Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good common sense article

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good common sense article

    LET'S MAKE AMERICA A 'SAD-FREE ZONE'!
    by Ann Coulter
    April 18, 2007

    From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

    But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

    Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy — in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

    It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing — as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

    The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

    Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

    And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

    Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

    From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

    It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

    Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

    But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them.

    Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

    Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone — at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

    Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

    But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

    Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

    Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"
    If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

    COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
    DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
    4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

    Am I alone or is this just plain old common sense? What are your thoughts?
    "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

  • #2
    Armed society: yes. Armed students at an institution of learning: no. I just can't agree with you on this subject (I responded to you in the other post). I just can't agree on guns being allowed on a college campus. The students are too immature. Let's open this argument further. Should someone with a permit be allowed in a stadium? How about a court house? An airport? A cruise ship? An airplane? A police station? Congress? (There are more criminals here, per 100 than anywhere else) Do we even draw a line?

    A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

    It's only a conspiracy when your party is not in power.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by LeanG
      Armed society: yes. Armed students at an institution of learning: no. I just can't agree with you on this subject (I responded to you in the other post). I just can't agree on guns being allowed on a college campus. The students are too immature. Let's open this argument further. Should someone with a permit be allowed in a stadium? How about a court house? An airport? A cruise ship? An airplane? A police station? Congress? (There are more criminals here, per 100 than anywhere else) Do we even draw a line?
      What do you recomend? I don't want to see a bunch of armed college students either. All I know is something has to be done. Face it, someone bent on murder and suicide will not be effected by some law. We as cops can't prevent it. Those type of people understand one thing and one thing only. Its sad but thats just the low down on it. People have to have options or they are just a victim/target.
      "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

      Comment


      • #4
        How many people at VT would have had to be armed before there was a reasonable chance one of them would have been in position to stop the killing? What's a reasonable chance?
        While we hope that kids attending college are the best and the brightest, they're also part of the age group responsible for a lot of anti-social behavior. Can we trust the boys at Sigma Epsilon Chi to lock down their firepower during Saturday night keggers? Encouraging people to carry weapons, even declaring it to be a moral obligation, could have unintended consequences.
        Incidents such as this are fortunatly freakishly rare. We can cite multiple examples only because, in a nation of over 298 million people, the law of truly large numbers kicks in. With all due respect to Lott and Landes, do we have a big enough sample to draw conclusions from?
        Deterrence means calculating odds, balancing perceived risks and benefits, and making the "right" choice. That's a lot to ask from a diseased mind.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by j706
          What do you recomend? I don't want to see a bunch of armed college students either. All I know is something has to be done. Face it, someone bent on murder and suicide will not be effected by some law. We as cops can't prevent it. Those type of people understand one thing and one thing only. Its sad but thats just the low down on it. People have to have options or they are just a victim/target.
          My recommendation is the status quo. The system is not broken because one person chose to go the homicidal route. Your argument may be righteous, however it can easily go the other way. If firearms were illegal, would the homicidal maniac (from VT) have been able to so easily purchase said firearm at the local gun shop? The bottom line is there are no simple answers. Our right to bear arms was placed in the constitution by a bunch of old white men who lived in a society where the biggest threat to peace were the British and the black slaves. The military was not really organized, and hunting was very common in even the most modern cities. If these same framers of the constitution were living today, this amendment would probably be omitted from the Bill of Rights and left up to the states to control.

          This is just one man's opinion.

          A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

          It's only a conspiracy when your party is not in power.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LeanG
            ... placed in the constitution by a bunch of old white men who lived in a society where the biggest threat to peace were the British and the black slaves. The military was not really organized
            I don't know the average age of the delegates to the Consitutional Convention but I suspect it wasn't far from the 45 years of the signers of the Declaration of Independance. From the persepctive of someone born in 1950, that's comparativly youthful.

            Discussions of the need for a standing army, in the Federalist Papers, identify the threats to peace as the British, Spanish, and the Inidan tribes; no mention of slaves.

            Colonial military forces were as well-organized as any of the era. The Massachusetts colony passed it's first militia act in 1643. George Washington had considerable combat and command experience in the French and Indian War and he was hardly unique among Americans, at least in that respect.

            Comment


            • #7
              My opinion is that certain individuals should be allowed to carry on school campus. I think that the Dean of a university should be allowed to give written authorization to individuals to carry on their campus. I would permit staff members to carry with authorization from the Dean or Principal. I think this would work if only the staff members carrying knew who the others carrying are.

              I feel that every law abiding citizen that is of age and can shoot straight should be able to carry upon completion of a very rigorous course. Including a back ground check and psychological evaluation. I dont believe that everyone with a permit should be allowed to carry on school campus. I think the discretion of the administration should be able to choose who can, but it must be in secret. If the individual blows their cover by being stupid or negligent about carrying then they no longer are allowed the privilege.

              I believe that the violent crimes would go down in number drastically if there was more of a threat to offenders of being shot by the citizens.
              The views I share are my own, and do not represent the opinions of my employing agency.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MOGSOT
                I think that the Dean of a university should be allowed to give written authorization to individuals to carry on their campus. I would permit staff members to carry with authorization from the Dean or Principal. I think this would work if only the staff members carrying knew who the others carrying are.

                I believe that the violent crimes would go down in number drastically if there was more of a threat to offenders of being shot by the citizens.
                Wow, finally a pro-gun stance that I can somewhat agree with. This would make the university somewhat accountable, and lets law enforcement know who is carrying. This is not a bad idea on the first part, but...

                Sorry, I do not agree with the second position. The reason is, but is not limited to the fact that there is a threat of guns being carried by many people in society as a whole, however your average criminal doesn't take that into consideration when he decides to engage in a violent crime. A criminal who believes that a victim is armed is likely to take his criminal act to a higher level. This is just one man's opinion
                Last edited by LeanG; 04-20-2007, 05:16 PM.

                A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

                It's only a conspiracy when your party is not in power.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by CDToliver
                  This could be interesting, since we are now getting into criminology.

                  Concerning whether or not your average criminal considers if a person is armed: I believe that your AVERAGE criminal-- criminals that commit deliberate crimes not out of passion (inside influence-- such as mental issues, or the temporary unability to reason), but out of some type of outside influence (greed for money, outside stress, peer-pressure, even perceived "need") mostly rely on two things. Those two things are ability and opportunity.

                  Hold on. I'm going somewhere with this....

                  In my belief, if you have the outside influence present, you still may never commit the crime because you might never have the ability nor the opportunity to commit the crime. Your criminal, but logical mind would guide you to that. Everybody knows that your AVERAGE robber does not just pick any "stop-n-rob" at random and then robs it. Your average robber picks the "weakest" store to rob (little to no security, poorly lighted area, no people around, etc). That person may be stupid, but at least that person still have some basic logic. Even the most animalistic of criminals still have the basic instinct of survival: You prey on the person that would be less likely to kill you. You prey on the weak.

                  Ok. The same thing goes here. If a gunman (not mentally SCREWED-UP, mind you) wants to shoot a lot of people. He would pick the people that would present the least threat to his own life. Come on, even Cho did not just buy 2 guns then immediately start shooting. He planned it. (of course the skill of the CCW carrier is another issue, but the fact that the person has a CCW is enough to bring pause.)

                  Now, what if the community Cho lived in was known for their CCW's? Do you think Cho would still commit the crime? If he was as crazy as I think he was, I think he would. However, knowing that a lot of his fellow classmates might carry firearms, his plan would have been different. He probably would have been more selective (targeting the people he REALLY did not like, instead of random people)-- before he met his demise. He was crazy, but not stupid.

                  Look at Sweden. I believe all the citizens are REQUIRED to carry firearms. No crime there. I think that there may even be some U.S. towns that have that requirement. I wonder what the crime rate is there? (please correct me if I am wrong)

                  In North Georgia, I would think twice about stepping on someone else's property for the wrong reasons. This is hunting country and everybody up here has access to a gun.

                  LET THE DEBATE CONTINUE!!!

                  And continue it shall...

                  Let's, for arguments sake remove the 2nd Amendment from this discussion and look at it another way. I'm going to use the last 20 years as my hypothesis (no research, just off the top of my head freelance writing at 2:00 am for all those who need citations and references and what not). Besides hunting, and maybe for collecting, have guns really been a necessity for our society? For those that answer yes, why is that? Is it because if guns remain legal, any criminal with $50 dollars can purchase a stolen gun if he knows insert local criminal here ? Illegal guns are getting on the street by 2 methods, among others that I think are important. #1 home burglaries. #2. legal gun owners are supplying the black market with legally purchased handguns Now, the question is what percentage of these guns are on the street today. I don't know, however these guns aren't getting on the street by felons legally purchasing them. I think that in this time period guns have done more harm than good. If we are truly this mighty and advanced society, guns should be in our past. And yet we hold on to them as if the government is gonna strip away our rights if "our right to bear arms are infringed". The Patriot Act is a greater threat to our civil rights than any gun.

                  This is, of course one man's (sleepy) opinion.

                  I'm gonna put my vest on now. The attacks on my opinion are on the way...

                  A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

                  It's only a conspiracy when your party is not in power.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Seventy2002
                    I don't know the average age of the delegates to the Consitutional Convention but I suspect it wasn't far from the 45 years of the signers of the Declaration of Independance. From the persepctive of someone born in 1950, that's comparativly youthful.

                    Discussions of the need for a standing army, in the Federalist Papers, identify the threats to peace as the British, Spanish, and the Inidan tribes; no mention of slaves.

                    Colonial military forces were as well-organized as any of the era. The Massachusetts colony passed it's first militia act in 1643. George Washington had considerable combat and command experience in the French and Indian War and he was hardly unique among Americans, at least in that respect.

                    No problem with your argument here. The only issue is that in 1643, the colonies were still pretty independent from one another. They were not united at this point. GW was born in 1732 and died in 1797. The second amendment was ratified in 1791. I'm not going to go through the whole list. The authors of the constitution were wise men, but they were the elders statesmen and great thinkers of society. I wasn't knocking their age (although I read my original post and it seemed like I was) In this time period, to outlaw guns would've been asinine. That's why the framers placed it in the constitution. Same reason they placed the 3rd amendment which says, "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This is another amendment that didn't last the sands of time, but its there.

                    A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

                    It's only a conspiracy when your party is not in power.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think a lot of people here are using the "youthful and immature" stereotype for college students. I understand there are a lot of them, but I was 25 with military service under my belt before I ever set foot on a college campus. My school had a special "non-traditional student" advising center, so I was surely not the only one. However, the fact remains most states with permits set the age at 21, a traditional Junior in college.

                      If you are old and mature enough to get a permit to carry I don't understand why a college campus (or place of worship, etc.) makes you more dangerous and less able to carry your concealed weapon.
                      I miss you, Dave.
                      http://www.odmp.org/officer/20669-of...david-s.-moore

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Colleges and Universities have campus police for a reason. I'm not so sure arming the student body or staff would prevent these situations.

                        Hopefully this will make some people open their eyes. I work in a college town. A very rich, private, liberal arts school. 95% of the students come from very wealthy families. The remaining 5% are usually locals who come from middle working class families. The difference is amazing. As I recall one of the reasons why this shooter at V.T. did this is because "he was sick of all the rich kids." What's going to stop this from happening where I work?
                        Last edited by J_Mann; 04-22-2007, 08:11 AM.
                        -Stay safe

                        Comment

                        MR300x250 Tablet

                        Collapse

                        What's Going On

                        Collapse

                        There are currently 5748 users online. 328 members and 5420 guests.

                        Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                        Welcome Ad

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X