DON'T BE LEFT UNARMED. SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL GUN DEALER AND THE ECONOMY. BUY NOW BEFORE THEY ARE OUT.....

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

idk about you however I dont think the bad guys are going to stop shooting you in a "gun free zone"
You guys like making things "fair"
all I'm asking is for a glock 9mm. That would make a crazy think twice before going out in a NBC promoted "blaze of glory"
ah
you know what I hate
its the (bleeping)rush to get this chit on the news. I mean, yes its sad when the innocent gets gun down however stop making these clowns famous.
Oh yea if your in one of those situations, its an ambush and the only way to get out alive its attack, attack, attack the shooter. You might go down however the others behind you will end the carnage.
Throw a text book at the sucker, you wasnt reading the darn thing anyway so get your $120 bucks worth of your daddies money.

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

are in the hands of immature college students the more 'accidents' there will be. Look at Cheney, supposedly an experienced mature hunter, and even he shot someone who was supposed to be a friend in the face accidentally.

I play music, mainly in establishments serving alcohol, and I shudder at the thought of someone shooting a member(s) of our group because they didn't like our music or the way it's played. Even worse would be some drunken young fool at the bar spraying bullets in a crowded place over some perceived slight by another patron. Guns and alchol are a recipe for disaster. Just because someone might be old enough to drink doesn't mean they are mature or responsible.

For anyone insane enough to believe in further arming our already over armed society I would suggest you see Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine", and pay particular attention to the mrder rates among various countries.

The US is dishonored by the off the scale amount of shooting deaths happening in what we like to think of as a 'civilized' nation. What is sane about one gun per man, woman, and CHILD in this country? It's sheer lunacy.

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

Gun control is not the problem. It is the people behind the gun. Remove the gun, and they will use a knife, machete, whatever. They will not stop if they do not have guns. Take a look at Britain and "knife crime."

Likewise, it is foolish to tell a 21 year old college student that they cannot possess a weapon on a college campus in concealing carry holster. Why? Because that female cannot fight off an attacker, and most likely cannot run away quickly as a man in pursuit. But instead, we give that person a punishment instead, and pre-emptively deny them the inherent right of self-protection. That is wrong.

You really want to fix the problem? Here is a novel idea- educate people. Not to run away hysterically when they see a gun, but how to unload it or in the case of children, tell an adult and not to touch it unless supervised. We have 280 million firearms in the nation. Education should be a requirement. That would be a start. Make weapon education a requirement.

On the issue of "gun control" we have the NFA of 34, GCA of 68 (that one has Nazi origins) the FOPA of 86, the Import Ban of 94 and local laws. More laws will not solve the issue. The only way to do so is education.

I am a gun owner and have been since I was 11 years old. I was given my first shotgun for upland bird hunting. Now I own 9 guns, most for target competition a few for hunting and a pistol for defense. (And before anybod screams about responsibility, I have safe, locks, etc and have been an Infantryman in the Army for the past 4 years.) Education about guns has helped me, and now I teach others as well.

Now is not the time for hysterics but education, because of the number of guns and the ease of availability in our nation.

Shooting sport are good clean fun. They teach responsibility and respect, and carry on an honorable tradition in America. The tradition of Freedom.

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

I fully support the right of students to defend themselves. Why? Because no matter if it is a college campus, the right to self-defense does not disapear. And not in the face of maniacs like Cho who was going to kill either way.

I can almost guarantee that the first thing those young ADULTS wanted when Cho entered the room and started shooting. Instead, they had a right denied, and they died because of the denial of that right, at the hands of a monster.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. As a nation, we failed. Cho would have done anything necessary to get the weapons. Yes he got them with ease. NCIS did not catch him, and neither did the state. His record came up clean. But we failed even worse when we told young adults that they had no right to protect their very lives. This needs to change before another shooting happens again.

And before anybody brings up the idea of a complete BAN on guns, take a look at prohibition and other forms of control. Did they work? No. Would it work again if a total gun ban was passed in this nation? No.

Give people their due rights- let them defend themselves. Educate them on how to do so. And let them be armed for their own lives, and the lives of others.

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

It seems the US Government under the Bush Administration has done a fine job of turning once-proud Americana into an elephant quivering at the sight of a mouse.

What, I ask, might you need a gun for? Protection in the event of home invasion? In case someone cuts you off on the highway? Coming from a 15y/o New Zealander, I am at a complete and utter loss to find an explanation for the rampant desire for the feel of cold steel and itchy trigger fingers that seem to characterise Americans, or at least characerise you.

You say that you shouldn't let Al Qaeda have all the guns; is arming yourself in wherever you live gonna prevent another 9-11? Is having a Glock fully-auto or an MP5 under your mattress or in the bedside drawer gonna stop suicide bombers at all? Enn-oh! NO!

You say that everyone should capitalise on existing liberal gun restrictions before the new administration under Obama changes that. So not only are you motivated by an inane need for arms, but you are undermining your duly-elected President-Elect!?

Call that patriotism? Not in my book.

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

"(Supporters of concealed weapons on campus cite the many laws and regulations that will ensure that guns are only in the hands of "good guys.")"

By your logic, instead of licensed responsible gun owners being able to defend themselves from that one lunatic (who will likely disregard the "Gun-Free Zone" sign) that starts shooting people, you will ensure that guns are only in the hands of the BAD GUYS.

Besides if, as the author claims, "...colleges have long been 'gun free zones'" then why are the Virginia Tech-type incidents on the rise? Because the policy works so well?

Someone committing a crime with a firearm depends on the fact that the victim(s) is unarmed. The firearm is his leverage, his means of control. If he doesn't know who's carrying, he might just be a little less likely to assume he's the only one.

Let's see, how long did it take help to arrive at Virginia Tech? How many people died waiting for the cops to show up?

I am growing tired of these characterizations of gun owners and gun-rights proponents by those on the left (usually my ideological pals) as irresponsible or some kind of ticking time-bomb who just can't wait for an opportunity to kill somebody. I resent their efforts to nix my right to defend myself.

Besides, the logic is about as stupid as Nancy Regan's "Just say no" campaign, and we see how that worked out. Sure, put a SIGN up, because SIGNS AND LAWS ALWAYS STOP CRIMINALS, RIGHT?

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

Nobody wants to talka bout it.

The only reason guns are a problem is because there are too many people for Public Safety and Social Services to keep track of. But in smaller and peacefully planned communities there would be no crazy young men to go berserk, no criminals to rob and kill, and no crooked politicians to conspire for wealth, power and empire. To eliminate guns we need to eliminate the NEED for them.

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

Two days ago was the twenty-eighth anniversary of the death of John Lennon. When ever December eighth comes along, it's impossible not to relect on this country's insane gun laws. In Texas it's perfectly legal to carried a concealed firearm. Don't get caught with an ounce of grass though, Bubbah.

John Lennon

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

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

In the UK, handguns are illegal, as it is also illegal to carry ANY offensive weapon in public. But we don't have anything like the extent of problems you have in the USA with people getting shot by criminals.

Conversely, I understand Sweden and Switzerland have far higher rates of gun ownership than the US but they don't have anything like the same problem of gun crime either.

So, the gun problem in the US has nothing to do with needing to defend yourselves, and not having too many guns or too few guns.

Therefore, logic leads us to conclude the problem is that there are too many Americans...

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

Even mice will fight if cornered, but you can bet your bottom even they are smart enough not to remove what arms they have in the name of security. Not all NRA people are "God Fearing" some of them fear well intentioned idiots much more. I fear anyone who will opt for capitulation in the presence of armed force.

I don't mind getting on my knees for someone I love but the silly son-of-bitch who is going to force me to get down had better kill me if I am armed. And, with a gun or no, I am NEVER unarmed. Do not let these smarmy criminally intentioned control addicts get your weapons whatever they are.

This is not la la land and it is not somewhere some great “MASTER” is going to come down in a spaceship and blow all our asses to kingdom come if we don’t behave! Self governance must start at home in baby steps. It would be far better if humans would learn to govern with love work and knowledge, rather than taking away already existing rights! If you legislate against arms in view of the Fascist Thugs we still have in office in this country you consign your children to slavery.

What is it that normally intelligent people will try to remove the tools or symptoms of a disease and not the disease itself? The guns are an antigen the personal violence is the disease caused by immature social growth. That is what is killing you; not the guns or the use of them, but their irrational enemies who are most in need of the antigen. The reason a human declaws a cat is because of a fear of being scratched, not frayed furniture. Controlling humans is like herding a whole pride of lions.

Instead of removing the symptom, remove the disease. Cure the Violence, cure the hate! Stop invading the human family with Compulsory Ideations that are doomed to give rise to more ill will and violence. Even if it means that we lose the entire older generation of mankind, STOP fornicating over your children and look at what you have instilled in them. Instead of taking their guns away show them in no uncertain terms what these weapons can do! Treat the illness caused by great anger do not make one feel more helpless than one already is by removing the ability to protect self. Instead instill a need to share and be valued. Because, in failing to do this you will arm more fascists to combat you with the need to enslave your future.

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

This issue has been debated for decades with no resolution.

Why not talk about making a better society? How about public finance of all elections, single payer health care for all, criminal trials for our criminal war monger government?

Stop wasting our time with BS.

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

One possible upside is that maybe professors would give out better grades.

Have some NRA reps attend a frat party where all members are armed. If they survive to tell about it, and still think it's a good idea, then maybe we'll think about it.

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

Since so many people feel the need to take guns everywhere they can, where do we stop?
Should we allow guns in grade schools?
Should we allow guns into churches?
Should we allow guns into nurseries?
The list goes on, but honestly, where shouldn't we have guns? Should we be entombed with AK47s after we die, to protect us from god-only-knows what?

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

So many students shoot figuratively from the hip; do we really need them shooting literally from the hip?

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

Gun proponents in the US advocate for the US, not the entire world. If the students were armed, that would be one way of saving lives. When Columbine event took place, the police interviewed some students from Denver public schools. Asking them if that could happen in Denver, the kids said "No. They would have been taken out before they did that much damage." Columbine is in Jefferson County.

When the progressives cease trying to disarm America, they might just win a few more political races and not have to wait for the worst of the worst republicans to mess up the country so the progressives have a chance.
Peace.

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

If America was a true democracy, i.e., the government served and protected its citizens (instead of white-collar criminals) then Americans would not feel the need to arm themselves with guns.

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

I question where the people rating you a '1' live. It's obviously not reality. I don't know, maybe in some posh suburb where crime doesn't occur.

Let me give a recent example. I live in a city with a notorious reputation for crime. About a month ago, a neighborhood acquaintence was beaten pretty badly by their boyfriend. They didn't call the police to the house, but went later to report the incident, as they didn't want their partner to be aware that they were contacting the police. They supposedly issued an arrest warrant for the assault. Two weeks(!) passed by with no word from the police, no serving of the warrant, and the person still living with the person who assaulted them. I guess the police hadn't gotten around to arresting a violent criminal yet, must not be a priority in a city with hundreds of murders a year.

I'm willing to bet that isn't an isolated incident, why would it be? And this is who I am supposed to rely on to protect me, my friends, or my family?

Wake up people. It'd be nice if we could just call someone when we run into trouble and they would just swoop in and save the day, but that is completely unrealistic. Sorry, but NO ONE can protect you or your family as well you can.

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

There is a big difference between defending oneself and looking for a fight. Most of the proud gun-toters I've seen claim to do the former, but practice the latter.

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

Can you name even one jurisdiction where it is legal for anyone under the age of 21 to carry concealed? Aren't we talking about well-educated adults only trying to exercise their 2nd amendment rights? No one is encouraging anyone to carry concealed.

This article was so fraught of hyperbole and illogic. Even mentioning the "expansion of the right to carry" with respect to college campuses is a stretch. It is a denial of one's existing right to self defense. The issue is the "restriction of a right" not the attempt to "expand that right".

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

I wholly and enthusiastically support our right for concealed carry on campus. You can kid yourselves about stopping school shootings "once and for all!" all you want, but the truth is that school shootings will continue. The people who commit them are generally suicidal and don't plan on surviving the spree, so they just want to take as many people out with them as possible. I'd rather deal with rational, law-abiding adults carrying guns (the vast majority of college students fit this description) than find myself in a helpless situation because a bunch of anti-gun crazies want to keep us from defending ourselves.

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

... why should you trust any ordinary Joe (the plumber?!) to use their responsibly?

(I shouldn't have asked that question ... next I'll read "its because the cops are fascist psychotic killers and everyone else are as pure as the driven snow...)

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

Well, I reckon power and authority in a standoff with guns is much the same. I mean, if someone pointed a gun at me as said "Jump!" I'd be asking, "How high?" Yup, to me that's both power and authority.

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

Eddie: Your comment is incredibly relevant, and true. College education, especially in the arts and sciences, tends to come down to authority. Most academic arguments are over who's opinion is the most authoritative, and, in those situations, honesty is of the utmost importance. A coercive presence could eliminate that honesty, and stunt academic development. People react poorly to their beliefs being challenged, perhaps enough to threaten or attack, and the last thing a college needs is pro-lifers and pro-choicers shooting each other over stupid arguments.

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

Especially when one is making love. Never get in bed with your loved one without a Colt, that's what I always say!

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

Apparently, they'd much rather have all those pieces of cheap metal shit designed to shoot and kill than keep their jobs, homes or at least their residences, etc ... Unlike the gun nut fascists vomiting on this forum, I believe in reasonable gun control and not the typical NRA rightwing NAZI propaganda. It's pathetically amazing that every time an article of safety concerns on guns comes up, the gun toting brown shirt zombies go looney against it. These same people never come out when the rest of the Constitution is getting trashed and burned or when Main Street is in financial and social meltdowns as our currently dysfunctional electorate shows. 99+ % of the problems in everyday life are not solvable by guns and shooting but by sitting down and working out these problems in a reasonable manner. Unfortunately, trying to reason with gun nut fascists is as "easy" as trying to teach pigs to sing. And if that's not bad enough, despite the fact that the NRA makes no bones about its blatant rightwing partisanship on outside issues such as "abortion", same-sex marriage, school prayer, war in Iraq, war on drugs, war on terrorism, tax cuts for the wealthy/corporate elites, privatization, "deregulation", "free" trade, and in general empowering the neoconservatives and neoliberals against the working class by exploiting the crazy fears of "losing guns" from these poor schmucks, these brown shirts sure have a knack of calling people who are against the NRA and for reasonable gun control as "unpatriotic", "terrorist", sissy, etc ... May GOD rescue you gun nut fascists from your mental madness.

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

Why? If I wanted to launch a violent insurgency I wouldn't use a piddly little side arm, I'd use bombs. Of course, none of you blowhards are planning on doing such a thing. You're all talk, plain and simple. The gun-toters are like those young libertarians who bitch about welfare then take government subsidized student loans and government grants when they go to their STATE colleges. Hypocrites, all of ya!

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

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a criminal assault or homicide, an attempted or completed suicide, or unintentional shooting than to kill or injure in self-defense. (Kellermann, AL et al, 1998 journal of Trauma, 42:263-67)

In the U.S., 8 children and teenagers are killed, and more than 47 are injured, by a firearm every day. (CDC, NCHS, December 2006)

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns. (Kellermann, et al, New England Journal of Medicine, 1993)

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns. (Kellermann et al, New England journal of Medicine, 1992)

A 1990 law banning the sale of "Saturday Night Special" handguns in Maryland was associated with reduced use of these guns by criminals, and a 9% lower rate of firearm homicides in the state between 1990-1998 than would have been expected had there been no law.

Policies that deny handgun purchases to individuals with prior misdemeanor or felony convictions are associated with a decreased risk of subsequent convictions. Misdemeanants who had allowed to purchase handguns prior to the passage of a California state law prohibiting such purchases had a rate of criminal offending 29% higher than that among misdemeanants who were denied handgun purchases after the law took effect.

Every day in the U.S., 8 children and teenagers are killed and more than 47 are injured by a firearm.

In 2005, 595 California children and youth under age 21 were killed with firearms and 1,554 California children and youth under 21 were hospitalized with nonfatal firerarms injuries.

One-third of U.S. children live in homes with firearms. Almost halfof homes with children and firearms keep a gun unlocked.

68% of the attackers in school shootings obtained the gun(s) from their own home or that of a relative. 61% of the attackers used handguns.

Many young children, including children as young as three years old, are strong enough to fire a handgun.

In 2004, guns murdered:

5 people in New Zealand
37 in Sweden
56 in Australia
73 in England and Wales
184 in Canada

and 11,344 in the United States.

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

I knew of a pretty girl who dated an immature guy just once. He talked himself into thinking that she was in love with him. She never deliberately gave that impression. Anyway, when he saw that she was dating others, he was so furious that he smashed his fist into a mirror and broke the mirror. Hate to see what he might have done with a gun in the heat of anger at the wrong time. College students are immature about drinking, drugs, sex, anger management, time management, and, yes, also about guns.

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

Why doesn't the author just come out and say it? They think they're better than people that feel the need to own firearms.

This article provided virtually no useful information on anything. At least the author can pat themselves on the back for voicing their psuedo-moralistic judgments on people.

It's so incredibly frustrating and annoying to see so called progressives (and believe me I'm as progressive as they come) fall into these inane culture wars of personal attacks completely devoid of any reasonable debate. All the while complaining about how the right wing in this country is so adept at perpetrating their own divisive culture wars. Right.

I have some advice. Take a look in the mirror.

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

People who object to [privately-owned] weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work." L. Neil Smith


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

"... By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy

"He who goes about unarmed in Paradise, had better be sure that is where he is." James Thurber

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." DC v. Heller, decided June 26, 2008

"I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions — or else it would have read that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise." And because there are no exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong — because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the laws are no inconvenience." Harry Browne, August 8, 2000, speaking at a Second Amendment rally in Arkansas

T]he Clinton administration launched an attack on people in [Waco,] Texas because those people were religious nuts with guns. H*ll, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns. Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock? Peace Corps volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue, why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen? P.J. O'Rourke

"Remember the ancient saying: '[Si] vis pacem - para bellum' - if you want peace - be ready for the war. Within the whole history of our civilization, no one disproved it. So let the weapons be not the means of terror, but the way to defend peace, democracy and law. I wish you all health, success and fruitful work. With best wishes," Mikhail Kalashnikov

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Commonplace Book by Thomas Jefferson borrowing from Cesare Beccaria’s 1764 Dei delitti e delle pene ("On Crimes and Punishments")

"We maintain [privately-owned] arms largely because we seek to prevent violence. Those that wish to disarm us do so that they may perpetrate it with impunity." R. Murray


"There exists a law, not written down..., but inborn in our hearts, a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading, a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays down that,if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right." Cicero

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

The last time I checked, colleges and universities are attended by adults age 18 and over, not by children, i.e. "kids".

I'm guessing the use of the word "kids" in this article was meant to influence the emotions, rather than to set a tone of rational debate about the topic.

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

So many misrepresentations, simplistic and flimsy arguments and outright fabrications in one article... where to start.

1. Nobody is talking about "arming" people in schools. The argument is that people who go to the trouble to get concealed carry permits should be allowed to carry anywhere. These are people with no history of criminality--they aren't the problem! Statistically, they are roughly 10-100 times less likely to assault someone than a person without such a permit. Nutjobs with suicidal tendencies aren't going to bother with the permit. Even still, you generally need to be 21 in order to get such a permit, so the youngest (and, typically rowdiest) college students aren't even eligible yet.

2. Utah's law has not resulted in any noticeable increase in school violence. As far as I know, no CCW'ers have gone on a rampage.

3. No state which has passed concealed carry laws has later abolished them because of the blood running in the streets everybody shrieks about. It's a good program that results in statistically significant decreases in violent crime.

4. Okay, let's get really serious: Imagine that you are reasonably proficient with a handgun, enough that you won't accidentally shoot yourself, and that you know, given some hypothetical target, whether or not you could hit it. Further assume that you do not wish to unjustly assault others. Under what circumstances is it bad for you to have a gun?

4b. Anyone who thinks such proficiency is way too hard for untrained civilians needs to go shooting. You can become that proficient in a couple of months of practicing alone once a week, and in less time if you're willing to find a trainer.

5. Even more serious: Imagine you're in the midst of a school shooting. Which situation is better: a) one armed suicidal nutjob, everyone else unarmed, or b) one armed suicidal nutjob, and one or two out of one hundred people present armed and reasonably proficient (see above) with a handgun?

5b. Unfortunately, the police are not often able to respond quickly enough to stop such nutjobs in time to save anyone.

6. Hypotheticals where CCW'ers result in a deadly crossfire, wounding and killing innocent civilians a) haven't turned out, even in cases where multiple CCW'ers were present during a shoot, and b) if they did happen, the CCW'ers would be responsible for any injuries they cause.

7. Letting people who can legally carry a handgun on the street, in the grocery store, at Best Buy, et cetera, also do so at school poses no threat, and has significant possible advantages.

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

The author seems almost to be willfully missing the point. Which is "How are these gun-free zones at schools working out for us?"

results are here http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

We should not ignore that there is such a thing as legitimate self defensive use of handguns by trained, licensed citizens.

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

Nothing. Its a private. Not leaving the weapon in the vehicle or wherever ought to be treated as trespassing.

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

In many states it's illegal to carry a firearm into any establishment that sells alcohol. It's also illegal to carry one while under the influence.

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

no guns = no defense against tyranny

should everyone be allowed to carry their guns wherever they please? No.

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

I sure hope our hard won new "Liberal Majority" does not waste our precious political capital on the fairy tale vision quest of "gun control will make everybody safer"

We have much bigger and more important issues that we actually have a chance of solving.
We should focus on those.

There is nothing that could push our brothers and sisters of the Right further away from cooperation than the issue of gun-control, which not all of us Lefties agree with anyway.

Trying to use this opportunity to "take away all the guns" would be a classic example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for the Democratic Party.

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

An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people

So 26.2% of Americans are officially nuts; there are 90 guns in circulation for every 100 people; most American politicians appear to be psychopaths; and America is about to face its worst financial depression in living memory.

Have I got this right?

What will happen next?

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

Attending college isn't what it used to be in police state America. Now we're confronted with the illogical notion of bringing firearms on campuses while many students can't afford to buy books.
On this matter, gun advocates are wrong. There have been too many examples of bringing deadly weapons in schools and even when properly secured, a gun goes off and panic ensues. What happened to Plaxico Burress should be a stark reminder of the threats we face in a public space. Do we need a bloodbath on a campus if people start shooting them off? How would campus police respond? Face it, this plan defies reason.
Why do some believe we'll all be safer if everyone was armed? Why do we need a gun to solve a problem?
A college education is supposed to enlighten society and reduce violent confortations. If a student disagrees with a grade, will he/she use a gun-or simply make a veiled threat against the professor? There are simply too many variables to solve with guns on campus. A Russian proverb: Fools shoot, and God directs the bullet.
I doubt many college students would welcome this insane idea.

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

"WOW ! Look at all those gun nut fascists foaming at the mouth as always.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 10, 2008 7:26 AM"

What is "as usual" and/or typical is the petty name calling by those who do not possess sifficient intelligence and insight to discuss issues without the childish name calling.
The one above is one of those and has demonstrated this many other times here.

Those of us who actually are intelligent, both gun owners and non-gun owners understand that the vast majority of us are your everyday common garden variety of citizen.
I'm a business owner, own my home, live with a cat who is very well cared for, treat others the same or better than some of them treat me and have an interest in the safety, happiness and wellbeing of my neighbors and their children.
I own guns, 2 work vehicles, a Jaguar convertible a couple of fishing boats and other things which I've acquired through legitimate work.
When I look at and/or hold one of my guns, I enjoy the feel of the fine grained stock and how it smells after being freshly oiled.
The mechanisms of my guns are highly interesting to me as, I am a tool guy.
I'm also an invester and, just as is the 90 year old working slot machine I have, my guns are worth the same to me as any other INVESTMENT.
I earn my living with tools and appreciate others' workmanship.
I have friends who own guns.
We talk about the things I mentioned above.
BTW-I also take care of the other things in my home such as my furniture, my appliances, etc.

When I get together with any of my friends who own guns, there has NEVER been a time when one of us has said anything about going out and shooting someone.
NOT ONE OF US IS THAT SORT OF PERSON.
We are not "nuts", nor are we fascists.
We are law abiding, responsible citizens, family members, coaches and all those other things which go to make up the REAL American society.
I have some friends who are not gun owners.
They are not like the one mentioned at the top of this comment.
They know me as a human being and, either a friend or an acquaintance and, we have had conversations about guns, etc.
Strange that they are not afraid to come into my home, isn't it?
Yesterday, I had to clear snow.
There's an elderly widow who lives across the alley from me.
She'll be 90 soon.
She has NEVER asked me for anything.
When I do snow, I do hers also.
I enjoy treating people like this.

I could go into even more detail here as, I'll be 70 next month(I've never been this old before.lol), have been in the military and still do a lot of things.

All that above neither makes me a "nut" or a "fascist".
It makes me an everyday REAL American guy who owns guns.
Oh, yeah. I don't sit in my house quivering while waiting for someone to break in as I sit there with a pistol(NOT the politically correct scareword, "handgun") in my hand.
Reality is not like that.
That ONLY exists in the twisted minds of those like maxpayne, etc.

One other thing.
I'm an atheist.
I enjoy saying merry christmas to people because it is a FRIENDLY greeting.
I suppose the same ones who call us "gun nuts" and "fascists" would question my saying merry christmas.

Ah, the REAL world is so much warmer and more satisfying.

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

There are four major flaws with the gun free zone idea

#1 The notion that it deters anyone who means harm to someone else. I'd think Virginia Tech and the innumerable spree shootings in areas w/o concealed weapons laws would have disabused anyone of that notion.

#2 The notion that somehow regular people will just start "getting hot" and shooting the place up over an argument about deconstruction or something is absurd
.What we don't want to hear is that the bulk of violent crime in this country is caused by the poor , minorities, gang members and the like, not middle class college kids or middle class people in general Its an issue not of race mind you but a screwed up culture
And yes there are exceptions of course but they are simply that exceptions.


#3 what someone "feels" is really irrelevant. Facts and logic need to be the basis for policy not misplaced feelings of insecurity. The risks of guns in the hands of legal adults is a lot lower than the risk of drugs or booze.

I'd tell that college kid to grow up and deal frankly He lives in Utah and every time he goes anywhere there could be thousands of people carrying weapons, some of them illegally. There is no way for him to know and nothing he can do about it.. Utah is extremely safe anyway

lastly#4 You don't ration a right. We shouldn't have gun free zones (with a very few exceptions) any more than we should have speech free zones. Even ignoring the recent Supreme Court decision the writing of the Founding fathers is perfectly clear, pretty much anyone can have a gun (the mentally ill and incarcerated are really the only categories) we've allowed the right (as well as free speech, c.f obscenity laws) to erode but the ideal is clear. If we wish to change this then we need to get rid of the Second Amendment -- end of story .

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

Let's see now....The pro-gun lobby wants us to allow college students to carry concealed firearms...

A fair proportion of college students are known to be:

* Heavy/binge drinkers (according to conservatives)

* Experimenting with unlawful drugs (again, according to conservatives)

* Frequently away from close parental control for the first time in their young lives

* Still learning self-restraint and emotional control on their way to becoming responsible adults...

...And they want us to allow then to carry concealed firearms? This should end well. I'd hate to be a campus cop if this hare-brained should ever come to pass...

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

I am a college student and must say that I do not for an instant support just anyone legally carrying a lethal weapon on campus. I understand the argument about the right to defend oneself, but as some commenters have stated above: Someone who wants to terrorize on campus would not be deterred by others having concealed weapons, just because you get a permit doesn't mean that you automatically have to training necessary to disarm someone safely without harming other innocents, I think it would just turn into a massacre on a much larger scale as it would be like a shoot out at the O.K. Corral. Plus, humans are inherently irrational and most people in their early years of college are may times pretty damn immature and irresponsible. Believe me I've been around them as I've been in college for over a decade. So what happens when someone loses their cool (because college IS stressful) and they've got that nice shiny metal thingy in their bag, they act sometimes without thinking of the consequences... ohhh that darn amygdala! I've had a gun pulled on me on the highway over something ridiculous and it was one of the most terrifying moments in my life (having a gun myself would not have helped either). So I certainly don't want to have to worry about some stupid 18 y/o kid cracking under pressure or wanting to make an impression on his buddies by whipping his gun out to show how big he is while I am walking around trying to peacefully better my life. I would be nervous all the time and I am sure this would certainly disrupt the learning environment for most.

What I am trying to say is that allowing concealed weapons on campus would create more problems than it would solve and possibly more accidents and fatalities than the very slight chance of some madman shooting up campus.

By the way, I also support not allowing people to drive a car until they are 18... because cars are a dangerous weapon too. It just takes a long time for humans to fully mature. We don't even complete our physical development until the age of 25.

cheers.

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

And that includes the military!

If it's too risky in the high-stress environment of a college campus, then it's definitely too risky in the even higher stress environment of a war zone. I mean, they might just flip-out and commit a war crime and kill innocent civilians!

Plainly, only people over thirty should be considered as candidates for military service, as college-age 'children' are plainly just too immature to deal with stress and be trusted around guns. College exams should also be eliminated, just to be on the safe side.

Or...maybe... just maybe, the problem is not guns at all, but rather our greed based capitalist society and its genocidal and racist history rooted in our so-called 'Christian values.'

Maybe it's the hundreds of years of justifying and glorifying the killing and exploiting of Indians and non-whites for land and slavery and profit that could be at the root of American violence both at home and around the world. Maybe it's notions like "Manifest Destiny" and the Ayn Rand style deification of the individual. Maybe we should teach REAL U.S. history in our schools, and see how that lines up with the violence thing!

Yes, maybe the violence results from some deep-seated delusions in our culture itself - you know, like "one nation, under God," or something like that... just like those Al Qaeda guys...

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

...if just one of the students in the rooms the attacker assaulted had a gun. There were descriptions of the attacker attempting to force his way into a room that the instructor and students had barricaded. While struggling to get into the room he had pushed his head through the doorway. It would been the perfect time to put him out of his misery.

I have to profoundly disagree with the left on this. Why should people in a situation like at VT have to wait for the cops to get off their coffee and donut break, rather than defending themselves from a serial killer on a rampage? By the time the cops finally showed up at the scene of the crime at VT, it was already too late.

Nobody can seriously argue that individuals carrying concealed guns in a situation like the one at VT couldn't have stopped the killer before he killed again.

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

In England 12 year old boys who join the local scout group - play silly games and go on camps where they have fires and sit around them with their baked beans, sausages and marsh mallows and try and out fart each other.

So encouraging this communal life us parents spent a couple of years going round the local neighbouthood collecting people's discarded junk and selling it at jumble sales to finance the trip to the USA.

So my lad arrives with his mates in America. He spends one week at a Big American Scout Camp - and One Week with a Family on an Enormous Ranch owned by a Family with Very Close Connections to The White House.

During this Two Weeks Our 12 Year Old Son Was Taught (including the basics of construction and maintenance)

To Shoot

A Bow and Arrow

A Cross Bow

An Air Pistol

An Air Rifle

A Hand Gun

A Shot Gun

And a Machine Gun

When he came home - we asked him what he thought.

He said

Americans Are Incredibly FAT - LARGE - ENORMOUS - and They Are Completely Obsessed With Shooting Things

And They Didn't Treat Us Like Guests - But Like Slaves - They Made Us Work Really Hard on The Ranch When They Weren't Teaching Us To Shoot

He Has No Desire To Go Back To America - Despite the fact that he made lots of American Friends and Has Some of His Business in America.

He is Now 20 Years Old - and His Education in America Was Invaluable.

Thank You

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

No one says we all HAVE to own guns. I have fire extinguishers, I wear seat belts and a firearm is insurance to mitigate other risks. The gun issue is what turns the progressives into the oppressors. I agree with them on many other issues, but this one loses my vote. Those who choose to be nothing but a target are free to be just that. When firearms training is provided in our schools and proper concealed carry allowed everywhere we will be one step closer to freedom and safety.

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

there are a lot of things you cannot do at college. and since going to university is not a requirement of anyone in this nation, the universities can, will, and should enforce whatever rules they want to.

same sex dorms, no drinking in sorority houses, no guns on campus, attendance mandatory, high book costs, tuition due before class starts, this is they way a univeristy runs. if they say no guns, no guns.

if you feel you have the right to protect yourself by being armed at all times, maybe consider not going to college. and church. and stop being so paranoid.

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

Geez, you'd think that if they want to have a deterrent, the thing to do is advertise that you're packing heat! Have them carry their weapons openly, so everyone knows who are the crazy . . . I mean, prepared ones. Now, I am sure some will find that openly carrying a weapon may cause them to have to defend their ideas more frequently, but that's what college is about. Who knows, they may have better luck in the dating arena with some segment of the student body as well.

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

Some folks here might find it ironic that Front Sight a major firearms trainer and second ammendent guy is supporting this site with adds.

America has its problems,too much inequality, too much drink, too much drugs,too much violence, sexual repression too much prison and a screwed up society in general but the misuse of guns is a symptom of it not the cause.

Making America a better place live requires some major effort and some serious changes but it doesn't require a any attempt to deprive someone of rights or to disarm people.

Fix the root issues and not the symptoms.

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

Now pay attention, gun nutters.

First, the proposed Bill of Rights was codified (from state constitutional provisions/Bills of Rights) by James Madison, and submitted by him to the first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution. This is his draft of that which would become the Second Amendment--note in particular my interliniations in brackets; and the final phrase of it:

"The right of the people [as the first words of the Constitution are plural--We the people--so then is the word "people" everywhere else it appears in the Constitution] to keep and bear arms [this phrase universally appears in all state constitutions--in the clause/s governing the MILITIA] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated ["regulated" is done by means of law] militia [NOT an individual] being the best defense of a free country: but no person [individual] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service in person."

U.S. Constitution Article I., Section 8., Clause 15: "[The Congress shall have Power] To provide [by means of law] for calling forth the Militia to...suppress Insurrections [there is no "right" to "defend against" the government and rule of law, "Libertarian" infantilism notwithstanding]...;"

Article I., Section 8., Clause 16: "[The Congress shall have Power] To provide [by means of law] for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing [under law] such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States [governments] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed [in the form of law] by Congress;...."

Notice how the last phrase of Madison's draft, which does concern an individual right, ties that right directly to INVOLUNTARY MILITARY SERVICE--in the militia. And note that that was the only individual right debated as concerns that which became the Second Amendment; and that, after going through several drafts during the debates, that proposed individual right was voted down. Therefore the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything--period.

The militia is a public institution; the private individual is obviously not a public institution; therefore there are separate bodies of law concerning the militia, on one hand, and on the other, private, individual ownership of guns. As for the absurd nonsense that gun control is "tyranny": there was no counter-"revolution" because the Founders disarmed the Tories. And also disarmed non-Tories who refused to sign an oath of loyalty to "the cause." Only the brain-dead would believe that absurdity; that guns were not regulated from their advent--which they obviously were. Obviously, no sane, non-suicidal society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.

Continued...

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

The Bill of Rights was debated, written, and submitted to the states by the Congress, which was populated by Founders and Framers. The ratification of the Bill of Rights--and thus that which became the Second Amendment--was completed December 15, 1791. Subsequently, on May 8, 1792, Congress, populated by Founders and Framers, enacted the Militia Act (by means of which the second Militia Clause, above, was implemented). Now tell us, lead poisoned, brain-dead gun nutters, is it unconstitutional to regulate the militia because the Second Amendment exists? Obviously, it is not. Why? The Second Amendment does nothing to prohibit, or protect from regulation, that which is within the scope of the Second Amendment. So you want to claim the Second Amendment "protects" an individual right--which it clearly and obviously does not--in order to be exempt from gun control regulations? Sorry (I'm not actually sorry), lead poisoned, brain-dead gun nutters, the Second Amendment doesn't prevent regulation of anything within its scope--as the Militia Act itself makes clear. What you do when you insist that the Second Amendment protects an individual right is invite a SECOND set of gun control regulation. What is most relevant, yet again, is that the Second Amendment, having nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything, is wholly irrelevant to the issue of gun control of the private, individual ownership of guns.

Yes, fools, there is a private, individual right to own guns--but it is, and has always been, a state and local issue. The Federal government has more important things to do than worry about your silly popgun--which it doesn't fear--it has bombers and tanks, etc. It can take you out without bothering to get in range of your silly popgun. So all the rhetoric about "liberty" and hating the government--the government, under the Constitution, is WE THE PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE is US. If you hate the government, then you hate We the people, and the Constitution which establishes those facts.

The government is a construct of laws; society is a skein of laws; Madison--"Father" of both Constitution and Bill of Rights--said: "Government is the means by which the community governs itself". Therefore, when you propose to shoot at the government--which not even the Founders allowed (see both Shays' and Whiskey rebellions)--you are proposing to shoot at the rule of law. And who would do that? A criminal, that's who!

Last but not least for those who believe the absurdity that the right to have guns is an "absolute". For example, if you are arrested, for whatever alleged offense, and you have your gun with you, will you be allowed to take it with you to your jail cell? Obviously not--and it only takes one exception to an absolute to demolish the absolute.

Again, the first three words of the US Constitution are, "We the People...". WE is PLURAL, not singular. PEOPLE is PLURAL, not singular.

Anyone who interprets the US Constitution to read "WE the INDIVIDUAL", "WE the I", or "WE the PERSON" is wrong, illiterate (or at best, subliterate), lead poisoned and brain-dead.

Here' a clue for the gun nutters: the NRA is not a law-making body--and a special interest in the legal history which eventuated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What one learns from research and study, as concerns a private, individual "right" to own guns, is that that right yields to the community when the community's survival is threatened. Thus the Founders took the guns--"gun-grabbed"--from those who weren't using them to fight the "revolution," and gave them to those who would do so. They prohibited those those (their phrase) "disaffected with the revolution" possessing guns and all other "implements of war". And they regularly passed gun control laws, as does any sane, non-suicidal society.

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

I mean, isn't it usually the conservtives that talk about the 'Ivory Tower' or 'Ivy League' elite? The cons usually try to stamp out as much logic from arguments as they can, right? Heck, I think they're just trying to kill more college students. Makes sense to me...

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

"Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long." - Congressman Ron Paul, August 9, 2004

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. This gives exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball are too violent for the body and stamp no moral character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D.) Minn. "Know Your Lawmakers" Guns magazine, February, 1960, p. 4.

"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings." - Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Lord Chancellor of Japan, August 1588, the order that instituted "The Great Sword Hunt"

"The average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty -- and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." - H.L. Mencken

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." - Ayn Rand

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp

"The first law of every creature is that of self-preservation, of staying alive." - Niccolo Machiavelli

“Weapons compound man’s power to achieve; they amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus we must regard them as servants, not masters – and good servants to good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” - Col. Jeff Cooper

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

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

The Best and the Brightest Have Led America Off a Cliff

Funny, none of the gun nuts on this topic showed up there.

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

When I was small, my Dad taught me to shoot a shotgun --.410 and a pistol .22 caliber. I learned from him what not to do and what to do and above all I LEARNED FIREARM SAFETY!

NOBODY SHOULD HAVE A FIREARM UNLESS HE OR SHE IS TRAINED TO USE IT! AND THIS INCLUDES KNOWING WHEN TO SHOOT AND WHEN NOT TO SHOOT.

GUN CONTROL TO ME MEANS BEING ABLE TO HIT YOUR TARGET.

I CARRIED A PISTOL FOR 20 YEARS AND ONLY PULLED IT FROM THE HOLSTER ONCE AND THAT WAS TO HOLD TWO THUGS WHILE MY BACK-UP ARRIVED! IF I HAD NOT held them at gunpoint they would have gotten to their truck that was full of fully automatic ( and loaded) weapons that they had stolen from the private residence of a licensed gun dealer.

I NEVER SHOT ANYONE. I WAS NEVER SUED.

I TAUGHT LOTS OF PEOPLE HOW TO SHOOT A PISTOL.
SAFELY.

AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY. I FORGOT WHO SAID IT BUT IT SOUNDS OK TO ME.

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

I'm staying out of this today. I have a job because I actually get some work done during the day, and I need to respect that first.

The biggest problem I see, though, is that it's really difficult to have a calm, rational discussion about this topic. The nuts come out on both sides and the discussion devolves into name-calling and other useless crap. This is a real world problem... there are probably real world solutions that will satisfy most people and work for most situations.

But it's really hard to discuss it here... and I still need to get work done, today.

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

the name callers and hysterical ranters are the antis.
Those of us who are responsible Americans who happen to own guns who have posted here have done so without rancor and ignorance.

Earlier today, I wrote a comment which was levelheaded and done with calm.
I was immediately called names, etc.
It certainly shows, doesn't it?

As far as who ought to be allowed to have a gun and who ought NOT be allowed, it could not be any more clear who are the well adjusted, even tempered people by reading who posts what.
Could you imagine someone like the one who called me names having a gun??
NEVER!!


As for me, I'm going to have some dinner and kick back to watch the Blackhawks beat the Sens.

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

Didn't we try this once like in Tombstone, Dodge City, Witchata and other cities in the good old wild west.

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

Legal ownership of guns, gay rights and abortion rights will be bickered about back and forth from here to eternity. I agree that it's unfortunate that guns find their way into the hands of criminals and other emotionally unstable people. However. A non-law-enforcement, law abiding citizen has the right to own firearms when approved by the federal government and their state of residence. Case closed on that one. For those who don't wish to exercise that right. That is their choice. Believe it or not. The criminal element will possess guns whether law-abiding citizens own one or not. I "legally" purchased my first firearm in 1991. It was/is never carried into gun free or restricted zones (indoors or outdoors). It has never been used in the commission of any crimes. It is kept out of the reach of children and other unauthorized users. My guns are for target practice and self-defense should the need arise. Up until now. I have not had any logical justifications for firing my firearms at other individuals. So far I have been spared from believing my life was threatened by the existence of another. And really that's how I like it. I am sure there are many individuals who share my sentiments.

Many of you may have heard about that news anchorwoman who was brutally raped and killed about 3 months ago. I am truly sorry that she didn't have a gun to fire to preserve her life. I can empathize with those who are paranoid about criminals and mentally unstable people possessing firearms. But responsible, law-abiding people will purchase and owns guns as long as we can legally do so. We are not responsible for the actions of criminals and mentally unstable people. Neither should we be denied the right to spare our lives should the need arise. If enough people knew and used karate or one of the other martial arts to defend themselves. Would there be a public outcry and legislation to ban bodily defense techniques? Probably. I didn't mean to get too off topic here. This article was about allowing concealed weapons on college campuses. Maybe that decision would be best left up to the federal, state, local governments, the college administrators and the college students.

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

When we can impose age restrictions on driving, tobacco, and alcohol, there's no reason to do the same for firearms which are just as dangerous as those 3 if not more and especially if not well trained and disciplined. Here's an interesting idea:

Below the age of 18 - NO FIREARMS and NO EXCEPTIONS

18-24 - NO FIREARMS EXCEPT for those who are young POLICE OFFICERS or are in the MILITARY. No FIREARMS if dropped out, fired, etc ... until 25 see below.

25 and older - License and certification in training plus yearly mental health checkup. This prevents psycho cases from ruining it for everyone.

Sorry to be a bit too restrictive on the young ones but they need to get through their education first if they want to get a good paying job and make it through life. Besides, as some of the posters have correctly pointed out, we cannot afford to distract the young ones with guns at a time the future of this country is at stake.

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

In another failure of their own logic, note that guns are never allowed at NRA meetings and sessions of the SCOTUS. What are they afraid of ? Do the NRA and SCOTUS members feel the need to avoid having to "defend" themselves ? Or don't they trust gun carriers who, of course, carry guns ONLY to defend
themselves.
Actually, the NRA would have far better luck promoting the carrying of concealed weapons at fundamentalist and the other evangelist mega-churches. Those "congregations" must REALLY feel the need to defend themselves from each other or from godless intruders.

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

Anyone should be allowed to own a gun. Take it wherever you go. And let's lower the drinking age to 12. Might as well make it interesting. ANNA

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

I'm a lifelong democrat, liberal, and a gun owner. Both sides in this argument get so frenzied that you almost wonder if they both have a disease. This article is nothing more than hype, fear, and spin. A tactic we as liberals claim to loathe and a tactic that is used quite effectively by the republicans. What this article implies is that the NRA is trying to arm a bunch of drunk, drugged out, stressed out 18 year olds. Nothing could be further from the truth. In order to obtain a CCW permit, you first need to be 21, something that would cut out the majority of the college population living in dormitories. Second, in order to obtain a CCW permit, you have to file an application with the Sheriff who performs a background check and then depending on jurisdiction, require you to take a handgun safety course. Third, the NRA is not going out on the streets and shoving guns into peoples hands. The % of people actually carrying concealed weapons on a college campus on any given day would be low. This article is nothing more than fear mongering and gun bashing. If more liberals actually went out and shot a gun, they would realize they aren't terrifying and actually make for a good weekend sport.

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

You said: "The gun lobby and SCCC also like to draw a distinction between the "bad guys" -- people who bring guns onto campus illegally -- and the "good guys" -- permit-holding gun owners who could save the day if it became necessary."

You're caught up in the same dichotomy that people's goodness is caught up in their consumer purchases, especially of firearms. That just isn't so.

I'm looking to buy a gun, but not to feel protected or strong. I'm looking to buy one because it is my right to protect myself if I need to. Conflating people who wish to exercise their rights with mass-murdering psychos does you no credit, and paints you as someone who thinks we need fewer rights.

A good many shooters know that rights equal responsibilities, and we're not excited that people who have never handled a gun think they know what's good for us.

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

After the last eight years it should be pretty obvious that we probably only still have the First Amendment because of the Second.

All the anti-gun folks using their First Amendment rights to try to take away someone else's Second Amendment rights need to be reminded: "Ask not for whom the bell tolls"

I would love to see a statistic on how many people that want to repeal 2nd amendment and impose their "morals" on everyone else, also bitch like crazy that those right-to-lifer anti-choice folks want to pass laws to impose their religous beliefs on everyone else.

That's your classic mote in the eye deal right there.

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

Before it was a restricted thing they had them and I know first hand that they have been on campuses for at least my lifetime, but they weren't carried by the full blown nut jobs we hear so much about today. I am not as worried about guns as the people who are determined to fire them, especially those who dream about shooting people. We should probably try to discouraged this violent aggression or it is just wasted efforts to eradicate firearms as the nutjobs will simply select different weapons as they are available. People drive cars into crowds sometimes in NYC. Same thing.

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

Or if you did you did not understand what it said. I do not advocate the taking of arms I advocate arms with, and education of: what they will do to a human body so a person knows what wounds they inflict.

I have owned guns, carried guns, made guns and demonstrated their use in target practice. I advocate identifying the violent behaviour before it escalates into murderous rage. I have had experience in this as no doubt have you. I simply choose not to be bound by a dependence on VIOLENCE.

I have no need to knock down, but to build up! Nothing happens in a vacuum; contrary to popular Quantum Physics; here in the Macrocosm, there is cause and effect. One must want to change or have the ability to change to stop the Violence. For those who have not this ability we have institutions for the criminally insane. For instance say; people like George W. Bush or his entire cabinet.

I personally and unfortunately know individuals who have committed murder, nine of them in fact. Out of that number only two used guns. One of the other seven had a gun, but preferred his teeth. The other six were two bludgeonings, two stabbings, one bomb, and the last was dismemberment.

None of these individuals had control of the situation they were in. Violence was in the driver’s seat. If someone is actively pursuing you with the intent of attacking you or has already fired a weapon at you, respond in kind! You can only do that with a gun, bow and arrow, sling, spear and/or if the sucker is a phenomenally bad shot or blind; you may respond with a knife or sword. Personally I prefer a baseball bat; it isn’t as messy and generally makes them stop if you target a wrist, forehead or groin.

The point is: if you intend to defend yourself in this society and kill the other individual you WILL spend time in a Jail. If you injure him noncritically, you will only be subject to fines and court costs. Stop the Violence! But, if you really still feel threatened BUY A GUN!

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

The gun debate in America certainly is interesting.
Certainly reveals the immaturity, ignorance and fear which underlies the American society.

Is it not of interest that for every malefactor who is stopped in his (usually) tracks up to forty people are accidentally killed by guns mishandled in the general community?
What is more important? The right of individuals to make up for their personal inadequacies with the ownership of guns, or the rights of the thousands in America who are accidentally killed with mishandled fire-arms.
To most people on the planet the answer is obvious.
The often quoted section of the Constitution is not a good justification for gun ownership. It was written for a different age and with a different purpose. It is just a document written by individuals who could not have conceived of the carnage that the misinterpretation of this provision has caused.

For the sake of everybody rewrite the crappy document so that it meets the needs of 2008. It is not immutable law.

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

What's "twisted" about the logic that if unarmed people are being shot, it's good to be armed? Every time these thugs have encountered anything that looks that armed resistence they stop killing people. The left have a simple choice, back something that actually stops the violence or something that is known to contribute to it. They should do the former "for a simple reason: students should be able to go to school without fear of assault by a deadly weapon.".

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

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." Thomas Jefferson

"Anyone who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither". Ben Franklin (paraphrased)

"I would rather die with the constitution clinched in my fist, then live with shackles on my feet" Greywolf


"Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave."


"The unarmed man is not just defenseless, he is also contemptible." Machiavelli


"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." Jeff Cooper,
The Art of The Rifle


"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin.


"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams.


“Unfortunately, nothing will preserve [liberty] but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Patrick Henry


“Courage is reckoned the greatest of all virtues; because, unless a man has that virtue, he has no security for preserving any other.” Samaul Johnson


“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato


“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern”
Lord Acton.

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

Not to defend the NRA, but have you ever gone to their site? Yes there is a lot of one sided crap there, but they also have something called "Armed Citizen". True stories about normal people who, when attacked, used a firearm in self defense. If you read some of them, you might start wondering why none of these stories are worth TV news.

If you wonder if there is a point in whether to blame the gun, or the person using the gun.
Go to "The Blessings of Liberty". Look up the speech by Charlton Heston, which is not strictly about guns. Remember him, that actor who marched with ML King?

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

So my question is: "Why concealed?"
Wear 'em on your hip, so everyone knows who's carrying.............that's the real value of a deterrant.

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

I am a Democrat. I would never vote for a Republican, but I would not vote for either a candidate who doesn't think I have the RIGHT or the ABILITY (as a former Marine) to "keep and bear arms," or who wants to give my job away to someone here illegally or (via H1b) as a whore of yet another greedy corporate hack. I just won't pull that particular lever.

Go ahead you snotty elitists - put the right wing religious war mongers and corporate funded senators and representatives (not to mention President Palin) back in Washington. Keep trying to take away my gun and my job.

These two issues, and positions such as Alternet's on them, are what may well give the Right their victory.

Are any of you paying attention to the well-reasoned (mostly) OVERWHELMING opinions on these two issues whenever they arise in your pages? And this is a liberal publication. Pay attention - you are wrong and you are a danger to our just-won ability to right the truly important issues that carried us back to power, war and the economy.

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

The issue is not whether a college should or should not legally allow weapons, but if a legally-recognized adult has the right and responsibility to bear one, or if that right only belongs to the government and its agents. The question is how much one believes in the people, isn't it?
I hear much about the scenario of a shootout instigated by a random shooting, but this only seems to happen during standoffs between two sides, not random armed bystanders. I wonder why this hypothetical but mythical situation keeps being brought up.
So, can the people bear this responsibility of defending themselves, or should the state take over that responsibility for them?

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

There are several flaws in the figures and logic in this article.

The second paragraph reads, "[In regards to reasons against concealed carry on campus]A few answers leapt to mind -- binge drinking, drug use, close living quarters in a high-pressure environment...." I will not deny that there are college students who partake in such activities. However, these are not the people Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) is trying to recruit. People that would be sufficiently mentally unstable to "crack" over an exam and shoot someone is not welcome. Instead, SCCC is aimed more towards students like me. I do not use any controlled substances, nor do I consume alcohol. By saying we are no better than the worst of us, one condemns an entire group without even knowing them. By this same measure, no one should be allowed to come within 50 feet of a car before they turn 25, since statistically teens and young adults are most likely to be in a collision.

In the fifth paragraph, the author writes "Magical or not, colleges have long been "gun free zones" for a simple reason: students should be able to go to school without fear of assault by a deadly weapon." Again, this argument is flawed. As Plato once said, "The law-abiding do not need laws to tell them how to behave, and criminals will not obey it." For example, any functional human being can process instinctively that murder is wrong. People who do not commit murder (read: law-abiding) do not refrain because murder is illegal, but because they understand it is wrong. Those who would commit murder either do not understand this or willingly ignore this logic. Returning to the original topic, this means that someone who is determined to commit mass murder like what happened at VT or NIU will do so, regardless of what rules or regulations there may be against such a thing. This points out the flaw in the above quoted statement. Yes, students should feel safe on campus. But wouldn't it be better to [i]be[/i] safe? A gun free zone won't stop a murderer from bringing in a weapon (as a side note, "assault weapons" are only used in 0.02% of all crimes), but it will prevent anyone from stopping him.

The ninth paragraph references the arguments for and against concealed carry on campus that took place six years ago in Utah. What the article fails to mention, however, is that since the implementation of this program, there have been 0 injuries, negligent discharges, accidental deaths, or homocides via firearms on any campus in the State of Utah.

The thirteenth paragraph attempts to add weight to a recent paper that claimed more guns equals more crime. However, as the article says, this paper is 38 pages long. Its "companion piece," "More Guns, Less Crime" by Dr. John Lott, approaches 380 pages. Simply put, a 38 page paper does not have sufficient data to conclusively say one particular variable is the cause for a given result.

The seventeenth paragraph quotes the Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Case of Heller vs. Washington, D.C. In the quoted section, Justice Scalia writes, "(N)othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on...laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings...." What the article fails to note, however, is that college campuses are not regarded as schools in this context. From a legal standpoint, a "school" the standard K-12 school system in which most of us have grown up. There is a difference between carrying a firearm in a kindergarten classroom and carrying on an open college campus. Also note that one of the primary arguments for the plaintiff in Heller vs. D.C. was that despite Washington D.C. having a total ban on handgun ownership, it had the highest rate of gun crime and homocides in the country.

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