Can anyone explain how banning guns on campuses saves lives?

Davis County state Rep. Curt Oda received flak for pushing a bill that would allow weapons-permit holders to have guns on schools and colleges and universities. Oda later dropped the bill and is now pushing an end to so-called “gun-free zones” near schools. I’m not a fan of firearms but I can’t buy the argument that Oda’s proposals are unsafe, or might lead to an increase in firearms-related injuries or deaths.

Isn’t it pretty obvious to even the most fervent supporter of gun control that if someone wants to kill a person or persons on a university campus a ban on weapons is not going to stop them? And, although it’s no bet that anyone legally carrying a gun can successfully be a hero if a nut, terrorist or a spurned boyfriend goes crazy, isn’t that chance still better than the victims of the potshot killings that occurred at Virginia Tech?

I don’t plan to carry a legal weapon when I enter Weber State or anywhere else, even if the law one day allows it, but I can’t see a reason — other than a political distaste for weapons turned into law — to deny law-abiding people with concealed-weapons permits the right to defend themselves in the unlikely event an attack occurs. The dirty little secret opponents of Oda’s bills won’t admit is that gun bans do virtually nothing to protect people.

Share
This entry was posted in The Political Surf and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Can anyone explain how banning guns on campuses saves lives?

  1. dkm1469 says:

    Doug,

    When I was in graduate school, I’d often go the Library at University of California, Santa Cruz. I always laughed going there, because there was a big sign at the city limits proclaiming ‘Santa Cruz is a nuclear free zone’. I always thought, “Do the Soviets know that??” Banning something just makes it difficult for law abiders, criminals couldn’t care less.

    • Steve in CO says:

      If Santa Cruz is a nuclear free zone, then every resident with an ion chamber smoke detector needs to rip it out of their house. Every hospital within city limits needs to send their cancer patients on chemo and radiation treatment to a hospital in a city that actually has a city council capable of rational thought.

  2. hawg says:

    one of the biggest misconceptions about concealed weapons, and this is made by both sides of the debate, is that of a HERO. my gun is for defending me, not you, not him, not her, me. period. if in the course of saving my behind, someone else is also saved then that is just biscuits and gravy. but it’s for me. let the other wanna be victims save themselves.

    the problem is a campus that essentially says, “we cannot protect you, but we can’t let you do it yourself either.” which is what you are saying, good call.

    • Kev says:

      I have nothing to add, only “right on!”

      I have experienced violent situations where I simply had to step away — mainly because I’m not ready to take someone else’s life if I don’t know 100% of what is going on.

      And in that magical scenario where someone is swinging a gun around recklessly (making it obvious that they are a threat), it could also be considered “defending myself”, not “being a hero” to eliminate that threat.

      Lastly: “RIGHT ON”… responsible gun owners are being told they cannot defend themselves. This makes “gun free zones” easy targets to nutjobs who don’t abide by laws.

      But like I said — I have nothing really to add. (So how did I spend 3 paragraphs adding nothing?) :D

    • I carry. Someone commented this past week, and I told him – I am not going to go running toward the shooting when it starts. I am going to gather those near me, and place myself between them and the danger, but I am not stepping into the fray. My only intent is to prevent it from expanding beyond me.

    • Michael Trujillo says:

      Thanks, hawg, for the honest admission. I’m so tired of the hearing the argument that others are safer if there’s a CCW permit holder present. I have always maintained that if something happens, I’m not going to be looking for an armed citizen to protect me. As has been true for my whole life, I’m responsible for getting myself and my loved ones out of harms way.

  3. Someone who needs a gun with them to feel safe in the union building or chemistry lab has too many issues to be in college in the first place.

    Who exactly are these students who want to carry a gun to school? Maybe we should look at what’s going on with them.

    • blake says:

      These folks might have been a good start for the names you seek. Only one problem, they were all gunned down by a mad man and cannot voice their opinion. Please, don’t be shy, read all of their names and try to envision the terror of their last defenseless moments and the grief of their loved ones.

      * Ryan Clark, 22, a senior from Augusta, Georgia triple-majoring in Biology, English, and Psychology. A resident advisor at the West Ambler Johnston Hall Dormitory, Clark was killed in the dormitory as he rushed over to investigate what was going on and came upon the gunman. Clark played the baritone in the Marching Virginians.

      * Emily J. Hilscher, 19, a freshman from Woodville in Rappahannock County, Virginia.

      Second shooting: Norris Hall Engineering Building

      * Ross Alameddine, a sophomore from Saugus, Massachusetts.

      * Caitlin Hammaren, a sophomore in International Studies and French.

      * Matt La Porte, a freshman from Dumont, New Jersey in University Studies.

      * Jarrett Lane, a senior from Narrows, Virginia in Civil Engineering.

      * Henry Lee, a freshman from Roanoke, Virginia in Computer Engineering.

      * Juan Ortiz Ortiz, a graduate Puerto Rican student in Civil Engineering.

      * Daniel Pérez-Cueva, a student from Peru in International Relations.

      * Mary Read, a freshman from Annandale, Virginia.

      * Reema Samaha, a freshman from Centreville, Virginia.

      * Leslie Sherman, a sophomore in History and International Studies from Springfield, Virginia.

      * Maxine Turner, a senior from Vienna, Virginia in Chemical Engineering.

      * Christopher Jamie Bishop, an instructor killed while teaching a German class.

      * Kevin Granata, a professor.

      * Liviu Librescu, a professor and Holocaust survivor killed while holding off the gunman so his students could escape out the window.

      * G. V. Loganathan, a professor.

      * Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, a French teacher from Montreal, Quebec.

      * Brian Bluhm, a graduate student in Civil Engineering.

      The utopia you pine for doesn’t exist and gun free zones only invite those willing to kill. Sadly, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

      I’m also betting that the families of the victims at Virginia Tech wish someone with a gun had been present to protect their loved ones. They might still be able to hold them today.

      • What happened at VA Tech is tragic, no doubt about it. I’m also inclined to agree with Doug that a Gun Free Zone does nothing to deter criminals. Read the mugshots page and see how many drug busts have occurred in Drug Free Zones to confirm that.

        What I was getting at is, for each person who died at VA Tech, there are probably over a million students who have never encountered such a situation.

        When I see someone on campus with a gun, I don’t want to have to wonder if they’re about to open fire on the class, or if they’re just “ready” for that 1 in a million chance to defend themselves with it.

        • Bubba says:

          Have you ever seen someone with a firearm on campus? That kind of the point of “Concealed Carry”. You don’t see it.

          Incidently, as a Utah public school, it is already 100% legal to carry at Weber State. State law forbids public institutions from issuing their own firearms restrictions, other than what state law already restricts. This means it’s neither against the law nor school policy. Utah is the only state with such provisions.
          A law such as the one referenced in the article would only effect private schools such as BYU (Its legal to carry at BYU, but against school policy. It is illegal to carry into any LDS “house of worship”.)

          • lcb97269 says:

            Bubba, you are wrong that Utah is the only state that allows guns in schools. CCW holders in Oregon can legally carry in all public schools.

          • Steve in CO says:

            Concealed carry is legal in all public Colorado institutions of higher learning – even at CU now that they have been enjoined from their campus wide ban pending a review from the State Supreme Court. There’s not been a single problem with people who jump through all the hoops to prove that they are law abiding. Surprise! They continue to be so after getting the permit.

        • DanH says:

          That is what is known as a phobia, irrational fear. Any reasonable mental health professional can assist you in working through that.

          Before it was common for people to carry concealed fears like yours were used to restrict the rights of others. Now that there’s been 20, 30 and up to 200 years of history of concealed carry and open carry as a norm there is actually data to look at and make an informed decision rather than an emotionally based, and incorrect, one. The data shows your fear to be irrational. This means you need to work through your phobia rather than insist the rest of the world cater to it.

        • Barbie says:

          When I see a young man walking my way late at night I don’t want to have to wonder if he’s going to attack me or not, so let’s ban guys from being out past dark on campus.

          • Billio says:

            When I see a young lady walking my way late at night I don’t want to have to wonder if she thinks I’m going to attack her, so let’s ban women from being out past dark on campus.

          • Well you should hope that HE doesn’t have a gun to force you into a car or dark secluded place in order to attack you better, and then possibly shoot you afterwards.

            A gun may be of use, but then a gun may be easily wrested from your possession as you go to grab it, by someone with greater upper body strength and a height advantage. If you’re struck from behind, you may not even have a chance to retrieve a gun in order to use it.

            There are some good non-lethal self defense items out there now.

          • Ralph says:

            So what self defense items, pray tell, can’t be taken away from you as easily as a gun? It is suggested that a woman have a hand on or near the grip of the gun whenever it might be needed, and there are purses and other methods of carry designed to make this a trivial matter.

            Also, part of the mindset of carrying concealed is that you should be aware of your environment. This is called condition yellow. It simply means you are actively observing your environment. People who are in this state are also less likely to be attacked. Criminals want unsuspecting victims. Why bother to mess with a woman at night with her head glancing down alleys and behind bushes when you can go after a woman with her head down texting?

          • Steve in CO says:

            Catherine Burt: You seem to believe a trained CCW licensee can’t handle a weapon or that it will just be taken away from them. While anything’s possible, such occurrences are extremely rare for someone with training. If you took a CCW class (even with no intent of buying a gun or carrying one), it would dispel such misconceptions. People used to have such unhealthy prejudices against minorities because they never interacted with them and formed their impressions from news stories.

            Your logic could be used to disarm police as well. Every once in awhile, a cop loses his gun to a criminal in a scuffle. Some have died as a result. The was a recent fatal shooting in an Omaha high school by a cop’s kid who stole his father’s duty weapon. There have been several cases of federal air marshalls leaving their guns in restrooms. Even the BATF can’t account for several hundred pistols it bought for use by it’s field agents.

            Yeah, let’s take away cop’s methods of self defense because their guns get stolen or misused too. That’s the logical conclusion of your line of reasoning.

          • KO says:

            I think we could prevent rape by banning concealed penises on campus.

        • hawg says:

          no, catherine, what is tragic about VA Tech is that the campus would not, could not and DID not protect it’s people and actually denied them the oppotunity to protect themselves. you CANNOT argue that

    • Gil says:

      “When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.”

      http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

  4. Andrew says:

    Doug,

    I agree with you 100% on “gun Free Zones”. I do not own a gun. I will never own a gun. I think that the NRA are a bunch of nuts and I can see no reason why any private citizen would ever need an assault rifle or 30 round magazine clips etc.

    But it drives me nuts when gun control advocates try to claim that “Gun Free Zones” would have stopped the various horrific attacks that have happened in our country.

    I remember hearing gun control advocates claim in the late 90′s that if Columbine High School had been a gun free zone the massacre there would not have happened. Who really believes that line of logic? The two young men who attacked the school planned it out for months. they had multiple weapons, hundreds of rounds of ammo and even homemade bombs if I remember correctly. Does anyone really believe that if the had driven up to the school on the morning of the attack and read a sign in the parking lot that said “This is a GUN FREE Zone” that they would have said to each other, “Oh, how dumb of us to forget, this is gun free zone. Instead of shooting up the school I suppose that we had better drive up the canyon and shoot beer cans instead.”

    “Gun Free Zones” will only stop mentally healthy, law abiding citizens from carrying guns in those areas. Murderers, gang members, and the violently emotionally disturbed types out there will not care if an area is gun free or not.

    • lcb97269 says:

      Andrew, “I can see no reason why any private citizen would ever need an assault rifle or 30 round magazine clips etc.”

      The reason is exactly the same for private citizens as it is for law enforcment and military – to provide maximum firepower to handle almost any situation. LEO’s carry handguns because rifles are awkward to carry at all times, but the will use the handgun until they can get to a rifle or shotgun.

  5. DanH says:

    Catherine Burt,
    Perhaps you can share with the rest of us your secret to teleportation. Unfortunately I cannot perform that so I must do such mundane things as walk or drive both to and from my destination which means I might also stop for gas, dinner, to go to the mall and/or to drive elsewhere. Your ability to teleport is the only reason I have ever been able to come up with to explain people like your absolute lack of understanding that the start place (home) and the destination place (Chemistry Lab) are the only two places that you see the firearm being.

    I’ll make a deal with you. Since you obviously also have clairvoyance I’ll call you every time I leave the house. Day, night, weekends, every time. You can tell me whether I’ll need my firearm and if you say I do not and I end up being injured by any crime you agree to pay for all medical and legal bills stemming from the encounter. There, you have a way to completely live up to your convictions that no one needs a firearm. It’s a deal, right?

    • Clairvoyance and Teleportation are vegan superpowers. See my blog for fabulous plant-based recipes – and you can start getting your vegan superpowers today :D

      • DanH says:

        No wonder you don’t see a reason or need for the best defensive item on the market, you’re not within the same reality as the rest of the world.

        • You’re the one asking me questions about teleportation… how could I know what reality you come from…

          • sam wolanyk says:

            Catherine, you’re getting your ass kicked in this argument. Just admit you’re wrong, get some firearms training, and lose your hoplophobia. Hell, I’ll take you to the range myself.

  6. Rich Fisher says:

    @ Andrew… I really don’t care for your opinion and I think you should keep it to yourself, actually I REALLY don’t like your statement and I think I will report you for having a different view than I and have you investigated for free thought and speech.

    OK with that said, you have the ability and freedom to speak your mind, the goverment or anyone else CAN NOT TELL YOU WHAT TO SAY it is the God given freedom you have by living in this country, many people in other countries do NOT have that gift.

    Just as you have that freedom, not GIVEN TO YOU BUT YOUR INHERENT FREEDOM we have the freedom to own our as you call “assault weapons” which is a misnomer to begin with and our large magazines. There is no such thing as an assault weapon, this is just a term coined by the media and gun control zealots to cast a poor light on certain kinds of guns, usually black in color. I do not live in this country to be told what I can own or can not, just as you can not be told what your views should be and when and when not to speak out in the open. You can take it or leave it…and I don’t see a lot of people becoming illegal aliens by crossing SOUTH into the border or NORTH into the border so overall I think we got a good thing going here, if you do not think so then you have choices you can make. Yes your are welcome….the guns you so seem to hate gave you the freedom to make those choices to leave or not and to speak your mind. Convict and punish the criminal not the object that he used for the crime be it a baseball bat or gun.

    • lcb97269 says:

      Rich, actually there is such a thing as an assault weapon and it refers to a select fire machine gun, Not any semi-autos like ar-15′s, pistol grip shotguns or handguns. The government and media have misused and abused the term to scare ignorant people. The “assault weapon ban” didn’t ban a single assault weapon. It only put restrictions on guns that look like assault weapons.

      • Steve in CO says:

        lcb97269 wins a gold star. I would only add that not all machine guns are assault weapons. Real AWs refer to a class of select fire weapons that are indeed small arms, of low and fairly wimpy caliber. The M16 or M4 carbine would be good examples. The civilian AR-15 look-alike that is popular with collectors only goes bang once per trigger pull. This is true of a 1850 Colt revolver for God’s sake. Is it an “assault weapon too”? As for the “powerful bullets” this is also total BS. These rifles shoot a round that is banned in many states for hunting deer. Not because it will make the deer blow up or fly 60 feet through the air, but because it’s so wimpy that it fails to ethically kill the deer – IF it kills the deer.

        I promise you, Grandpa’s 1930′s vintage 30-06 bolt action deer rifle hanging above the fireplace will penetrate any police body armor. So for just once, can the gun grabbers use an honest argument or can they even find one?

  7. Mike in CT says:

    I have a question for those who believe I am some sort of paranoid nut case because I carry a gun.

    I have a fire extinguisher in my home. I am not afraid of fire or overly concern that my house is going to burn down.

    I have life jackets in my boat. I am alsoa good swimmer and was a certified water safety instructor in high school. I am not afraid of drowning.

    I always wear my seat belt when driving. I am not terrified of crashing.

    I carry a firearm on a regular basis. I do not fear for my life when I leave the house.

    What do all these things have in common? I like to be prepared. I don’t carry a gun because I am afraid to leave the house without it. I think what you are doing is projecting. You have an irrational fear that having a gun will make an otherwise affable, safety conscious person into some sort of deranged hot tempered freak who is going to start a gun battle at the first person that looks at me crosseyed.

    So I ask, who is the paranoid person? The person who sees a gun as just another object or the person who is so afraid of guns that they would not want to be in the same room with someone who has one?

    • NorminKC says:

      Excellent post!
      Can I have your permission to reprint it in the local newspaper?

    • Michael Trujillo says:

      Umm, Mike in CT, I hate to break it to you, but you have a fire extinguisher in your house because you’re afraid of your house burning down. You have life jackets on your boat because they are required by law. You always wear your seat belt because they are required by law or because you are afraid you’ll get into an accident and you don’t want to fly out the windshield.

      Being prepared means you expect something. You fear an impending event. Buck up, man. Everyone feels fear. There’s nothing to be ashamed of.

      Now, I, on the other hand, walk around unarmed. Why? Because I am more likely to die in an automobile accident or catch a staph infection than I am likely to be shot. Statistics don’t lie. So, it would be as helpful for me to prepare to defend myself with a gun as it would be for me to prepare to be eaten by a shark.

      Carry your gun if you must. But don’t get all snarky with pleasant women like Catherine. She’s not afraid of you either.

      • hawg says:

        and yet people get shot quite often as well as attacked by sharks. odds are odds are odds, and it’s your life, your call, no argument.

        but as I’ve said before when you are the person shot or eaten by a shark, ONE becomes a pretty damned important statistic, regardless of odds.

      • lcb97269 says:

        Michael, your reasoning is false. Being prepared for the worst is not fear. It is smart.

        And statistics are a funny thing. I doubt that any of those people murdered were expecting it. Still, being prepared and having a chance at survival is better than being a sheep praying it never will be attcked by a wolf and not being able to do anything about it should it happen.

      • Mike in CT says:

        Sorry Michael, Your reasoning is flawed. Being prepared is not fear, or perhaps not irrational fear which is what most of the anti-gun types seem to suffer from.

        An irrational fear would be to force my neighbors to have a fire extinguisher for fear that their house would burn down and spread to my house.

        An irrational fear would be to require by law that everyone wears a life jacket when they are near water because some statistic states that more than 1.2 million people around the world die by drowning every year, that is more than two persons per minute. From that more than 50 percent are children.

        I admit everyone has at least one irrational fear. Mine is big dogs. I don’t know why but I get anxious whenever I am near a big dog that acts aggressive. But the difference is I understand that it is an irrational fear and that the dog is probably not going to harm me. I don’t try to have the dog banned, muzzled or caged. Unlike those of you who want to ban gun ownership for no other reason than you are afraid of guns and the people who carry it.

        If I were like that I would not only be afraid of the dog, but the person who owns the dog. They only difference is the dog is capable of acting on its own whereas the gun can’t.

  8. Freddy says:

    What you’re assuming is that people will be \packing heat\ visibly and adding a false problem.

    Your reply implies that everyone who chooses to defend themselves will be strapping on an AK or wearing matched 1911s on their hips.

    I am not a fan of unsupported statistics, but in the varying \gun ownership percentage\ statistics, I’ve not seen a figure lower than 40% — some up to 60%. If we assume this to be a correct range, you can also assume that you’re daily surrounded by legally-armed citizens and don’t even know it.

    I’ve never been at the grocery store and wondered \is this person coming to hold up the store, or just a legal citizen\ — and mostly because I likely couldn’t even see the gun of the armed customer in line next to me.

    Just a thought…

  9. Fred says:

    Catherine,
    If you check the statistics you’ll find an amazing amount of violent crime on school campuses relative to the surrounding areas. Be aware that you may have to dig a while to find the data since schools try REALLY hard to bury the data and historically haven’t reported crimes into the national tracking databases even when required to by law. The preponderance is rapes and robberies, but assault and even murder are not unusual.

    There is a huge difference between feeling safe, and being safe. There is not a single police officer in the US who has the responsibility of protecting YOU, even there are a dozen within sight when you are being raped. Most LEOs would try to help, but they have no responsibility to do so.

  10. Deacon says:

    I think that only the police should have guns. However, until every last criminal plays along with my theory, I will continue to carry

    I am not an irresponsible phycho, I am not a cop, I am not rambo… and I promise not to act like any of those 3.

    I’m a legally armed citizen who chooses not to be a victim of a bully. If someone decides they’re willing for someone to die today, I will respectfully exercise my right to have a say in just who that person is.

    Otherwise, I’m a pretty calm person who you’d never expect to be packing. You’ll never see my gun and you’ll never assume I’m looking for a reason to use it. I hope it turns out to be the biggest waste of money I’ve ever spent.

    • Remember, though, that the 2nd Amendment was not written for protection from criminals, it was written for protection from the government itself. Since police only respond to incidents, not prevent them, there is no real reason for police to be armed. Let them keep a shotgun in the trunk of the police car, so they can respond properly to a violent situation, but take the gun off their hip, since 80% of their shots miss the target anyway.

      • Midwinter says:

        The second amendment was written because we didn’t want to maintain a standing army (we disbanded the one that fought in the Revolution) but knew that we might need to muster one up if the British came back. That’s why it says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

        • hawg says:

          you can argue whether or not we still need the second amendment or not all day. it says clearly that the right to private ownership of guns “shall not be abridged”, and well settled with heller and mcdonald.

          absolutely regardless of whether or not we need a militia today does not change the meaning or validity. if you don’t like it, change it. there is a process, but spare me the national guard argument.

          and what the hell is it with the stupid word puzzle below?????

          • Midwinter says:

            Hawg: I’m not interested in debating the 2nd amendment. I’m just saying that the claim that it is in the constitution to protect people from the government is nonsense, historically speaking. It’s there because early on, America had a serious aversion to maintaining a standing army (as I said, we disbanded the Continental Army), but needed to ensure that an armed militia could be mustered if necessary.

        • Paradox says:

          That certainly is one tired argument for a liberally-convenient interpretation of the Second Amendment, isn’t it? But, I’ll give you the same opportunity to defend your position that I’ve given others: If, as you suggest, the 2nd Amendment was only intended to establish what amounts to the National Guard, why was it included, of all places, in the Bill of *Rights*? Further, why is it the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects the right of the *States* rather than the rights of the *Individual*? Also, why is it the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that *expands* the power of government rather than *restrict* it?

          • Mike in CT says:

            The ammendment protect the right of the people otherwise it would have read “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the [States] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” or perhaps “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the [States to raise and arm militias] shall not be infringed.” But is does not. The right was given to the “People” not the State.

            The founding fathers were smart guys. They wrote what they meant.

      • Deacon says:

        You said:

        “2nd Amendment was not written for protection from criminals, it was written for protection from the government itself.”

        Respectfully, what, exactly, is your point?

        I’ve heard this argument a number of times. The only answer I can imagine would be:

        “We are now safe because the government looks after us, so we no longer need guns”

        Or do you agree with me — that as long as the world is a dangerous place, we’re still abiding by the 2nd amendment the way our forefathers intended?

        • David says:

          I wonder… how would you define a government?
          And this question is not for anyone specifically, feel free to comment as you see fit.
          Does the dictionary.com version cut it for you? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government
          Or perhaps would you acumulate the knowledge and experience you have gained from your years to form your own opinion and alter the definition to reflect what you have observed in this lifetime.
          A government is simply this: A criminal organization which has managed to grow powerful and strong enough to eradicate/”kill off” any and all other persons able to meaningfully oppose it. There is no government without corruption and oppression, but it is a new age, meaning they have just become more adept at concealing it.
          What Jonathan meant by that Deacon, was, Police carry guns not to “be prepared” in responding to incidents, but out of an age old policy by our federal government which itself harbours a fear of its own citizens. And in the same breath, to yes be prepared for anything they may encounter. And has made it so. How do you believe it began? Peacefully, in which all altercations were resolved without oppression? No no, police began as enforcers who carried guns as a method of coercion. And before that it was just people armed with anything that could be used to injure another person. It has since of course evolved into what we know today, but we are talking hundreds of years in the making. People, brush up on your history. Time changes everything.

          Yes you can talk of what the government does for us as a people. It takes a lot to run a country, I am not an without reason. But I dont believe in limitations or restrictions. It is possible to be a strong and powerful nation without restricting the freedom and innate rights of the individual in this country. I am not a fan of anyone telling me what I can and cant do simply because it does not “work for them”. Who is really?
          No matter where you go, there will always be people trying to control other people. With or without guns, they are just a measure of power. In a world without guns, it would be swords and knives and bats and other melee objects. So what is the difference.
          Governments authorize the use of deadly force by their hand in order to force their way on what they have staked claim to. Dont think for a second this government does not presume to own us. We are counted and coddled and molded and punished and instructed from near birth in the direction they want for us. And returning to my definition of government, they seek to limit us because as an individual who chooses to carry a weapon as a means for anything. WE have just become their opposition. In our ability to choose our own path they have lost the control they desire so much.
          There will never be an outright national ban on guns. We would cease to be a country. And I may be an anarchist… but I would welcome that civil war.

      • rspock says:

        Here is the 2A translated into modern day english (think Jules Verne or Shakespeare). This interpretation is supported by the SCOTUS Heller decision as well as historical documents such as the Federalist papers.

        The word “because” didn’t exist and “Well regulated” in 1790 did NOT mean lots of regulations – see how Verne used it in “Around the World in 80 Days in describing a clock in the story. As other parts of the Constitution describe, “militia” meant military eligible citizenry – not the National Guard.

        ——–
        Because a well equipped and proficient military eligible citizenry is necessary to keep a nation free, the right of citizens to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed.
        ——–
        Actual 2A:
        “A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

  11. Doug Gibson says:

    We just posted this column by JR Labbe of the Fort Worth Star Telegram that may interest the blog readers: Money quote: The question that gun-rights advocates want to respectfully pose to those adamant on restricting high-capacity magazine ownership is not “Why does anybody need one?” but “Why should responsible citizens not be allowed to own one?” … http://www.standard.net/topics/opinion/2011/02/08/high-capacity-ammunition-magazines-dont-need-be-banned

  12. hawg says:

    exactly!! why do people think seat belts, life jackets and motorcycle helmets are good prudent preparations but a defensive weapon is pure paranoia? because they’re are irrational hoplaphobes.

  13. Steve Stones says:

    Your chances of encountering someone who violently threatens people at a school campus is pretty much slim and none. Even if you were carrying a gun, it is likely you would be shot before you even have the opportunity to grab the gun and fire back. Do we really want a citizenry of people walking around with guns in their purses or pockets eager to shoot at any site of violence just because the media overhypes the few gun disasters that take place? Perhaps I should carry a rocket launcher to class too just in case our enemies start to blow up buildings and bomb cars? This is nonsense. I need a gun about as much as I need a hole in my head or an atomic bomb in my backyard.

    • mike says:

      Steve,

      “Your chances of encountering someone who violently threatens people at a school campus is pretty much slim and none(True fact). Even if you were carrying a gun, it is likely you would be shot before you even have the opportunity to grab the gun and fire back.(opinion)”

      Where is your supporting data that one would “likely” be shot before being able to use their weapon. You don’t have any. It’s another anti-gun argument that has no foundation or merit. Anti’s want to claim the odds are so low of encountering an armed criminal on campus, and then say concealed carriers would likely be shot before they could get their weapon? That doesn’t add up. How many people were on campus’ during past shootings, and how many were not killed(aka survived)? Do some math and one can tell that an armed citizen has the same odds of survival initially than anyone else and by having means to defend himself/herself, increases their odds greatly if they cannot retreat(fact). You can’t single out the armed guys as being shot initially, period.

      “I need a gun about as much as I need a hole in my head or an atomic bomb in my backyard.”(your opinion)

      Say that when you are getting shot at. Not having a gun could help put that hole in your head(just my opinion , no facts to back that up)! I do agree we don’t need atomic bombs in our backyards.!

      I am military EOD. I serve my country by disarming IED’s in Iraq and Afghanistan and someday possibly other places thanks to the minority of Muslims who have perverted their religion. One thing all EOD operators believe is that it’s better to be safe than sorry. It only takes one mistake or downturn in events to keep us from coming home, just like it only takes one bullet from a criminal stateside to keep me from going home. Therefore, just like in my job, I stack the odds in my favor as much as possible to protect myself and others around me. I will be damned if I have survived firefights, getting blown up (on multiple occasions), and coming back w/a broken body minus some pieces just to get killed by a criminal here at home because he needs a fix, his mommy didn’t love him, etc.

      On a lighter note, if our enemies start blowing stuff up here, a .45 would be better than a rocket launcher. That’s only if they are brave enough to be around when the detonations happen and make themselves known.(Yes I do realize your rocket launcher comment was not serious). Either way, the odds of that happening to the average person have to be so small we probably shouldn’t worry about it or prepare for it in any way, sorta like your beliefs with shootings on campus. We can just stay vulnerable and depend on the police or campus security to show up after we are victimized/hurt/dead.

      Either way, I won’t change your opinion in this short space, and I don’t plan to ever do that. I’m just glad we are in a country where our opinions can differ from each other and even from our own government. Freedoms are awesome.

      Take care

      • Steve says:

        “Your chances of encountering someone who violently threatens people at a school campus is pretty much slim and none(True fact). Even if you were carrying a gun, it is likely you would be shot before you even have the opportunity to grab the gun and fire back.(opinion)”

        The second part of your statement is complete baseless speculation with no basis in reality. Reaction time to an active shooter situation will vary depending on an individuals situational awareness but I think it’s reasonable to say that most individuals carrying a weapon would react within 5 seconds or less. 5 seconds is a long time, count it out to yourself. If there are 20 people in the vicinity of the shooter the odds are overwhelming that more than half of them will still be standing after that 5 seconds has elapsed. If there are only 10 the same is still true. At this point the person carrying concealed knows who the shooter is, the shooter, depending on his own situational awareness may or may not know who the person carrying concealed is. If there are two people carrying concealed the shooter is now at a serious disadvantage. Most active shooters are cowards. They are neither tactically or psychologically prepared for armed resistance. They typically kill themselves when police move in rather than engage armed law enforcement.

        If the first part of your statement is true then why not let everyone on campus carry weapons? If the chances of violence are so slim then we may infer that the overwhelming majority on campus are not prone to violence. If that’s the case then they can easily be trusted to carry weapons. The small minority who plan violence, which is already illegal, will not have the slightest concern about violating whatever weapons laws they need to to come prepared, so no prohibition against firearms is going to protect you.

        If you really believe that the victims being armed doesn’t make an active shooters job much more difficult you should compare the case of the recent Detroit police station shooting rampage which quickly ended in a dead perpetrator and minimal police casualties with and the VA Tech and other mass shootings where the shooter typically only stops killing when he gets bored or runs out of ammunition. To say that armed victims are not a serious impediment defies common sense.

        PS You can tell the VA Tech victims families about how slim the chances of being killed in one of those educational ‘gun free zones’ AKA killer safety zones, is. I’m sure they’ll feel much better. It’s better to have a gun for 50 years and never once need it than to desperately need it once and not have it.

  14. Billio says:

    When I see a young woman walking my way late at night I don’t want to have to wonder if she thinks I’m going to attack her or not, so let’s ban young women from being out past dark on campus.

  15. Amy says:

    For those who thing people are paranoid to carry a firearm, and think that there is “something wrong with them”, according to the DoJ, five out of six people will be the victims of violent crime or attempted violent crime during the lifetime.

    So maybe the question isn’t what’s wrong with them for carrying. What’s wrong with you that you aren’t?

  16. Denny says:

    I carry and yes I have a permit. I have carried for 21 years, and I have pulled it one time. The parties in question backed down. I was not looking for trouble but I did feel deadly force was going to be used. I would done what needed to done.
    I’m not saying carrying on a campus or in a parking lot will say your life. I know if someone was there with a CCW, and they could stop the shooter with a clear shot, I would be happy. You can talk pro’s and con’s all day long. Ask this question do really thing the bad guy is going to try to get a CCW? No because some starts do finger printing and back growing checks. You have the right to carry or not to carry, and that’s our rights. I think it is time to accept that too

  17. Billio says:

    Guns are used over well over two million times per year by legal owners to defend themselves or their loved ones, but those events rarely make it into the popular press. Anyone interested in seeing a few of the reports that are published, here and there, go to this link where some of the events are posted: http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/ . These reports are from people who, like me, hope to God they never have to use the gun they carry or own,but are forced to do so because of a \bad guy,\ and police who do not, and are not require to, and are not able to, protect them.

  18. hawg says:

    OK here is what I don’t understand. catherine and company think it is paranoia to legally carry a gun because it is entirely unrealistic to think a BAD guy might harm you. but then they believe it is completely realistic for them to fear that a concealed carry GOOD guy might harm them. why is that?

    • Steve says:

      Because, as you just quite elegantly demonstrated, they don’t think logically. That is not surprising, since, constitutional issues aside, to support gun control as a method of crime control in the first place you have to ultimately subscribe to one or both of two obvious fallacies: 1. Criminals will obey gun laws and 2. Successful prohibition of firearms is possible. Of course we all know that criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws and prohibition has proven a miserable failure every time we have ever tried it.

  19. Steve says:

    The hard cold fact of the matter is that anyone who is going to refrain from carrying a gun out of respect for the law simply is not a threat, and anyone who is a threat is simply going to ignore the law wholesale. VA Tech was a ‘gun free zone’ the killer simply ignored the law, as they always do, while his unarmed victims obeyed it. The result was that the killers mission was greatly simplified without armed resistance. Gun free zones = killer safety zones. Yes, it really is that simple, and, if you think otherwise, you are using faulty logic somewhere in your thought process.

  20. hawg says:

    yup, but wouldn’t you really like to hear catherine or charles explain why?

    • Dave says:

      Yes, please. Please try to back up your reasoning for believing that banning any kind of weapon will make you or anyone else safer. I have NEVER heard or read WHY or HOW banning guns will make everyone safer. It might be a “belief” you have, but you should also have a reason WHY you believe it. So please explain….

  21. smtimelevi says:

    Seems everyone has forgotten about an incidents where an armed female citizen saved who knows how many lives at a church shooting in Colorado.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

    This also oppens up another discussion. 9mm vs .45 acp , lol

  22. ABJ12435 says:

    Israel had very strict gun laws about 10-15 years ago where it was very difficult to purchase a handgun as a normal citizen and even more of a difficult time obtaining a permit to conceal them. Now, Israel has always had a problem with terrorists, but they had a very large problem of Palestinians going into shopping malls and schools and such and opening fire on innocent civilians. As a result of this constant barrage of terrorism, the Israeli government loosened their handgun restrictions and miraculously these types of acts of terrorism all but vanished. Every Israeli for the most part must serve in the military, therefore the majority of citizens are more than adequately proficient in the use of firearms. The point I make is this, firearms can be dangerous in inexperienced hands, but do you blame one’s pencil for mispelled words, no you do not, you practice until you become better at spelling, and even then if you still misspell words, it is still your fault not the pencil.

    There are three types of people in this world, thats it, the human race can be broken down into three categories, the sheep, the wolf, and the sheep dog. There is no denying that there are wolves in the world, animals that attack and kill there target many times to excess of what they can consume. In the human world these people are the evil ones, the murderers, the rapists, the mass killers that shoot up schools and churches. They have no regard for human life and they seek to get what they want when they want, they’re lust for violence can be unending. Then there are the sheep, the majority of the human race, these people have no stomach for violence, they live in the seemingly safe confines of their pasteur and do not like to burden their minds with the idea that there could be and are wolves in the world. They live their lives in peace until the peace is disturbed, in which case they look for someone to hide behind. In comes the sheep dog, the sheep dog is a warrior, a man (or woman) who believes in the sanctity of life and longs for a utopian world where there is no violence, but they know better. They know that the world contains bad people and they are willing to stop them if confronted. In times of need the sheep hide behind them ( law enforcement, military, conscious prepared individuals).

    I am a sheep dog, I do not enjoy fighting, but I will. I do not carry a gun solely for my own survival but because I would not be able to live with myself if my unpreparedness were the reason for your death. Life is a gift with death being the only certainty, make it last as long as you can. There is nothing wrong with being a sheep, and sometimes a sheep will fight back and get away, most of the times they wont, take your chances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>