Banning guns on campuses

I see where the Kansas Board of Regents has decided that the way to ensure the safety of our college kids is to add more signs proclaiming, “No Guns Allowed” (4/18, Local, “Regents call for weapons-free policy”).

Is this a level of naiveté possible only among the academic left or, worse, are these people putting their anti-self-defense ideology before the welfare of the students? Unless these people are living in a salt mine somewhere out by Hutchinson, they have to know that the most dangerous places in the world, outside Iraq, are gun-free zones.

Have they not noticed that the most crime-ridden cities are those with the most oppressive gun laws? The people that perform these horrific acts of violence may be miserable cowards, but they are not stupid enough to walk into a gun club and start shooting up the place.

It is obvious that they select their victims from places where they know they are least likely to encounter resistance. It is time for the Board of Regents to quit putting anti-gun ideology ahead of the Constitution and the students’ right to defend themselves.

Larry Martin
Kansas City

Comments

[GCYL]

“The solution is in us Americans changing whatever it is about us that leads us to be such an incredibly violent society.” - jack

One more time jack:

Lastly the pro CC people are not pushing a solution to solving gun violence; they’re pushing a personal right to respond to gun violence. They would state that no amount of medical checks, background checks and gun laws will ever become an adequate solution to gun violence. Since we lack adequate proactive solutions we’re now forced to deal with adequate reactive solutions.
I don’t own a gun jack so I’d be real happy if you’d present the facts to support the opinion that more guns in the hands of CC would be counter productive. - Posted by: GCYL | Apr 23, 2008 12:52:17 PM

So jack, what steps do you think our society has failed to take “to change whatever it is about us that leads us to be so violent”?

[GCYL]

“But, this is just adressing your having avoided my point again I see.” - Posted by: jack | Apr 23, 2008 5:11:28 PM

Claiming no one listens to you doesn’t constitute a conversation.

“So, the problem of gun violence can be solved by getting as many people as possible to carry guns. Seems kinda counter-intuitive doesn't it?” – jack

Posted by: GCYL | Apr 23, 2008 12:52:17 PM - an extensive response to your statement. You should read it. Because not listening to others doesn’t constitute a conversation.

[Engineer]

jack
My comment was to underline the point the letter made. Changing our society will be a long and difficult process. For one thing the US has by far the most diverse population of any major country. And we are getting more diverse. The frontier sheriff was stopping carry by people he either didn't know or trust. CC permits arm dependable people. Until we can change society the presence of armed, dependable people will be a plus.

[jack]

eng: I'm disappointed in you. I have never said I believe "gun free zones" or "drug free zones" or "fart free zones" or any other kind of "free zones" served any purpose. The whole idea is a wish it away proposition at best.

I will again make my point. It is time we looked in a mirror and asked ourselves, "What the hell is wrong with us?" America is one of the most deeply Christian countries on earth. Yet nothing we have done to curb the violence of our Nation has worked over the last 50 years. We have built bigger jails. We have "protected marriage" from gays. We have returned to leagalized conceal carry. And oh, how we have pointed fingers at everyone and everything in sight. Yet our society is becoming more and more violent.

The problem isn't weapons. The problem is us.

[jack]

gcyl: If you had paid attention to what I have posted about gun control, you would have noted several things. Primarily that I am deeply ambivalent about gun control. I was raised around and own weapons. At the same time I do not feel personally any need to go to the grocery store packing heat. I don't see a reason for it.

I have also noted that in the days of the "wild west" the first thing the "New Sheriff" did was institute gun controls. This worked for a long time. Now we appear to be conviced that going in the exact opposite direction will make things better.

But, this is just adressing your having avoided my point again I see. My point is and was that the solution to our nation being so very violent is not going to come out of the barrel of a gun. There are many nation's with high levels of gun ownership. They aren't busy killing each other like we are.

The solution isn't having half the people in a bar carrying weapons. The solution isn't disarming the populace. The solution is in us Americans changing whatever it is about us that leads us to be such an incredibly violent society.

[Engineer]

jack
The point is that saying you are going to solve the problem by installing more "Gun Free Zone" signs is ludicrous. It is also a serious evasion of duty (malfeasance) by those responsible for the safer of the area. Signs will have no effect on the type of people who cause these problems, except perhaps to assure them that they will be undisturbed in their acti8ons.

[GCYL]

“So, the problem of gun violence can be solved by getting as many people as possible to carry guns. Seems kinda counter-intuitive doesn't it?” – jack

First, CC supports have never advocated “as many people as possible”. Second, it’s not like CC laws just showed up in the same year for 47 states. It took years and years to make that “accomplishment”. More than enough time for some anti-CC examples to show up and say this is a stupid idea. It hasn’t happened yet.

Lastly the pro CC people are not pushing a solution to solving gun violence; they’re pushing a personal right to respond to gun violence. They would state that no amount of medical checks, background checks and gun laws will ever become an adequate solution to gun violence. Since we lack adequate proactive solutions we’re now forced to deal with adequate reactive solutions.

I don’t own a gun jack so I’d be real happy if you’d present the facts to support the opinion that more guns in the hands of CC would be counter productive.

[jack]

So, the problem of gun violence can be solved by getting as many people as possible to carry guns. Seems kinda counter-intuitive doesn't it?

IMO the problem isn't a lack of weapons any more than it is too many weapons. The problem is us. The most violent developped country on earth.

[T. Hanson]

Agreed GYCL,
I am not saying what we have is prefect. But just like when the Columbine massacre happened, people cried out for metal detectors. That would not have stopped these kids.

When the VT shootings happened he was sane enough to chain shut the exit doors and then go classroom to classroom.

Then this last shooting the shooter went into a lecture hall (which would have no security, and fewer teacher/student ratios)with more targets in an open environment. One thing that is a constant is that all shooters are crazy, but not stupid. They are calculated and know the weakness of a situation and pray on it. So our best defense would be to find the weakness by analyzing these guys (if we ever could get one alive) and somehow figure out a plan.

On the VT Shooter he should have never legally have purchased the weapons. Of course I have a feeling he would have bypassed the paperwork if confronted about his mental status (remember he was sane enough to make a tape to send to NBC News). He also choose a building that he knew would not be guarded as strictly as maybe the main campus hall.

Of course this school could have taken more passive action too. Once the shooting had happened in the dormitories they should have instituted a lockdown procedure and passed word through all dorms and classrooms to remain in class till further notice. But once again hindsight is always 20/20.

[GCYL]

“but the point is how do you stop someone that is not fearful of dying?” – T.Hanson

You kill them but you all ready knew that. This is our age old problem with a free society. You can do what ever you want up to a point. Once you cross that point your freedoms cease to exist. Even for your targets.

“Which would mean studying, research and rehabilitation (you know the boreing stuff)” - T. Hanson

Oddly enough it was the medical privacy laws associated with the VA Tech case that helped the student purchase weapons.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Disarming citizens defintely does not afford them any advantage, You point out that a nutcase is without worry of the harm to them, which is why people need to look out for themselves and not depend on waiting for someone else. Just think, the shooter starts shooting and someone else pulls out their weapon and kills the shooter BEFORE they can go rampant. That's how it works.

[T. Hanson]

It seems that everyone that is advocating that all students need to be armed think that would change the mind of a psychopath from mass murder. Tell me I am wrong, but didn't all these shooters take their own life? Therefore it would be safe to assume that they were on a kamikaze mission to begin with. Their objective was to shoot (or kill) as many innocents as possible.

Now with today's assault rifles (fully automatic) a psycho could easily take out 10-15 kids before the first kid who could be a great shooter takes out the guy and hopefully can get a clear shot fires (which I would assume would be a semi-automatic pistol).

Ok, I could carry this on and on.. but the point is how do you stop someone that is not fearful of dying? Could it be that we could find out what makes them go nuts and try to eliminate the problem before hand? Which would mean studying, research and rehabilitation (you know the boreing stuff) instead of trying to hurry up the capital punishment and revenge?

[Gary]

Ignore the weapons free zones signs. The loonies and criminals will.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

To ensure safety, the more people that are packing the better. Criminals prey on the least advantaged.