... how you can't deal with what is being said.. so you have to make up something absolutely ludicrous as a strawman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simply Silly.

Hey, maybe we should just issue a handgun with every Social Security number at birth. The serial number would be associated with the SS and that gun would follow the child through its' entire life. That way if somebody gets shot with that gun, a bullet match could be made to existing records within the SS system. It's brilliant don't you think?!

Oh, yeah, then when the government declares martial law they won't have to look around for who to round up...they will know everyone has a gun, so they don't have to be choosey. They will just round everyone up! Oooh, even better. Tag the guns functioning to an implanted RFID chip! Yeah, then they can turn off your gun whenever they want, as well as taking away your ability to buy food, drive a car, or work!

Damn...I better delete this before the Bushies see it and get even more ideas about how to butt***k us!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm about as liberal as they come, but I can't get with you lefties on this gun issue. As with having sex, drinking, driving cars, etc., gun ownership comes with responsibilities that most law-abiding owners take very, very seriously. Many more deaths and injuries occur as a result of irresponsibility behind the wheel than those as a result of gun misuse, yet no one advocates taking our cars away. Hmmm. . .

While I believe that background checks and waiting periods for purchases and careful screening and training for would-be recipients of Concealed Weapons licenses are critical, remember this: "Gun-Free Zones" assure everyone, especially the bad guys, that the only people armed ARE the bad guys. If I were planning a mass-murder in a public place, and wanted as high a body-count as possible, I would prefer a place where I would be the only one armed. Judging by Virginia Tech security's (and local law-enforecement's) despicable response time to the unfolding disaster, allowing the massacre to continue for a relative eternity, would it not have been better if at least a TEACHER or two were armed? If I were about to commit a violent crime with a gun, be it a robbery or whatever, I might think twice if I had no idea who among my victims might be carrying.

In my hometown, some idiot thought it would be helpful to post "Gun-Free Zone" signs at public parks. What a crock. As if a criminal will see the sign, and say, "Oh, it's against the law for me to have my gun here," and turn around and go home. Lives saved!

Especially in light of Alternet's recent article highlighting Naomi Wolf's book about fascism and the slow whittling away of our rights, I will not readily abdicate my right to protect myself, my home, or my children from anyone who may do us harm. Karate doesn't stop bullets, folks.

And NO ONE SANE ever said (besides the ill-informed author of this ridiculous article) that elementary or even high-school students should be allowed to pack heat in class. That was just remarkably stupid. However, SOMEONE BESIDES THE BAD GUY, perhaps responsible adults in authority, should have had the means to defend themselves and their charges. Waiting around on law-enforcement to bother showing up apparently didn't save a life one.

Lefties, stop trying to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, and stop giving violent criminals all the room they need to mow people down without fear of being stopped dead in their tracks. And I don't give a shit about the NRA. They don't get a penny of my money. Bush gets all the money he needs from pharmaceuticals companies and his oil buddies; is he really that concerned about Winchester's campaign dollars? Perhaps the NRA is a powerful lobby because most people understand what is at stake.

Perhaps it's gun CULTURE that's the problem, the glorification of such in hollywood and on television. Pick on them. Leave my damn rights alone.

Repeat after me:
VIOLENT CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT GUN LAWS.
VIOLENT CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT GUN LAWS.
VIOLENT CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT GUN LAWS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By the way, Joan... those "NRA wingnuts" have the facts on their side. A shooting at another university was stopped by two students who had firearms of their own not too long ago.

So keep telling us reality is fantasy. Keep telling us.. because you know so little about guns to begin with... that it would take sooooo much training (people who own guns usually train to shoot them, esp. if they have concealed carry permits) to shoot someone. It certainly didn't keep Cho, Kleibold, Harris, Kinkle, etc... from shooting people.

For wanting to talk about fantasies so much, some of the folks around here who are so anti-gun have quite a few fantasies of their own to deal with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just like the so called "War On Drugs" ...this is the fallacy......."if we pass a law it won't happen anymore".
The other thing I note is that toy guns are not allowed much anymore.
I used to collect toy guns as a kid and I have never owned a real one.
I knew a whole group of 18-21 year old guys who were denied toy guns by their parents and they all went crazy buying REAL guns as soon as they could.
Put a loaded gun on a table....stand near that table...haw long will it be before you realize that inanimate objects should not be blamed for the actions of people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... along with everyone else in that age group.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're just another bully with a messianic belief in guns...you're ridiculous. I've been a member of Ceasefire NJ for five years, pal. YOU get your facts straight. Hand guns kill people, that's it. In Japan, where they're not readily available, only 60 odd deaths from guns last year. Against 30,000 here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

However, mention any statistics that might be "unplatible" they claim "statistics are made up", "87% of statistics are wrong", or "anyone can sort data to promote their agenda". Funny, isn't it how this story leads with some statistic......
1) kids already have guns (to wit gangcrime, VaTech, UT, Columbine, etc.
2) cops have proven very dangerous with guns (to wit: Kent State, 93yr old black women gunned down in her own home in GA, the various blacks who are constantly gunned down for "furtive actions"
3) quite simply there are so many guns out there it would be nigh on impossible (until the Rep/Demo elites can final initiate the total police state desired) to "get rid of all guns".

Even if it were possible to eliminate all guns from citizens do we really want the only people with guns to be the military (AbuGrab, MaiLai, KentState, etc etc) and the police (too many "incidents" to mention) to have the monopoly on firepower?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Japan's 60 gun deaths vs. our 30000. Is this the only fact the author knows? Let's put the numbers in a broader, cultural perspective. On Wikipedia:

"According to Ruth Benedict's shame culture/guilt culture analysis, an important factor in keeping crime low is the traditional emphasis on the individual as a member of groups to which he or she must not bring shame."

I think there's a lot more going on here, societally, in both Japan and here, that deserve attention when you start throwing out numbers with no political context. As I stated in an earlier post, treat the mentally ill, incarcerate the criminal, address the social issues that precipitate high crime rates and change the culture of guns, but don't run roughshod over the rights of the law-abiding.

Care to share any more "facts" with us, Joan?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just on the practical side of the NRA plan for camus security... University students don't even keep an eye on their laptops, just ask you local campus cops. If students start toting guns along with their laptops then the petty criminals who steal laptops on campus could get two for one! I guess that'll solve the violent crime problem, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is how one person views any restriction or registration of his God-Given Right To Shoot. [emphasis added]

http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/
Mother_May_I.html

"I recently had to endure my annual exercise in ritual humiliation. Before I even entered the local sheriff's office, I felt myself tensing up and growing more and more angry. I promised myself not to take out my disgust on the female clerk who merely carried out the onerous policies dictated by her boss.

While I endeavored to remain polite, I still could not suppress my feelings. The flat tones of my voice and my unsmiling face betrayed the true nature of my constrained emotions. I imagined that the woman was used to the unhappy supplicants who appeared at her glass-encased window.

Inhaling a deep breath, I went through the double-list of questions mandated by the state of Iowa and by the Brady Bill. Though many of the idiotic questions duplicated each other, I read them all very carefully. The last thing I wanted was to hurry past a trickily worded question and answer "no" when I should answer "yes."

Not meeting the eyes of the clerk, I handed over my "driver's license with a current address" and five dollars in cash (no checks accepted). (And what would a poor [gunless] schmuck do if he didn't drive but wanted to purchase a weapon?)

"You should receive your new gun purchase permit in five to seven days," she said.

How nice, I thought.

Stuffing the receipt into my old wallet, I hurried from the building. As best I could, I struggled to shove aside the oddly unclean mental patina clinging to my thoughts.

I suppose I should have been "grateful" that the onerous procedure I suffered through fell short of the debasement I faced in the previous county in which I had lived. There, I had to be fingerprinted and show an apartment lease to prove I lived where my license said I did. Even after these gross violations of my rights, I had to make a second trip to the county jail (how appropriate a location for this exercise in "civic responsibility") to pick up my gun purchase permit in person. None of that silly "mailing" of my permit to my residence."

I wouldn't want this angry, repressed, humiliated self-pitying "poor schmuck" to own a gun, but hey, that's just me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because the statement regarding gun control are by the right wing nuts to originate exclusively with Rosie O’Donnell any possible validity is per the mass “corporate” owned media immediately disavowed given the “brand” these same mass “corporate” moguls fashioned upon Rosie. Sadly, “we” – that’s you and me – choose to remain obedient ostriches eager to recite the daily politically correct mantra “they” ask of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 2nd amendment protects citizens right to bear arms.
Its a shame that out of the estimated 45% of Americans that own guns legally, less than 100 of them commit crimes that involve guns. There are always a few bad apples in every crowd. They should raise the FEDERAL age to own a gun from 21 to 26; that would prevent anyone in college owning a handgun. I'm tired of people bashing guns. IT is our right to own one, to protect our homes, and to enjoy a great sport such as target shooting. Many animal activists bash guns, but on the flip side of it many animal lovers don't hunt, they participate in target shooting events. it's a great sport, and for legally abiding citizens, they should own a hand gun, it's their right. It's a shame the Vtech shooting, the kid shouldn't have never had the opportunity to buy a handgun. But facts dictate common sense and the real problem: LESS than 1% of legal gun owners commit crimes, of the 1%, less than half use their guns in the crimes. It's the citizens that own guns illegally, thats the real problem. period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I cannot fathom why Alternet continues to allow such poor quality shabby articles to be written by biased writers without requiring authors to 1) be fair and balanced, 2) require authors to check their facts.
In this article, we have the author suggesting that students pack guns. This is ridiculous nonsense. As a former police officer that was at the Patty Hearst/Symbionese Liberation Army Battle in LA, I can attest to how ridiculous the idea is of allowing unqualified civilians to carry firearms. It is not at all unusual to have innocent children become victims of gun related violence in gang warfare. The sad reality is that bullets shot even by obstensible professionals rarely hit their mark when shot more than 20 feet away.
Having said this, it is not at all unrealistic to to suggest that qualified individuals that have demonstated proficiency with firearms and can pass a psychological test should do so. The idea of having a cadre of civilian marksman without police powers that are able to step in and either contain a situation or take control until regular police arrive makes considerable sense. The country of Switzerland for example has every male member within a service military age keeping a military assault machine gun at home and readily available. They are all in the country's national guard ready immediately to defend their counttry. Israel, because of siege like conditions has open carrry for most of their citizens. Contrary to the biased tone of this article they do not have extraordinary death rates due to firearms related shootings.
However in all fairness to the issue, these countries mentioned do not have the same demograhics as we in the United States, so it would be fair and accurate to say that the above mentioned facts would not and should not be prima facie evidence that concealed carry for everyone is an excellent idea.
Polices--just like a chain should be judged not by the strongest link, but by its weakest. And there is no doubt that the USA has some serious weak links from a social standpoint.
The author continues to give impetus to incorrect and biased misinformation. Of the 30,000 gun deaths , lets us keep in mind that this comprises accidental homicides, intended homicides, and suicides as well.
What this author turned-- biased advocate-- has neglected to mention is that by far most shootings are gang related activity. And, in order to allow liberals some cannon fodder for promoting their views, they label people 17-21 "children."
Of course while they are understandbly horrified at the thought of all these "children," being innocently killed by guns, they neglect to mention that these "children" are drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, rapists, thieves--essentially professional low lfe degenerates more concerned about their own narcissistic wants and needs as opposed to the best interests of society. They deal in any and all manner of illegal activity. They are also responsible for the huge costs of maintaining law and order not to mention the overburdened criminal justice system.
If we really wanted to eliminate 90 per cent of these killings, all we would have to do is to regulate drugs just like we did with liquor during the early decades of the 20th Century. This would take the organized crime and gang turf war related killings out of the equation. It would also give considerable freedom to law enforcement and other social organizations to directly deal with many social issues rather than the traditional band aid treatments we continually implement.
Of course doing so would sadly deprive this bigoted author of juicy subject matter to promote herself by.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One thing I haven't heard anyone question in the discussion on whether guns should now be encouraged on campus is how, when an incident occurs and a shot is heard, the various people drawing weapons will be able to tell who is the bad guy and who are fellow defensively armed citizens. I picture myself hearing a shot and pulling my pistol. I round a corner and see another person with a weapon. He begins to turn toward me. Is he a madman with a gun or someone like me? I have only an instant to decide because, frighteningly, he is facing the same question? Picture this scenario again and again all over the campus: the more students armed, the more friendly-fire incidents that would occur. That's without ever considering the people likely to be hit by shots going astray. Am I suggesting anything unlikely here? It seems all to foreseeable to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They both brought up legitimate points on either side of the issue. This is true, intelligent discussion without demonizing and stereotyping those who may disagree.

Thank you both for enlightening the discussion. Your points, for me, are well-taken and thought-provoking.

Should this not be the goal of the discussion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article was based on statements by the gun people that suggested that if the students had had guns available, they could have shot the perpetrator before he killed so many people. It is risible to claim that this makes it biased. The bias is based on the subject matter, not the article itself.

As for fauntroy's claim that most of the people killed by guns either deserve it (they are reprobates of some stripe or another) or are accidents or suicides and don't count, his facts don't bear scrutiny. A few years back Time magazine did a cover story on the 400+ people who had been killed by guns the previous week. A lot of them were suicides, but these DO count because a gun is a lot more lethal than other methods which give a person a second chance to get help, reconsider, etc. Murders were also a large number as were accidental deaths. The chance of accidentally being shot to death in your own home goes to practically zero if there are no guns there. The chance of being shot in an argument with your spouse goes up dramatically if there happens to be a gun handy as do the chances of being killed in the disagreements that occur commonly in young male society at places like universities, bars, sporting events, etc. Authorizing concealed weapons is just asking for problems.

I was at a police station in Texas getting some truck permits just after Bush had signed the legislation authorizing concealed weaponry in Texas. One wall was covered with the pictures of officers who had died in action, most of them shot. I commented on this to the secretary and she was just furious with Bush because she expected the numbers to go up dramatically now that more people could carry guns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another republican idiot said recently that if all the students at VT were armed the shooter would never have been able to get away with what he did. The students would have shot him. So I guess that is the Republican take on the situation.
Now we can all say thanks to big religion/big neocons and big corporatocracy and the republican cabal of evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]