Again, I don’t know what fantasy world people live in that “more guns on campus” is the solution to the tragedy the other day.Yeah, pick on a straw man - he can't hurt you. Not even if he has a gun. Of course sentient beings would conclude from that that it's not the guns that are the problem, but then we're talking antigunners here.
I'm not a "gun nut" myself, but perhaps Mr. Cole can help me - I sure can't think of any gun organizations that have suggested that guns should be available to all comers. They all emphasize gun safety, and training can be found by anyone who seeks it. (And if sex education ought to be in schools then by all means let's have gun education there too - you know they're going to experiment, so let's make sure they do it safely, and teaching abstinence can't possibly help).Of course we'd expect that permitting guns on a campus would lead to more guns being there. But that's not the goal - the goal is to enhance security on campus with trained volunteers. The legislation that would have allowed the guns on campus was restricted to trained users over 21.
Colleges are a very unique cross-section of the population, composed of 18-22 year olds, the most violent members of societyYeah, I was one once too. But college students are not the subdemographic that runs up the score on crime. Or did the Crips et al get their colors from their alma maters? Perhaps Mr. Cole thinks that parents on Chicago's South Side should warn their kids to avoid the University of Chicago campus lest they should be harmed by all those criminal, violent college students.
As far as I am concerned, only if you want more gun violence would you support heavily armed students on every campus.Is that even remotely fair as a characterization of the defeated law mentioned above? A gun in the right hands in the right place and time could have reduced the gun violence, and has already done so at past school shootings. One of them was even in Virginia in the same part of the state. See lots of examples of handgun self-defense here
It's not so easy to get a gun, they aren't cheap, they require maintenance, and they're heavy and inconvenient to carry. And if you have one legally registered to you you'd better make sure that it isn't stolen or misused. These qualities don't appeal to college students or a lot of others besides. So it's hard for me to believe that we'll have many takers on loosened gun restrictions.
No doubt the next potential mass killer is picking his target based on local gun laws. The thought process must go something like this: "I may be willing to kill strangers in cold blood, but violate gun restrictions? No way!" Or perhaps "No, I'm too young to have a gun - I'll come back then I'm 21 and have the training." Again, sentient beings realize that a group not known for respecting other laws is not particularly like to respect gun laws either, so all the restrictions can do is restrain the law-abiding and make them more likely to be victims.
But I'll take it all back if Mr. Cole can show me a case of a gun harming anyone of its own volition.
I refuse to let the actions of a crazed mass murderer dictate policy decisions that would have broad and potentially disastrous implications for society. And that is what this is really about- knee-jerk reactions to the actions of a crazy person.OK. But a little balance would be in order. Mr. Cole neglected to mention that the antigun ghouls are again seeking to cash in on the blood of victims, while a bill to permit trained people over 21 to carry guns on campus at least had potential to prevent or at least limit the carnage based on past experience. Perhaps that was an oversight, but I don't think so.
Mr. Cole isn't through yet - from the comments:
But you are still dealing with the base aggression and lack of full and complete brain development that comes with 18-22 year olds. I, for one, do not want to add firearms to an already volatile situation that contains immaturity, hormones, stressful and tumultuous times, etc.Yeah, that's it - given a choice between beer money and buying and maintaining a gun, the college kids will all go for the guns. Do the authorities have any idea how many students already have guns on campus? After all, they do such a terrific job keeping drugs and booze off campus. And then we get this:
At any rate, it is up to those who wish to propose a drastic policy change such as free-fire zones on campus to prove that it would be fine. Not the other way around.That's funny, I feel the same way about Constitutional rights like the 2nd Amendment. Free-fire zones? - how asinine can a mischaracterization get?
Of course Mr. Cole isn't the only one writing comments:
Handgun control needs to be national. Regardless of the laws on concealed carry, the fact is that a handgun is very concealable. As long as they’re legal anywhere in the country, they can and will be carried and concealed everywhere.What's the magic power of this word "legal"? I lived in a nominally dry county once and it had some of the worst alcohol abuse problems in the state. Abortions certainly were common enough before Roe v. Wade. Prohibition didn't exactly work, and we do a hellacious job of keeping out illegal drugs and aliens too. To hear some talk, we can't even keep criminals out of the White House. Ban legal gun sales, and it won't take a week for illegal guns to come in by land, sea and air. As if they weren't already.
The VPI killer had already violated a few other laws too - why didn't the "legal" charm protect VPI against him?
Worldwide experience is that you can't keep guns out, and the nations that try still have plenty of spectacular gun crime. If it must be, Congress can always pass a resolution in favor of safe gun use. It too will be an ineffective gesture, but it would thrill the moral masturbators without harming the rest of us through eroded rights and safety.
Antigunners aren't going to shut up of course. But at least they can be recognized for what they are. You know, as if there really are any agnostics left on this issue.