I cannot understand the insistence on banning guns from school campuses. It seems that some people have the peculiar idea that the behavior of psychotics and criminals can be controlled by the issuance of statutes. Criminals are criminals, by definition, because they disobey laws. Does it make any sense to expect them to obey a gun ban? Psychotics that shoot everyone in sight have no concern for law or punishment; they are basically suicidal and intend to expire with their victims.
Laws, on the other hand, are highly effective on stable and well-adjusted people. This group, which could provide protection against the criminal and crazy elements, are very effectively disarmed. Thus, the gun bans arm the criminals and disarm their victims. In addition, these laws inform the perpetrators that they will have nothing to fear from the people they attack.
In the entire sorrowful history of mass shootings, there has never been a single instance of a legally owned gun being involved.
If there is any detectable sanity in such a system, I would love to have it explained to me.
Don Carsten
Gilbert
Dale Whiting posted at 1:42 am on Tue, Jan 10, 2012.
But Rational Human, take your argument to banning 33 round magazines and play it again. Doesn't work, does it!
If no one was allowed to sell, much less own such useless instruments of mayhem, neither our well regulated militia would suffer, nor would our loons have access to them. And when the loons go on their shooting spree and run out of loaded ammunition, they become considerably easier to disarm, don't they.
Slabside posted at 8:29 pm on Sat, Jan 7, 2012.
Well said Rational.
Rational Human posted at 3:03 pm on Sat, Jan 7, 2012.
Banning guns from schools is an elitist folly. I remember when the city of Davis, CA voted to become a nuclear free zone. University towns tend to be a little eccentric. Banning guns anywhere just means the law abiding citizens will be disarmed and good targets for the loons.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:17 am on Sat, Jan 7, 2012.
Don,
If I recall correctly, both Jared Laughner and the parent of one of the Columbine shooters legally owned their weapons. So I view your statement "In the entire sorrowful history of mass shootings, there has never been a single instance of a legally owned gun being involved.' as being suspect.
In Laughner's case, had 30+ round magazines not been readily available to the general public, rather than seriously wounding Gabby Giffords and killing 6 others before he had to stop to reload, perhaps only Gabby and 2 or three others would have been hit. And the one and only one Second Amendment side armed man there, rushing out of the drug store almost shot the man who disarmed Laughner!
And where the students at Columbine HS were all minors and not able to own firearms legally to defend themselves after lunch in the library, our pending legislation to permit college students to carry concealed seems aimed at only one mass murder, the Virginia murders.
Interestingly at Fort Hood, carrying privately owned weapons on post is prohibited. You'd think that our well regulated militia would know what it's doing! And Major Nadal Hasan did own his weapon legally. And likely he was trained in using side arms. I sure was!
So please give us a second take on your piece. The dots just aren't commected.
Major, USAR
P.S. My nephew sat at that table in the Columbine library where one coed was shot in the head. He carried her nearly lifeless body down the hallway until a firefighter took her away. And now he wants nothing whatsoever to do with firearms. He's had his fill.
onerebel posted at 11:54 pm on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
“Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game”. Andy Rooney
And he was a Liberal and he got it !
concernedcitizen posted at 8:07 pm on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
2nd Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Definition of "infringed":
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
So by banning firearms, our 2nd Amendment rights are being taken away.
There are some instances where banning firearms is appropriate, for example an airport.
I'm not sure my opinion about firearms being banned on college campuses and in other arenas, but I do think it is worth mentioning that if most of the honest, law-abiding citizens were "packing heat" and criminals knew they were, these criminals would be much less likely to commit the crimes that they do. To quote Edmund Burke, "All it Takes for Evil to Triumph Is for Good Men to Do Nothing." The laws in the Constitution are there for a reason.
Rich posted at 2:53 pm on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
"If there is any detectable sanity in such a system, I would love to have it explained to me."
Sanity, sadly not. The public is disarmed basically because politicians don't care to be shot so they lower the odds by disarming people who might shoot them as a reaction to their corruption. Most other people can carry, not that the politicians wouldn't like to stop that too, but they can't.