Campus safety: More guns the answer?

Notice how the reporter doesn't actually bother to talk to, or quote, the "2nd Amendment activists" whose remarks are the genesis of the article.

Note how the reporter labels the proposal "strange" and a "rationale".

Note how the reporter claims "But for grieving students and a befuddled administration at Virginia Tech, the suggestion is tantamount to opening a Pandora’s box." without citing one source, one survey, for such a sweeping statement.

Can Tribune reporting become even more one-sided, more biased?

Because everyone knows you put out a fire w/ fire.

Please read this link.
Understand why Americans MUST retain the right to arms. It's why our country doesn't suffer from armed coups. Everyone wants to compare us to Europe. Take a look at Cuba and Africa. That is what the founding fathers were preventing. The second amendment is there for very good reasons. The constitution is still a forward thinking document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I'm all for the 2nd Ammendment.

I well regulated militia might well have mitigated the loss of life.

Oh right. Like Wipipedia is a credible source. And, if even some of the students were carrying guns, I wonder how many dead people we would have.

Guns are here to stay, no matter where you stand on the issue. It is far too powerful of a lobby.

However all of these pro-gun people who are sticking their chests out with the "I told you so" attitude need to stop.

The odds that one of the other students would have had a gun are very small. The odds he or she would have known how to react with that gun are also small. The basic argument they are portending is that some hero figure would have came out with their gun and saved the day if it weren't for that stupid liberal law that was in place. It is basically a "best case scenario" fallacy.

This maniac went nuts and killed people period. The anti-gun law didn't stop some nut from getting one and bringing it on campus, period. What this says about the validity of the law is absolutely nothing. I keep reading people saying the law failed. This is STUPID. Rape is illegal. People are raped every day. When it happens we don't say, "the law against rape is a failure". Laws are intended to prevent these things but there are limits to the extent that a law can be enforced.

College = hormones, romances, drugs, alchohol, academic pressures.

Guns? Bad idea.

Wikipedia cites both sides of the argument, and quotes historical interperations. They are by no means a source. A summary of sources is more accurate.

Drunken frat boys with guns! That sounds like a sure fire solution (if you'll pardon the expression) to violence on campus.

Seriously, I think Doug might be on to something with the "well trained militia" idea. It beats the heck out of a lecture hall full of bored college kids with guns playing with their laser sights on the blackboard.

Instead of handing out more guns to people who aren't trained to handle them or to keep the peace, I suggest we not sell guns to people who can't prove they know how to use them. Seriously--beyond registering guns, we should make people get licenses to use firearms. We don't let people drive w/o taking tests to determine whether or not they know what they're doing. We should treat guns the same way.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And people with guns kill lots and lots of people.

No Jethro,
The saying is;You fight fire,with fire.Nice try though!

Paulo

Yup, the first thing I thought of every morning for an 8 am class in college was "where's my glock?"

How is a college student supposed to even afford armor piercing ammunition these days what with the cost of tuition, housing, and books?

This country has the most liberal gun laws among all industrialized nations in the world.

How many billions of guns are in this nation? How many people own guns legally & not?

How many hundreds of thousands of Americans have to be maimed & killed before we figure out that gun ownership couldn’t bring us any further from the security & safety we pretend the 2nd Amendment gives us?

The rest of the normal world has this figured out.

The 2nd Amendment is useless, outdated, & these days, distorted by the NRA & gun fanatics.

It's been long overdue that all private ownership of guns, legal & otherwise, be revoked.

You think the VT slayings would have taken place if it was extremely difficult to obtain a gun?

Go ahead an call me a looney leftie. I believe the sanctity of life trumps the rights of owning guns that make it too easy to take away one's life.

I guess we should send our kids off to college with 9mm glocks and extra ammo.

With that kind of logic it's no wonder the chickenhawk NeoCons are getting voted out of office right and left.

Concealed carry advocates are not saying "more guns is the answer", but are saying that untying the hands of responsible people so they may resist horrible people is part of the solution.

Look, you folks that are talking about "arming drunken frat boys" are not only missing the point entirely, but you are being ridiculous. There is a great responsibility that comes with a concealed carry license, and those of us that have them know that. Moreover, those of us who are trained to carry, and do carry, are unusually responsible (as a group). In regard to the alcohol issue (and in response to the "drunken frat boy hyperbole"), because we are law abiding, and because concealed carry law stipulates that we cannot carry during or after consuption of alcohol (common sense tells us that was well), those of us who do have the occasional drink(s) do not carry when we do.

Would you have people think that the segment of the population with concealed carry permits is merely a random sample of the population at large? Do you picture the stupidest, most irresponsible person you know and think "good Lord, what if THAT person carried concealed!?" If so, you are woefully misinformed, and incorrectly maligning CHL holders. Florida has had "shall-issue" the longest of any state, since 1987. There, permit holders are ~300 times less likely to perpetrate a gun crime than Floridians without permits. And that's based on huge sample sizes - FL has issued over 800,000 permits.

In closing, the concealed carry "movement" has swept the nation (only 2 states do not have some form of the legislation on the books, and they soon will). It is not based on fear, but rather on the principle that responsible citizens should not (and cannot) expect government to provide them with the essentials of life. As such, providing for the safety of one's self and one's family is first and foremost a personal duty. People, this is not a radical concept, and nor is it a dangerous one.

I think the ease of which Americans can obtain guns designed specifically to kill humans is a very significant contributing factor in this tragedy. Increasing gun restrictions seems to not be very politically realistic, although this would have my support. And "arming everyone", as the gun nuts like to shout after these sorts of tragedies, is a ridiculous concept because it would undoubtedly cause an increase in murder and the death of innocent bystanders. I think a partial solution to this issue would be to require that public notice be printed in the local newspaper of anyone applying for a gun permit and the local newspaper of the place the purchase is taking place. The notice would not allow the public to object to a permit if the applicant meets all the requirements, but it would provide some sort of warning as to who, in our communities, is actually arming themselves. These permits should be public information and the constitution does not guarantee any sort of privacy of gun ownership.

We all know what will come of this tragedy....the talking heads in our legislature will blather on about more gun control laws...yeah sure that will work, just look at those models of gun free countries, like the UK, Australia etc. The thing about passing more laws...CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!!! More gun control laws will only allow more innocent lives to be taken by animal man, due to the disarming of law abiding citizens and denying our right to defend ourselves. If just one licensed CCW (Concealed Carry) holder was allowed to carry on campus (even if licensed to carry a firearm, students and teachers must disarm before entering campus) the death toll may have been much lower. This was not a random act of violence...It was pre-meditated murder. A perpetrator of a random act of violence does not bring chains and locks to lock up the main access doors, or wear tactical vests to carry spare magazines for the guns.

When is this country going to realize that gun free zones such as our schools are choice targets as they are what is known as soft targets, and will offer little if any resistance if attacked. If a bad guy or nut case like the kid who killed and injured more than 50 people understands that fact, imagine what a team of seasoned terrorists' could do in the same situation....
Wake up America, it's time to stand up and defend yourself!!

Clearly being disarmed via gun control did nothing to protect innocent life. These high profile multiple victim attacks keep occuring in so-called "gun free safe zones" which turn out not be gun free or safe when a would be murder decides to attack them regardless of the reasons.

At the Appalachian Law School in Virginia a similar attack was stopped prematurely by two armed students who ran to their vehicles and got their guns and stopped the attacker saving untold lives. Some other school shootings have been stopped by lawfully armed citizens.

Liberals claim the status quo in Iraq has not reduced violence, why then do they call for the same failed status quo of gun control here at home pretending it will reduce violence?

"Oh right. Like Wipipedia is a credible source. And, if even some of the students were carrying guns, I wonder how many dead people we would have."

I wonder how many less dead people we would have. Take a look at this similar incident in 2002.

http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html

JM and Mack,

The American Revolution is OVER,the British aren't coming.
If you want to shoot someone go sign up for President Chimpy's civil war in Iraq.

Stop playing cowboys and indians, NeoCons.

John,
The British are still here in the form of our oppressive government which removed these young ADULT'S right to self defense.

The revolution is going to happen again. Compare the stamp act vs all of our taxes now and then tell me how free we are.

most of our fighting force in the revolution were volunteer militia (people like you and me who have had enough)

Scary seeing all these right wingers coming out and saying that the real reason they want their guns is for use in the violent overthrow of the United States Government.

And they call us leftys traitors.

VA Tech's gun policy made the campus very safe.................for Cho.

Can there ben any more guns on a campus than there are in Iraq? And how many people died there today? Tribune story says: 183 people.

My greatest concern with arming every dick and jane who can't hit the side of a barn from 10 feet away is this, who's going to yell, "Halt your fire" once the shooting starts?

"...concealed carry law stipulates that we cannot carry during or after consuption of alcohol (common sense tells us that was well), those of us who do have the occasional drink(s) do not carry when we do."

DUI laws stipulate that drunks not be allowed to drive. Good thing we've got that one solved.

Genius.

It's unfortunate not one presidential aspirant is able to take a clear stand on the Gun control policy.Look's like no one can afford to lose the swing state votes,what a shame.Seems the country's love affair with Guns will continue and sadly, so will be occasional shootings/killings.

I'm sure this is the first of many times this'll be posted.... And it's just a cut and paste, but:

"Gun mayhem occurred with some regularity in Australia until the Port Arthur massacre. Within days, Prime Minister John Howard launched a gun reform proposal that culminated with the country banning the possession of automatic rifles and shotguns. Over the next year, shocked Australians turned in nearly 650,000 newly illegal guns, which the government bought back at market prices, and more than 70,000 other still-legal smaller guns.

Since 1996, the rate of gun deaths in Australia—including suicides, accidents and homicides—has fallen by half and the country has not suffered additional mass shootings. Australia today has a per capita gun crime rate less than a tenth that in the United States."

Yes, the article goes on to state that a 2005 law in South Africa hasn't yet reduced gun crime, but 1) two years isn't enough time for a gun ban to have an effect, and 2) South African society is much, much different from American society. I've been to Australia and it might as well be a 51st state. The society there is as close to American society as it gets and there's good reason to believe that the experience there would be repeated here.

To Q:

If I should have to advertise in the paper that I am armed, then you should have to advertise that you are not.

Which of us do you think the bad guys are going to attack?

To everyone:

You should read Karl's excellent post, which is probably 10-15 posts back from here.

To:
John
Kenny Bunkport
Tom O
dave
jerry101 (only if you were being sarcastic)
RomanB
John E
Tony
Bud McFarlin:

Do you think it's right that the innocent victims couldn't shoot back?

And do you wish the same on the next victims of the next monster?

It blows my mind that so many people in America still cling--with a death grip--to this antiquated constituional right to bear arms. It's no coincidence that these bloody massacres happen with greater frequency here than any other industrialized nation. Doesn't this engender just a sliver of shame and/or sadness?

Now some gun-toting afficianados are espousing it would be safer, more sensible to have students packing Glocks along with their laptops. As much as most college kids get sloshed... yea, right. As much pressure they're under to make good grades, and participate in extracurricular activities, now they have to be professional marksmen. Handling a 9mm safely--with precision--under pressure is not something I would advocate for young college students. It's a monumentally insane idea!

Wake up people...These killing machines are becoming more and more lethal. The bullets are designed to inflict more damage or kill with more certitude. This is sick! And the next generation of guns on the horizon will kill with even greater efficiency. Gun laws need serious REVAMPING that reflect the ever-evolving weapon technology.

We require several character references from a job applicant. We do background and credit checks. To exercise the "Right" to bear arms, people should pass a more intense screening process than someone applying at McDonalds. The age limit should be bumped-up too. You need to be 25 to rent a car for a good reason.

And though it probably won't happen in my lifetime, I pray that one day all these killing machines are destroyed. Lastly, enlightened, secure men don't need guns...Wake up America!

I defintely support allowing people to arm themselves if they are properly trained. If there are people at colleges that want to carry concealed then the campus should offer a class. You can offer a shooting/law class designed to show people how to shoot and the laws covering that. Once they are done with the class and get a card they can carry concealed and if they have an incident where the student has an alcohol related incident you take away their card and don't allow them to carry. The shooting part of the class would be range work where they actually practice hitting a target. When the card expires after a year they take a refresher course. A lot of people on here think that concealed carry people want to shoot someone when the fact is it just the opposite but if you've ever been robbed or been in a situation where you couldn't defend yourself or others around you maybe you would think different. How many of you think some of those students that were at Virginia Tech are looking into getting a CCW permit now? I'm sure some of them will never want to see a gun again and I totally understand that and on the other side there are probably some who would like to have a weapon so something like this never happens to them again. Who are you to judge unless you've really been through something that life changing.

Karl, You liked my line about "drunken frat boys", did you?

It seems like we are pretty much in agreement if you don't want everybody armed. But given the resistance of the gun lobby to any kind of sensible regulation of gun ownership, I get the impression that many other people do believe "more guns is the answer".

I don't see any problem with trained, responsible people having guns (or carrying them on campus with the knowledge and permission of the administrators). But the problem will always be determining who the responsible people are and sifting out the less responsible people and the outright nutjobs. I'd like to see some effort made to sort them out before they are allowed to purchase a weapon.

You know, I was going to contribute to this blog about facts and figures of Europes gun policies and number of deaths each year compared with the US, but upon reading your comments and the lack of understanding or compassion for fellow human beings, at 30,000 gun deaths per year in the name of 'freedom', I surmise that soon enough you'll all have killed each other anyway . . . .so whats the point eh!

To quote:
"Virginia Tech-style mass slaughters might in fact become more commonplace if every potentially troubled, suicidal, or homicidal student were legally allowed ready access to firearms."

Some people need to check the law!
Among other things, most states that recognize the 2nd Amendment and guarantee their citizens the right to defend themselves with a firearm require a number of hours of instruction and fingerprinting with the FBI in order to obtain the permit, not to mention the background check that accompanies the submitting of the fingerprints!

If the fact that this killer had been deemed dangerous because of his mental condition had been recordered with the state of VA, he would never have been allowed to leggaly purchase a firearm of any type! It would have shown in the required background check that the shop owner ran, as required by law. But, if the killer were really intent, as he obviously was, upon proving something to the world, does anyone honestly believe he wouldn't have obtained a firearm somewhere, somehow, regardless of what laws there might be?

People.

If you don't like a country with citizens that own guns, the US will be more than happy to give you a passport. Feel free to re-locate.

All these european countries I keep hearing fond reference of is alway an open door. Just keep in mind that sometimes your material suppliers (like Russian) might get moody and close your gas line. Oh... and don't forget that health care there is quick and effiecent.

Hey and don't forget some of them might require that you be patriotic and serve a manditory military stint.

We have many people crossing over from the south hoping for a chance to sit where your sitting right now. I don't think they would mind one less armed American Citizen.

Remember the ALAMO!

There were under 50 firearms related deaths in the UK last year. There were about 500 firearms related deaths in NYC last year. It seems obvious that outlawing handguns would reduce the number of gun killings in this country.

Regarding the Second Amendment - 1) it clearly links the right to bear arms to militia service and 2) ridiculous amendments can, and should, be repealed (see Prohibition).

Furthermore, if guns make us all safer, why is Iraq such a dangerous place?

Firearms make it easier and more efficient to kill people. You will still have violence and killings after we ban guns, but the magnitude of those tragedies will be much smaller.

"...at 30,000 gun deaths per year in the name of 'freedom',"

Mark, source of your data, please?

"There were under 50 firearms related deaths in the UK last year. There were about 500 firearms related deaths in NYC last year"

Tell us the overall crime rate in England last year, Jon, robberies,rapes, etc., per 100,000. It's my understanding it has gone up yearly?

How 'bout the number of homocides by any other means than firearms? Up or down?

How come?

"Firearms make it easier and more efficient to kill people."

A lack of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens makes it easier for criminals to do whatever they want to do...kill, rob, rape...and most likely with the aid of a firearm! Laws won't keep them from having firearms...the word is, "criminal," ya know?

"Regarding the Second Amendment - 1) it clearly links the right to bear arms to militia service and 2) ridiculous amendments can, and should, be repealed (see Prohibition)."

1.) I reckon you haven't kept up with the news, Jon, and what was handed down by the Court of Appeals in D.C. a few weeks ago. (I'll let you hunt for it!)

2.) Prey tell, how does does liquor help me to defend my family, my country, or myself?

"Furthermore, if guns make us all safer, why is Iraq such a dangerous place?"

Yes, Iraq is a dangererous place...duh!...it's also a war zone on a couple of different levels, in case you haven't noticed! (Pearl Harbor was pretty dangerous, too, as was Normandy!

Jerry101: You mention armor piercing rounds and I'm not quite sure why. No armor piercing rounds were used in this tragedy. I'm going to assume you mean hollow point ammunition, and coming from a 9mm and .22 cal handgun it has very little chance of penetrating body armor.

Rus Styles: You don't need to be 25 in all states to rent a car. You also state the enlightened and secure men don't need guns. Is this why that in the city of Chicago, only the elected officials and policemen are carry a firearm?

Jon: Firearms do make it easier and more efficient to kill people, but your argument is flawed. Your trying to compare us with a 3rd world nation in a transition government. Also, most of the deaths in Iraq come from car or roadside bombs.

Q: Putting a notice in the newspaper to tell people who own guns? You think that by telling people about law abiding citizens is a good way to cut back on crime? It would merely state to criminals where they could look for firearms, and give them an idea who the people are who choose not to exercise their right to own one.

What really gets to me is some of the falacies that some of you state about firearms. I understand that some of you may not like guns for whatever reason it may be, but stating things such as all hollow point ammo is armor piercing is ridiculous. Do some research on the topic before writing incoherent rants.

People should have the right to carry a firearm if they meet the standards to do so. These standards require a thorough backround check, fingerprinting, and training. I'm not trying to say that any Joe Smoe off the street should be allowed to carry, but if you have the proper training then you should be able to.

I quote Homer Simpson, Lifetime Member of the NRA "We need guns so the King of England doesn't come over here pushing us around. Do you want the King of England pushing you around lisa?"

Mike:

Your counter argument is flaccid, as it dosn't address many of the more salient points in my post. But really, I haven't heard any sane, cogent arguments from the NRA zealots. Instead of focusing on the root causes, the genesis of violence and wackos who go Columbine, you and other RBAs-cause-it's-written-in-the-constitution-types purport that the solution is to have students and teachers carry concealed weapons. Brilliant, unthought-out-knee-jerk solution.

An intelligent person solves recurrent problems by understanding the source. Studying the why? Patterns? Comparitives? etc...Your archaic Wyatt Earp, quick fix solution fits perfectly for people who can't sleep at night without "Little Roscoe" under their pillow. Admit it, these people would want a gun even if there wasn't a single act of violent crime in this country. Then they'd argue that that's the reason there wasn't any violence; all the criminals were afraid of getting shot by their prospective victim. So this way there's justification whether there's violence or perennial peace.

Does that reek of insecurity, or what? It's a cheap, lazy, DIMWITTED way out of a disturbing labyrinth. As it fails to hold up a mirror to our shortcomings, which would then force us to take--head on--the more difficult task of dealing with out intellectual and spiritual vacuum.

Hey, Russ: "...this antiquated constituional right to bear arms."

I suggest you reread the 2nd Amendment, Rus! It doesn't "grant" us anything; it GUARANTEES us the natural right to defend our families, ourselves, and our country if need be; and it doesn't say, "...other than on college campuses."

Please explain how a natural right can ever become "antiquated"?

Ol'Coach,
The Bill of Rights are not natural rights, they are Constitutional Rights. Your inability to understand the difference is your first problem.

Rus...

I don't know if you have children, grandchildren or not, or if you are married; however, you are telling us that if you do, and an attempt should be made upon you and your family by an intruder into your home, you would be satisfied with dialing 911 and then waiting for them to arrive? You would be glad that you had no firearm available and had not the skill to use it?

What if three psychopaths enter your home armed with knives...no guns, just knives and evil intentions? Would you be happy you had no firearm?

True, chances are strong that it would never happen; then you would never have to use the firearm and that would be a good thing. But, ....what if?

Furthur, you apparently agree with the Illinois State Police suggestion..."Don't fight back."

I suppose you could instruct the females in your family the same as the Illinois State Police display on line:
1.) Tell the attacker you are pregnant;
2.) Tell the attacker you have an STD
3.) Stick your finger down your throat and throw up.

Good luck!

Do you believe that banning firearms will create an idealistic world where there are none, and therefore no more murders, rapes, robberies would occur?

If you choose not to own a firearm for defensive purposes, that's a choice you have to make; however, don't expect me to leave my family in the same predicament as you leave yours...defenseless.

Does wanting the capability to defend my family qualify me as a vigilante? or a "Wyatt Earp"? If you call that a "quick fix" I'm glad I have it while I wait on you to come up with the long-term one!

"Your inability to understand the difference is your first problem."

Sorry, Jethro! You're the one that doesn't understand, and, therefore, the one with a problem (however many?)

You are telling me that I need the Constitution of the United States to give me the right to defend my family, property, and self?

That has been the natural right of every human being that ever lived! The 2nd Amendment merely states that this country will not deny me the right to do so with a firearm.

Now, what's my 2nd problem?

RomanB Said:
"You think the VT slayings would have taken place if it was extremely difficult to obtain a gun?"

How are you going to make them extremely difficult to obtain? Drugs are banned and ordinary school kids obtain them.

By the way, Jethro, for confirmation, the 2A does read, "...SHALL NOT BE DENIED". If it doesn't alreay exist, how can it be denied?

"I'm glad I have it while I wait on you to come up with the long-term one!"

Another simplistic Charlton Hestonesque retort. When the "framers" included RBA...America was a wild & woolly frontier. People needed protection from animals; they hunted for their sustenance...In most places there were no police, FBI, SWAT, National Guard, Sheriff, nothing! It made some sense at the time. Look, then if a wacko walked on a campus with a musket, he'd kill (maybe) one person. Now we have automatic pistols that--in the hands of a skilled shooter--can wipe out 15 people with one clip; in a few seconds!! We're in different times, which warrants different rules.

Further, if someone really wants to kill you, any nitwit knows it doesn't mattter how much heat you're packing; the perp has the element of surprise. Thankfully it's a very rare occasion when a total stranger breaks into a home with the intent on slaughtering one's family just for the fun of it. No, this is the retreading of the-bald-tires argument. And to make matters worse, now the Dems are too scared to touch this pseudo 3rd rail issue.

So, you and your kind are safe for now. You can sleep peacefully with your manhood makers. But, one day this madness will end. Or, you'll destroy mankind as we know it...

The 2nd Amendment protects our natural right, it does not create a natural right or grant a right. With or without the 2nd Amendment, we have the right to defend our lives.

If you prefer to cower and die, go ahead. I'm going to go out on my feet in defiance if it ever comes to that. Just like the heroes on Flight 93.

We are the unorganized militia according to US Code Article 10, Section 311. We are the last bulwark of defense when the army, national guard, police, or your mommy can't be there.

http://www.wearethemilitia.org

Rus Styles:
"So, you and your kind are safe for now. You can sleep peacefully with your manhood makers. But, one day this madness will end. Or, you'll destroy mankind as we know it..."

You protest too much. You should seek analysis from a professional to deal with your issues of projection.

It is not compensation to desire to defend yourself with more than just your wits and harsh language...or as the Illinois State Police suggest, vomit.

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

Apparently Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were a bit optimistic.

By the way, Jethro, for confirmation, the 2A does read, "...SHALL NOT BE DENIED". If it doesn't alreay exist, how can it be denied?

Posted by: Ol'Coach | Apr 20, 2007 12:13:24 PM

First of all you need to read the right document. You are not quoting it accurately.

"Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED."

Second, It says nothing about guaranteeing the right to protect your family. It only mentions the right to "keep and bear arms" related to a "well regulated militia". You are reading words that don't exist. I never said you don't have a natural right to defend you life. You said the 2nd Amendment guarantees a natural right to own a gun:

"I suggest you reread the 2nd Amendment, Rus! It doesn't "grant" us anything; it GUARANTEES us the natural right to defend our families, ourselves, and our country if need be;"

Posted by: Ol'Coach | Apr 20, 2007 9:19:16 AM

Understand?

re: the exact wording, you are correct; now, define, "infringed."

One interpretation in my dictionary is, "to encoroach or trespass: as, to infringe on someone's privacy," or as in this case, to "infringe" upon my right to keep and bear arms.

I realize you know very well the wording of the 2nd Amendment, but here it is from the ruling handed down on March 9, 2007, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

That being said, for the ruling handing down by the above mentioned appelate court, check this out: http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf

You are totally incorrect. The 2nd Amendment says all that can be said about my right to protect my family, unless of course, my family members are not "people."

Of course, you realize, we could go on with this discussion forever, as many have! Hopefully the decision handed down by that appelate court will be appealed and will be settled once and for all by the United States Supreme Court.

Whichever way it turs out, either you will have to accept it, or I will have to accept it. There is no other challenge!

Jethro, if we're gonna have this discussion, don't credit me with things I didn't write!

"You said the 2nd Amendment guarantees a natural right to own a gun:"

Where?

I believe I stated we each have the natural right to defend ourselves and families. I believe I also stated that the 2nd Amendment RECOGNIZES, and GUARANTEES my right to "keep and bear arms."

1+1=2 Jethroe. If it becomes necessasry for me to use the firearm the 2nd Amendment has guaranteed me the right to own and "bear," I certainly will do so!

If you choose not to, I hope that, should your home ever be invaded by some kook(s) your call to 911 gets those who serve to you in time!

By the way, you do realize no law enforcement agency is obligated to repond to a call, don't you?

Ol'Coach,
It is more likely that I will bump into you on the street than I will be a victim of any violent crime. You have given into fear. And fear is ruling your life.

PS I've never said you can't keep a gun in your home to protect your property. What I've consistently said is that if you want to carry a handgun, become a police officer and if you want to shoot automatic weapons and assault rifles join the military. If you've done either, I don't care if you carry a concealed weapon. Do you think we should keep mentally unstable people from acquiring guns legally? Do you think it worked for VA to ask applicants to check a box, yes or no, if they've been treated for mental illness? I would like to hear your thoughts.

Rus Styles: First off, for you to generalize all gun owners as NRA zealots is a very ignorant statement. I am not part of the NRA as I do not approve of some of their tactics. I do however agree with their general mission to uphold the 2A.

As for studying why, that is much easier to write that question as opposed to answering it. Your want to increase gun laws does nothing. The assailant in this case proved that by following the "1 gun a month" law that was in place. He thought it out to bring material making it possible for a mass slaughter.

We do agree with something in your post however. You state that these people are wackos. They are not thinking rationally. He was bound and determined to commit this act. I wish that there were the sane and properly trained individuals there that could have stopped this event from getting as bad as it did.

Just to remind you, this happened in a gun free zone. Usually you are not allowed to posses a firearm on a college campus, even in dorms, much less carry one. This gave him the power to kill and wound as much as he did. If their were armed citizens there, the least it would have done is slow how many people were killed. He would not have had free reign walking the halls while slaughtering groups of innocent people.

Comparisons are pretty straight forward. States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports)
For a more recent statistical analysis, an estimated 1,390,695 violent crimes occurred nationwide in 2005. During 2005, there were an estimated 469.2 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. From 2004 to 2005, the estimated volume of violent crime increased 2.3 percent. The 5-year trend indicated that violent crime decreased 3.4 percent. For the 10-year trend (1996 compared with 2005) violent crime declined 17.6 percent. Aggravated assault accounted for 62.1 percent, robbery accounted for 30.0 percent, forcible rape accounted for 6.8 percent, and murder accounted for 1.2 percent of the violent crimes in 2005.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

You also state that "The British are not comming!" Do I need to remind you of a situation that happened not to long ago in New Orleans? It was not the British that were looting everything in sight, it was a city that was over run by criminals after Hurricane Katrina hit. Consequently, many of the residents changed their view on guns. They realized that although you may feel very safe one day, chaos can take place quickly.

Jethro: It is not quite as simple to check a box. Is that one of the steps? Yes it is. The information is then relayed to a computer system that does a complete background check. This system is run by the FBI. The VT shooter was also not treated for mental illness. He was required by the court to seek an evaluation.

Again, I must ask you to do some research on topics that you are debating. You make many statements that are easily proven false and invalid by a few clicks of a button.

"You have given into fear. And fear is ruling your life."

Do you buy car insurance? How come? What are the chances of you being involved in, or being the cause of an accident, as I'm sure you are a very careful driver.

Household insurance? How come? What are the chances of ever having to use it because of fire, tornado, etc.?

Smoke alarm? How come? What are the chances of there ever being a fire in your home, as I'm sure you take proper precautions...don't you?

Are all these precautions indications you live in fear? Come on, friend, I think you are smarter than to use that argument!

On one point we agree: chances are slim that you or I would ever need a firearm to protect our families, just as chances are slim a fire will ever destroy either of our homes. However, I prefer to keep ALL my insusrance policies. If you don't that's you choice!

Jethro, you're goin' off the deep end, friend!:
"What I've consistently said is that if you want to carry a handgun, become a police officer"

I prefer not to be a police officer, but I do prefer to protect my family. It's not a matter of "want to" carry a handgun. I prefer a handgun to a rat-tail comb for protection, thank you. A law-abiding citizen will not carry simply because he or she wants to. It's time for you to do some research to find out what is involved for a law-abiding citizen to legally carry concealed. You could start with VA.

"You make many statements that are easily proven false and invalid by a few clicks of a button."

Other than my mistake of "denied" rather than "infringed," point them out please. What you call mistakes are simply disagreements with you!

Please understand, I'm not trying to change your beliefs. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that law-abiding citizens who chose to defend their families and themselves with firearms aren't folks you need to worry about. You better be worrying about the ones from whom we want to protect ourselves.

Jethro, I do owe you an apology.

The statement, "Again, I must ask you to do some research on topics that you are debating. You make many statements that are easily proven false and invalid by a few clicks of a button."
was not made by you, nor directed at me.

Please accept my apology for that.

These "troubled, suicidal or homicidal" students already have access to guns! If there was a Pandora's Box of OK Corrals across the country to be afraid of because of access, it would already be happening! What we're seeing is isolated incidents that could be curtailed, where lives could be saved, if people on the right side of the law were permitted to be armed. Just because these campuses prohibit guns on their grounds doesn't mean those with intent to murder or commit suicide throw up their hands and say "oh well, I guess I can't have a gun on campus!" This is totally ludicrous!

Jethro,
Rus,

...for your reading pleasure:

http://abcradio.com/blog.asp?id=15663

Notice, please the site of the link.

Guntown, USA

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Please note the comparison to Morton Grove, IL!

Why are some people so afraid of armed law abiding citizens?

The police are never present when the violence goes down. It is immoral for a government to deny any law abiding citizen the means to self defense, when it cannot guarantee his/her safety. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that the police have no responsibility to protect individuals from violence. Is your life, or your loved ones so unimportant to you that you would abdicate your personal duty to protect it?