30+ Killed at VA Tech.

FYI:
Report of 30+ killed at VA Tech:

VA Tech Killings

speechless...

That's pretty awful...and they're saying that dozens more have been wounded.

Yes, unfortunately I'm sure it will spark a new gun debate.

A very sad situation. Words fail me.

I lived in VA for many years. A lot of my high school friends went to VA Tech when they graduated; the university has always pooled kids from all over the state, my area especially. I know many families in my old stomping grounds are getting hit pretty hard by this...

This is just awful.

This could be anywhere in the US. I work just off of UNC campus and this is a shocker. We have had school shootings and rampages here before but nothing in this scope. Makes me feel sick to my stomach right now.

Let's pray or think or remember for these people or whatever it is you do.

You are right on both counts, the guy was obviously nuts and had serious issues but that won't stop the anti-gun lobby from twisting this and using this tragedy to try and take away guns from sane law biding citizens. According to the police report on MSNBC.com the gunman was using a 9mm handgun and a .22 caliber gun.

You are right on both counts, the guy was obviously nuts and had serious issues but that won't stop the anti-gun lobby from twisting this and using this tragedy to try and take away guns from sane law biding citizens. According to the police report on MSNBC.com the gunman was using a 9mm handgun and a .22 caliber gun.

Sigh. My heart goes out to the families and friends of all those involved. Place one crazy person into an area with lots of people (school, train station, shopping center) and stuff like this can happen. It is one of the really tragic prices of enjoying our freedoms. The only real prevention is to limit freedoms, and I'm not willing to do that - I'll take my chances.

As mentioned, the media will now move away from trying to strip us of our 1st amendment rights with the Don Imus mess, and will now turn their focus to trying to remove our 2nd amendment rights.

I am anything but extreme on my political focus, but I find the media's tendancy to politicise just about everything almost unbearable.

It is ironic that the anti-gun folks won't see that this is an argument for more law abiding people to start carrying a gun.

Due to their liberal view we already have "gun free" zones in most schools across the country. This sets up the perfect area for a lunatic shooter because he doesn't have to concern himself with anyone shooting back.

Just one armed well trained professor with a concealed carry permit could have saved a lot of lives.

Instead they will ban some more "assault" weapons & pat themselves on the back - not realizing the solution is for the good guys to be able to defend themselves.

Amazing.

Could have happened anywhere, period. Places where you go to the black market it would have been worse.

There are already politicians making hay of this. I'm not sure which is sadder, the murders, or using them as an excuse for a political agenda.

They are both equally sad and unfortunately the political agendas are going to create even more victims of this senseless tragedy.

They are both equally sad and unfortunately the political agendas are going to create even more victims of this senseless tragedy.

TRAGIC AND SENSELESS!!! As far as the gun debate goes, keep in mind that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

My family and I are including the families of the dead and wounded in our prayers.
Via con Dios

Yet another tragedy, and I don't intend to diminish the severity, I just want to point out that 32 deaths out of 26,000 who attend that school is relatively minor. It could easily have been ten times that number. This is only the tip of the iceberg. In some parts of the world, this sort of violent death toll is almost a daily occurence.

When you are remembering these victims in your thoughts and prayers, I would also suggest doing the same for victims elsewhere in the world, every time you hear about them, if you aren't already. They are no less deserving of it.

Isn't it ironic, in Baghdad they allow each household at least one fully automatic firearm for just such a reason, yet here they use such incidents to further restrict our ability to defend ourselves??? This is the same government imposing these laws in both places. Go figure. I am confident that some of the wounded today would've liked to have been able to shoot back at some point.

Nonetheless, this loss is regrettable. There is no law that can be written that will abolish insanity.

Or student, people forget that the students there are not children. Almost all are adults (there is the occasional 17 year old). A large number are old enough to have a concealled carry liscense and buy a handgun. Unfortunately universities tend to have the view that students are children not to be trusted. I imagine there are a fair few young women on campus who would prefer the university allow them to carry a handgun then put in more lights or broken emergency telephones.

There is already talk on the radio here locally about moves to ban all handguns in the US. Save your guns and your ammo folks, the day when armed citizens, who believe in the Constitution and the freedoms that this country was founded on, to rise up in revolt of our oppressive royalty in DC is coming sooner rather than later.

Be an unarmed subject or an armed citizen...the choice is yours.

I don't think that's just the universities. You can't drink until you're 21 in most states (if not all now). Hell, I don't think you can carry a handgun in some states until you're 21! Yeah, you don't trust a 18-20 year old to drink or carry a handgun, but you'd let him have a shotgun????

You do wonder what would happen if someone did have a gun to counter act the guy. Even then, I could just hear the words coming out of the University President's and Police Chief's mouths about "Letting the professionals handle it.."

I wonder what would change a persons mind on gun control. Have them sit in their dining room or bedroom and have their friends in their living room, place a cell phone and a gun next to them. Tell them: "You have 2 tools at your disposal. A cell phone and a gun. Let's say someone comes in and busts in and starts arguing with your friend. The person shoots their friend. You only have 1 second to make a decision. Which tool would you use? Do you call 911 and wait 6 minutes for the police, or use the gun? Quickly please."

While in Iraq, I met a number of 18 and 19 year old Americans, some of whom were armed to the teeth and had already become seasoned killers. Imagine one of them getting wounded and being sent home before hitting the age of 20 and being told they are too immature to be trusted with a handgun. Ha!

I always figured that if you were old enough to hold down a regular job and pay taxes and go fight in a war like any other grown up, then you deserved all of the same rights. Seems to me an 18 year old can do a lot more damage with his voting rights than with a 10 round magazine of 9mm. Then again, maybe not. I suppose there's more than one way to influence policy.

That's the Dunblane elementary school photo from 10 or 15 years ago right? That tragic event, which was heavily politicized, essentially cemented the deal for the UK to ban handguns in the late 90's. Something similar will be in the headlines tomorrow morning in the US.

I feel for all of those young folks who died today and their families. My boy isn't that far from going away to college, and I think about what it's going to be like. Still, fear is never a good reason to change the foundations of freedom and personal responsibility that your society is built on, IMHO.

the shooting is indication of rising trend of suicider who want to commit mass suicide by killing as many people. this is a new disturbing phenomenon.

It isn't new. Disturbing, but not new- this kind of behavior is the very origin of our term "amok", it's either Malaysian or Phillipeno (sp, I can never get this one right). The Japanese and Chinese have similiar, uhm, "traditions" (?). Basically, some guy (it's almost always male) flips out, and attacks a crowd, killing and injuring as many as he can until he killed or incapacitated.

I was reading a paper on it a couple years ago doing a paper on spontaneous violent outbursts, and IIRC part of the leading theory was that it was partially a stress reaction to a highly stratified and hierarchical social structure.

"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government --and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey)

What would have happened today if some of those victims had been armed? And what would have happened if the shooter knew some of those people were armed? Would it have happened? Would the loss of life have been so high?

I wonder if anyone there who was anti-gun yesterday still is so now?

If a few students or professors shot the shooter as soon as he pulled a gun or fired, would the media see it as an ambush?

The horror of being there today is unimaginable. Watching death coming and having no way to fight back. Can't run, can't hide, can't fight.

I have no doubt that if the shooter knew there was a possibility some of the students/professors might be armed it either wouldn't have happened or the loss of life would have been much lower. Unfortunately, because of laws that usually restrict and punish those who follow the rules, most of us are just sitting ducks for the rampaging psycho. This just shouldn't have happened.

Amen

Our prayers and thoughts will be with their families for a long while.

On the SURVIVAL front.

Shall we open a thread to see if ANYthing could have been done in such a scenario. You only have your politically correct EDC or PSK.

Anyone ?

OK. This is what I think about this.

Having a professor or two or three armed will not help much. Remember there are armed police around, but you cant guarantee the armed person (police or professor) to be the right place the right time always. Unless off course you arm everyone, or EVERY professor and every janitor in every building.

There is any easy answer to this. So, I think we have to focus on survival education. We have to ask ourselves :what anyone of us whoud have done is we have been in such a situation equipped with only politically correct items.

Also, do you think schools or classrooms can be designed in anyway to make them less shooter-friendly ??

I can visulize future schools built with bullet-proof doors, even bullet proof lecture seats , when you hear shooting lie down behind/under the folding seat.


What a world we are living in !

While I am all in favor of allowing both students and professors to carry on campus, I'm not sure it would do any real good as far as the professors go. When I attended the University my professors were virulently anti-gun and I'll bet that most still are. You'd have a better chance of getting them to vote for Dick Cheney than carry a handgun. And simply carrying a gun is not enough; you must practice and--more importantly--have the proper mindset to use it if necessary. Unlike most professors, many students have not spent their entire lives sheltered in the soft bosom of academia. Some come from the street, some are ex-military, and some from hunting backgrounds. If I were a betting man, my money would be on the students rather than the faculty to be the group best able to take care of business.

I totally agree that the vast majority of professors & students are unwilling & uncapable to carry a gun. Also realize that the majority rules & Concealed carry will never happen on these "liberal" institutions.

However, if even 1% of sane & capable students & professors would start training & carrying it could absolutely make a difference. How many people were on that 2nd floor? Had to be at least 100 people & one person who could have returned fire could have made a difference. However, afterwards that student would be kicked out of school & probably sued by some of the other students for "endangering" their lives. Out society has become so removed from reality that a majority don't realize that guns are a tool that can be used for both evil & good. It is the first survival tool for those who are in touch with reality.

Look at the airline industry - not every pilot carries a weapon, but the percentage (I have no idea what that is) that do are enough to make the terriorist look for another strategy. Or at least it will give them a chance if they strike again. For me it boils down to at least wanting to have a chance to survive.

I don't think allowing a few professors & students is the absolute solution. But it would improve their chances in the future. And it would greatly improve the chances for those who made the choice to train & get armed.

Also think of those who have served in the military & then go to college. If we allow these men & women to protect us on foreign soil then why not allow them to protect the other students who are afraid of guns?

Did you see what the students did with the table? No one in that class room died so it would be a great strategy in the future. Teaching our children how to react in these situations is our duty.

After 9/11 Congress actually woke up & they allowed pilots to have the choice to train & carry.

How many American planes have been hijacked since 9/11?

The number of physicians in the U.S. is approximately 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician is .171

Statistics from Dept. of Heatlth and Human Services.


The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500.
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.

Statistics from F.B.I.

So, statistically, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

I'll bet that you know someone who doesn't own a gun, do you know someone who doesn't have a doctor?

I read that the European press is blaming Charelton Heston. Guess that means the Wright brothers are responsible for 9-11.

"Also, do you think schools or classrooms can be designed in anyway to make them less shooter-friendly ??"

From the Hartford Courant (CT) at http://www.courant.com/chi-070417vtech-shootings,0,3443502.story?track=mostviewedlink

"Among the dead was a professor, Liviu Librescu. Students who were in Librescu's engineering class at Norris Hall told the Tribune late Monday that the professor tried to protect the students in his class when they realized a gunmen was loose in the building... Librescu, went to the door and pushed himself against it in case the shooter tried to come in."

Maybe they should start with some locks on the doors?

From the same source:
"Cho was an English major whose creative writing was so disturbing that he was referred to the school's counseling service... but she said she did not know when, or what the outcome was."

Are there any gamblers here who want to bet that the word describing the outcome wasn't "nothing"?

I agree with the principle that students who are emotionally and mentally mature can and should be entrusted on campus with the same rights they would have off campus. I went to a school where security was the advisors to a very active gun club that maintained its own ranges and had secure storage on campus, and where people who weren't idiots could carry a small-to-medium fixed blade on their belts without too many people whining. I had a Ka-bar in my desk, and my K-22 in the safe in security for a while.

But I also see the other point. I got my degree last spring, and I will say for the record, that I would not trust most of the people in the dorms I was in with an unloaded baseball bat. Too much booze, too much drugs, and way too little concept of adult responsibilities in those kids. I was in the "adult" dorm, and parties unknown decided it would be fun to kick in a 10 foot long length of sheetrock one night. And the random profanities and homophobia scribbled on doors and walls, and the flushing of full rolls of TP.... The list could go on, but keep in mind that it was the dorm reserved for only those over 21. They showed by their actions they were not ready to be trusted to act like civilized members of society, even though they were "adults". They choose to act like children, they get treated like children.

I wouldn't have a problem with commuters who (legally) carry concealed carrying on campus, but it MUST be concealed and in its holster at all times. Heck, if I could have been cleared to carry on campus by being a commuter, I would have swallowed the obscenely inflated rental prices and done so. If there was a special floor set aside in the adult dorm for those of us who really were adults, I'd have been fine with it. But there are too many problems with them in any dorm I've ever been in, and for the same reasons why soldiers aren't allowed to have their privately owned sidearms with them in barracks. I do not doubt their effectiveness as a deterrent in a general and open population, but for this particular, closed population....

Thank you federal and state governments for creating an undefended, target rich environment.

I hope this plays out like the Luby shooting in Texas where PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. wake up and realize they need to be able to defend themselves. Only the elite have 24/7 armed protection. You and me better be able to protect ourselves and our families.

Why does a constitutional right end at the sidewalk of a government building? Maybe open carry should be limited, maybe not. But anyone with a CCW is an FBI certified good guy and should be able to carry anywhere a police officer can carry!

I think people should remember that such terrible events as this are big news because they happen so infrequently.

To put this in perspective, I took a look at the 2005 US traffic fatality statistics. The total deaths of people from ages 5 to 24 were 12,079. Now here’s the ironic part. Divide by 365 days per year and the average number of deaths of school age children per day was… 33.

That’s 33 kids per day, every day, for a year. I don’t know how much it would cost to put bullet resistant desks and doors in every class room on the off chance that an insane mass murderer happens to wander in, but I think it might be better spent on making the roads safer.

Likewise, trying to eliminate certain weapons will not “solve the problem” of homicidal maniacs. A gallon of gasoline dumped in each stairwell could probably have killed more people. It doesn’t take an evil mastermind to come up with all kinds of ways to kill lots of people if you’re not picky about the consequences.

The world is imperfect. Get used to it. Not all tragedies can be prevented. That's why they are tragedies. People still think they can be God and eliminate all imperfection, not realizing that wanting to be like God was the temptation that started ALL our problems.

Just to clarify some things, in the state of VA you have to be 21 years old to carry a handgun. Most students at VA Tech wouldn't have been able to arm themselves with a handgun even if they wanted to, and that has nothing to do with the school's policies.

I disagree with the idea that arming students or teachers at school will prevent an incident like this or "better the odds" of survival. The campus cops were armed AND trained, and they were grossly ineffective here (waiting 2 hours after the first incident to bother warning people is unacceptable, they should've cancelled classes immediately). Seems like if they used their first and most important survival tool, their BRAIN, many lives might have been saved.

My point is, most folks anywhere are not of the ilk whose first impulse would be to protect or defend, much less be capable, confident with, and actually carrying a weapon. You can't expect that of anyone. Given the choice, I doubt many of those students or teachers would train or carry a gun anyway, I personally don't know many folks who would.

Now if they could just develop a tazer with a 10 round magazine and a range of around 300ft. But even a non-lethal alternative such as that would probably be banned as well. Seriously though, are there any "legal to carry" weapons that would have been effective in this situation?

Ok, so now for a reality check:

Based on real world experience, if you allow everyone to arm themselves, then the threat will escalate. Instead of using a firearm, Mr. Psycho will switch from a directed attack to something with an area effect, such as a car bomb. These are impossible to detect, impossible to stop, and relatively potent for mass killing. Let me repeat myself from yesterday; Baghdad is under Martial law, we have hundreds of thousands patrolling that city continuously, and yet almost daily we have multiple suicide attacks killing at least as many as died at Virgina Tech, this amongst a well armed population as well. I've driven through the streets of Baghdad and through the markets and the number of civilians openly carrying automatic firearms is astonishing. You see cops and soldiers in almost any direction you look, and yet still the bombings continue. There's no reason to think that it would be any different here, so changing the defensive posture of the populace will only force the insane to alter their M.O.

That said, I think the element of surprise is something to be capitalized on. It is one thing for a would be gunman to know he is likely going to face an armed and able crowd, quite another for him to attempt ambush and receive unexpected return fire at point blank. Thus, given that a lot of schools out there have not instituted mandatory searches yet, my recommendation would be to pack heat to class anyways, and be prepared to use it, and don't let other idiots attempt to impede your objective of self-defense.

I still accept that firearms possession by the law abiding public is a fundamental right. However, I would not want to compel or encourage individuals who are not pro-active about the use of lethal force in a self defense situation into carrying a firearm on their person or where it can be easily deployed. Right now I would say that the majority of our citizenry has no business carrying a firearm with the intent to use it for self defense, as they lack the necessary skill, maturity, and will to use one properly.

I still say that the worst is yet to come, and it will be horror on a scale that will dwarf 9-11. So far we've only faced reckless crazy people with little or no planning or access to the right munitions. There will come a time when the public will face a well organized, well armed, and fully capable and willful assailant(s) that will truly break our hearts. While this current situation and the many before it were all grievous, really they pale in comparison to what remains probable to occur.

What really peeves me is how our media is reacting to this event, like it is such a greater calamity than what is happening to people elsewhere. The location of the event ought not make any difference. Just shows how truly out of touch we are with the reality of present day events.

With all due respect Micah, not exactly an accurate cause and effect argument.

1) how many actual hijack attempts have occured since 9-11?

2) Of those, how many were thwarted by armed pilots? (BTW how does this number compare to the number of pilots busted for flying while intoxicated?)

3) How many hijack attempts were thwarted by increased on board security (sky marshalls)?.

The variables can go on ad nauseum (also include the fact that anyone who attempted to hijack a plane would be stomped into a greasy spot by the passengers before the pilot even got out of his/her seat to shoot).

Ben, you and I don't always completely agree, but this time, 100% with you on this one.

33 people is chump change.

More people between 18 and 21 will kill themselves with narcotics and alcohol in manners that don't involve vehicles today, but no one reports it. More will be perminantly injured.

More than that will be killed or maimed because they decided to drive too fast given the condition of the road and their vehicles. It's nothing.

That isn't someplace else, that isn't happening to some different group. This is what is happening in this country, right now, and it is self inflicted.

I agree. Sadly, to the media this is little more than a ratings bonanza. Do we really need a thousand talking bubbleheads giving us their interpretaion of the incident on 100 different channels when they all say the same thing? Here's an interesting take on the reactions and media coverage by mid-east specialist Juan Cole.



http://www.juancole.com/

Unfortunately what will happen is this will be used to ban more guns and make them harder to obtain so the exact same outcome will happen when the bad guy can't get a gun he will just turn to something like a bomb.

Still as pro-common-sense-gun-laws as before.

Gun control is not a black/white, either/or proposition.

That's a scare tactic (unfortunately that works very well).

If someone wants to imagine what would happen if a professor or another student was packing a fire arm to class, also imagine what would happen if it had been harder for the disturbed young man to have gotten a gun in the first place or if he had to wait longer.

I wish I had a penny for every "what-if".

I have dreaded this reaction almost as much as the non-stop media hype and politician posturing that follows this sort of thing that makes a reasonable assessement and fixing of problems impossible.

I felt the same way after 9-11. I feared that we Americans would turn on ourselves and abandon patience and reasoned action and my fears were realized.

I want everyone to engage in a little exercise during tomorrow's commute to and from work.

At each traffic light, imagine the people in the cars next to you or sitting on the bus with you carrying a gun.

Which one of you employees/coworkers do you NOT want to be having a gun on their person?

Are you comfortable with that thought?

And before you think "as long as I have my gun, bring 'em on!!" , look around you at how many people are really around you, out of your line of sight for any given second.

How many other people around you are intended targets in which you are just in the way?

How many of them are around your children, or spouse when you and your trusty side arm are not there to protect them.

Do you really want every person in resturant armed including the obnoxious jerk screaming at waitress at the table across the way?

When you were in school, how many of your teachers would you trust carrying a gun to class (honestly).

For those reading and posting in these forums that have actually been shot, how many saw it coming?

I don't want guns outlawed.

I do want some restrictions on what kind of fire arms are available to the general public and some restrictions on who can purchase a fire arm and where it can be carried. (Do you really want the alcoholic down the street or next door to have a stock pile of fully automatic weapons in his house when he loses his job?)

I want these restrictions to be based on careful, reasoned thought, not bumper sticker slogans ("from my cold dead fingers...").

We left that part of the American Old West behind for a reason.

I understand the anger and fear behind the arguement.

I feel it too.

Especially when I look at my daughter dancing in the living room behind me while watching "Dancing with the Stars".

It sits in my stomach like a sickening rock and it will be there for some time to come. It's why I didn't sleep last night, won't sleep much tonight, and am tearing up as I write this.

But we don't solve this (safety of those we love) or any other problems by abandoning our reason and act out of fear and anger.


Sorry for the rant gang, but too many people have been killed because of those that feed and manipulate the fears and anger of others (historically and recently).

Ben,

How much training (official and cultural) did these 18 and 19 year olds get before they were forged into someone you trusted with a weapon?

These men and women have earned that trust.

The spoiled son of a city councilman with connections and money hasn't, but if one can legally CC on campus so can the other.

I'm seeing a lot of folks posting using the best possible example (or themselves) as who should be allowed to CC, but if it's a right for one, it is a right for the other.

Check the violent crime rate for Kenesaw Georgia. They passed a law requiring all home owners to possess & know how to use a firearm. Their rate dropped to 1/4 the national average for their population range when I looked it up (it's been a while). The way it was written there are enough loopholes that someone who was strongly against it could find a way not to.

Ironraven,

I think our differing viewpoints at times are a good thing. It would not be nearly as enlightening if we all shared the same opinion all the time. Our way stimulates thought better.

Samhain,

Having been on the streets in Iraq during rush hour or at the checkpoints, I don't have to imagine what it is like to consider anyone pulling up alongside as someone with his finger on the trigger ready to send both of us to see Allah. Let me assure you and the rest, it is most unsettling and frustrating, but still a reality. Yours is a good point made. As for the right to keep and bear vs being actually qualified to do so, I think I distinguished the difference and acknowledged both the comprehensive right of all law abiding citizens and the necessary desire that they be both willing and able to use the tool as intended. The Kenesaw GA example cited by UTAlumnus would support my position, in that the law both acknowledges the right and requires competency. There will always be "Conscientious Objectors" in every crowd, and the law ought to allow an exception for them to waive their rights at any time.

A responsibly free society will allow the law abiding citizen to exercise his right to defend himself and expect him to do so responsibly. To do otherwise is ultimately counter-productive for the individual and the society, and has always proven to be so. To attempt to disarm the general public is always an exercise in futility and ultimately leads to a social failure.

Unfortunately in Iraq, there are a lot of really irresponsible and immature gun owners who do foolish things. Then again, we have our gangs as well, don't we?

And they are a suburb of Atlanta, which for a long time was one of the ten deadliest cities.

I let my family and friends know how things stand when I won't be seeing them for more than a few hours, and I expect to die every day. Too many risks, too many misapplied assets, too many people who want to give bad luck some help to not do that.

I know it sounds morbid, but it makes you welcome even mondays. Even if you still want to drop stupid people in a dry well.

Samhain -

A very reasoned, and reasonable response.

I agree with you completely, and this incident most certainly does not make me wish for more lax gun laws, nor for an automatic weapon in every home (look how well that's worked out for Iraq, for example).

Common sense, reasonable controls. Personally, I believe in "shooter licenses" that require demonstration of skills, knowledge, and stability (much like a pilot's license).

Very well said. Just one more thought - even if you are armed it might not help much in a situation like this. The students and professors in that building had no advance warning of the attack until the gunman opened fire. It was just an ordinary day, still fairly early in the morning. We can only try to imagine the panic that broke out when the victims suddenly realized they were under fire. Even if some of them had guns, how many would actually have managed to shoot back effectively?

Now, with the benefit of hindsight the victims could have fought back, guns or no guns. There was apparently just one gunman. He had to reload, he was shooting at close range and he was basically alone against several hundred people. If just one of the victims had the composure to strike or tackle him, smash him with a chair, fire extinguisher or whatever was at hand it would have ended the situation right away. But we know that didn't happen. Clearly, the fear and surprise was overwhelming. Nobody in that building was mentally in a position to fight back. If they had guns it might only have made everything worse. Spraying bullets at anything moving, causing friendly fire and more unnecessary fatalities. Without a proper mindset no weapon can do any good. And in the modern Western society most people are simply too out of touch with real world violence to react correctly under stress.

I have no TV, but I guess what is certainly said/shown on french TVs.

Yesterday, on a french radio :
- the radio journalist was interviewing another french newsman, living in the USA ; and was accusing the "free" sales of firearms. The one living on your side of the pond replied "well, it's wrong to say firearms can be bought without any control" and explained there indeed are checks and controls.
- one minute after that explanation, the first journalist staded once more time "as anybody can buy firearms without any restriction in the USA ...."

I guess some people have preconceived ideas and won't let them go, whatever you say...


A few years ago, a madman killed 4 or five people, here in France.
The immediate reaction of the journalist on the same radio : "we need new laws, more restrictive laws.."
He did not even know what the laws were, in France, at that time.
In fact, if existing law had been correctly applied, by those responsible for its application, this drama could have been prevented... (the killer was known to be insane, having already uttered threats to his physician + he was no longer allowed to possess the guns he had).

In The Netherlands, the shooting was also front-page news. I want to wish all of the victims and families a lot of strength.

This made me realise that something similair could happen anywhere, even at my own school.

Don't worry Alain, our media is just as bad as yours is. All the news that's printed to fit, and only if it fits their world view.

Well, while we are at it why not extend that to the rest of the Bill of Rights? How about requiring a license to vote? Judging by the results of recent elections we can make a pretty good case for that. How about requiring a person to have a government permit before they can write a letter to the editor? Here's one: let's require anyone who wishes to express an opinion on ETS to at least have a college degree! After all, I have one so it sounds pretty "reasonable" to me. Let's allow the cops to beat confessions out of suspects too. Statistics prove that most of them are guilty anyway, right?

No. The Bill of Rights--including the 2nd Amendment--is there for a reason. A free society is always going to have some individuals in it who abuse that freedom. That is just the price we pay to live in it. But decent, law abiding, responsible, and sane people are still the majority in this country. Placing restrictions on their liberties will do absolutely zero to deter the criminal element.

Armed citizens stop criminals every day. If such mayhem were really occurring don't you think the oh-so gun-friendly press would let us know about it? This myth about "spraying bullets" and "friendly fire" has somehow taken hold in the minds of some, but there is really no evidence for it, at least in the context of gunfights involving law-abiding citizens. Gangbangers are obviously a different story--they don't care who else gets hit. We do.

You have made my point for me. As far as I know there have been zero hijack attempts. It's called deterrence. Stronger doors & an armed pilot have halted the hijackings!

The shoe bomber was just going to blow the plane up but the passengers took him out.

The planes are safer now because Americans have figured out they need to fight back instead of just rolling over for the attackers. I will be very surprised if the terriorists try to use a plane when they attack next time.





There are already laws in place to not carry a gun onto that campus. The law was ignored by the shooter. You can make it illegal to carry a gun anywhere in the USA, but that isn't going to protect your child.

If this guy had not been able to buy that gun in at the store he could have very easily bought it illegally off the street. Creating a "gun free" zone just makes it easier on the shooters as they don't have to be bothered by someone shooting back.

Anti-gun laws have not & will not protect us. Look at the ccountries where guns are outlawed. They still have shootings because the criminals don't care about the laws.

If there was a local private school where the teachers had a gun safe in every room & the teacher was well trained on how to use that gun I would do everything in my power to send my kids to that school - most teachers are there because they love those kids. Look at the teacher who sacrificed his life while his students jumped out the window.

I did that this morning. It didn't scare me a bit, especially when I considered that those people were sitting behing the wheel of what could become a 3000 lb. killing machine. But none of them were trying to kill anyone, intentionally anyways. That's the way it is with gun owners too. For every armed criminal there are hundreds of decent people who work for a living, just like for every psycho behind the wheel there are hundreds who drive peacefully to work every day. Where I live a lot of the people around me legally carry guns. They keep them concealed and go about their business, and nobody is the wiser.

One of the few positive things in this situation was that the cops have learned the lesson of Columbine & stormed the building right away. They didn't wait for a couple hours while more victims could bleed to death. I realize they didn't get there in time to stop the shooter (which is why I'm for CC) but they saved lives for sure. I saw a interview with one of the local surgeons who talked about several that ended up in critical condition that are going to make it because they got to them quickly.

Ben,

I value your opinion (and your service to our nation)as I know that it comes from an informed point of view.

A common theme that I'm picking up on in a lot of folks postings is that I am perceived as advocating for taking away everyone's guns.

That's a response I pretty much expected when I first posted (and voluntarily put the target on my head).

On my first post on this subject I stated out that gun control is not a black/white, either/or proposistion.

Gun control is not anti-gun.

I simply want people to stop and think. Not react to the emotion of the moment, or some romantic image of the past or movies in deciding public policy.

If there are going to be new or amended concealed carry laws, they must be very carefully thought out, made stringent as hell, based on need and competency and not on preventing VT from happening again.

To pass/amend laws for the purpose of preventing another VT is to base those on the raw emotion of the moment which is never wise in the long run.

We as a nation have elections coming up. Both sides will be flashing images of VT on the TV to bolster their position and demonize their opponent.

There is a reasonable middle ground for all of us. That is what I want people to think about. We do not have to allow ourselves to get sucked into the polarized "if you're not with me, then you're against me" trap.

Nowhere have I advocated taking away people's guns. I have advocated for reasoned thought in gun policy.

For those that have cited law enforcement statistics for supporting concealed carry, I always defer to hard data. If the current local laws are stringent enough to ensure public safety and the data backs that up, then let the laws stand. I can have no reasonable arguement against that.

I will vehemently argue against weakening those laws or starting to broaden the scope of CCW laws in hopes of preventing VT in the future (that again is emotionally reactionary and will be coming to a legislature near you soon).

The voice in the wilderness; it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

Samhain, you should study history more. When concealed carry bans have been over turned by the state courts or legislatures, or made less restrictive, the violent crime rates drop. You can look it up yourself- Florida and Texas are great places to start as they went from highly restrictive concealed carry laws to what are called "shall issue" permits. The places where concealed carry is basically illegal for the common person, such as NY, Ca, parts of Illinois or DC, the crime rates are much higher.

Or you can look at statistics. In Massechusettes, it is practically impossible to a CCW permit without being connected. In New Hampshire, it's easy and fairly inexpensive. New Hampshire counties that now serve as outer suburbs of the Boston metroplex have decidedly lower rates of violent, random street crime than their neighbors 10 miles south.

The laws regulating concealed carry in all of these states is a matter of public record, as are the procedural difficulties above and beyond the letter of the law, and the crime rates by county. Look particularly counties with similar population densities. I'd invite you to look at when those laws passed, and the non-domestic violent crime rates.

I say invite because I don't think you are willing to reexamine your beliefs. If you can provide compelling evidence based on logos, rather than pathos, I am willing to examine it. But I don't think you can; if you can, you'll be the first in 20 years.

As compared to the Swiss who IIRC have universal service & send the issued weapons home with them when their requirement is over?

That's why I watch Fox News for national stuff. IMO they come closest to impartiality the way news is supposed to be reported.

CNN anchors let their bias show way too much in comparison. Paul Harvey has a similar problem. I quit listening to him when I heard one of his news reports about a proposed change to the stem cell funding requirements & noticed the severely loaded choice of words he used.

The local stations have forgotten the difference between news and Warm & Fuzzy stories. They run for 90 min. & tell us the same news that used to fit in 30.

I'd actually prefer to both broaden the scope & make them more stringent at the same time. The way they wrote the law here you can't carry where alcohol is served. This includes restaurants that mainly serve food.

My preference would be that 1. Make the CCW qualifications more difficult, 2. Allow ccw anywhere except inside a courtroom with the requirement that if you carry you or maybe your party DO NOT drink

Or make a distinction between bars & restaurants with the requirement that if you CCW you DO NOT drink instead of #2.

With that I think we are moving from different directions towards the same understanding, more or less.

I think you are pointing to the politically responsible side of the issue, and I am pointing more towards the socially responsible side. Both of us seem to be pointing to the same center point, just differing aspects. You are making statements, and I am qualifying them, which seems complementary to me, and not at all antagonistic.

Good on ya, mate.

Thanks Benjammin, I needed that.

Oh, we've beated on this horse a lot.

They all have thier own biases. First rule of human intelligence- your sources have a biases. First rule of pre-digested intelligence- analysts have thier own biases, and thier superiors have thier own agendas.

Multiple sources, preferably ones with different biases. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and the more sources you have the easier it is for you to see it.

See, now we can start working out the middle ground where compromise can be found.

We as a nation just have to get past the reflex "if you ain't with me, you're against me" point.

Any arguement for gun control is not an arguement against guns no more than speed limits and driver's licenses are anti-car (may not be an exact analogy but ya'll get the picture).

It's not an all or nothing proposition.

The debate is so polarized that neither side listens to the other or is willing to acknowledge that the opposing position has any merit.

As a citizen, I am willing to carefully and objectively consider laws that would allow CCW in specific circumstances/locations accompanied with very stringent requirements.

I'm just fearful of the blanket strapping on of fire arms to walk around the mall because their scared and angry (or their Viagra has kicked in and they're feeling frisky ).

True, no one has argued that point here (yet) but it will come to counter the "take away all guns" arguement. Both are emotion-driven and get us nowhere.

You make a good distinction between resturants and bars (volume of alcohol being consumed vs food consumed, lingering time, and statistical frequency of location specific violence).

Again, a national debate based on careful, reasoned, objective data and not the knee-jerk "they'll take my guns away over my dead body" arguements that get us nowhere.

For the record, if there was someone arguing to ban all civilian-owned fire arms, I would be arguing against them too.

Tell you what, when they start teaching firarms safety in school, then maybe I will consider getting behind the establishment and agreeing to some funding for legitimate programs. I taught Hunter Safety because it is required for most folks to get their first hunting license in many states. The parents had a vested interest in their children's successful completion, and those who didn't take it seriously never completed the program, either quitting or getting bounced. It is funded by hunters and I felt it was the right thing to support, so I got involved. Nothing felt better than to take lumps of clay and stuff them with a healthy dose of knowledge and respect so that all the novelty of firearms was wiped from their minds. There will always be the one or two rare students who will comply and subjugate themselves long enough to get through the program, then screw around later on, ignoring all the training, and eventually they lose their privileges anyway, sometimes tragically. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to use public school facilities to teach our program, so we look to places like churches, Masonic, VFW and other fraternal lodges, occasionally civic centers who are not overly paranoid about liability, and sometimes private facilities like Sportsman's Warehouse if they have the room.

The point is, I want to see our leaders get more pro-active about the education aspects, and not so alarmist about the whole business that it draws the wrong kind of attention to such events. I firmly believe that if the kids at Columbine had been put through a program like what we taught, there's a darned good chance they never would've gone forward with their little plan. As for the latest nutso, he is a good example of how badly our system can fail. How many laws did he break, and yet the only one that people seem so fixated on is the murder. I will be happy to hear about how the investigation leads to indictments against the criminals that sold/gave him the firearms, the hospital administrators that discharged him, all the parts of the system we spend so much money on to ensure this sort of scenario can't progess in the first place that didn't do their job. If someone must be villified, make it the incompetents that let this happen despite all the opportunities to prevent it, rather than attacking our rights once more. Get the people we elected and appointed to start enforcing the existing laws. If not, then making more laws won't do us any better.

Samhain, Along with felonies the one thing I would give you in a second is that if anyone has ever been deemed "mentally unstable" by a mental health institution like this character was then they should NEVER be able to pass a background check. In my mind this would include situations when they were a teenager. The way I understand it now once you turn 18 you get a clean slate - I would change that. So there is definitely some middle ground, but as a general rule the more mentally stable, well trained law-abiding citizens who are carrying the better, IMO.

Unfortunately it looks good and is so much easier for a politician to pass a new law. "Look at me! I'm fighting crime!" Then to provide the personnel and funding to enforce the laws on the books. And just as unfortunately, most people don't notice the difference between shamming and actually doing work, nor do they want their taxes raised for more cops or health workers. Easy and obvious nothing trumps tough behind the scenes work every time.

Is this actually occuring anywhere? Alaska and Vermont both have practically no state restrictions on the carry of firearms by law abiding citizens. If it were happening I would expect it to happen there. I suspect that it isn't, therefore I am hesitant to support increased restrictions on the carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens based on irrational fear.



You are right. They are both anti-freedom. The difference is of course that there is no mention of motor vehicle operation in the Bill of Rights.



I'm all for that as well. A good compromise would be that as a law-abiding, non-drug using citizen who has never been convicted of a felony and who is not currently undergoing treatment for any mental disease or defect, my individual right to carry a firearm shall not be infringed by any government agency whatsoever. In return I'll agree to remain the same, upstanding citizen that I am now, with the full understanding that if I do not I can have my 2nd Amendment rights restricted or eliminated (subject to due process of course.)

This sounds eminently fair and logical to me.

Oh, and BTW, if a person chooses not to carry that is perfectly fine with me. They are entitled to freedom of choice just as much as I am.

In Vermont, I would estimate that less than 2% carry a concealed handgun on a semi-regular basis.

In the 3 counties including and surrounding Birmingham
over 12% have a CCW. Both the NRA and the Brady Campaign folks were shocked at the high concentration according to the news article in the paper a few weeks ago. According to the NRA it's one of the highest concentrations in the country.

Interesting that the law quotes unlawful use rather than lawful use of drugs, surely the user of the drugs must be subject to the same drug effect. I guess this is to get round the problem that over 50%, thats half (statistically proven by the pharmaceutical companies which produce psychoactive drugs) of the population in the United States would then be unfit to own a firearm.

Actually when thinking about that percentage I think it may actually be higher since Aspartame (artificial sweetener is in so many products - anyone for a diet coke - you can improve your ability to become more suggestible to electronic forms of propaganda)

Actually, all of that last is federally based, and most states have added the latter.

But I would be very careful about saying any kind of mental illness should block you from ever being allowed to carry. Most of us here would probably get diagnosed as having "general anxiety disorder" because we worry more than a sheep does. Either that or a martyr complex.

And a great many memebers of the armed forces are returning with cases of PTSD that could be completely correctable with talk and group therapy, no need for drugs- these are the guys who don't like crowds, swerve to avoid litter on the roadside (might be an IED) and take cover when car's backfire. They are as harmless and beneficial to society as we are, and need our help before they get worse while waiting for the VA to get off it's collective backside.

I would, will, and do say that those who's diagnosis makes them a danger to others should be blocked, absolutely, and I want to know why this nut's mental health history wasn't passed up the line. Someone needs to be publicly canned and any and all professional credentials suspended.

I'm not suprised. In states where permits are easy to get, I've long seen higher numbers of people who carry than in Vermont where if you can buy it and can carry it without scaring the peasantry, you can carry it everywhere but schools, courthouses, certain state offices, and federal property.

Yeah thankfully permits in Alabama are easy to get for lawbiding citizens. As long as you don't have a criminal record and you are 21 or older all it takes to get one is $7.50 and 72 hours.

The news story said that of the CCW's in the Birmingham area 1/3 of them are women and the majority of them are nurses.

Ditto if you include a requirement for demonstrating knowledge of safe handling skills & reasonable accuracy. The current Tennessee requirement is a total certain number of hits inside the silohette at various ranges. We are a shall issue state but I'd like to see a requirement at each range using the scoring rings. As it is currently written, it is possible to get the required score with a gun you haven't fired before & are rushing the shots.

What it takes to aquire a sidearm aside, the question that keeps coming to me regarding the shootings; What can be done to keep someone from getting to the point of thinking that they have to kill people before committing suicide? It appears that through Cho's life he left many signs that he needed help. There were people that recognized these signs but no one persued getting this young man the help he needed.
Ben

The only thing that prevents us from open carry in public is the crime of Affray, which is to say that a holstered or shouldered firearm carried by a civilian tends to scare some folks as much as if it were being brandished. It is not a real well published law, but I think you will find it is on the books in most jurisdictions these days.

While you'll not find a stronger advocate for effective firearms training, I still have a real issue with attaching qualification to any rights. We have have other rights that I don't think we put such stringent qualification against, though pretty much all our rights are conditioned to some degree (freedom of speech except for slander, libel, or fraud, for instance).

I can agree to that.

I wonder where being convicted of a DWI would fall into the mix.

It's probably staring me in the face, but it's been a long shift and my eyes are crossed.

Yeah, around here they call it going armed.

I'm in the far right crowd on gun control myself. I consider proper gun control to be hitting what you are aiming at. I like the Arizona set up (if it's reasonably openly carried it's legal).

The only thing I'm wanting to get tougher about our CCW is that you would have to get so many in the center rings 7?-10 rather than just in the outline and situational questions on the test w/ gray areas. Everything else would get looser. Everywhere that is now off limits is valid except courtrooms as long as you are dead cold sober. This includes schools, parks, bars, restaurants w/ by the drink, etc (including government offices)

From what little I've seen in the news, his English teacher did sound the alarm but there was little that could legally be done.

I haven't watched much in the last 24 hours as I'm on pathos overload so there probably has been some more info on this that I've missed.

The mental health laws will vary from state to state but here in Louisiana I believe only a family member can go to the local coroner's office and file an order for protective custody (allows LEOs to pick someone up and take them to the hospital to be evaluated), if the family is not willing to do that then there's not much the college could do.

Even then it's tricky. I have run across families that were trying to get a perfectly sane family member picked up and locked up because they wanted to get a hold of some property.

A lot of mentally ill folks don't get into the "system" unless they have repeatedly run afoul of the law and even then it's not a lot that can be done.

The system is skewed towards incarceration, not treatment. (That's not me being a liberal, that's reality).

Unfortunately, the way the system is set up the only way to get this guy off the streets for any length of time was to arrest, convict and sentance him for some crime. That means he'd have to commit a pretty serious crime which of course is exactly what happened in the VT case, he just didn't survive to make it into "the system".

Psych hospitals are geared toward emergency stabilization and outpatient referal only, and if he doesn't have insurance, he as to wait for a public bed (good luck).

I repeatedly have to explain to wigged out families that I cannot legally hold their mentally ill family member any longer because they are not exhibiting dangerous behavior at that time.

Yeah, I know from experience that he's probably going to stop taking his meds and decompensate, but at that moment there's nothing objective to hold him on.

There are multiple factors in this tragedy that are broken.

Unfortunately, they won't get anymore attention once the news cycle turns and something else gets the public's attention.

For the record, in my postings on this issue some of ya'll have given me some good objective points to think about.

Some have validated my thoughts on the subject, others have given me pause to think.

For those, I thank you.

Actually, there was court ordered evaluation at which time it was clinically determined he was a danger, but not enough of a danger to not let go. *shakes head* We kibbitz about the criminal justice and welfare systems, but no one ever wants to work on the mental health system- that would lessen the load on the other two.

I think that mental health is one area of debate that should definitely be explored. We (and by we I mean the entire country) have quickly jumped to the gun debate. But guns are not the most important issue here, IMHO. Mental health care is much closer to the issue at hand. It certainly seems like steps should have been taken earlier. It's very difficult to restrain someone who is showing danger signals. In this situation they tried to get the man into counseling. The English teacher tried multiple times, both appealing directly to him and trying to get a mandate. In some respects its good that its difficult to get someone locked up. The danger of witch hunts, greed, ignorance, and malice shouldn't be ignored either. Some people tend to talk about creepy subjects but aren't a danger to anyone, other people seem calm and well adjusted and have a crawl space full of bodies.

Whatever the legal and moral issues to serpentine, I think it is clear we need to lose the coyness about mental disease. The subject shouldn't be taboo and treatment shouldn't be either.

Three words: "well-regulated militia." It's not a blanket right.

Shooter licenses would be a reasonable implementation of that.

So would mandatory training in firearm use, with testing (heck, I'd welcome the lessons).

For the person who gave the stats on doctor-caused versus shooter-caused deaths, you need to add in murder and suicide. Your point is valid, but your statistics are way off.

Alluding to a greater concern. We are victims of our own complacency. In our constant struggle to try and make the world a better place and life have more meaning and value, I think we have softened the standards for being human a great deal, allowing the proliferation of ever more abberrant behavior. We seem to be at our best, and have the fewest social problems, when our survival is more directly tied to our environmnet, our natural world, and not isolated, processed and classified like it is for so many these days. It is no wonder that people such as Cho are able to get so disconnected and to fester in their own delusions, having so little else to challenge them and draw them into the tribe that they create these artificial worlds and realities that seems to satisfy some missing, undefinable need they have.

For so long mankind's existence was driven by very mundane and very real external forces. We were physically and mentally challenged, and most folks succombed to a life of toil and want. Now we are in an age of instant gratification, where most folks either have more than they will ever need to get by on or can do nothing and still manage to live relatively easily. Life loses it's flavor, and as we madly sprint through the shopping malls with plastic in hand buying up every convenience and frill to try and add a little color to our daily routine, we become increasingly more dissatisfied with what we have, and increasingly more isolated from each other. The word family loses it's meaning, and how many of us have life-long friends that are as much a part of our lives today as they were 10, 15, or 20 years or more ago? We lose the connection with each other, and our connection to our world, and then are surprised that some of us feel so left out and isolated that the only way left to find a connection to anything is diabolically.

I have a lot of respect for the founding fathers of our great nation. They produced a social model that was as practical as they could imagine for a nation to grow and prosper with. I believe that if they could see what we are becoming it would surely break their hearts, but they would still leave us with the liberties they agreed to because even now it is still better to be free to choose between the positive and the negative.

I'd have to agree with them. Having the right, even though some will abuse it, is by far the more preferable condition.

Of course it is. Change the words and make a comparison.

A well made pizza, being necessary to the enjoyment of monday night football, the right of the people to keep and use tomato sauce shall not be infringed.

Would that mean only Pizza Hut and Dominoes can have tomato sauce?

Think about this:

Laws already in place and broken at Va. Tech.
1. Carrying a gun on school grounds- 2 counts-felony
2. Carrying a concealed weapon without a permit-2 counts- misdemeanor
3. Destroying/ altering serial # on a gun- 2 counts- felony
4. Blocking fire exits in a occupied building-several counts-felony
5. Firing a gun inside city limits-47 or more counts- misdemeanor
6. Attempted murder-15 counts-felony
7. Murder-32 or more counts-felony
8. Suicide- 1 count-felony

So we are to believe that he had no problem committing at least 50 felonies and 60 misdemeanors, but the thought of breaking the law over a gun ban whould make him shudder, wet his pants, and go back home?


I also believe the media frenzy about this only fuels more people into trying a copycat crime. The media can't even get their facts straight anyway. This is NOT the worst mass-murder in U.S. history... Not even close

Anyone remember the Murrah federal building? The Bath school disaster?

Civilians have used guns to stop school shootings, sadly, it doesn't fit with the major media's socailist agenda, so it doesn't get reported as such.

I'm all for training and proficiency, but there are several problems with that. What standards do you adopt, and, more importantly, who decides? I can see it quickly becoming a vehicle for some bureaucrat to enforce their own agenda. One other profound flaw is that just because a person can sit there and punch holes in paper doesn't mean they will be worth a crap when TSHTF. Similarly, I can see an 80 year old Korean war veteran trying to qualify with his shaking hands and failing, and yet when the chips are down that same man may be cool as a cucumber. But he has been denied a weapon because he couldn't pass the test.

I have yet to see proponents for mandatory training, testing, and licensing point to any problems in Vermont or Alaska, which require none. There are no bloodbaths occuring there that would lead me to think that such requirements are necessary.

Now voluntary training and testing is another matter. As others have suggested, I think it would be an excellent idea to offer voluntary firearms training in schools. Up until at least the 60's such training was common. Another idea: offer government-sponsored training to all willing adults through the DCM. We have the resources. What we lack is the political will.

I think that speaks well of a state. We probably have similar numbers here in Utah. Of course, the important thing is that we can carry if the need arises. Frankly, most people don't arm themselves because they are afraid of mass shootings. They arm themselves because they are afraid of a vengeful ex-spouse or a mugger. And they are right--mass killers are extraordinarily rare, while the latter are all too common. That's why it is unimportant to me if a lot of people carry. It's more important that people can if they need to without hassle from the government.

[/quote]

Three words: "well-regulated militia." It's not a blanket right.

/quote]

The District of Columbia Circuit of the Federal Appeals Court held last month that 2nd Amendment rights are NOT reserved for a militia, they are the rights of all citizens.

Gator pointed out the 2nd District ruling, so I won't. I'm going to talk about why that ruling was made.

The phrase, "the people", is also used in the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments, and either the 4th or 5th, I misremember. It has been the interpretation of these Amendments for over 200 years that the rights reserved for "the people" are individual rights. The theory of it being a "group right" rather than an individual right for decades, and it has been struck down every time. And when you read the writings of the men who wrote that document indicated that surely was their intent, even if it's full effect was beyond what they could see through their own prejudices against everyone who wasn't white, christian, male and of means. Instead, they have been hoisted on their own petards by their own words.

Or did the writers of the Bill of Rights make a foot note that the 2nd Amendment is the only exception to this doctrine, and only the ancestors of the current crop of those who oppose the human right to self defense were clued in this and kept it a secret for 170 years? For some reason, I just can't believe that. Neither could the judges who made that ruling. They upheld that the right to self defense, unarmed or armed, is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment, and as such no state may take steps to limit it by legislation or deny the means of self-defense to any of it's people unless they have either committed a wrong against society or are mentally or physically unwell to the point that they can no longer legal exercise their right and responsibilities as a citizen.

There was another, similar ruling back in the late 19th century. Back then, in parts of the South, a black man couldn't own a gun. But at that time, a bunch of rich old white men, including one from the South, confirmed that a poor, black ex-slave could own a gun, and in particular, not only as a hunting tool but also as a means of self defense. That was based not only on the 2nd Ammendment but also the 14th.

I actually expect that ruling to be used a grounds to challenge restrictive and discriminatory laws and practices concerning concealed carry over the next two or three years. You might not always like it, but the Constitution is the Highest Law of this land.

regrets to the families.....
but im all for a law that allows the citizens the rights to defend itself against its government. and im probably only repeating whats been said already but cars, smoking, drugs and crime in general kills more and costs u.s citizens more then any madman with a gun ever could.
peoples choice to choose should never be taken away for a few idiots behavior!!! otherwise whats the reward for the civilised joe in the street? its sad and lets hope that it wont happen again too soon.
more ammo for the anti freedom n.w.o squad.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant… and quite funny!

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson

I haven't had a chance to look up the whole quote but it seems clear to me what their intentions were when they wrote the second amendment. The ellipsis were added by a columnist at the campus paper.

Was rather surprised to see an editorial that most of us would get behind & push in the campus paper & taking up almost half a page. If I see a link to the on line copy I'll post it.

There are some idiots out there blaming the Korean community for this tragedy. I have Korean friends who received unfriendly looks when they went to local restaurant.

People are just stared at them and watch their every movement.

These people are really stupid. Don't they know that mental illness can affect anyone regardless of race, or creed.

Yeah, my mother just e-mailed me to say that she'd gone shopping yesterday (in Bethlehem, PA) and several youths had made fun of her accent.

Not sure if it was run-of-the-mill racism or aimed specifically at those who look Asian, but my family is of Korean heritage so of course there's always the worry that ignorant people are taking the opportunity to blame us all for the actions of one.