The laws range from little-to-nothing in Alaska and Vermont, to an almost ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION in New York, Chicago and D.C., which are three cities with either the top, or close to the top, of the highest violent crime rates in the country. D.C., with its draconian gun control, leads the nation in violent crime, with a rate almost twice as high as any state in the union. So, does gun control work? Reported violent crime rates from the nation’s cities and states say it does not. Yet billionaires Michael Bloomberg and George Soros continue to tell us that we need MORE gun control!
Wonder why billionaires are afraid of an armed public? What is their REAL “control” agenda? You? Me? Yo’ Mama? All of the above, and MORE?
Well, then, does gun control prevent the slaughter of our youngest citizens in school? Colorado didn’t have “shall issue” legislation (the government must issue a concealed carry permit to any qualified citizen on request) until 2003, some FOUR YEARS after Columbine. Until then, Colorado had pretty prohibitive CCW regulations in most populated counties. And, strangely enough, Colorado law allows permitted carry on school grounds.
So why did Columbine happen? Would draconian laws, such as existed in D.C. before the D.C. Circuit dumped them in the trash where they belong, have stopped it? Well, they didn’t, now, did they? On the other hand, if the teachers had been trained, qualified and armed, would THAT have prevented or at least drastically curtailed the killing? I reckon we’ll never know, for sure, but could the outcome have been worse?
And now we come to Virginia Tech. Almost every Monday Morning Quarterback in the country with a pen has by now written their opinion on how it might have been stopped. More guns. Less guns. No guns. Police were to be blamed. Lock up the “mentally ill,” whoever THEY are. “Cop-killer” bullets were blamed. Everybody but your mother is to blame, and even SHE’s not safe from the MMQ’s and the idiots in the Brady Bunch & Co.
Up until a year ago, students could be armed on VT’s campus. And a school official, just a few weeks ago, trumpeted once again about how proud he was of himself for getting that overturned in the legislature. As a result, thirty-two perfectly good human beings have been used up. Murdered. DEAD!! They don’t EXIST anymore!
Thank you, trumpeting school official. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits for eternity, and may five hundred tigers break every bone in your body, beginning at dawn tomorrow!
The blame rests squarely with Sarah Brady and her idiot minions. The blame rests squarely with George Soros and Michael Bloomberg, and the Violence Policy Center, and the anti-gun activists in the American Medical Association. The blame rests squarely with the state legislators who voted to disarm the VT campus, thereby rendering it vulnerable.
The blame rests squarely with ANYONE who would disarm an innocent public and render them helpless against a mentally unbalanced dufus with a gun. And laying it ANYWHERE else is really STUPID!
Train, qualify and ARM the faculty and staff of every college in the country. Train, qualify and arm every student who has previous firearms training and experience. Many of our students are ex-military, and if they are qualified to be armed and kill enemies, they are also qualified to defend our children on college campuses against nutballs. Screen carefully, but ARM THEM!
TO do less is to kill our children. Enough of them have been killed. NOT ONE MORE, HCI! NOT ONE MORE, SARAH BRADY! NOT ONE MORE, GOERGE SOROS! NOT ONE MORE, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG!
It is time the lunacy ended. Arm the campuses!
I got that far, then it was obvious there was no reason to read further. I suggest, Chuck, that you still do not have enough of a handle on your anger to engage in a productive discussion on this subject. You must be aware that BMG has many “Brady Bunch” types. Telling them from the outset to go to hell guarantees a monologue. Enjoy your personal echo chamber.
I recon it was “The laws range from little-to-nothing in Alaska and Vermont, to an almost ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION in New York, Chicago and D.C., which are three cities with either the top, or close to the top, of the highest violent crime rates in the country.” that sent Laurel a runin’
<
p>
typicall when confronted with facts . . . http://www.bluemassg…
for Laurel, and she’d have to really try to make that different. She has great ideas, and points of view that I can usually accept, even if this time is a little different. That said, I will never hesitate to get in her face and let her know when I disagree, especially as much as I do on this subject.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
no matter what the differences in their gun laws, ultimately are ruled by the least restrictive laws, since anyone can freely travel between them. The only difference is what happens when someone in one of those places is subject to search and a gun is found (which generally involves some sort of criminal investigation). I believe most of the gun violence in the larger cities has to do with gang activity (and it is the gun violence that drives the enactment of stricter laws, of course). The freelance stuff–like the VA Tech shooting (and Columbine, the other school shootings, the Texas tower shooter)–always seems to happen in places with more permissive gun laws, in the South and West.
Diddly-squat to do with what happened at Columbine and Virginia Tech.
You are correct, Laurel. I am ANGRY! I have not stopped being angry since thirty two of our brightest and best got DEAD because of anti-gun people. I do not know how to NOT be angry when thirty two children die as a result of lunacy.
<
p>
Perhaps you SHOULD read the rest of the dairy. Then, perhaps you can tell me how the anti-gun forces can prevent the deaths of our children by disarming the campuses and rendering them helpless against nuts with guns.
<
p>
Just so you and everyone else knows, one of those kids at VT was the son of a close friend. A former campus minister from Roanoke, whom I shepherded for eight years in my PCA Ruling Elder role came home with the body and delivered the eulogy.
<
p>
The funeral was just really great fun. I imagine the other thirty-one were just as entertaining.
<
p>
If I abraded your feelings, I apologize. I think highly of you, and it is not my intent to do harm, but I will not sacrifice the truth for feelings.
<
p>
And I intend to co-opt the “Not One More” campaign and go after the Brady Bunch with a vengeance! You don’t have to like it, but you do have to understand that we who disagree with them are now a little bit upset with the anti-gunners. This needn’t have happened. That it did is unforgivable!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
thank you for your consideration. but you are shooting yourself in the foot with your guns a-blazin approach. firing rounds into the air won’t change anyone’s mind. as you can see by the responses thus far, it just turns people off.
<
p>
best to you in the northwest.
At this point I’m firing for effect. That may change … đŸ™‚
illustrate what would happen if people carried a loaded gun around every FUCKING DAY!!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!
Is that thirty-two children are DEAD because they, and others, couldn’t defend themselves. Exactly what is it that YOU understand that is different?!?
<
p>
I carry around a loaded gun every day, along with perhaps another seventy-five million Americans. I have a permit for the weapon, and I wouldn’t DREAM of using it unless it was absolutely necessary. On the two occasions in my life that I HAVE used it (without firing) the police agreed it was absolutely necessary.
<
p>
Helping bury a friend’s son, who was in his life a student at VT, really sucked, wouldn’t you agree? Got any ideas how we can make that NOT happen in the future?
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
Horrible idea.
NOW we’re discussing it again. This time, I’ve peeled it naked, and I don’t intend to dress it back up!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
… when you want me in hell?
<
p>
You’re not talking to me you’re talking at me.
and it isn’t working. 32 kids are DEAD because nobody could stop a mentally deranged murderer. Won’t you agree it is high time we tried it MY way?
<
p>
Columbine happened because two kids went ’round the bend, allegedly because of being teased. Are kids going to stop teasing each other? Not in THIS lifetime!
<
p>
Disarming the public only stops them from being able to protect themselves. Where our most vulnerable are concerned, they NEED, and DESERVE protection.
<
p>
The police can’t protect you, OR our children. If you doubt that, go ask the nearest cop. While you’re at it, ask him what he thinks about arming qualified and trained faculty, staff and teachers on campuses and in schools.
and hope to finish up within a year.
<
p>
If BU changed policy and encouraged guns on campus, I’d cease attending immediately. I’d ask that my advisor pack my belongings in some boxes and bring them to my house. I’d then ask him to help me transfer to another program.
Extreme? Maybe. I will not engage in a community that encourages gun use in civic areas. Period. My occupation allows me that freedom.
stop the violence against our children?
I don’t suppose there’s any way to get a “berate” button for diaries, instead of just having recommend?
<
p>
I’d love to argue against him and have a nice little gun-debate, but he told me to go to hell before I could even finish reading his piece. That deserves a berate!
help me
<
p>
everyone help me
<
p>
The big bad man told me to go to hell……
<
p>
And I can’t take it
<
p>
waa waa waaa
talking about BMG hitting a new low. But over here, you’re racing Repub Radio for the to the bottom.
“Funny how you’re over on RMG” check my profile (since you read Red Mass Group) you’ll see that I signed up yesterday for RMG. Left a few posts and will probably never leave another.
<
p>
Does it bother you that I post on Red Mass Group? I mean I was only there for a day.
<
p>
LOL
You need to chill babe. You can’t let guys like me get inside your head so easily. LOL
<
p>
Great points
<
p>
As you can see everyone here ran away.
<
p>
I agree with you 100% If Chow started shooting up my college and he entered my classroom and I had a gun. Yeah different story all together.
<
p>
They know it and I know it.
I’m 20 and a college student, but I’m a firm believer of respect and cohesive arguments. Things you’ve said, the above, and the asinine post at RMG are insulting to the college-aged conservative crowd, myself included. If you can’t come up with a complete thought and present it in a respectful manner (unless it’s a situation where such niceties have previously been dispelled) then keep your hands off the keyboard, because you’re embarrassing me.
Hey JoeTS, you don’t understand….I don’t care what YOU think.
<
p>
HERE is the issue. Thirty-Two kids are DEAD because of anti-gunners. The issue isn’t about who is, or is not, going to hell, and that’s just a great big dodge for people who have no ideas about how to fix it, but want to take away our means of defending our children.
<
p>
THAT’S THE ISSUE!
<
p>
If you have a better way, i’M ALL EARS. OTHERWISE, MAYBE IT IS TIME WE TRY IT MY WAY!
<
p>
best,
Chuck
but the argument that there is direct causality between 32 deaths and the lack of armed students is completely unfounded. Of course the example of the Appalachian School of Law is a great piece of anecdotal evidence, you can’t logically conclude that there would have been less deaths with armed students. One could easily deduce that the killer may just as easily cap those students, and more thoroughly enraged, continue his spree rather than taking his own life.
<
p>
While I would assume that allowing guns on campus would mean that per capita there would be so many students with guns, you can’t make the assumptions that
1) there would be an armed student present
2) this student would act
3) this student would effectively neutralize the threat
<
p>
All you’re doing is yelling. And while it’s important to yell sometimes, your priori is off.
“Of course the example of the Appalachian School of Law is a great piece of anecdotal evidence, you can’t logically conclude that there would have been less deaths with armed students.”
<
p>
But you can say this?????
<
p>
“One could easily deduce that the killer may just as easily cap those students, and more thoroughly enraged, continue his spree rather than taking his own life.”
<
p>
Could one also easily deduce that the killer may just as easily burst into a room full of student’s, start firing at students in the front row, and then get a bullet in the back of the head from the teacher?
<
p>
Could one also easily deduce that the 1 student could effectively neutralize the threat
<
p>
I think you and I can deduce all kinds of crazy stuff…..but I think the Appalachian School of Law example
holds a hell of a lot more water than anything I have heard from you.
32 deaths and no armed students.
<
p>
This is not backed up by fact and he cannot logically say that it wouldn’t have happend if the students were armed.
<
p>
That’s my point.
…the issue here because we are all ducking you.
<
p>
‘Go to hell’ isn’t a conversation starter and to expect it to be is stupidity.
<
p>
Please get a grip and summon up at least enough social grace and intelligence to understand that.
<
p>
You either want an conversation and are, at a minimum, socially obtuse, or you just want to yell at people and you are an ***hole.
With respect there is plenty of conversation here, even from you (just look at your post from 20 minutes ago).
<
p>
But clearly you are still ducking. You come back to what, give Chuck a lesson on manners and how to “politely” engage someone in debate? Come on? You’re hiding.
<
p>
You are still hiding!
<
p>
And believe me so do the rest of these guys, that’s why they are hiding.
<
p>
Chuck, I wish I could carry a pistol to class. I am completely helpless if another Chow starts shooting up the place. I don’t trust campus security because they don’t carry either. Regular police can’t get there in time. Mace sucks, and I can’t run very fast.
<
p>
I can only conclude that your idea offers me the best chance for survival. Let me carry. I’ll take care of myself.
are there any college campuses where gun totin is allowed? texas? alabama? louisiana?
“are there any college campuses where gun totin is allowed? texas? alabama? louisiana?”
<
p>
Does anyone here want to bet me $10 that Laurel will not even answer her own question? LOL
as far as guns on campus, I find the lunatics at BJU to be among my favs with this. Read to the bottom. Feel free to laugh the whole way down.
the reason i asked the question in the first place is i don’t think there are legal prohibitions on having guns on campuses. at least, not at private institutions. so i suggest to chuck and zombie that if there is sincerity behind their spittle, they start lobbying their favorite colleges to drop their gun prohibitions.
If you go to a family’s home off campus, you’re only permitted to watch G rated movies? Scar-ry. Close down Gitmo and send the “terrorists” to Bob Jones U.
The invitation to go to hell. So debate me.
<
p>
How will YOU protect the children?
<
p>
How?
<
p>
HOW?!?
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
I made the statements I did in my original post because I am beyond angry, I am DAMNED MAD! The politically correct crap from the left regarding gun control has gone way too far this time.
<
p>
If you take my statements as a personal insult, I feel sorry for you; no personal insult was intended, and your feelings rate a TWO on the scale where our kids are concerned. I am sounding a wake-up call for the anti-gunners, and allowing as how I am sick and tired of watching our children die because no one is allowed to save them from lunatics with guns!
<
p>
How would any of YOU like to attend your friend’s dead son’s funeral, because nobody could stop a lunatic with guns? Because nobody was ALLOWED to stop a lunatic with guns? GERAT fun, eh?
<
p>
Gun Control Freaks simply USED UP THIRTY-TWO PERFECTLY GOOD CHILDREN! And they used up MORE at Columbine. I don’t think I need to go on, because if I do, I will begin spouting obscenities.
<
p>
NONE of them need have died. Armed teachers would have prevented Columbine’s tragedy. Armed faculty, staff, and trained and qualified armed students would have prevented Virginia Tech’s tragedy. And specious speculation about whether they could have, would have, might not have been able to, maybe, possibly, ad nauseum, just serves to obfuscate, lending NOTHING worthwhile.
<
p>
For all of you who disagree, I don’t care about your feelings, I care about the kids. I don’t care about Sarah Brady, I care about the future of this country! I don’t care about the AMA and their lunacy, I care about stopping the lunatics with guns on our campuses and in our schools!
<
p>
The police can’t protect the kids; they will tell you that, if you push them. Michael Moore, and George Soros and Michael Bloomberg can’t protect the kids, all they can do is con you into disarming. Sarah Brady can’t protect the kids, and hasn’t a single worthwhile idea about how to do that.
<
p>
People responding have dissed the idea of arming the campuses. What they have NOT done is explain how they will protect the children.
<
p>
And I have just one question. Without arming the campuses, what will YOU do to protect the children?
<
p>
WHAT?!?!?!?
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
with the request of dropping their weapons-on-campus prohibitions? have you actually tried making the change you want happen? what does the chancellor of the university of washington, or seattle university or antioch college have to say on the matter? have you even tried contacting any of them? c’mon chuck, put some action behind your hot air!
I am composing such letters to:
<
p>
The University of Washington
Washington State University
Central Washington University
Eastern Washington University
Western Waswhington University
<
p>
I will publish both the letters, AND the responses (if and when I receive them, which I doubt — this state’s university faculties are looneytunes!)
<
p>
Grieving is sort of a full-time job, or I would have been at that sooner.
<
p>
I am in communication with others of my persuasion regarding a state voter initiative to facilitate that purpose.
<
p>
And you wouldn’t want to see my next phone bill . . .
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
i would think that private universities would be much easier to talk to about something like this, since they don’t have to answer to the entire tax-paying public. also, many private colleges & universities are more conservative, thus more likely to actually take your letter seriously.
<
p>
i do hope that your letters are a bit more calm than your blog posts. otherwise, you will be doing gun control advocates like me a great big favor. đŸ™‚ if you go the voter initiative route, will you be working with the famous tim eyman? i understand he makes a living off of this type of effort, but he wears chicken suits? well, do keep us posted.
Gotta start SOMEWHERE! Getting in the face of the liberals, which is a kind word for what the faculty of these WA public institutions are (say, somewhere to the LEFT of Vladimer Lenin!) is where I am starting. If you want to beard the lion, go directly to the den!
<
p>
As for Tim Eyman, I have known him for years,and he tends to be a single-issue (taxes) kind of guy. Our foci aren’t the same (Nor are our suits.)
<
p>
My letters will be inflammatory. I WANT the Academia to respond with heat, rather than light, because its really going to look good for them in print, now, isn’t it?
<
p>
Oh, it isn’t . . . ?
University of Pheonix seems like a safe place to send kids. But I hear most gun accidents happen at home, so maybe i should rethink that.
the court ordered psychological therapy should have happened. It didn’t.
<
p>
Secondly, if there were armed students and teachers, you still could very well have gone to that funeral.
I’m trying to understand your assumptions.
<
p>
Let’s say you wrote the firearms laws in VA.
<
p>
1. What would they say?
<
p>
2. Under your laws, what percentage of staff and students at VT do you think would carry?
<
p>
3. How would the gunman have changed his killing strategy, if at all? For example, under your gun laws, is it more likely he’d have bought a different weapon(s)?
<
p>
4. Given both #2 and #3, what do you project as the net casualities at VT? I’m assuming you don’t think it would have gone from 32 to 0, but I’m not sure.
If I wrote gun laws,they would be uniform for every state. I would assume (quite correctly) that the Second Amendment means precisely what it says, that the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms. [Funny thing about that, the anti-gunners seem to only believe “the people” applies to the state (militias) in the 2Am, but that it means individuals everywhere else in the BoR!]
<
p>
The right to bear arms (that is, to carry) would NOT extend to convicted felons, to those actually jailed for gross misdemeanors, to those under the age of 18, to those with ANY history of mental illness or treatment for symptoms thereof, except on the advice and with the consent of a medical board certification that the individual bore no problem, and was not likely to in the future. The NICS background instant check system would be expanded to include all such history, and reporting to NICS would be mandatory and immediately required for all folks treating such patients, as in, TODAY! States would be required to update their NICS reporting system to catch loopholed criminals.
<
p>
Upon NICS certification, any individual otherwise qualified would be permitted either concealed or open carry in any area except the following:
<
p>
Bars, Taverns and Saloons, and restaurants for those drinking alcohol. Drinking makes people stupid. If you want to drink, you won’t be armed when you do, and you can run the risk of not being armed if you wish to drink in public. (Who wants to be the “designated packer?”)
<
p>
Federal, State and Local Courts, but specially trained and armed Bailiffs would be present and vigilant in all.
Legislatures, Executive Offices and Residences (eg Governors and Presidents), military establishments except for military personnel on duty. Same requirement for armed guards.
<
p>
Public Schools K-12, except for faculty and staff over 25 years of age, with training in attack prevention and firearms use.
<
p>
That is about as straightforward as I can get. What if? You can ask, and I won’t respond, except to say, what if such laws had been in place at VT when Cho went off his nut?
<
p>
And as to 2, 3, and 4, You ask for speculation at best, and useless opinion at worst. You don’t need either.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
Thanks for the specific reply to #1.
<
p>
<
p>
I don’t understand your reluctance. You made a number of comments asking “how will you save the children?” Surely you are IMPLICITLY speculating that your proposed change in gun laws would have “saved” some or all of those 32, no?
<
p>
You seem very emotional about both current and proposed gun laws. So why wouldn’t you lay on the table straightforwardly what you think would happen? Don’t you precisely need to speculate the parameters of “what will happen” if you want to set public policy?
<
p>
Whether a surge in Iraq, or a biotech bond bill, or introducing merit pay for teachers, don’t all policy ideas REQUIRE speculation?
Sorry to take so long to respond, I’ve been travelling to places that don’t have the internet!
<
p>
You asked for it, here it is. Unless you find this wildly beyond reason, please do not refute this, as speculation is hardly factual, but here goes.
<
p>
“2. Under your laws, what percentage of staff and students at VT do you think would carry?”
<
p>
I believe that the number who would carry on VT’s campus would be about the same as the rest of the population. Hoover Institute estimates that between one and four percent of the general population carry a concealed weapon. I would not expect anything different from the population of VA Tech. with an enrollment, faculty and staff of close to 23,000, I believe that would equate to between 230 and 920 people carrying. Sounds like sufficient deterrent to me!
http://www.hoover.or…
<
p>
“3. How would the gunman have changed his killing strategy, if at all? For example, under your gun laws, is it more likely he’d have bought a different weapon(s)?”
<
p>
I doubt you could include Cho within the rational human population of the University, thus I doubt he would have bought different weapons. The intent of every person who has shot up a school SEEMS (speculation) to have been to kill as many people as possible, and at random. A rational person would not likely go in with guns blazing, knowing that the odds of someone shooting back were rather high.
<
p>
“4. Given both #2 and #3, what do you project as the net casualities at VT? I’m assuming you don’t think it would have gone from 32 to 0, but I’m not sure.”
<
p>
In Cho’s case, I doubt (but cannot prove) that 32 people would have died before someone took him out — maybe 7 or 8 at worst. But even if we could have saved, say, HALF of them, would it have been better to havevf an armed campus?
<
p>
Finally, I fail to understand your purpose for seeking this speculation. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
<
p>
Best,
Chuck