from a place of emotion while the conservative have been completely rational.
I absolutely agree that gun-free zones are basically game preserves for crazies. They should be abolished. I've looked at the requirements for getting a concealed-carry permit in MO (where I'm from) and it very rigorously requires an understanding of when to use force, identifying situations, knowing the laws. People who legally conceal-carry aren't Wild West shoot at the sky loons like the liberals paint.
BUT! I do have one, and only one concern that I heard someone from the left bring up that makes sense. A police officer called a show and said he despises the idea of more citizens carrying guns, because of the chaos of trying to "secure a scene" where you have many people with guns and you don't know who's the killer and who's a "vigilante".
But then, in my crass way, I would think the annoyance and potential rare case of mistaken target and accidental shooting of an armed civilian, is a price for less mass slaughter in schools and malls and the like.
Thanks for finding these examples of the effectiveness of armed resistance!!
Liam: you are correct. The Left becomes unhinged when guns are mentioned (or profits). The Right becomes unhinged if you mention gays or sex. The left blames murder on guns. The Right blames rape on porn. Both blame inanimate objects and not human action. This inability to be rational across the board is fascinanting actually.
When you say no gun zones should be abolished I’m pretty much with you though I do believe that property owners should be able to restrict guns on their own property. And people are then free to decide to enter or not.
Does your cop caller also demand an end to plain clothes cops? Typically when cops arrive on the scene of such incidents the incidents are over with, the scene secure and the “victims” have the shooter under control. Certainly in 3 of the four cases mentioned above their apprehended the shooter and handed then to the police who only arrived after it was all over. In the 4th case they arrived while the off duty cop was engaging the shooting. (Would the cop caller also say off duty cops should stay out of it?)
Now if this cop had his way in at least three of these cases (for sure, possibly four) there would have been more innocent victims. I wonder if he would have preferred that. One great problem in life is that everything involves trade offs. There is no cost free solution. You look at the trade offs and make decisions. The Left and the Right both ignore this fact and assume cost free solutions. Every “solution” requires looking at the costs and the benefits. And based on the limited number (thankfully) of such mass shootings the evidence so far shows that the trade offs favor allowing people to defend themselves. In crime in general the evidence is much less limited and the case much, much stronger.
If the cops arrive on scene before the shooting is "over" the situation should reveal the 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. The good guys are NOT shooting at the cops, and the bad guys are pointing their guns and shooting at everyone.
Or, don't they teach threat assessment to cops?
Mostly, they teach to establish a perimeter and proceed further when back-up arrives. They cordone off the area and wait for supervisors, incident command. At Columbine they fired well over 100 rounds and hit NOBODY. What was their 'target'? Cover fire? Warning shots?
Why didn't the students leave the Columbine library through the backdoor? There were over 50 students there. They didn't barricade the door after K&D left the 1st time. The VA Tech students were more autonomous in their defensive efforts than HS students in 1999. Somebody learned something.
An armed citizen ON SCENE has a better situation awareness of the bad guy than a dozen 'arriving'law enforcement officers getting conflicting preliminary reports through a dispatcher.
Sorry about copying your whole post. I have now taken that down and just left a link. Great post BTW.
"Both blame inanimate objects and not human action."
Truer words were never spoken.
When will people take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming something or someone else?
Thank you for the fantastic post!! I am going to post a link to it from my website. Clear, forceful posts like yours are needed in the climate we have right now.
Hava
The blog is written--check it out: http://mittforpresident.wordpres...on-gun-control/
Thanks again for the insightful, forceful blog. We need people who can think clearly and intelligently on this subject, without going hysterical and slightly nuts when discussing it. Over-the-top anger never got anyone anywhere (well, anywhere they wanted to go, anyway.) I have surfed around a bit on your blog--I am going to be adding it to my blogroll. We need more bloggers like you. 
Hava
A hell of a good blog post. Job well done.
I don't think any of your evidence calls for less gun restrictions. If anything it calls for more. Who and why would anyone give/sell someone like the VT shooter a gun?
There needs to be much stricter requirements on who has access to a gun.
I'm not saying you or those heroic students teacher and police officers don't have a right to own a gun and protect yourself and possibly others around you.
As a matter of fact I believe that people who are competent, stable, and trustworthy have an obligation to carry a gun.
The stricter gun laws need not include people who genuinely desire to make the world safer. But this crazy person at VT and others like him SHOULD NOT EVER HAVE ACCESS TO A GUN.
Guns don't kill people, people do. Thats why certain people should not have a gun. Gun laws need to be stricter and need to be enforced. But the laws need not to stop a would be hero.
Austin, please take the following sanely:
A pistol costs roughly $30 on the streets of Washington DC. It is illegal to so much as hold a hand-gun if you're not a cop, on the streets of DC.
During the Assault Weapons Ban, the weapon of choice for gang-members in LA was the AK-47 -- a weapon *NEVER MANUFACTURED* in this country.
The Columbine massacre was committed by underaged students -- for whom the possession of guns of any kind was outright illegal.
Not one mass shooting has happened in the US outside of a "Gun Free Zone" since their institution -- and a priori to the existence of "GFZ"'s, they were committed in what later *BECAME* "GFZ"'s.
So where's the disconnect already? Snap to it -- come to your senses. Increased gun restrictions only disarm innocent, law-abiding citizens.
People looking to commit acts like the V-Tech killings *WILL* find a way to get the weapons anyhow. Only law abiding people -- people not intending to kill with guns -- will be restricted by increased gun controls.
Wake *UP*.
When are gun control advocates finally going to wake up see what a painfully obvious failure their policies are? This Virginia Tech tragedy really underscores how utterly ineffective the police are at protecting innocent people. Everyone needs to understand that they have to accept responsibility for their own protection, and until that happens, dangerous psychos will continue to take advantage of this pathetic situation.
There's an old saying...."Better to have and not need than to need and not have...'
Nowhere does it more apply than in instances like VT et el..
School shootings make more headlines but most people killed by guns are killed in their own home or in a close friends home, by someone they know very well.
The problem might not be the guns but because guns are everywhere people use them when they are influenced by their feelings.
Until people can control their unrational behavior (which will never happen) gun control will save peoples lives.
Should'a, would', could'a, etc. Facts: There are more guns than people in the US. While this does not seem insane to many, it does certainly look like our society is more into "Last Man Standing" than anything else.
At no time following these events does any rationality exist, nor not. The voice of perhaps 5 million people drive this entire policy of how we treat guns -- which is usually on the part of gun lovers is a theological stance of absolute worship, and with it the perusasion that everyone should or must be armed. The other side, really scared shitless of the gun lovers favor some types of prohibitions. But, the gun lovers have seized the say, long ago, and had their say totally.
The well if he'd'a been armed.... does nothing to solve a dangerous and deadly problem - that of too damned many guns, I dont care in whose hands. Now, before you say something really dumb, like perhaps I am a liberal, I have probably used more different types of guns in more situations than any of you imagine. Spent 24 years in the Army, quite often on the ground.
As a result of endless guns, our police have become militarized, all acting out childish superhero fantasies in hoods and black suits with every damned gimmcrack in the world. Escalation, counter escalation. Strong controls on guns 50 years ago might have changed this infantile "wild west" scenario of which all are apparently to very fond, aided and abetted by arms manufacturers. 50 cal sniper rifles in civil society? What in hell is anyone thinking about - while we then make every attempt to outlaw abortion?
There will be no rationality in this time, despite your declarations! Look for the idiotic travesty to continue and more random shootings in more places -- after all is that not what our movies and media teach nightly? And so the cycle continues with various sides to this argument continuing their endless and useless prattle.
There are too damned many guns loose in our society and they should be controlled, despite the supposed outrage of those who want some absolute freedom in a constrained world. This is the type of thinking
which leads straight to Iraq and our supposed foreign policies -- that of the video arcade with some kid with endless supplies of quarters.
Personal fire arms are the last defense from a centralized tyrannical government.
Mr. 9:37 am,
You certainly have a lot more experience with guns than I, but your conclusions don't make much sense.
Gun owners do not form a single class. They form two seperate and very distinct classes. The first class has obtained their guns legally, and while they may be accused of 'worshiping them', they are statstically quite unlikely to use them in the commission of crime.
The other class, however is entirely different. Those who obtain weapons illegally or use weapons that are licensed to others are quite likely to use them in illegal/violent acts.
Since only the first group would even dream of following the laws you suggest, and since the second group forms the majority of the problem, your proposed solution would do nothing except ensure that we are all potential victims in the face of the escalation that has already taken place.
All these "endless guns" need to be controlled, wafranklin?
OK. How? Another law? Another 10 laws? Another book of laws? How is that going to control the "endless guns"?
Seriously? Is there some magical number of laws that must be reached based on some ancient hermetic magic that once passed, all the guns loose on the streets will disappear in showers of sparks and unicorn farts?
You can have a billion laws, and guess what? Guns will still exist and the only people buying, selling, owning, trading them will be people for whom gun laws means as much as laws against mugging, raping, killing.
The VT guy bought his guns legally. That's proof the system is broken. Knowing what we do about his state of mind and years of behavior, can you honestly tell me that even if the system were fixed and he was prevented from legally buying a gun for $500, he wouldn't have made the effort to buy an illegal gun off the street for $200 and the same thing wouldn't have still happened?
We already have 20,000 gun-control laws that worked by design a VT. Whence the belief that number 20,001 will accomplish what those before it did not? The best way to fight crime is to shoot back ...
Fantastic post with great information. I have linked this post from my site, hope you don't object.
If I were currently living in the US, I would definitely be packing. Right now I am just learning how to shoot and handle a gun, my aim is to someday have a conceal permit. I never want to find myself in a situation where I am defenseless.
You have won a new dedicated reader thanks to this post. What you just said needs to be repeated over and over again. Thank you thank you thank you.
the only wild west scenarios I see are the ones being played out by these sickos in our gun free zones. Im not saying more gun laws wont work. They obviously wont. Not any better than the current ones do. which are only working with the law abiding citizens who would never break the originating laws anyway (no murder, rape, pillage etc.) What I am saying is the blood of these innocent victims is on the hands of the people who supported and passed these gun free school zone laws. Every one of these people who has been killed on one of these zones since the law has passed is because of every person that voted for and supported those laws. because the law abiding citizen is going to follow those laws instead of being able to protect themselves and their fellow citizen with a firearm. I would bet my life that at least one of the victims of each of these tragedies wished they had broken the law and brought a gun to school that horrible day. On a side note, just because you have used guns and were in the military doesnt mean you're not a liberal. There may be other reasons you're not, but that argument is just not valid. Most liberals think that only the military and police should have guns. Witness the violent crime rates in the US cities with the toughest gun control laws, NY NY, washington DC. tougher laws do not work.
Good post, I agree, one thing worth mentioning, in Utah any actual LE Officer is authorized to concealed carry as if on duty. Keep in mind, Utah has a much different view on firearms, they are more logical. Statistics prove, the tighter the gun control laws, the worse the crime. Utah has little crime, and loose gun control, seems to prove the point.
wafranklin: I don’t care if you are a liberal or not and having been in the Army is no qualification except for killing people. It is absurd to say gun policy is run by 5 million people since far more than that actually own guns. And if you read this blog carefully you would know that I don’t own a gun and never have.
The police were not militarized due to people having guns. They are militarized because that suits the purposes of government to expand its powers. You say there will be more shootings. No doubt there will be. More places? I suspect that most will continue in gun free zones.Odd you don’t see people in gun shows shooting each other up as your theory would suggest ought to be happening.
You make other points as well just not coherently so I will have to leave them.
Liam: the VT guy did buy his guns legally. He was unqualified to own a gun due to his mental incarceration, just the bureaucrats screwed up again and didn’t pass that information on so he got approved.
And for the gun prohibitionists I suggest this analogy. Cocaine, pot, etc are totally illegal. No ifs, ands or buts on that. You don’t get permits to take cocaine. You get arrested. You got to jail. Violent cops break down your doors, kill your dogs, and if they don’t shoot you to death on the spot arrest you. You then end up in jail. Locked up, surrounded by police officials at every turn -- and still you can find drugs there. Now spending billions and billions on heavy handed policing to ban totally the use of drugs has not been able to get drugs out of the prisons, let alone the country, they exactly what sort of tyranny do you advocate to ban guns completely and make sure that no “bad guys” get them? And what it turns out the bad guys are running the government one day? Then what?
This just goes to show you the obvious. If the law-abiding carry a gun we will be much safer. We do not *all* have to carry. The crooks do not know who is carrying and who isn't and they will think twice before doing these crimes.
The not-so-obvious that this shows is the media bias. It is so biased toward big government, government that is responsible for our safety. Well, it isn't. And even if it is, it is not doing its job.
We the people are responsible for our own safety. This is why God gave individuals the *right* to defend themselves and this is why the Founders had the wisdom to guarantee it in the Bill of Rights.
Great post.
This is a small thing but that Utah Officer was perfectly legal to carry his off duty gun in that mall. Police Officers carry state commissions.
We don't go searching for crime, off duty, especially out of our home jurisdictions, we do act when the crime is right in front of us.
Fantastic post. I was struck when a commentator asked one question:
"If you were in that classroom, wouldn't you have wanted to have had a gun?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone answering no. A single gun would have changed the dynamic and the only determinative reason that there were no guns in the classroom was not lack of will or training or opportunitty, but the fact that any student with a gun could be expelled, even Virginia Tech military cadets, who will soon be trusted to defend our country with arms, but cannot be trusted to defend their campus or classmates.
Yeah, it would almost lead one to think that there was some kind of organized media bias against firearms ownership/possession by private citizens. But one would be paranoid to think that, wouldn't one?
A commenter above made a remark about .50 cal 'sniper' rifles to the effect of 'what the hell?', as in 'why would anyone want or need one of those'?
I live in California, the first state to outlaw .50 cal rifles. Gun control advocates sought and succeeded in outlawing these guns out of the mistaken belief that it is crazed killers who want these guns so that they can kill lots of people. The truth is far from their belief.
.50 cal rifles are both very expensive and very bulky and very heavy. In the hands of an expert marksman, they are capable of striking a human target from distances up to 1800 yards, or over 1.5 miles. However, it requires a very high level of skill to shoot with that degree of accuracy. In reality, the .50 cal rifles are only of interest to the extreme hobbyists who spend a great deal of time perfecting their skills and who enjoy shooting at targets a mile away. I'm not aware of a single instance of a .50 being used in a crime. They just aren't practical weapons for commiting crimes as they are too big, too heavy, and too expensive. The DC snipers used a cheap and simple 5.56mm rifle based on the AR-15 design, and shot people from distances around 100 yards. With that kind of firepower available for around $400, who is going to spend the $5,000 it costs for a quality .50?
Another stupid gun control law that will do nothing to reduce crime. It only eliminates a hobby pursued by a few long range shooting enthusiasts in CA.
The .50 caliber ban doesn't mean much. The companies just started chambering the rifles in different, equally powerful calibers. And I don't blame them.
While I agree more or less with the point of your post, one item is incorrect. In Utah, an officer who works for any jurisdiction in the state has the authority to act as an officer in any other jurisdiction in the state if necessary.
I have to say anyone who reads this post and doesn't come to the logical conclusion is a delusional person "wishing" for unreality.
'Imagine there's no heaven... it's easy if you try...'
Good, thought provoking post.
Check out this list for school attacks in the US. It would be an interesting project to look at how each rampage was stopped.
For wafranklin and others, another small point.
My little town has about 15,000 people. Among that number are well over a hundred that I know of that have lathes, milling machines, and other machinery for making things.
The people who invented repeating firearms did so a hundred years ago, using machines so primitive it's hard to believe they worked at all. Nowadays computer-controlled machines are easily available, and so are the design programs that operate them. Guns are easy to make; good guns are less easy, but well within the skills of the average person with a little training. What that means, extending the numbers, is that there are probably well over two hundred thousand people in the U.S. who could make a gun from scratch if they wanted to, including having the machines and materials they would need oh hand, and ten times as many who could learn, and get the wherewithal, fairly quickly if they wanted to. One of them is very likely one of your neighbors.
To do so is absolutely, unquestionably illegal -- but a machine shop capable of making guns, even good ones, would take up a tenth the space of a gro-lamp pot plantation, and require a hundredth the electricity. And how many of those turn up?
Even if I agreed that "getting rid of guns" was a good idea -- I don't, just to be clear -- that genie is out of the bottle. To cram him back in would require a police force of such oppresive omnipresence as to make the worst police state ever look like hall monitors at middle school. To staff it with the millions or tens of millions of cops you'd need, you'd have to reach 'way down toward the bottom of the barrel. How many of the shooter-crazies would be irresistibly attracted to such a profession? More important, what would that force be used for besides gun-hunting?
People need to be taught, calmly and without hysterics, about the realities of guns, including how to handle them. Schools shouldn't be gun-free zones; they should be zones where people learn about guns, along with the other things they need to know in their future lives. The correct response to a drowning is not to ban rain and jail the swimming instructors.
Regards,
Ric
Yes, well. . .it's kind of hard for me to get too worked up about firearm homicides in the usa when there are almost half again as many firearm suicides here.
I.e., for every 2 firearm homicides, there are almost 3 firearm suicides -- '04 CDC stats of 11,624 vs. 16,750, a ratio of about 1.441.
So if wafranklin, and those with similar views, are really all that concerned about deliberate firearm-related deaths, shouldn't they instead be focusing on outreach towards potential suicide victims, rather than gun restrictions?
Mad shooters are either stopped by the last bullet of their last magazine, or the first bullet of a sane person's first magazine.
A logical approach would have as many first bullets with sane people as possible in areas where people congregate
Don't worry, Susan Estrich has picked up on the stopping of Peter Odighizuwa, in order to salvage the reputation of the media.
Except she has totally screwed it up: (from http://www.creators.com/opinion/...lame-game.html)
Quote
In 2002, an armed gunman was killed by armed students at Appalachia Law School. Or maybe he was unarmed or his gun was empty or he had put it down by the time he was shot dead. The congressman from the district that includes Virginia Tech has been sponsoring legislation every year to expand the right to carry concealed weapons, allowing for reciprocity between states.
Unquote
What an idiot! (maybe I wrong her, perhaps she is intentionally intellectually dishonest.)
All you are doing is glorifying and extending the circle of violence. These so-called heroes were lawbreakers that belong in jail for illegally carrying a firearm. I am sure the criminals they apprehended were just about to see the error of their ways when they were violently attacked by jackbooted NRA thugs who are just itching to shoot people with their illegal weapons.
Congress should ban guns across the board. Shut down the manufacturers, confiscate all of the outstanding weapons, ban hunting (which would have the added bonus of helping to stop global warming) and place anyone found in possession of a gun in jail for 10 years. If they did that, murders would cease for goo din this country and we can all live in peace, harmony, and sing Kumbya as one.
Tim: You are correct, the woman's column is factually incorrect. The gunman at the law school was not killed.
Vincenzo is also wrong. These people were not committing a crime, he obviously doesn't read well. It is not a crime to defend yourself. And the idea of the "circle (he meant cycle) of violence" is absurd. Would he say that to the Warsaw ghetto uprising? They were only extending the violence by defending themselves. Is a woman extending violence by fighting a rapist? And I'm sorry, I rarely call readers morons but the idea that banning guns will help stop global warming is uttterly moronic.
I think the main thing you guys are missing out that if there was 'proper' gun control then none of these people mentioned here would have a gun in the first place. The solution is complete gun control not the half-a*ssed version we have right now. That is why it works in other countries, guns aren't as easy to procure as they are over here in the US!
Yes, complete gun control like they have in Britain. Funny thing though, since they enacted a total ban on all firearms in the UK gun violence has gone UP every year since 1996, and the violent crime rate is now nearly double that of the United States. In fact, you're seven times more likely to be the victim of a robbery, rape, violent assault, car jacking, or home invasion in London than you are in New York city. That's what you're really looking for, right Joe G?
Joe G., perhaps you should try not missing the point about the relative ratio between firearm suicide and firearm homicide yourself, first.
Consider this: if the past is any guide, the establishment of further gun ownership restrictions will continue to be at best a difficult, polarizing, costly, and otherwise wasteful battle, and at the worst a completely futile one.
However, outreach towards the suicidal is something that both sides of the gun restriction issue can wholeheartedly support, with no money, time, attention, or other resources wasted in mutual conflict between them. It is thus a win-win proposition, with good potential for almost immediate improvements in the preservation of human life and the prevention of tragedies.
Furthermore, we might very well even discover that people, as a result of such outreach, become considerably less likely to commit mass murder and other violent crimes as well -- just as a bonus.
CLS: An excellent post, well done; and a bevy of thoughtful comment as well!
Liam: you say "80% of the time I agree with "left" talk radio like Air America because they use reason and logic, and the "conservative radio" use emotion and religion and capitalist ideology." which I find rather paradoxical...tis reason and logic that led me to the "conservative" positions I espouse now in my middle age.
In fact, one issue which has always been impossible for me to present in an emotional way is the necessity for an armed populace in a free society. It's a very visceral issue for me: my personal experience in the military and as a law enforcement officer has led me to different conclusions than those expressed by wafranklin above: since police are very seldom at the scene, its important that the "weak" be able to protect themselves against the "bullies." However, an excellent graphic artist named Oleg Volk does an very good job of presenting the emotional side of the issue in favor of an armed citizenry at http://www.a-human-right.com/
And I would also mention that I agree with CLS, in spirit, when he says "...though I do believe that property owners should be able to restrict guns on their own property. And people are then free to decide to enter or not." in practice I've found it necessary to ignore that restriction a few times, where the safety of my family is involved.
You gun nuts are loving this. Every freaking chance you get to spurt your vile beliefs that owning a gun is a good thing, you jump at it. In Columbine, right after the killings, your demi-god Charlton Heston stood at a podium, holding up a rifle and says, "Out of my cold, dead hands..."
Pure, unadulterated, unmitigated disprespect for the lives lost that moment was - and the fact that you morons are doing it again here in this blog is even more evidence of your insane, pathetic, blatent disprespect for human life.
The shooter killed with a gun. If he was prevented access to that gun, he would not have killed with a gun. Basic logic. You can all argue that he would have found a gun anyway... but how do you know that for a fact? All I can say is based on actual fact - if he did not have a gun in his hands, he would not have shot those kids.
So, you freaking sicko-gun-loving loonies, give up this pathetic argument that if you allow more people to have guns all violence will end. That logic is obviously flawed. Even tragically so.
WAKE UP!!!
Doerkus: I want to congradulate you for showing that the Left can be as irrational and intolerant and nasty the Religious Right. Like them you avoided argumentation and resort to insults. I assume it is because you are devoid of rational arguments.
Nope - I'm just sick of the same argument over and over again. Gun-loving loons spew their vile crap all over the place, insist they are right because they only present 1/4th of the argument and use bogus stats they claim are facts because they read it somewhere in the NRA handbook.
And who said I am a liberal anyway? What... because I don't agree that owning guns is a good thing, I am suddenly a liberal? Who are you to make this judgement? I take it since you choose the "high-road" (aka, argue ceaselessly, yet politely about the issue and never get anything done), you are therefore a perfect moderate? Bite me!!
What say you get off your high horse and actaully stand up for something. Use harsh language - who cares?!? It's an anonymous blog anyway. You think my folks actually gave me the name Doerkus? My suggestion to all - plug in, wake up, and get freakin' real! Guns are a real, live issue. People owning them is scary. Sick thing happen when people own guns - and the argument that sick things would happen anyway if they didn't own them is a bogus statement. First off, how do you know? And secondly, it's a cop out! That's like saying, well, we're all going to die one day, so we might as well start killing each other... or extrapolating it even further - the entire human race will one day cease to exist, so why not start the process early? Freakin' WAKE UP you morons!
Thank you for bringing this to people's attention, the mass media has certainly forgotten (or neglected) to do so. I am a current student at the law school mentioned in the article, and only would add that at least one of the students who retrieved guns from their cars were former or off-duty police officers. This guy was a complete psycho and would have done as much, if not more, damage than the guy at VT. Luckily, though, people responded before the cops even knew what had transpired. Thanks again for doing your research and relaying this message.
Very good article CLS with one small exception. In regards to Officer Ken Hammond & the Trolley Square Mall shooting in SLC, Ut. As a peace officer, Officer Hammond may carry a handgun anywhere at anytime. In fact many departments require their officers to carry at all times. Many state laws say that a peace officer who witnesses a misdemeanor MAY act and a peace officer who witnesses a felony MUST act. A peace officer is a peace officer 24/7/365 and therefore was not a civilian.
Federal law gives all active and retired peace officers the right to carry in all 50 states. I hope that one day all states will be required to recognise the concealed carry licenses of other states just as they recognise your drivers license.
Doerkus: You are aware that Heston's "from my cold dead hands" speech happened before the Columbine incident, right?
You see, it's quite simple. Michael Moore is full of shit.
Anyway. Hey, Zach, you know what? Some bright boy figured out that if he blocked the door with the teacher's desk, Cho wouldn't be able to enter the room. Hey, wow, twenty people saved, and guns weren't involved. How the hell did THAT happen? I mean, here's people telling me that the only way to stop Cho would have been for someone to have a gun. But here's a whole classroom full of kids who lived through it!
Doerkus:
"You can all argue that he would have found a gun anyway... but how do you know that for a fact?"
As a peace officer I can tell you that if he walked into the right bar in the right section of any city in America with 100 bucks in his pocket he could have a gun within an hour, Guns are stolen from honest law abiding citizens just like you and me everyday. The theives steal them and then sell them to buy drugs. They can't take them to a pawn shop, or gun shop (although the really, really stupid ones do) because they will be required to show a photo ID and the shop keeper is required to keep a record of it. Most city police departments have pawn shop detail detectives that check all pawn shops, gun shops and 2nd hand stores daily for stolen merchandise, including guns. Therefore they are sold on the street to other criminals. So yes I can say that he would have gotten a gun just as quickly or maybe even quicker than he could have purchased one legally. And that's a fact Jack.
"All I can say is based on actual fact - if he did not have a gun in his hands, he would not have shot those kids."
Can't argue that. But they were not kids. Most were young adults and I wonder just how many (if any)of the 32 people he killed had a concealed carry license but did not have their gun on them because of state law and how many of those 33 lives may have been saved if one or two of them were carrying.
On many police vehicles throughout the nation you will see the slogan "To Protect and Serve" Well I can tell you that there is very little protection going on. In order for me to protect you I must be on the scene when the offense occurrs. 99% of the time we arrive after the robbery, rape, asssault, murder, burglary has occurred. All we can do then is investigate and try to locate and apprehend the perpetrator(s). We try our best to be proactive by defining problem areas and increasing patrols and educating the public on how to prevent crime and help us. But law enforcement is largely a reactive job.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect anyone. We cannot be everywhere. Therefore it is YOUR oblgation, duty and right to protect YOU and YOUR family.
The burglar who breaks into your house at 3 a.m. is not only there to steal your belongings but to harm or kill you or any member of your family. If he doesn't have a gun, he'll get a butcher knife from your kitchen drawer, or a hammer or hatchet from your tool box in the garage, or a baseball bat from your little boy's closet. Why? Because most residential burglaries happen during the day when no one is likely to be home.If he breaks in during the night, he knows that someone is likely to be home and he doesn't care or he is there to do harm. If you think otherwise, you better get a new plan Stan.
The best defense you can have is to get yourself a gun and learn how to use it, whether it's a handgun or shotgun. If it's a handgun get a permit
to end my last sentence above...and carry it on your person. In most instances it won't do you any good locked up in your car. Ie; Luby's Cafeteria in Kileen, Tx. A madman entered after crashiing his truck through a window and killed sveral people including the parents of Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp who may have been able to stop him and save some lives. But she couldn't because her 357 magnum was locked up in her car. Why? Because Texas didn't have a concealed handgun license law at the time. After the law was passed and went into effect on 1-1-95 violent crime (aggravated robbery, homocide, carjacking, burglary, and forcible rape) dropped by a little over 40%. Criminals are stupid but they aren't ignorant. Many of them just don't want to take a chance that their intended victim may be armed. That's exactly why they choose "gun free zones". They know that the chances of armed resistance are slim to nonexistant. The only way to stop this or at least save some lives is to repeal those laws and allow anyone who is properly trained and licensed to carry a concealed hangun in those places.
Regarding suicide by gun: To plug myself again take a look at these numbers that show people who want to kill themselves find a way. Look at Japan (see the Update pic) in particular.
Doerkus: You deny you are engaging in calling names instead of offering arguments. And then immediate call people who disagree”gun-loving loons.” I suppose you are including myself in that though I don’t own a gun and never have. You say it the same argument but you don’t rebut it. You claim bogus stats. Follow the links for yourself. I don’t make up the stats I use, they are taken from mainstream publications and various government documents.
But you need to believe those who disagree with you are deceitful, loons, liars, etc. Just like a fundamentalist. And you retort to a request to act like a decent human being and present arguments not insults is met by the brilliant retort “bite me”. Well, it was brilliant in 2nd grade. Perhaps when you get to third grade you can come back and sit with the big boys.
And why do I, for the most part, avoid using the language you use. Because people pay absolutely no attention to people who act like rude idiots. You do your own cause a disservice which is why I’m glad you are on the other side. You will do for the progun side what Fred Phelps has done for gays. You make the other side look so bad you push people over just out a commitment to decency. So thanks, I’m very glad you disagree with me. I’d hate to have you as an ally.
BLB: the issue as I see it is that property owners at the mall forbade the carrying of handguns. My comment was that he was breaking their rules which they as the property owners have a right set and I said I was glad he did. I know that law enforcement was trying to get a law to allow officers to carry legally in all states I was not aware it had passed. Certainly the law officers association website I linked to gave me the impression it had not passed.
DensityDuck: Sure doors were blocked and some people were shot through those doors and killed. Some doors were blocked and he got in anyway. And in some cases he couldn’t get in the room but he shot anyway and missed. Hardly a strong case for saying that all people need to protect themselves from a killer is to push a desk against the door. He had no shortage of people to kill and only stopped when he was ready not because some desks blocked his way.
Home many of you know about the guy who killed two people at a Home Owners meeting in Sun City,and how he was stopped?
CLS, evidently the association of which you write has not updated their web site as the bill was signed into law by Pres. Bush some time ago. I believe last September. Btw, the bill took about 10 years to get passed and signed into law. Some states such as NY, Mass, & NJ don't like it but since federal law supersedes state law they must accept it.
A shopping mall is a place open to the public and therefore they cannot forbid peace officers from carrying a firearm on their property, irrespective of their on or off duty status. As I explained earlier a peace officer is peace officer 24/7/365. I never leave my home for any reason unarmed, and not just because my department says I must be armed at all times. And I have made several "off duty" arrests over the past 25 years.
Businesses have a right to post No Firearms on their property. In 1995 a national chain book store posted it's stores here the day before the concealed carry law went into effect . A county Judge went in and told them that they didn't have to worry about the citizen that had a license because they were properly trained in the use of their gun and laws regarding the use of deadly force and been through an extensive criminal background check before the license was issued. But he sure better worry about the criminal who didn't care about the law and was carrying illegally. He also stated that he would not shop there as long as the store was posted. Several people told the manager the same thing and within a month the signs were removed.
Jan 2nd '95 our city council passed an ordinance forbidding the carry of a handgun in any city owned building. The next day the Attorney General issued an opinion that if a person that was licensed to carry was attacked and injured or killed in a city owned building and he was denied his right to carry the city could be held liable. It was and still is illegal for a licensee to carry in a city council meeting or court room whether it's municipal, county or federal. I would think the same would apply to any business such as a store or mall because in essence they are saying, "You don't need to carry while on our property because we will provide for your safety and protect you." That's hogwash!
Oh phooey! I forgot to say that after the Attorney General's ruling our city council wisely repealed the no carry ordinance.
My husband and I are sending our eldest off to college next year. She has been taught since a very tender age everything regarding gun safety and how to discharge a firearm with accuracy, knowledge and integrity...she knows (it has been drilled into her) to only point a gun at that which she is prepared to kill. We have covered the issues of the sanctity of human life and the issue that human life is sacred. We, also, have covered the issue of the right to fight back...how NOT to be a victim. She is a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, but I do wish she could carry a concealed weapon to campus. We NEED something along the lines of student undercover "Marshals" on the campuses. Highly trained, stable, young adults who understand that sometimes individuals must be called upon to stand in the breach against evil for others. It's called sacrifice. This nation doesn't seem to understand that concept much any more. It's time we collectively stood up for ourselves...teach our children to stand up for themselves. FIGHT BACK!!! Don't force them to be VICTIMS any longer. ARM our young people with an education that goes beyond mere academics.
What's the argument here? Is it gun control, or my chosen form of speech? Who really cares how I choose to express myself? Well, you do, apparently, but as far as I can tell, the rest are indifferent.
I loathe this polite manner of argument because I have tried it, and so far, no results. Granted, it's highly doubtful I'll get any results with this new method either. I mean, statistically, what posts on a blog have actually affected change in American policy? Or even on a smaller scale, how many posts on a little blog such as this have changed the thinking of people who are reading it? And really, how many people are reading this blog to begin with? I'm guessing that at best, my argument will reach .00001% of the american population's ears (so to speak), and of that, I expect my writings will reach .00000000001% of the american population's mind... and that's at best - and just reaching the mind doesn't mean it's going to change anything. Most people will read the entry, go "hmmm... good point", and then go their merry way.
At the end of the day, it's all futile, really. None of this really matters. whether I choose to come back with the well phrased retort "bite me" or I choose to invoke some higher level of speech "gnaw on my person", it doesn't matter. I'm not going to change anyone's thinking - and most likely, neither are any of you either.
So let's just give it up. What happened at VT was tragic. Whether the other students had guns on their person and could have stopped it is moot - we will never know. What we do know, though, is that if we suddenly allow everyone to carry concealed weapons, the likelihood of people getting shot increases. Whether they get shot justifiably, accidentally, or whatever will always remain at issue. I mean, aside from the obvious situations such as what this Cho dude did, there will always remain a question of whether deadly force is justified in a given situation. It could be some cheeser is standing in line at a grocery store behind some hot head who's angry that he's being charged and extra .50 cents for that cantaloupe and starts going off on the checker. The cheeser might decided, hey, this guy's going too far and BLAM! Problem solved - in his mind.
So you see, giving out more guns is NOT the answer... and I would think that the "peace officer" who posted earlier would likely side with me on this issue. I hate to say that I have to doubt the veracity of his being who he says he is in the first place. I mean, I do not know of any cops who would prefer that the general population have guns available to them, and that they carry them with them all the time. I know that most of these guys hate going up to cars in traffic stops because you never know what that other guy has. Have you ever noticed how they approach the cars gingerly - their hands on their guns, and their gun holsters unsnapped?
So again, I say, get real and freakin' wake up... and
...to complete my last posting... to those of you who disagree with me, you can gnaw on my person!
If we all carry guns, how are the good guys to know the difference between good guy and bad. When the cop kills one of our kids cause he has a "friendly" fire gun....are you going to sue our officiers, our cities, our schools,,,,where's it stop?
If our kids all have guns in class there will be nothing but flying bullets, not knowing who's good and and who's the true phsycho. Most people are not as brave as you see on tv. They panic and more are killed.
Those that defend our constitutional right...the right to bare arms.
Remember our forfathers had muskets. Not automatic weapons that could shell our 18 bullets in 25 seconds or less. It was a musket. They certainly did not mean it for todays modern society of technology. That's just basic common sense. Something our country is lacking a great deal of.
Dorekus:
Just how many street cops have you walked up to and asked how they feel about honest law abiding citizens having a concealed handgun? When you see photo opps like Clinton signing the Brady law with a bunch of cops standing behind him 90% of those cops are Chiefs, deputy Chiefs or county Sheriffs who are also politicians and must answer to their Mayors, or city managers or county commissioners who sent them. The very few street cops are there because their chiefs ordered them to go.
A traffic stop is the 2nd most dangerous thing that we do day in & day out. We don't know if the driver has just robbed the local stop & rob 5 minutes ago or hacked his wife to death or kidnapped the 13 yo sitting next to him.
In Texas a concealed carry licensee must present his Concealed Handgun License along with his drivers license if he is carrying at the time he is stopped. If he does not, his license can be revoked or suspended. I have never felt uncomfortable with a licensee on a traffic stop because I know that they are not criminals. After you've done the job awhile you develop a 6th sense and know when something isn't right. The hairs on the back of your neck stand up. I've had it happen plenty of times on a traffic stop but never with a licensee.
You spout the same rhetoric that the Brady Bunch spouted about shoot outs in the grocery store checkout when Fla, Tx, and many other state legislatures were debating passing a shall issue concealed carry law. It hasn't happened in the 20 years since Fla passed their law nor the 12 years since the Texas law went into effect.
I'm a Mom:
I can certainly understand your concern. I'm a parent too. But you must understand that most college age "kids" aren't kids anymore but young adults, even though your kids will always be a kid to you whether they're 22 or 42.
"If our kids all have guns in class there will be nothing but flying bullets, not knowing who's good and and who's the true phsycho." I think you don't give our young people very much credit for having common sense.
Any adult who has been through the training required to get a concealed handgun license knows how and when to use it and when NOT to. They certainly would not take a shot at an individual like Cho unless they had a clear shot. They understand the sanctity of life and the awesome responsibility of using deadly force. A responsible licensee practices with his/her weapon and knows his/her capabilities. Those "kids" who would be panicking would be trying to get out through another exit or trying to hide someplace, not rushing towards the perp.
Yes our forefathers used muskets in the Revolutionary war. The Brits had what is called a Brown Bess Musket that had no rifling (a series of grooves cut into the barrel to guide the ball) to make it more accurate and it wasn't effective past 100 yards. But we also had rifles that had the rifling (that's where the term rifle comes from) that were accurate out to 300 yards and that gave our soldiers the advantage. Best technology of their day. There was a repeating musket invented in Europe just prior to our RW. But production was very slow and very expensive, so only the wealthy could afford to buy one, certainly not a fledgling army of rebel upstarts who had trouble paying their soldiers the money promised them.
During the Civil War 99% of all troops were issued muzzle loading rifles. One shot at a time. But many bought Spencer repeating carbines that held 7 shots without reloading. Some used the New Henry Reapeating rifle that held 15 shots without reloading. Some rebs called it "That damned yankee rifle that you can load on Sunday and shoot all week." The reason our govt would not buy repeating rifles for the army was that the bureacrats thought the soldiers would waste ammunition thereby running up the cost of the war. Yes technology has advanced throughout the ages. Even the car that you drive today is better and safer than the car in which you learned to drive.
But do you have a solution? We cannot assign a cop to protect every student or even put 2-3-4 in every campus building on every floor. Even if we could, the cost of a college education would be prohibitive for all but the very wealthy.
Thank you, BLB. A voice of sanity and reason. I wish there were more like you. I grieve for this nation...
A comment about Cho's legal status regarding the purchase of a firearm. . .
A WIDELY overlooked issue is that he was ONLY ordered to undergo a psych eval (which is NOT considered an "adjudicated committement" for the simple reason that judges ARE NOT psych experts). The judges also tend to offer you a chance to go "voluntarily" (which doesn't count as "adjudicated incompetant", either -- because the docs have pointed out the LAST thing we want to do is to DISCOURAGE people from voluntarily seeking treatment)
We DO NOT WANT a legal system where non-experts can (on the weight of a MAGISTRATE HEARING, no expert, no jury, no trial) can place lifetime prohibitions on people, or have them locked up for years with no possibility of parole.
It was the shrink who EVALUATED Cho who said he did not present an IMMINENT threat (about the only way to INVOLUNATRYILY commit someone) to himself or others. Accordingly, he was released, and was NOT considered to have been found to be insane.
Funny that. . . a DOCTOR made a MEDICAL decision, rather than a JUDGE (who could be a a private practice lawyer who helps out as a part time night magistrate) making a medical decision that has lifetime implications.
Remember, he wasn't even subjected to TREATMENT -- he was evaluated ONLY. The doc RECOMMENDED that Cho have voluntary, out-patient treatment only.
The doc made the decision that Cho didn't present an immediate threat.
Any attempt to use this incident to "fix the loophole" (which, as I will demonstrate, is NOT a loophole) will result in tyranny.
1. Your neighbor doesn't like the music you play or your political views. He swears out a statement to the magistrate that claims he has witnessed bizarre behavior. Magistrate orders you to be evaluated, "just in case". BAM! You just lost the right to own a gun (or get a security clearance, etc. -- generally, if you can't pass a simple NICS check, you can't get a clearance either). For life. Don't think a vindictive neighbor or ex-partner couldn't do it to you? Happened to my roommate. (The neighbor in question ended up getting locked away in the nuthut a few months later for his bizarre perceptions of reality.)
2. You VOLUNTARILY go to speak to a shrink because your life is going down teh toilet (divorse, loss of job, severe medical issues, whatever). Your doc is extra-cautious (Cluster B disorders being VERY deceptive), and gets you to agree to a 48 hour evaluation. So you check into the psych hospital for teh weekend. Doc tells you on Sunday afternoon, you're fine, need some counceling for your issues, but you aren't a "lunatic". BAM! You just had your rights (for life) stripped away. (And, again, many people will simply NOT go to treatment if they believe voluntary treatment is an automatic black mark. Don't believe me? Better do some research. . . )
Now, had VT pushed the issues with the multiple arson charges (FELONIES -- and immediate disqua
“The trouble with gun control laws is they target the law abiding. ‘If you disarm good people but not the criminals, instead of making things safe for the potential victims you may unintentionally make them safe for the criminals,’ said Dr. John Lott, coauthor of a massive study on guns and crime... Both crime rates and shooting deaths have declined in most states which have adopted ‘concealed carry’ laws, says Dr. Lott. The decline in ‘multiple victim public shootings’ has been especially pronounced, he said. ‘Bill Landes of the University of Chicago law school and I examined multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple victim public shootings fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple victim public shootings fell even further, on average by 78 percent, as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer victims per attack,’ Dr. Lott said... In applauding the defeat last year of a measure in the Virginia legislature to permit those with concealed carry permits to have a gun on campus, Associate Vice President Larry Hinckler said Virginia Tech’s strict gun control policy made students feel safer. But there is a difference between feeling safer and being safer, as Virginia Tech has learned to its sorrow.” —Jack Kelly
They certainly did not mean it for todays modern society of technology."
Oh wise Constitutional scholar, on what evidence do you base this statement? Does the 1st Amendment only apply to printing presses and not the internet?
And the gun-grabbers have brought up so many strawmen that you're probably eligible for some kind of agricultural subsidy. That argument is not that every student should have been armed. It is that every student who wanted to be armed should have the right to arm themselves, with commonsense restrictions (felons, children, nutters, etc).
Great post. It really touched me.
Not only did "fighting fire with fire" shop the shooters you mention, but even in Cho's case, just the sound of a shotgun blast in the hallway was enough to get Cho to turn his weapon on himself.
Evidence indicates that Cho had plenty of bullets left and likely intended to continue shooting, but that once he heard that one shot...
Those kids were sitting ducks. There's no excuse that should prevent them from being able to defend themselves.
Jordan,
Ease up on the Mom there, dude. She's right. She may not be a "wise constitutional scholar" as you apparently are asserting that you are, but she's absolutely right. Do you really believe the framers of our Constitution expected us to be going by the same document 200+ years down the road?
Well, they didn't... they, unlike yourself, actually had some foresight and recognized that the laws they put in place back then may not really apply down the road. Are you aware that the original framers put into Article 5 of the Constitution (the article that covers how the Constitition is to be changed) that we have an "Amendment Convention" in which the constitution should be reviewed and amended appropriately. In order for this convention to happen, 2/3rds of the states must request it. So far, it has not happened, and thus the laws of our country are built upon the assertions and beliefs that held true 200 years ago.
But, being the "constitutional scholar" you claim to be, you must have known that. Or maybe you didn't because you were too busy reading that "Right to BARE (sic) arms" line so you can go and buy your guns with the rest of the loons who feel they need one. I suspect it is to make up for whatever you all are lacking between your legs (a gun is a pretty strong phallic symbol, don't you think?) I mean, if you don't have it going on down there, you might as well buy something so you feel more like a man. And the faster it can shoot, the more manly you feel. Sigh.
Sigmund Freud himself said "Fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity."
Let's see who we'll take more seriously; we have Freud on one hand and repetition of a false, insulting pop-psychology canard on the other.
Looks like you've got it backward, Dorkus. The gunnies don't have a problem; you do (since you find the idea of others having guns "scary".)
You want the Gun Control Fairy to take all the bad things away so you'll "feel safe". I suggest that if you depend on a personal perception of externals over which you have no control to "feel safe" then you will never "feel safe". And it's not the government's job (or mine) to make you "feel safe"; it's yours.
Man up, tool up, Zen up (and I find that the last works very well); whatever it takes.
Others should be free to choose to be victims (though I wish they wouldn't). I just don't care to join them and will resist their attempts to persuade or force me.
Oh dear - I didn't sign that. (5:39) I hate it when others do that. Sorry.
Anonymous Rocinante...I think I'm in love. Would you like to marry my firstborn?? lol
Thank you, for succinctly holding the line for....survivors.
A response to Liam:
"BUT! I do have one, and only one concern that I heard someone from the left bring up that makes sense. A police officer called a show and said he despises the idea of more citizens carrying guns, because of the chaos of trying to "secure a scene" where you have many people with guns and you don't know who's the killer and who's a "vigilante"."
The cop can can fret about securing a scene all he wants but until he's there to secure it, it's open season on unarmed citizens.
I would think the paperwork on 30 dead people is a lot more difficult than one. And, if he has to drag the lot of them still standing in to a holding pen while figuring it out if the bad guy is still alive, oh well. You can probably tell the bad from the good as the good folks will drop their weapons, not run, cooperate, and identify the real shooter if he's still alive.
I think the "securing the scene" point the cop made was bullcrap. How much securing was needed a Columbine or Viginia in the end? None. Basically, the cops were there to drag out the bodies
“I’m a mom” is not paying attention. No one said all kids in schools should be armed or even that kids should be armed. But the point is that “gun free zones” attract killers. In this case the faculty members could be allowed access to handguns or mature students. Many of the “kids” killed were in their 30s not teenages.
As for the rather silly question of how do we tell who is the bad guy. Duh! A group of students sitting in a class see the door open. A man standing there starts shooting at them. They KNOW who the bad guy is. It is apparent and clear. First hand presence indicates that quite clearly.
As for the cop speaking of “securing the scene”. What does that mean? They surround it and let no one in or out and then try to figure out what is going on. By the time that is done more people are dead. In this case they secured the scene and the rampage only ended when the killer ended it. The police did nothing to end it but they no doubt “secured the scene”.
B"H
I'm against handgun ownership. Having a rifle or shotgun in one's house seems sufficient.
Many articles I've read seem to overlook one salient, life-enhancing point: "What is the function of government?' Is government to be our protector, guide and lawmaker? Do they act as G-d's agent on earth? Important answers are needed.
Imagine Virginiia Tech, with 15,000 young (approx.) students possessing guns. Do you think there won't be shoting deaths? Isn't one death too many? Do we really value human life?
Wouldn't the proliferation of handguns increase accidental deaths?
To me individuals are trying to do the job of government. If the government cannot protect it's citizens from such harm it is a failure of government.
There's A. too much intermingling of the sexes before marriage B. Lack of spirituality in schools (We need a moment of silence) D. Rebellion against G-d in our country (Judge Scalia) E. Easy access to very dangerous (Unnecessary) weapons F. Too much sex and violence in the media
We've lost our way as a society. We must return to basic truths.
Illegal gun=death penalty. Sound extreme? It's relative to your love of mankind, or at least, your family or neighbor. The stronger the love the tougher the laws. It's up to YOU to decide.
King Solomon said: "If G-d doesn't act as watchman (Along with a paid employee) it's a waste of time and money."
BHoffinger@aol.com
B"H
I used to think being a Journalist was an honorable profession. "I used to think."
Can't they be pressured to be honest. Or has honesty become a four letter word?
To Liam:
B"H
I'm against handgun ownership. Having a rifle or shotgun in one's house seems sufficient.
Many articles I've read seem to overlook one salient, life-enhancing point: "What is the function of government?' Is government to be our protector, guide and lawmaker? Do they act as G-d's agent on earth? Important answers are needed.
Imagine Virginiia Tech, with 15,000 young (approx.) students possessing guns. Do you think there won't be shoting deaths? Isn't one death too many? Do we really value human life?
Wouldn't the proliferation of handguns increase accidental deaths?
To me individuals are trying to do the job of government. If the government cannot protect it's citizens from such harm it is a failure of government.
There's A. too much intermingling of the sexes before marriage B. Lack of spirituality in schools (We need a moment of silence) D. Rebellion against G-d in our country (Judge Scalia) E. Easy access to very dangerous (Unnecessary) weapons F. Too much sex and violence in the media
We've lost our way as a society. We must return to basic truths.
Illegal gun=death penalty. Sound extreme? It's relative to your love of mankind, or at least, your family or neighbor. The stronger the love the tougher the laws. It's up to YOU to decide.
King Solomon said: "If G-d doesn't act as watchman (Along with a paid employee) it's a waste of time and money."
I find it interesting that anonymous (Rocinante) chose to compare me with Freud. Sigmund Freud was a coke-sniffing, sex-obsessed, sociopath who happened to pen some theories that formed the basis of some of the saner theories in human behavior. So, to put it a little more accurately, you have a coke-sniffing sociopath on one hand, and an "insulting pop-psychology canard on the other". Which would you choose? Apparently Mrs. Harden is willing to marry off her first born for the former.
Well, I guess gun-nut loons of a feather flock together. I hope you enjoy your pre-arranged marriage, and pray that the gund-filled home you are bound to share doesn't have anyone clumsy enough to trip and accidentally set one off.
Seriously folks... all insults aside for a second here, in the wake of senseless killings at the hands of a lunatic who legally got a gun, and this is NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED - how can you support the "right" to purchase those implements of death? And furthermore, how comfortable would you feel sending your child to a school that allowed its students to carry concealed weapons? Did any of you go to college? You do realize that the social activities in most schools involve heavy drinking, and other unruly behavior? And you do realize that when heavy drinking is taking place, inhibitions drop? And should some moron who's had too much to drink suddenly decide that he wants to pick a fight because he's safe since he's "carrying", encounters another who is "carrying" that things can very easily get out of hand? My thinking, as rudely put as it has been, is quite simple really, put guns in the hands of irresponsible people, and you get irresponsible results - and those irresponsible results can be tragic. ONE life lost to senseless shooting is one too many. And providing arms to more people will NOT stop the violence. Guns have no place in the hands of children - which, despite earlier assertions, most college students are. They may have reached age 20 and beyond - but our current President who had a DWI at 30+ was not held accuntable for it and passed it off as "youthful indiscretion". 30+!! Seriously, folks... really... seriously... think about what you are saying here. You aren't making any sense! Would you send your child to a school that allowed (and even encouraged) concealed carry permits?
Hmmmm... no responses to my previous post... could it be that I'm right?!?? I mean, folks were chiming in like crazy when they thought my argument had holes in it - but put a valid argument into a perspective that makes you think a little - putting your own kids in the line of fire so to speak and what happens? All the gun-nuts clam up. What happened? You can't argue with sanity?
I work for the City and there have been many times people come in frustrated and highly agitated over some issue, many times it is directed at the first person they see. I just re-applied for my concealed weapon permit and plan to carry it at work for just that reason. So far, we have been able to handle these people by calling in law enforcement, so far... I plan to be ready when another psycho comes in blaming whomever for their problems.
Well, what do experts say about guns?
Speaking as someone with 22 years in the military including as an armorer, weapons courier, the usual guard duty, a competitive shooter for the military, a hobby gunsmith and collector, I believe I qualify as an expert in the use of weapons. I have a variety of shiny dangly things, bits of ribbon and trophies to attest to that. Oh, and some technical articles and a whole bunch of well-researched fiction. See my site.
FACT: You are not going to get rid of guns in this country. If you believe it's possible, put down the crack pipe and wait a few hours. I have functional guns from the 1890s here. Guns don't generally expire and go bad.
FACT: for less than the cost of a meth lab, one can get enough tools to build firearms. It's not rocket science. 4140 chrome moly steel, a lathe, a mill and a heat treating furnace. Done. If they aren't available legally, they're going to be available illegally.
FACT: Prohibition didn't work on booze, isn't working on drugs, and won't work on guns.
FACT: several mass killings have involved kitchen knives, pickup trucks or Cadillacs. People who want to kill are going to. Those stories don't get much press because it's hard for the talking heads to get a good erection and fantasy without the word "gun."
FACT: weapons advantage the weak. A 110 lb female has little chance against a 300lb, 6'5" bruiser with bare hands. Please do not attempt to claim "martial arts" will work, unless you are prepared, right now, to tell me EXACTLY what you would do and why martial arts have weight classes for tournament. And I don't want to hear about your "friend" who's a black belt. I have studied the martial arts. They have their place. As a professional, I choose a firearm and recommend firearms as the superior choice. Especially when I have two small children with me who can't run and can't fight as well.
Before you say a word contradicting me, please present your credentials to do so. I don't want to hear about "studies," I don't want to hear about "my professor," I don't want to hear about "Experts agree." Lay down YOUR credentials to dispute me, or shut up.
I am a dork with 20-some-odd years experience playing video games, I also have many years of experience doing general office work, and close to 40 years of experience eating cheetos. I also have enough life experience to recognize a narcissist when I see one.
So hopefully these credintials meet your requirements for a lively debate - which essentially centers around THIS fact: Your impressive credentials of gun ownership and military background (thank you for the latter, by the way) does not qualify you to assert the truth in the facts you presented in your post.
How does being a gun collector make you an expert in knowing there is no way to get rid of all guns in this country, or give you the knowledge to state that a 110lb woman couldn't incapacitate a 300lb bruiser with either well placed punches, or even a stun gun, or pepper spray?
While your statements may be valid in many ways, what in your list of credentials makes you the expert to claim that they are true in ALL cases?
I must say, I found your site interesting - particularly the page featuring photos of fellow gun-loons holding assault rifles, and the photos of assault rifles piled up on someone's coffee table. Aren't those guns illegal - or weren't they at some point? I'm guessing you've got to love this administration who really caters to the gun lobby. Nevermind the fact that we've been lied to and have had many of our other rights that were guaranteed by the constitution ripped from us... just so long as that 2nd ammendment isn't touched, you're happy. That's rather shallow thinking, in my book.
Nice touch with the fan club by the way. And what a great idea charging folks $10 for a signed copy of one of your books - which, I think one person described as "right-wing, chest-thumping gun porn". BOOO-Yaa. I'm sure you're fiction is well loved by those who agree with your politics - which I assume at least 50% of which are in that photo on your site.
I hope a video-game playing, cheeto, eating, office working, narcissist recognizing person is important enough to qualify to debate you. If not, well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
One final note - to Density Duck, who says that the Charlton Heston NRA Gun Rally held in Denver happened BEFORE the Columbine shootings - you are incorrect. He went there AFTER the shootings... as he did in Flint Michigan AFTER the shooting death of a 6 year old girl at the hands of a 6 year old boy - that was accidental, but sick in and of itself becuase the 6 year old boy HAD ACCESS to a gun! Responsible gun owner, indeed!
Michel Moore may be full of it - he may edit the film to support his agenda, but his points are valid, and his facts are always right - unlike those spewing forth from many of the right-wing pundits who favor the gun lobby. The Right Wingers tend to present half-truths and pass them off as the whole story, and the undeducated masses buy into it and elect them. I am glad this country woke up this last election and booted them out of power. Now we might be able to get something done finally. I used to hear claims of "tax and spend liberals". At least they're trying to raise money for what they are spending it on. The Conservatives (which is actually a misnomer) are just spending with no thought whatsoever on how they are going to pay for it. I'll tell you how we'll pay for it - our Children and our Grandchildren will be shouldering the burden of this grossly, fiscally irresponsible administration... Ooops... I got off topic there. Sorry.
Doerkus, not only are your rude but uninformed. Uninformed is the nice way of saying it.
I'M the one who's uninformed? How, pray tell, is that the case? I won't argue the rudeness, and I'll tone it down for you folks if it's that offensive - though truth be told, half your right-wing talking heads (Limbaugh, Liddy, et. al.) are FAR more offensive than I... but then again, I suppose it's not OK with you guys if the offensive language comes from someone who disagrees with you.
Well, I guess I scared everyone off with my well written diatribes against gun-ownership. I mean, I can only assume that's why nobody is writing back. It's too bad, really. I mean, I love it when folks claim they want to debate, but once someone with a modicum of intelligence starts to debate from the other side, everyone clams up and goes away.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you all are too scared. I am chomping at the bit to discuss matters with the author who posted earlier. I loved his out - he won't debate unless you present credentials he deems worthy of recognition. Who is he to judge? Just because I haven't written a bunch of gun-loving fiction, I'm not "smart enough" to debate him? Did he go to College? Does he have an education beyond a High School Diploma? I'm guessing he went right into the military, served his Country well, realized he had a talent for writing, and just went to it (and good for him)... but I can't give him much credit if he's not going to give me a chance to debate him. I mean, he must be afraid of me because I can present ideas that actaully have some intelligence behind them. And besides, all his "facts" come from some made up place in his mind because none of his so-called credentials makes him an expert to make the assertions he did. I call him on that, and he runs away. Oh well. Come on, man... give me a chance to discuss with you...
All of the evidence suggests that we are safer when more people have guns. Never mind the 2nd amendment, which our founders placed right after freedom of speech and the right to gather publicly, was written specifically so we could defend ourselves and our communities.
doerkus, you miss the point entirely. Everyone immediately jumps to the "left-right" mud-slinging. Well, I'm not part of the "right," and I am against gun control. In the U.K., the London Times recently reported the elderly and disabled are now sitting ducks for home invaders. And guns are the only equalizer for women.
Gun control all infringes on our rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Our founders recognized that the vast majority of people are good citizens--and that we will always have our share of lunatics and sociopaths in any society.
My best college friend's daughter was killed at VA Tech on April 16, 2007. Had she--or anyone--had a gun, Cho may have been stopped much earlier. Gun free zones are invitations to mass murderers.
Little girls with guns will rock your world.
Doerkus is factually wrong. Outlawing guns INCREASES the amount of gun violence.
Sorry, what? If guns were kept in the hands of professionals (i.e. the army, for which they were designed) and not readily sold to civilians, I would assume that gun crime would go down. Over here in the UK, civilians are not permitted to carry firearms, and as a result, people don't wander about shooting eachother. In this country, if someone pulls out a gun, people are suprised. Why? Because it's illegal to carry a firearm. In the US, if someone pulls out a gun, people are suprised. Why? I don't know... If you're allowed to waltz around in public with a gun, why are people shocked when someone does with it what it was intended to do.
Smith: Are you aware that gun crimes increased massively in England after they banned guns? They disarmed the law abiding but criminals have no problem finding weapons -- only their victims were disarmed. And only someone totally unaware of history would say that weapons were designed for the army since private ownership of weapons predated standing armies. At least get your facts straight before speaking out.
PS for Smith. Elsewhere you argue that you want the public under constant govt. surveillance because it makes you feel safer. Here you want the public disarmed so govt. alone has weapons. It just sounds to me like you love authoritarian rule due to your own paranoid fears.
This is timely considering what ABC just tried to do. Could it be reprinted and have the original link remain with the article as well?
Rob: Yes. Just give attribution and a link please.
To those who want more gun laws:
1- There are 20,000 gun laws currently on the books, none of them are Constitutional. And none of them deter criminals.
2- The losers at Columbine broke 20- yes 20- gun laws before their shooting spree. I highly doubt another law would have changed anything.
3- The founders didn't know we would have fully automatic weapons. However, the weapons available at the time were the most effective weapons ever devised. And not only did they believe that everyone had a right to own one, they believed everyone SHOULD own one. It was also legal for a private citizen to own a cannon and they saw no reason to outlaw that in the Constitution.
4- In the US, where guns are able to be legally owned by citizens, 13% of residential break-ins occur when someone is at home. In the UK, where SUBJECTS are for the most part not allowed to own firearms, over 60% of residential break-ins occur when someone is at home. You should thank gun owners that you will likely be away if you are robbed. Instead of being at home and at the mercy of the robbers.
5- Criminals break the law. It's what they do. No number of laws will stop crime.
6- It has been the policy of every dictator in history to enact strict gun control laws once seizing power. Why would they want to do that?
7- Even in countries which have the death penalty for simple possession of a firearm, there are still firearm related crimes. And not just those committed by their governments.
8- As several people have mentioned, gun crimes and other violent crimes have increased in England since the inaction of extremely strict gun laws. The same is true in Australia since their passage of draconian gun laws. The illegal arms trade has become big business in these countries, in much the same way that bootlegging thrived during prohibition.
9- In Switzerland, every male of draftable age is REQUIRED to maintain a firearm- usually a fully automatic one. Switzerland also has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, only 15% of the US rate. In spite of the fact that gun ownership numbers per capita are HIGHER than in the US.
10- The real purpose of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting use of firearms. It is so that we can defend ourselves from those who would harm or subjugate us. Whether they be criminals or government.
Cliff
Commenting by HaloScan
