"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Those Evil Guns!
By Greg L | 21 August 2007 | Virginia Politics, Crime | 56 Comments
This has got to top the charts on liberalism-inspired stupidity.
The faculty manual at Virginia Tech covers situations where a gunman offers to hand his gun to a faculty member.
It instructs the faculty member to reject it: “Never attempt to disarm or accept a weapon from the person in question. Weapon retrieval should only be done by a police officer.”
Only in a bizarre fantasy world would anyone consider it preferable to have a crazed lunatic retain his weapon rather than a law-abiding person. Then again, the prospect of an armed academic is pretty disturbing. Maybe academics really are more dangerous when armed than psychotic mass murderers? Or do they think that the mere possession of a weapon will transform a law abiding citizen into a psychopathic killer, as if there’s some sort of communicable mental disease that infects firearms?
Either way, this absolutely pegs the dumb-o-meter. Thank God all they’re doing is educating our children.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
56 Comments
Views: 968
Loading ...
Post Columbine/Post VA Tech mentality. After any disaster, there is a tendency to over-compensate.
It does seem weird to me also but perhaps there is some strange reason…like contaminating evidence?
If you find out why, I would be curious to know the reason for this directive.
This is a common protocol for dealing with workplace violence situations, and is in no way unique to Virginia Tech (see, for example www.northwestern.edu/up/crime/workplace.html ).
The concept is that you shouldn’t attempt to disarm the suspect because you’re not Chuck Norris. Seriously. Police are trained to do this. They receive lots of training. You haven’t had it, so you’re just going to end up getting waxed.
And you shouldn’t attempt to accept a weapon from the bad guy, since this involves approaching him. Generally not a good idea, which is why most of these protocols instead instruct you to get him to set the weapon down and preferably step away from it. Approaching crazy people with guns, even when they ask you to, is tricky. Again, Police get training in how to deal with this. You don’t have it, and like I said, you’re not Chuck Norris.
It’s the same reason why letting everybody run around with guns (”An armed society is a polite society”) is a bad idea. You’re not trained how to use them in deadly force situations. I don’t trust my fellow Americans to operate their SUVs in a manner approaching rationality out on the roads; why on earth would I expect them to know how to use guns in a situation where Police are best involved?
The Dude,
Your explanation makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the enlightenment on the subject. I obviously had no clue why. It just didn’t seem rational for Va Tech to go all politically correct in the wake of what they have just been through. It just seemed logical that there had to be more compelling reasons.
Actually, Dude’s explanation, while it accurately reflects the philosophy from which it comes, should be pretty enraging. Are we to be nothing but sheep, praying for timely and effective protection from the police any time evil manifests itself? How far America has sunk to reach this level of cowardice, fear, and complete and utter dependency.
Every time there has been a school shooting and the victims have waited for the police to intervene, salvation has only arrived once all of the killing is over. In every case where citizens intervened, they successfully stopped the violence before it had run it’s course. There is zero evidence to support the notion that not confronting a psychopathic killer will afford you any safety whatsoever.
Fifty years ago, anyone with a gun trying to terrorize large numbers of people would have been torn apart by a public that would not at all tolerate an outrage like this. Some would have paid the ultimate price for their bravery and courage, but not only would that courage have saved all the other lives at risk, it would have strongly discouraged additional nutjobs from committing atrocities. Now, out of an irrational abundance of caution, we do everything possible to ensure that not only are psychopathic killers protected from victims who might choose to defend themselves, but advertise that anyone who wants to commit an atrocity will be permitted by official policy to do so unchallenged until law enforcement shows up in order to surround the structure, call for backup, and observe the carnage until such time that the shooting stops.
The American we seem to be so intent on destroying was one that could not be cowed by threats of violence, who would not submit to the demands of the deranged, and who would be predisposed to instinctively defend the innocent, regardless of personal cost, because it was the right thing to do.
Our national character is rotting as a result of this well intentioned by terrifically destructive philosophy. And as we rot from within, we encourage the worst among us to prey on our weak, our innocent, and our defenseless because the costs associated with that behavior are lowered every year.
Carry a firearm, legally. Learn how to use it. Protect the sheep who lack the courage and commitment to protect themselves, and show them there is an alternative to utter dependency on those who cannot defend you when you most need it.
I have to agree with Greg here. Police will tell you otherwise, but they have no legal responsibility to protect an individual. The SCOTUS has ruled on this. Protecting your own life is your own responsibility, and you have both the right and the obligation to use whatever means to do so. If you run away so be it. If you confront the threat, so be it as well. The choice is yours, because the life is yours.
If you wait on a police office, what you get is the VA Tech situation. If just ONE PERSON had a gun they could have taken the bastard out. “The Dude” makes, on face value, a reasonable argument but unfortunately (no offense to him) IS analogus to the sheep argument which Greg responds to.
The liberals are afraid of guns because of either how mean they look or the loud sound that is made. But, time after time I have witnessed this, the moment one of them is taken to a firing range and given proper instruction in the care and handling of a weapon, they are soon converted.
American society gets its history lessons from TV and the movies and I hate to say it, but the “Wild West” was NOT one shoot out after another. Sure guns were used by both private citizens as well as criminals in town or at a saloon, but it was not as common as Hollywood would lead you to believe. The VAST MAJORITY of gun owners are peace loving people who DO know how to handle a gun or a rifle and frankly, the last thing I ever want to happen is to be in a room when a crazed lunatic walks in, starts shooting, and then my last words are, “If ONLY I (or someone else) had a gun.”
I bought a S&W .357 magnum last week…just in case. And, I know how to use it. I’ll be taking my wife AND daughter to the NRA range this weekend so they won’t be afraid of the big bad boom.
I generally agree with the thought that we need to figure out the best way to fight a maniac with a gun and then implement that plan. Not just do what he says and hope for the best.
On the other hand, if a maniac is offering us his gun, I think that the suggestion that you say “OK, put the gun down, walk away from it, and then I’ll take it.” sounds useful.
I need to see the actual directive to the faculty to be able to assess what the intent was. (and that might not even do it)
The one thing I do not want to see is allowing students to carry weapons. I simply do not think the maturity is there for a blanket ‘its ok’ to be issued. There are too many unstable college students and there is too much drinking on that campus for arming students to be a viable solution.
There are no easy answers to the question of protecting students in public institutions. Individual rights and the rights of the group to be safe seem to be on a collision course.
Greg’s assertion that “Fifty years ago, anyone with a gun trying to terrorize large numbers of people would have been torn apart by a public that would not at all tolerate an outrage like this,” sounds nice, but isn’t based on fact.
What about Edward Adams (1921, Midwest crime and killing spree)? Howard Unruh (1949, considered one of the first “random nutso shooting people for no reason guys”)? Starkweather and Fugate (1958)? Joseph Taborsky (1957)? They all killed a bunch of people with guns, were all eventually stopped by the police, and all terrorized a lot of people, but failed to generate outrage that tore them apart. Hell, what about the Bath School Bombings (1927)? That guy killed over 45 people, mostly elementary school kids.
How about the woman in Cincinnati who wasted the guy for asking for a quarter? She had a CC permit.
Keeping a gun to defend your home isn’t a bad idea at all (though it sure leads to a lot of domestic killings). But the thought of sending out every Joe Sixpack with a sixgun scares the bejeezus out of me. Seriously, do you want the moron in the SUV, driving five miles under in the left-hand-lane with his blinker on armed? The dopey woman at the checkout who waits until the end to fill out her check, and then asks me the date (like she can’t look at her milk and add five)? I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there’s some seriously mentally challenged folks out there.
Think about this: Imagine the average person. Pretty dumb, right? Well, half about half the people in the country are even dumber than that guy. You really think these are all folks responsible enough to own guns?
But that’s off the subject. The point remains. You ever do any “Hogan’s Alley” type training? And not just once or twice at your local gun club, but a serious set of FBI-level training? You know what to do in a hostage situation? When someone says “put down your gun or I’ll shoot” what do you do (hint: you need to come up with the correct answer in less than a second).
Police get lots of training. “You” (by which I mean your average gun owner who has gone through all the legal hurdles and a few safety courses but that’s it) haven’t. I don’t think it’s sheep-like to say, “Let the experts handle it.”
The closer you are to someone with a gun, the more likely they are to hit you if they decide to shoot.
Isn’t that why even armed cops with weapons drawn tell armed criminals to, “Put the gun down”? They don’t saunter up and ask the crook to hand them their loaded pistol.
Now, if you’re unarmed (already a bad situation) and some dipstick who has been shooting people hands you his gun - take it. Then shoot him with it. No sense taking chances that he might have another gun hidden somewhere. In fact, shoot him twice.
Oops, forgot Charles Whitman (1966), the clock-tower guy. It’s less than 50 years ago, but again he terrorized people and inserted himself into the public consiousness as boogeyman, but nobody rose up and tore him apart. They sent trained cops up there and they shot him. Ta-da!
The Dude:
You have some points. However, there is this:
January 2002 campus shooting
Main article: Appalachian School of Law shooting
On January 16, 2002, ASL Dean Anthony Sutin, Professor Thomas Blackwell, and 1L student Angela Dales were shot and killed by disgruntled student Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria. When Odighizuwa exited the building, he was subdued by two students armed with personal firearms. At trial, Odighizuwa was found mentally competent, pled guilty to the murders to avoid the death penalty, and was sentenced to multiple life terms in prison.
From: Wikipedia
Was this nut cake done killing when he “exited the building”?
I don’t know.
Nobody does - because he never got the chance to decide whether to keep killing.
January 2002 campus shooting
Main article: Appalachian School of Law shooting
On January 16, 2002, ASL Dean Anthony Sutin, Professor Thomas Blackwell, and 1L student Angela Dales were shot and killed by disgruntled student Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria. When Odighizuwa exited the building, he was subdued by two students armed with personal firearms. At trial, Odighizuwa was found mentally competent, pled guilty to the murders to avoid the death penalty, and was sentenced to multiple life terms in prison.[6]
From: Wikipedia
There is a company ( saw it on FOX) that is selling bullet proof BACKPACKS. Doesn’t that say something.
Folks, I’ve tried the, “Put the donut down, step back away from it,” strategy with the fat ladies here in the office. Doesn’t work. Trust me on this.
Liberals don’t like guns because they empower the individual. Liberals abhor empowered individuals, whether that empowerment comes thru firepower or critical thinking. I try to keep plenty of both on hand. Liberals hate me.
An unarmed society is a helpless society. That’s what the Liberals want. Helpless, fat, non-critically-thinking sheep. Then they provide for all your needs, maybe.
The Dude,
Your history-based argument contains the kernel of its own destruction. Specifically, were those gun-crimes you describe considered aberrations or common-place at the time?
The problem with gun-banners’ arguments is that they either rely upon 1.) en masse ad hominem attacks (e.g. boy, regular joe’s are too stupid to use guns responsibly) or 2.) they point out the increased incidence of gun crime in modern times to bolster their argument that guns must be banned to decrease gun violence.
When spouting argument number 2, they don’t seem to consider that one of the reasons gun crimes are more prevalent (I am conceding that they may be to make my point, but I don’t know for sure whether they are) is because guns are increasingly illegal to own/carry. As counter-intuitive as it seems, banning guns increases violent crimes committed with guns. This phenomenon has been documented in John Lott’s research (more guns, less crime I believe is the title) and has not been successfully debunked. It also can be seen by anyone with eyes that gun crimes in gun-hostile jurisdictions are much more common than in pro-carry jurisdictions (umm…just look at the tri-state area of our own fair metroplex).
The mnemonic that summarizes Lott’s findings: “If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns” is universally scoffed at by our liberal minders as simple-minded rhetoric unbacked by fact, but it happens to be true.
I should add that even if Lott’s research showed the opposite was true (more guns, more crime), access to firearms by the citizenry can be more than justified by the ideas expressed by The Advocator–it empowers the individual, and our nation was founded on the principle of empowering the individual.
Much like freedom of speech, there may be unapalatable consequences to allowing citizens to voice their opinion freely, but we have enshrined the right to carry arms in our constitution.
My words are far inferior, however, to Judge Kozinski’s masterful dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer:
http://notabug.com/kozinski/silveira_v_lockyer
People who engage in these “mass shootings” aren’t expecting to get into a gun fight. As we’ve seen in many cases, once the shooter is engaged by the police or other citizens in a gunfight they are deflected from their original intent.
You don’t try and put out a fire by talking to it, letting it do what it wants, or running from it. Neither should you expect to resist violent force in the same way.
Attempting to claim moral superiority by refusing to use tools to defend yourself but expecting the police to risk their lives and use force on your behalf is a cowardly, hypocritical position.
Anyone who believes that the protection of life should only be the duty of “professionals” should read the following cases.
Gonzales v. Castle Rock
Warren v. District of Columbia
Riss v. City of New York
People raising the “oh no! guns are bad!” argument are generally suffering from projection. Thankfully everyone isn’t as unbalanced as they are and the streets don’t run with blood when the average citizen decides to be responsible for his own life and safety.
Thanks, MJH, for the cite to Kozinski’s dissent. He be one righteous dude.
No one here on this thread has suggested banning guns.
I said I didn’t want to see a bunch of immature, beer-drinking, pot-smoking college kids armed. (or something to that effect) The reasons should be obvious.
Advocator,
My pleasure, I must also recommend Klein’s dissent at the same link…it is much more devastating to the argument that the 2nd amendment intended the right to bear arms as a collective right.
Dolph,
I interpreted The Dude’s comments to mean that the right to carry should be curtailed…to me that may as well be an outright ban. To the extent that I mischaracterized anyone’s arguments, then I apologize and did not intend to attack a straw man.
However, I think you are guilty of mischaracterizing the argument FOR allowing carry on campus. No one is suggesting we give “immature, beer-drinking, pot-smoking college kids” arms. I have only heard people say that those who otherwise meet the state’s requirements for concealed carry off campus be allowed (e.g. NOT FORBIDDEN) from carrying on campus. If an adult meeting the requirements for carry happens to be a college student, then what reason is there to revoke his otherwise state-guaranteed right?
This touches upon another aspect of the gun-rights argument that irks me to no end. “Progressives” who claim to militate for more liberal laws on abortion, drugs and other social issues are more than comfortable revoking one’s rights when they do not agree with them. To me, this is regressive…they seek to deprive me of a constitutionally guaranteed right…that is not progress!
(Note this last paragraph was not addressed at Dolph, rather a general rant. )
Dolph:
What some VA students are lobbying for is to be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, IF they have a concealed carry permit. Those permits are only given to citizens at least 21 years old. I’ve known many an irresponsible 21 y/o, but abridging a constitutional right AND exercising veto power over a state license is a bit too much to stomach.
BTW, when I was 21, I was carrying a gun 24-7, and in charge of a lot of others doing the same thing who were younger than I. I didn’t hear anyone complain about me being too immature at the time.
Liberalism is all about disempowering people. That’s why liberals never supported the 40-hour work week, civil rights for minorities, child labor laws, equal rights for women. Your troll-fu is weak, Advocator.
So what training have all you pistol-packing patriots had? I’m really curious to know what you’d do if you walked into a bank, say, and saw a guy holding a gun to a woman’s head, and he says, “Back off or I’ll shoot her.” By the way, you have only one second to make up your mind.
Unless you’ve done some law enforcement training, I fail to see why I should view you as a defender of Right and Justice. Seems to me you’re just as likely to wax an innocent bystander, or shoot some dumb kid playing a prank, etc. Of course, YOU are an excellent shot I’m sure. Never miss, never misjudge the situation.
Note: I’m not against guns. Not a bad idea for protecting your home. Great for hunting. And there are some citizens who probably have a legitimate right to CC a handgun. But this concept that if everyone is packing heat like the old west there’s be no crime is sheer fantasy. Look at how many people fly off the handle and start getting hitty or stabby. You really want to give them the option to get shooty too?
I’m sorry, but I don’t rate the intellect of the average citizen too high. The idea of the same nitwits I see at the store or movie theater or whatnot toting guns around scares me. There needs to be a serious competency test before you can carry one in public. We make you prove a minimal level of competency to drive, same thing should go for gun ownership.
Dolph, so since you were an “immature, beer-drinking, pot-smoking college kid” everyone else is too? Does my wife, who attends community college here in NoVA not deserve a chance to defend her life? College kids who are old enough to carry a rifle in Iraq aren’t mature enough to carry a concealed pistol in a college classroom?
Regardless, there are several states where students can carry and none of the fears you express have come to pass.
Face it, the gun control crowd is tired, worn out and offers the same lame excuses and idiotic arguments with no grounding in fact. Continued willful ignorance and denial is just sad. Get your head out of the ground and start thinking. Accepting reality is the first step to solving problems.
If a murderer tried to give me his weapon I would suggest that he put it on the ground near me and walk away. He could be trying to get my prints on it so he can shoot me and claim it was self defense.
mnd
You know nothing about me so don’t assume anything. You have no idea where I stand on gun control or lack of it. You don’t know if I attended college or didn’t. You don’t know if I am a gun owner or not.
Frankly, I am not real comfortable with someone who assumes rather than questions even having a concealed weapons permit. You have displayed a great deal of hostility towards me over things you think I think.
Secondly, my comments were only about Virginia Tech. Much was said after the tragedy there about arming students. I am opposed. If I could pick and choose who got to be armed, I would not be opposed. However, since everyone seems to think it is their right, I guess that would not be possible.
Thirdly, I don’t see a correlation between college kids and those in the military other than perhaps age. That is the weakest argument yet. The military has a much different screening process for entrance than do colleges. It also has training for those who carry rifles. Unless you attend a military college or are enrolled in a ROTC class, you aren’t going to get the training required to make decisions that involve the safety of everyone.
Confrontation on this issue really isn’t a good way to sell one’s argument.
The Dude,
If you were arguing in good faith, I think I would take your arguments more seriously. Your ridiculous hypothetical misses the point, and seems to ignore the fact that we operate within the law when we carry concealed. First, if the hostage had a CCW, it is likely she would not have found herself in that situation in the first place, since people w. CCW tend to be much more focused on self defense, and conscious of their surroundings. Included in Lott’s empirical findings is the fact that there are millions of unreported defensive gun uses (DGUs) that occur every year. They are unreported because the mere sight of a handgun is sufficient deterrent to avoid the occurrence of a crime in the first place, thus no crime occurs and no crime to report.
Second, if a CCW were to walk into the hostage situation you postulate, there is no requirement that he/she take action and it is highly unlikely they would if such action would pose a threat to the life of an innocent bystander. If they did, and someone were injured, then they would be subject to the same prosecution as a bad actor who illegally carried a gun and injured someone would be. To pose the hypothetical as you do is a childish attempt to paint CCW folks as crusaders and vigilantes, when in fact they are normal citizens who simply desire the freedom to carry a weapon.
As to your continued slandering of Joe Six Pack, how do you know those people you malign so aren’t carrying a concealed weapon? And, more importantly, how is it that you are such a shrewd judge of intelligence based on a person’s appearance? If you’re so scared of the prospect of being surrounded by “dumb” people carrying guns, then I suggest you go to DC, where you can rest assured that no one will be legally carrying a gun, just try to ignore the gun shots you hear late at night…
Using your analogy of driving, it’s true that there are minimum competency requirements for driving, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that to obtain a CCW you must undergo training. Now, assuming there is a car accident involving an unlicensed driver, would you then argue that the training required to obtain a driver’s license for all drivers be increased? If so, can you understand why that doesn’t make sense? I won’t be surprised if you can’t understand…but if you could it might illustrate the logical fallacy of your views.
Dolph,
So its OK for YOU to assume all manner of things about people and then dictate what rights they should be “permitted” based on your feelings?
Get real.
Freedom and Liberty mean that you’re just going to have to trust your fellow man a little and hope everything works out. Its probably not the best solution if you want absolute safety, but as adults we should be able to understand that there is no way to be totally safe. (To revisit the original topic, carrying a gun doesn’t make you safe, it only provides you with more options.)
If you really believe that college “kids” can’t be trusted with guns then they probably shouldn’t be allowed to drive on public roads. (The CDC’s data probably is enough to support this position.)
Also, you seem to have the opinion that there are valid positions on either side of this argument. There aren’t. There is the truth and a Constitutionally protected natural right, and there is everything else.
This Republic was created to avoid the problem caused by mob rule which is generally based on emotions and feelings.
There is no right to feel safe.
If you think a discussion on the Internet is “hostile” and “confrontational” then you’ve got real problems.
Dolph,
Setting aside the problems created by allowing a czar to choose upon whom a right is conferred, I’m curious what criteria you would use to “pick and choose” those college students that wanted to concealed carry on campus?
mnd,
It sure doesn’t take much to push your buttons, does it?
You are sure taking some quantum leaps. Deal with what was said, not what you imagined was said.
Dolph,
If you’d said “take off your 7-league boots, you’re making some really big leaps” I’d have thought you a witty conversationalist.
Since you decided on “quantum leaps” I suspicion other things.
I’m really curious to know what you’d do if you walked into a bank, say, and saw a guy holding a gun to a woman’s head, and he says, “Back off or I’ll shoot her.”
I’d back off.
Dude at 2:49pm wrote: “So what training have all you pistol-packing patriots had?”
Well, my weapons training consisted of this: When I was 18 years old I entered The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina and was afforded weapons training in the M-16 A1 rifle. When I joined the United States Army (Infantry), I was 20 years old and attended M-60 machine gunners school, and also carried the M14 and brown bess musket (I was assigned to Alpha Company). When I was in my early 20s I took up pistol shooting and was trained both in the Army as well as at an NRA approved course.
All this took place PRIOR to my car insurance going down because I hit the magic age of 25
My firearms training involves 12 years service in a light infantry unit, certified range safety officer for small arms and indirect fire, and decades of hunting experience. I’ve participated in training conducted by SWAT, and get refresher training from my father in law, who was a state pistol champion in West Virginia.
But I guess I’m one of those “joe-sixpack” types who is liable to turn a traffic incident into a tragedy, or get drunk and start shooting up my neighbors, if you buy the typical “blood in the streets” propaganda, which curiously never seems to happen.
Let’s see, just how many Virginia Concealed Carry Permits have been revoked because someone committed a crime with a firearm? Any?
Advocator 2:45 PM
Sounds like you were in the military at the time.
Military training is completely different than law enforcement training. Being in the military, and trained to carry weapons for a war situation doesn’t in any way qualify you for the sort of deescalation skills that cops are trained for. Two different skill sets. This is a big problem and we see its effects when our military tries to take on law enforcement (peacekeeping, interdiction) duties. Wrong task for people trained to fight a war.
Okay, why don’t you all 1,100 or so boycott Tech? That would be a positive outcome for the rest of us Virginians !!!! C’mon stand up for what you believe and tell your kids they can’t go there, or to UVA or for heaven’s sake W&M. Send them to the U of Utah. Let’s see some action on what you “believe”.
Wait, am I seeing “guns are bad because someone with no training can use them and kill people” AND “citizens shouldn’t carry guns because they haven’t been trained how to use them.”
Which is it?
Anyone trying to push the “you don’t have enough training” angle needs to look at Police Department qualification requirements. Or heck, hang out at a range a few days before the local department qualification tests.
Training requirements are an elitist strawman. Should responsible adults seek training (and legal advice) for CCW? Absolutely! Should it be REQUIRED to exercise a protected right? Never!
(Living in the real world I recognize the need to take gradual steps towards total Freedom in this matter, so things like CCW licenses and training requirements, while infringing, are a necessary political concession at the current time. Vermont/Alaska style carry is the end goal.)
mnd, killing people with guns is easy. It’s killing the right people that requires training.
Dropping a bad guy in a high-stress situation, and not killing bystanders takes training.
Besides, I see your argument about true freedom meaning no ‘infringing requirements’ and raise you one ‘well-regulated militia’ if that’s how you want to play. Please exercise your rights properly by joining the National Guard.
This gun argument goes back and forth. The root of the problem stems from the fact that any person can obtain a firearm and be fine for many years to later lose their mind. If a person has the guts to walk right over to retrive that gun, they could be a hero….. or a deadman. Maybe, just maybe that could be a sound enough reason to allow people who deal with these cooks and have a certain degree of training experience and ability. The police depending on region are put into many dangerous situations that help them at being better equipt than the average citizen. Virginia Tech was a tragedy from a lonely nut case that got away with a crime catching everyone off guard ; someone who planned, calculated and thought outside the box. No one was going to find out until he open fire.
You mean the National Guard that was created in 1903 by the Dick Act?
—–8
(Previous post truncated…)
U.S. Code TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
A person can do more harm with an airplane than a gun. So, since the terrorists killed thousands because of what they did with 4 airplanes, should we outlaw airplanes? How about cars, or knives? I can take someone out swiftly and silently with a bow and arrow…should we outlaw these??? Better watch out, my son is a black belt in Tae Kwon Do…he can take you out with his feet and hands.
Mr Light
Are you a “Modern Day Cowboy”-(Tesla)?
Also, see “A case study in residential overcrowding”
A car is intended to be used to transport from point A to point B. Yet, someone can get into a vehicle drunk and wipe out a group of people trying to make a crosswalk…. still the purpose of a car is to transport.
A plane is meant to carry people long distances through the air from one airport to another. A terrorist can plot to crash it into tall buldings creating massive destruction and death…still it’s purpose is to carry people far distances.
Guns propell bullets at fast velocities to alter the condition of the surface they are shot into. They are not going to get you to a business meeting on time, but they are a tool that can protect if fired upon first. They won’t take you from one time zone into another, but they can make a mean hole in anything that gets in its way. The sole purpose of a gun is to injure, maim or kill.
Military Conservative.
Yep. You are correct; although, the target and skeet shooters would argue.
However, there are lots of evil people in the world who wish to do the same to you, me, and our loved ones, (”injure, maim or kill”), or just anyone they see, just because…….
Until there is as lethal and convenient a tool for the job I’ll stick to my gun for protection, sport, and hunting.
How bout you? What tool for those jobs would you chose?
Go MACK!
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/future-weapons/future-weapons.html
I’m partial to this guy.
http://www.defensereview.com/article741.html
0 cleaning and 0 lubrication. minimal recoil. armor piercing rounds.
Tom James:
You strike me as someone who may want to split hairs over anything pertaining to gun issues. I have been trying to understand why some crazy nutcase would try to take the life of President Reagan. James Brady sadly was caught in that crossfire and understand the push to ban many assault weapons. What I don’t understand is an attitude within our own party to push the use of them regardless of consequences.
By the way, Even though a target or flying disc are inanimate objects, their condition is altered in the process. Both target and skeet shooting is practice for game hunting.
I think your question to Mr. Military was quite ridiculous since he obviously must be a gun owner.
Lafayette: All I can say is, “Here we are and we’ve come this far, but it’s only getting worse./The foreign lands with their terrorist demands, only cause the good to hurt.”
I thought target shooting was an Olympic sport?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports
As was shooting clays?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeet_shooting
And Archery.
And the folks sporting those $20,000 and up skeet guns, aren’t they competing for big bucks?
Wasn’t Brady shot with a .22 pistol, not an assault weapon?
On the Ivory Coast of Africa, they hatch butterflies on a piece of the victims clothing. Then they put poison on the feet of the butterfly. The butterfly flies away in search of the victim by smell and only lands when it has found the victim depositing it’s deadly delivery on the skin.
There are poison darts and blow guns.
And numerous other methods to end a persons life.
If the mind of man, can conceive, and believe, it can achieve.
You’re responsible for your life, and I mine. I’m pro choice, I chose to protect myself with guns or any other method at my disposal.
When all the evil is gone from the world, and we return to the garden of eden, I’ll think about changing my mind.
TJ,
Glad to see you live in a world of paranoia and know of different ways to end a persons life. Just don’t go out in public waving them around if you have a bad day!
Paranoid huh?
Maybe you need to get out more?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/24/couey/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/23/iraq.boyfolo/index.html
It’s not paranoia if it’s true.
TJ,
Those cukes don’t deserve the right to see the light of day. Sending them to prison is a diservice to the rest of society. Once caught bye, bye!