I repeat for emphasis.
YOU have no 'gun rights' whatever.
The STATE has a right to a Militia.
The first half of the 2nd amendment is the ONLY example of a right granted that comes with a declared limitation and allowable purpose.

Look at this now, Take a good look at what has happened here. I just heard a woman talking on the news saying that we should'nt jump to the "If there were more gun laws thing" or " It's people that kill people, not guns". I say that the man that did this is someone that would have killed anyone with whatever means he had at his disposal (re: knife, broken bottle,nuke, etc) get away from telling me that if there were an armed or more than one were oncampus, this guy would have thought twice about doing what he did. He was a sick, deranged person (and we will find out later that he had mental problems i'm sure) it doesn't change the fact that if there are people in the world that have this type of killing on their mind, they will do it any way they can, gun's or no guns, I'm not giving up my choice of personal protection and waiting for the police (which were there at the first rounds that went off and allowed the perpetrator to travel across canpus) to protect me from this person or ones like him. I would like the chance to protect myself and think I would be the best person to do it since I would be the one he is trying to harm. I wouldn't trust anyone else, no matter how much training he or she has, with my life before I had a chance to take this bastard out for hunting me down and trying to kill me. Say what you want, but i am pro gun, and there will be a hell of a fight before this state disarms me.I have the NRA backing me, and I will give my last dollar to fight to keep and bear arms to protect myself and my loved ones from these kind od sick people. If violent movies are the cause of this type of killing, then all I have to say is watch more of them to learn how to protect yourself from these sicko's
Make sense? you bet your ass it does. Watch a cobow movie, even the good guys carried a gun to protect themselves even if it was from a cayote or mountain lion (it's fact)not to mention a man that would kill you to take what you have worked for. Think about that and keep looking over your shoulder whether you own a gun or not.

Yeah, we should definately have more gun laws! Cause, you know, people who shoot other people FOLLOW LAWS! This is probably one of the dumbest posts I have seen to date on this blog. The bodies probably aren't even cold yet and you're using their deaths to promote an agenda? I thought the Bush administration was sick and opportunistic...

Well it's great that Bill has a bunch of guns. He seems like a well adjusted guy. Huh? I'm glad that people have the right to own guns and snap at any moment. Maybe somebody just like him will break the new US record.

Bill - You are truly a bitter and tortured individual. I hope that your guns give you the love and attention that fills your soul. They must by judging from your condescending and foul post. Without a doubt, you continue to perpetuate the stereotype. Congrats!

As for the gun debate, look at the facts. The US has more murders than any civilized country in the world and more accidental gun death. If you own a gun, you are more likely to die by that gun. This is a problem and something needs to change, because what we have been doing (or not doing) is just about dumb as Hell.

Access to weapons needs to be limited and background checks need to be funded. Illegal possession of any gun should carry a mandatory minimum of 10 years. You go to jail with one hit of acid, but not a gun? Tells me that the government is more scared of LSD than a bunch of hillbillies risin’ up! If you commit a robbery with a gun, you should get life.

“Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.” MLK

"The first half of the 2nd amendment is the ONLY example of a right granted that comes with a declared limitation and allowable purpose."

Although the language of the 2nd Amendment could have been clearer, it takes a very strained interpretation to turn "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" into something other than an individual right.

It also takes a rather strange view of language to interpret "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," as "a declared limit and an allowable purpose" rather than the simple piece of exposition that it is.

When people who dislike the RTKBA posit that the 2nd Amendment enumerates a collective right rather than a personal right, I have difficulty understanding what that could even mean. Does it make any sense to say that there could be a collective right to keep and bear arms, but the individuals who make up the collective have do not have that right? This sort of insincere semantic parsing is the last refuge of those who wish to explain away the 2nd Amendment rather than deal with it honestly.

A quick thought experiment: If the founders had seen fit to phrase the 4th Amendment as "A well regulated police force, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" would you view the 4th Amendment as applying only to the police?

The shooter was a Chinese visitor, and as such could not legally have acquired the gun.

My own view of the 2nd Amendment, FWIW, is that it is indeed a personal right (as are all the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights), and that this is particularly obvious in view of the context that the 9th Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 9th Amendment makes it clear that: 1. the rights enumerated in the previous eight amendments belong to "the people" and 2. "the people" have additional rights not enumerated therein, and the Bill of Rights should not be taken to be THE exclusive list of rights belonging to free men and women. It also, to my eye, puts the burden of proof on the State to prove that any restriction on freedom it wishes to codify in law is compatible with the individual liberty the 9th Amendment so clearly prioritizes.

All that said, I also believe that reasonable conditions can be placed on gun ownership while remaining compatible with the 2nd Amendment. For example, I have no problems with backgrounds checks and waiting periods of reasonable length. I am also comfortable with violent felons and the insane losing the right.

Cases like this provoke a knee-jerk reaction from many in the media. If only there were stricter gun laws! Things like this would never happen if we had stricter gun laws! The very people making these claims don't seem to notice that the data do not bear out their statements. The places that earn A's from the Brady Campaign are not devoid of violence. See, D.C., Washington. Meanwhile, states with D's and F's (e.g. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) have very low rates of violent crime.

I'm sure we all wish that the lunatic responsible for this heinous act of violence had never laid his hands on a gun. But wishing doesn't do much, and gun laws that focus on the law abiding don't do much more to deter this kind of determined criminal. If you want to deter criminal violence, you need more guns in the hands of the law abiding, and less in the hands of criminals and the insane. Sadly, most gun control laws proposed by partisans of the left target the former while leaving the latter unaffected. If Ms. Gettleman or anyone else has suggestions for gun control that reverses this equation, I'm all ears.

Until such proposals are on the table, I would caution those reading this blog from buying the intellectually lazy proposition that inconveniencing and even making criminals of law-abiding gun owners through gun control does anything to prevent the sort of sad events that occurred this morning.

Please forgive the double post. I have no idea how that happened.

Come on, now. Michelle Malkin, Nealz Nooze and Instapundit have already started talking about how if everyone on the campus had a gun, way less people would have died.

I think it's repulsive to be making a political point with this tragedy when the bodies haven't even cooled yet. There will be room for legitimate public debate on this sort of thing at some point, but can we hang on to the partisan bickering, please? Christ.

First and foremost, thank you to those who brought this back to a rational discussion. It certainly didn't start out that way.

In my opinion, there were two aspects of the second amendment, one was enable the states to maintain a militia so that the federation would not become too strong and overrun the power of the states. In my opinion, it is time to give up on the notion of being a federation and actually admit that we are a nation. Off topic, the most important aspect of this could be getting rid of the Electoral College once and for all.

The second aspect of the second amendment, again in my non-professional opinion, is to prevent a police state by allowing citizens to arm themselves. As kirkbrew points out, our violent crime rate is among the highest of the developed democratic nations of the world. Perhaps it's time to rethink this.

I'm generally against giving up civil rights, especially in this era when we are losing so many to such wonderful legislations as the PATRIOT act, yecch!! However, this one really may be a mistake in this day and age.

It is true that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But, this is true in so many other nations and they all have lower violent crime rates and murder rates than ours.

Anyway, I'm just throwing one more opinion out there. This is one I have very mixed feelings about. But, more and more, I'm coming to the conclusion that perhaps the second amendment has outlived its useful life.

The very gun control laws that you idiots advocate are the ones that were in place on this campus (ever hear of a gun-free zone?), which enabled this demon to roam unmolested for over 2 hours. We should be screaming it from the rooftops. Gun control is responsible for every one of these deaths.

Other nations that have outlawed guns, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, also hang homosexuals. Islamic countries have outlawed guns, except for the morals police. God willing, we will also have Islamic law.

Virginia has a lower crime rate than New York and New Jersey. You Yankees should look at your own problems and bring your crime rate down. Try getting rid of your inner city gangs. I feel safe walking in any town in Virginia, but not in New York city.

"It is true that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But, this is true in so many other nations and they all have lower violent crime rates and murder rates than ours."

Some, but not all. Columbia, Brazil, South Africa, and Panama all have much stricter gun control laws than does the U.S. All have higher rates of murder and violent crime than the U.S. The advantage of living in the U.S. is that you can legally defend yourself. In the above countries, that can be a very difficult, if not impossible process. Switzerland, despite having fairly liberal gun laws by European standards, and high rates of gun ownership, has lower rates of murder and violent crime than the U.S.

Why is that European countries have relatively low rates of murder and violent crime compared to the U.S.? Their cultural homogeneity certainly helps, but I think this is a small part of the story.

My own theory is that by liberalizing drug laws, they have reduced the strength of the criminal gangs that spring up to supply black markets, and thereby lessened the violent conflicts that take place between such gangs. When there is a demand for a product (e.g. drugs), but no legal supply, criminal organizations fill the gap. Because they have no legal recourse against theft of product, and no legal claims on the turf from which they sell their product, they must maintain and intermittently use violent force to protect their business interests. Were the U.S. to legalize and regulate drugs, I would hypothesize that we would see a big drop in murder and violent crime.

I think such a move would also cripple the black market for guns (the proper target of gun control) because those involved in drug gangs comprise the majority of black-market gun buyers. Of course, this is all mere speculation, but it would be interesting to see how legalization and regulation would work. I suspect it would do wonders for Columbia and Brazil as well.

"I'm generally against giving up civil rights, especially in this era when we are losing so many to such wonderful legislations as the PATRIOT act, yecch!! However, this one really may be a mistake in this day and age."

The PATRIOT act certainly is an ugly piece of legislation. You won't find many people more against it than myself. However, there have been worse pieces of legislation in recent history. Pieces of legislation that allow governments to kill their own citizens. These are usually preceded by other pieces of legislation: strict gun control, usually banning private ownership of guns.

A few examples:

- In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1911 Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1928 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
- In 1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1956, Cambodia, established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

(Taken for convenience sake from gunowners.org, but can be verified by independent sources)

Some here seem to be of the opinion that G.W. Bush is a tyrant. Try to remember that tyrants love a disarmed populace.

I am not an advocate of replacing the political process with armed uprising. I just keep always in the back of my mind that governments of men can go, and do go, and have very recently have gone very, very wrong. When they do, it is good to have a means of self-defense.

The death of these young men and women is the necessary price of doing business for the gun industry. The NRA, the gun industry's lobby group who rallies ordinary Americans to their cause with powerful settler rhetoric but whose real agenda is purely economic, wields far more power than the writer suggests. He is correct when he states that 'only the names and numbers will change'. The hand wringing from politicians unanimously labeling this a 'terrible tragedy' but not a 'preventable terrible tragedy’ renders visible the dark shadow that the NRA casts across the Potomac all the way to Congress and to the Whitehouse. The NRA not only contributes cash directly to politicians but is probably the most powerful lobby group of any nation in the world. Enough is enough. It is time for Americans to stand up for what freedom really means - to be able to send their sons and daughters out into the world without the real danger of gun violence. It is time for gun owners and NRA members to take individual responsibility for their vote and not just be a yes-man for an organization that is a front for a billion dollar industry that will sell guns at any price up to and including the price of this country’s liberty and the price of our children’s lives.

For those that interpret the Second Amendment as a collective as opposed to individual right, let me point this out: most states defined their militia as the collective of able-bodied men who could report for military service in the event of an emergency. In the early days of our nation, there were very small standing militias, and the rest of the populace was presumed to be in ready reserve for military service. This is somewhat similar to the situation in Switzerland today. All able-bodied men are considered members of the militia, and are in fact required to keep a battle rifle (what many people would refer to as an "assault rifle") in their homes. The state militia system eventually evolved into the National Guard, but as we have seen the National Guard can be swiftly federalized and removed from the power of the states.

The way I see it, we have two choices. If we interpret the Second Amendment as a collective right only, then the militia system as understood by the founders is in need of revival. Something that more closely resembles the Swiss model may be required. Or we can interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right with an implication of collective responsibility. This interpretation allows for gun control legislation which places reasonable restrictions against gun ownership for criminals or mentally unstable people. In any case, I believe a completely disarmed populace is at risk from the possiblity of tyranny from their own government.

Interesting to read replies. Has anyone wondered why gun crime is so low in Australia now since the laws were tightened on guns here. I tell you what things are a hell of a lot better and safer for everyone.

Most of the killings occurred while police maintained a perimeter around the building, waiting, listening to the gunshots as wounded students bled to death. Had the police charged the building, many lives could have been saved. But that would have endangered a few of their own lives.

I've been told that I shouldn't carry a gun because it will only make the situation worse, as the attacker will simply take it away and use it against me. If that is indeed so easy to do, I wonder why none of the students chose to take the shooter's gun away and use it against him.

I must respectfully ask: Isn't it obvious by now that allowing law-abiding citizens with a license to carry concealed should have been allowed on campus? If only a few law-abiding students or teachers were carrying they could have stopped the perp before he could kill more people.

The perp was able to kill everyone and anyone he wanted Precisely because of the gun-ban on campus.

Bad people will always be able to get guns. Gun bans only and always hurt law abiding citizens. Look at Washington DC - 30 years ago when liberals denied its citizens the right to keep and bear arms the murder rate went up, not down.

To put it another way, when a bad person plans to break in to someone's house do they choose the house where they know the homeowner is armed or the house where the homeowner is not armed?

Keep in mind that our police force (which is the best in the world IMHO) arrive after a crime is committed and almost never before. You, the law-abiding citizen, must be able to defend yourself. Our founding fathers of the best country that ever existed knew this, and as such established "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed".

Let us pray for over the gun deaths, says the President. When are we going to try something else other than prayer to stop the gun violence? Can you think of anything else? Well, hand guns are made for one purpose only- to kill other humans. Always has been, that is why they were developed. We now have 300 million people. We have a long trail of events where guns are used to kill people. Could we take a poll of all the gun owners, users, lovers and see who is willing to give them up in order to stop future violence-death? Can we make an argument to reasonable thinking people that the risk is no longer worth the former utility of gun use and ownership? If not, I am afraid that we will have to resort to prayer after all. Oh my god, save me from the misguided acts of my fellow man and pardon me because they cannot be stopped by anything I can do, amen. I for one have no confidence that prayer is going to work. The advocates of guns have lame arguments based on their rights to handle a lethal weapon even in the face of evidence that it will result in tragedy every few months. Maybe when the frequency is every day it will sink in. Every hour? Every minute? When the death rate equals that of cancer, heart disease, vehicle driving?

If some students and or the staff were packing heat, the Chinese Communist gun man would not have been able to kill any body.

*, You've got some very good points there, especially about people not being able to defend themselves from the government. That's one of the reasons that I stated that I have very mixed feelings about this issue.

However, you also stated that, "Columbia, Brazil, South Africa, and Panama all have much stricter gun control laws than does the U.S. All have higher rates of murder and violent crime than the U.S."

True. And, this makes another point of mine, not from this blog, very well. All of the countries you listed would be considered "emerging markets" by the financial community. Developing nation is another term that applies. These are code for "third world nation". Brazil may be the only exception in that list.

As the wealthiest third world nation, perhaps Brazil is no longer truly third world. However, given our violent crime rate, literacy rate, infant mortality rate, and life expectency, perhaps the U.S. is no longer truly a first world nation. Perhaps we are better off comparing ourselves to third world nations, where the comparison might sometimes make us look pretty good.

The big cities of America are third world, and hence we have third world problems. America is not one country, but made up of many mini cultural sections. City and country. In the country, we do not have the same problems that our third world cities have.

Let us ban all guns. Gun deaths are outrageous. And let us ban doctors. Doctors kill more people than anything else and they are perfectly legal. We also need to get the majority of Americans off the street. Over half these assholes don't know how to drive in the first place.

Ban Koreans. They all seem to be angry and their food is inferior to Chinese, Japanese, and Thai. What good are they except at murdering Americans? Ban Koreans, FOR THE CHILDREN!

Umm... ya... a bunch of 18 year old college kids running around with guns in their backpacks... brilliant idea! What could possibly go wrong with that idea?!

The bottom line is... this has nothing to do with any gun laws... pro or anti... it has to do with one very sad, disturbed, violent individual.

It also has nothing to do with communism or whatever else. The 23 shooter lived legally in Virginia with his parents since he was about 7 year old.

Are there any rational people in your country? You wouldn't think so based on much of what you see and read.

Despite the differing viewpoints and despite the anger expressed by many here, it seems to me that most of us feel the same way - we are all deeply upset and disturbed by this horrible, awful event.

People give examples of states that would take advantage of their own populations after having imposed gun control laws: China, Soviet Russia, Germany. These examples come from the early part of the 20th century. These places, at that time, are not what you would call a mature, developed democracy. Tyranny took hold because of a lack of democracy combined with extreme gun control. The US is a mature, well-established democracy. You can't really compare the two. Why not let democracy take care of tyranny instead of our guns?
Besides, does anyone really believe that I, in my home, with my family, holding my 9mm Glock that I got at Walmart will be able to repel an invading US federal force with tanks and assault rifles? We don't have access to military grade weaponry, so claiming that our hunting rifles and low caliber pistols will defend us from tyranny is a little stupid. Rely on teh well-established, reliable political process in the US for that.
Also, the comparative examples of Colombia (not Columbia) and Brazil are a bit exaggerated as well. Both countries are failed-state in certain regions. There is a general lack of security (fueled by the drug trade mostly) that has NO PARALLEL in the United States.
The truth is that the determined criminally insane will find some way or other to get access to weaponry that can inflict rapid, devastating damage, and so, perhaps events like the V. Tech cannot effectively be avoided. But I think a lot of the bulk of gun-related violence can be mitigated by simply reducing the supply or type of guns to be had. Like another blogger said, handguns are meant for killing people, not for recreation or hunting.
To be fair, I think I would prefer to pack heat at least until their IS some comprehensive ban on semi-autos.

If he had used molotov cocktails instead (which even 8 year olds can make) would you be lobbying for bans on gasoline?

Sorry, Bigbenr, but your interpretation of the Second Amendment does not match the interpretation of the men who wrote it. Read the Federalist Papers and you will see that Jefferson, Madison, and their contemporaries very clearly saw the right to bear arms as an individual right.

Furthermore, the first part of the amendment is what lawyers refer to as a "precatory" clause: it exists to explain the desire of the lawmakers, but does not restrict the following language in any way. The Founding Fathers desired to foster a well-regulated (i.e., well-trained, well-organized, do a little research on linguistic change) militia and believed that the best way to do so was to protect the natural right of the individual (the words "the people" are used over and over to refer to individuals throughout the Bill of Rights) to bear arms.

Finally, the militia, both then and now, is defined by Title 10 Section 311 of the US Code to include all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 (and all female members of the National Guard). We're not talking state militias here, we're talking about "the militia," the "unorganized militia" from Title 10.

And yes, the 9th Circuit Court agrees with your interpretation. Fortunately, we have a Supreme Court with the ability to overrule their bad decision. I certainly hope that will occur in my lifetime....

I don't understand why this guy did what he did but the 2A is still a good Law. The problem is V Tech decided not to recognize that law and we see one of the possible results. Now I am not saying every student and teacher should be armed but that every student and teacher who qualifies should have the option to arm themselves. If the shooter knew there was even a small possibility of facing armed resistance would he have gone through with it?... Why not in public? nope... to many people carrying guns that may shoot back! Why not a shopping mall?... Oh yeah, The last guy that did that had his rampage cut short by a qualified individual who chose to carry concealed! Nope... school was a good choice... Lots of unarmed victims in a confined area.

Observation shows that gun bans and restrictive laws don't work. Bans only effect those not inclined to break the law in the first place.

Virginia Techs no gun policy was made to make students and parents FEEL safe. All it did was potentialy disarm a victim. This is the lesson to be learned. Simply the possibility of armed resistance may have prevented this cowardly act.

Misanthropic Scott, I share your distaste for the USA Patriot Act. Dwell on this: without an armed populace, how are we to prevent the government from creating more such legislation? The Second Amendment is the one that protects all the rest.

The democratic nations of Europe are merely setting themselves up for future tyranny. Our Founding Fathers tried to avoid that by making us a republic, not a democracy. That system worked fairly well for over 150 years, but ever since WW2 people have been getting the idea that we should be a "democracy." My favorite definition: "democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

[Expletive deleted] you Bigbenr, you dickhead. Your bullshit argument is something cooked up by the anti-gun crowd in the past 10 years to ignore the Constitution.

And good job Gettelman, without knowing any facts of the gunman, what weapons he used, or how he got them, you've found the time to rail against the gun laws of several states that even you acknowledge are NOT Virginia's. You anti-gun [expletive deleted] are so joyous over this nightmarish event it makes me [expletive deleted] sick.

This is a good and healthy discussion. I like it.

Guy Incognito, regarding "...a bunch of 18 year old college kids running around with guns..."

In most (all?) US States a Concealed Weapons License is only provided to individuals that are at least 21 years old. Applicants must submit a full set of fingerprints with photo. Some States require a photocopy of their Drivers License. The FBI then performs a full background check.

Only those who pass receive a License.

Law-abiding citizens tend to obey the law :) If a student, teacher, or anyone who carries a firearm ever brandishes or uses a gun in any illegal manner - they will go to prison for a very long time. Law-abiding citizens who choose to carry know full well the significant responsibility it is.

F. Morales,

Germany was a constitutional republic (like us, we aren't a democracy).
It is disingenuous not to draw parallels between that and us.

Kirkbrew, I'd really love to see your source data on the U.S. having the most murders of any civilized country. Especially since I know how badly cooked those particular books are in many of the gun banned countries. For instance, in Britain if there is a multiple murder it is reported as one crime. If there are a string of robberies they are reported as one crime. And they still have skyrocketing crime rates since they banned firearms.

So by all means anti's let's continue the failed policy of victim disarmament. Let's us continue to punish the law-abiding, in the vain hope that somehow they next incantation will magically make all the bad people stop.

Gerald,

If you're correct about 2A protecting the rest, then it better be reinterpretted to include every citizen's right to own tactical nuclear weapons. Though this may be a valid interpretation of a law that allowed us to own rifles at a time when they were the top weapon available, I question whether our ability to legal own the top weapons of our time is a good idea.

F. Morales had an excellent point with his comment, "does anyone really believe that I, in my home, with my family, holding my 9mm Glock that I got at Walmart will be able to repel an invading US federal force with tanks and assault rifles?"

Probably not. But, just to take the other side for a moment, this is what we're fighting in Iraq at the moment, give or take a bit. So, maybe.

So, since I'm still obviously arguing both sides, I guess I haven't made up my mind yet. Oh well. I was hoping this debate might help solidify my opinion on the subject.

The Korean student was taught by his left wing professors to hate America. He acted upon what he heard. The professors should be tried for hate crimes.

You are all a bunch of God damned morons. If this school hadn't gone to "gun free" the crazed gunman would have been taken out quickly. You are all to blame for this more than any gun carrying law abiding citizen.

[expletive deleted] you all.

Mark Kovacic - This is a pretty common "stat" that is thrown around, but you can look for yourself. I‘ll beat you to the punch. I know that there are lies, damn dirty lies and statistics.
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Also I lived in the UK for 5 years till 2000. It amazed me (and does to this day because I spend a few weeks a year there) about how they report a gun crime on the tellie like it was one of our oh-so-regular school massacres. You are correct - they have increasing crime there, but not because of gun violence. You need to study a little about stats, hypothesis testing and correlation before you make sweeping comments like that.

Pissed Off - You are very eloquent and an excellent writer. Please, I must read more!

Hank Hill - You too seem to be very knowledgeable about this. I am sure that you attended a technical university like VT where liberal views run rampant. I can tell by your writing style. So clever, so intelligent. You and Pissed Off should get together and write a book. I’ll buy you the crayons.

And for the person above (I can’t be bothered to see the name) who said something very intelligent about Yankees and being safe in NYC – let it go. We are a Union. One people with the same challenges. Seriously, why be so divisive? Further your point, I feel safer in NYC or Chicago that Atlanta or New Orleans.

Bubba, you said, "Virginia has a lower crime rate than New York and New Jersey. You Yankees should look at your own problems and bring your crime rate down. Try getting rid of your inner city gangs. I feel safe walking in any town in Virginia, but not in New York city."

That's all well and good. The problem with that statement is that the number one source for the illegal guns in New York City is Virginia. So, if you want to keep your gun laws so lax, learn how to keep your guns in your own state. Perhaps we need to put up border patrols at all of the entry and exit points between Virginia and the rest of the U.S.

Also, just for reference, "New York City has the lowest crime rate among the ten largest cities in the United States." from the wikipedia page on NYC. So, you may not FEEL safe here. But, you would BE safe here. I walk the streets UNARMED at all hours of the night. And, the subway is even safer. So, all we ask is that you keep your guns to yourselves.

Misanthropic Scott,

Granted, weapons certainly pack more destructive power today than they did when the Constitution was written. Likewise, forms of mass communication exist today that were unthinkable then. That is why the Constitution is a living document (in the sense that it contains means by which it can be amended when necessary, not in the sense that it should be reinterpreted whenever convenient). Still, I think the question is a bit disingenuous: private citizens don't need tactical nukes to defend themselves from any theoretical tyrannical government; small arms should provide a sufficient deterrent. Over the course of the last century we have seen superpowers defeated by guerrilla warfare in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. And frankly, while F. Morales might not be able to keep the military out of his home with his 9mm Glock, he might be able to make a difference out in the hills with a .308 Remington. Let's hope it never comes to that....

Anonymous... thanks for the info... I figured the age would probably be 21. So with that in mind... allow be to rephrase...

ya... a bunch of 21 year old college kids running around with guns in their backpacks... brilliant idea! What could possibly go wrong with that idea?!

Guy Incognito, LOL. You're too much. I think I have enjoyed your posts the most.

Gerald,

I'm no weapons expert. That Remington sounds like more like a hunting rifle than that Glock. I don't want to speak for everyone. It was my impression that we were discussing bans on weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings, and of course the target practice to improve one's skill at killing human beings.

Since fully automatic weapons are already banned, I'm thinking that any ban being discussed would include semiautomatic assault style weapons (or possibly all semiautomatics) and handguns. I'd also hope it'd include armor piercing bullets. We really don't need to be able to shoot the deer hiding behind the road sign, do we?

Forget gun control. I can get you any gun(or any thing else) you want through our southern border. If you like AK47's, the containers from China have plenty. America is not a police state and never will be. We sue the police so they are tame. America is a land of opportunity, if you get my drift.

Well, rifles are primarily used for hunting and target shooting, but there are people who do own them for home defense.

Point one, I don't think there are very many people in the gun-owning community who actually believe that any sort of ban would stop at handguns or these mythical "assault weapons." It would only =start= there and, once the precedent has been set, expand from there. If you do a bit of research, you will find that the Brady Campaign has said many times that they intend to push for the ban of all firearms eventually.

Point two, fully automatic weapons are not, in fact, banned. Their sale is heavily regulated. You can't buy any that have been manufactured since 1986 and you need to acquire a tax stamp ($200 plus a rigorous background check), but you can buy them if you're the "right kind of person" whatever that may be.

Point three, armor-piercing bullets are also already heavily regulated. Which is pretty much irrelevant, since most hunting rifles are capable of punching right through body armor anyway.

Point four, self-defense is a basic right of every human being. Unless you're advocating people openly carrying rifles and shotguns, then your suggested handgun ban would effectively remove everyone's right to self-defense outside their own homes. I don't believe that result would be acceptable to many people.

Don't fall for empty rhetoric. Crime in the United Kingdom has skyrocketed since the gun ban went in after the Dunblane incident. Fifty percent of all burglaries in England involve occupied dwellings simply because the criminals know that their law-abiding victims will be defenseless. If you want to live in that kind of environment, that's up to you. I do not and will fight any legislation that leads in that direction.

Gerald is right about the UK. The PM said it was the African Culture that is responsible for too much of the crime(just like it is in the Colonies).

If Cho Seung-Hui had not been unreasonably fearful, had used common sense and not had a gun, a beautiful young man would still be alive. There are too many Cho Seung-Hui out there too many little people of limited social skills, limited practical intelligence and limited conscience who not only fail to think before they act but refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
Our Constitution does not give us rights without responsibility, so where is the personal responsibility in this?

We have the NRA to thank not only for the deletion of personal responsibility from the equation, but for all the people who will die as the result.

Bigbenr,

I mean no disrespect and like hearing other viewpoints, but I think your view of the NRA is not accurate.

The NRA, and conservatives in general, place a high emphasis on personal responsibility. Liberals, who comprise the largest section of the anti-2nd Amendment group, are almost the complete opposite. In our (U.S.) news media, which is about 95% Left-to-Far Left, conservatives are frequently verbally attacked for maintaining that individuals have the responsibility for their actions.

Based on my own personal observations in the past 20 years of paying attention to the news in nearly every case of when something bad happens liberals tend to blame anyone else besides the person or group that caused the situation. And in every case, they blame some republican or conservative.

If liberals riot in a city, it’s the conservatives fault. If members of certain groups commit a crime, it’s because conservatives didn’t give away enough of the people's tax money. If a madman shoots 32 people, it’s somehow because of conservatives who support the NRA. Etc.

Another variation on how - in general - conservatives and liberals approach topics and situations is: conservatives primarily use reason and logic to solve problems. Liberals primarily use emotions and feelings to solve problems. There are pros/cons on both sides.

Conservatives occasionally overlook the feelings of others, focusing too much on logic. Liberals occasionally rely too much on their emotions to base their decisions.

Case in point is Va Tech. A bill was introduced about a year ago that would have allowed students and employees to carry handguns if they were licensed to carry. It was not passed and therefore students and teachers were unable to defend themselves.

Larry Hincker from Va Tech happy that the bill was not passed: "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." http://reason.com/blog/show/119687.html

His words "feel safe" does not mean "be safe". This is an example of where feelings and emotions can blind people.

32 people murdered by one person, even though Va Tech's had a 100% gun ban. The gun ban on campus was one of the worst decisions that Va Tech has made... and they (leaders of the college) remain blinded and will not change their thinking. Every madman in the country now knows (if they didn't already) that they can go to a college campus and carry out whatever crime they want and they will not likely be stopped - because the madman will be the only one on campus with a gun. (where were the security guards?)

With that said, I realize there is some risk allowing law-abiding, and licensed, students and teachers the choice to carry a gun. Accidents can happen and they can be stolen. There is no perfect solution when we live in a world that will always contain a certain percentage of bad people. The approach of disarming all students and teachers, and thereby only allowing madmen to carry guns, is a much greater risk - by far.

For those that have never [frequently] handled and shot a handgun I can understand feeling apprehensive about letting people you don't know have or carry them. I did. I have owned a gun for less than two years. I also have a license to carry.

I did not grow up around guns and was a little nervous the first month or two handling my gun and shooting it at the range. I would say it took about six months of continually practicing and cleaning it to say that I no longer felt uncomfortable at all handling it.

Since I received my license and bought my gun I have done a lot of research, online and in print. Along with freedom comes responsibility – I wanted to educate myself and not be naïve. It only took about 1 week to realize that about 90% of the objective non-biased information about gun ownership was never discussed in newspapers and on news shows. And I watch news at least 6 days a week.

If one only gets their news from liberal news outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, etc, and most of our newspapers) then they are only getting information which the news outlets want them to believe. There is much deception and deceit coming from our news media, and their agenda is pro-Democrat, anti-Republican, anti-2nd Amendment, and sadly, occasionally anti-American. And I am not saying that conservatives are perfect and never screw up. They aren’t, and they do.

I would encourage every law-abiding adult to go a shooting range and learn to shoot and handle a handgun. You don’t have to buy one, you can rent them at the range. Even if you later decide that you will never own a gun you will at least have the knowledge and experience to properly and safely handle one. What you see in movies and on television is rarely accurate. God forbid, but what if you are confronted by a burglar with a gun, and you somehow manage to take it from the attacker? If you know how to handle a gun it could save your life or loved ones.

anonymous, a great, rational discussion of related topics.

Bigbenr, you've got it wrong: Cho is NOT THE VICTIM here. This might sound callous, but I'm far more sympathetic to the 32 people he murdered than I am to him. And, according to any rational analysis of the evidence, having a gun was the least of his problems.

Let's make this clear: the American system is not designed to prevent crimes before they happen; doing that requires a kind of logic that is completely anathema to a society based on liberty, because it involves punishing people before they've done anything wrong. Furthermore, there is no way to ensure that you'll spot every single lunatic and stop them in time. Canada has had a firearms registry for years and it didn't prevent a madman from acquiring a gun and using it in Montreal last year.

So, that leaves us with a choice: get rid of all firearms, which is A. foolishly optimistic and B. completely at odds with the purpose of the Second Amendment which, among other things, protects the people's right to retain the means by which to resist tyranny; OR allow law-abiding citizens to carry the means to defend themselves and others.

Historical evidence has shown that those who choose to legally carry firearms are among the most law-abiding and responsible citizens (in fact, at least in North Carolina, concealed firearms licensees are more law-abiding than the police, with a MUCH lower rate of felony arrests). The risk of one of these people having a negligent discharge or snapping and shooting someone, is infinitesimal compared to the deterrent benefit they provide.

Virginia Tech intentionally and willfully disarmed its students and left them defenseless in the face of an unthinkable situation. Bear in mind that even competent law enforcement still takes time to respond, the only way this tragedy could have been cut short is if a student, faculty member, or staff member had been armed and willing to intervene. Would it have made a difference? We'll never know....

Ted Nugent weighs in on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/

Excerpt:

"Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it."

Gerald,

Good post.

Regarding "Historical evidence has shown that those who choose to legally carry firearms are among the most law-abiding and responsible citizens", could you provide a link to the source of this info. I have absolutely no reason to doubt, but I always like to see the data.

Off topic: Previously I used to sky-dive a lot. Before I made the decision to do it I looked at the stats. I learned that it was actually slightly safer sky diving than driving to the sky drive place. With those stats I felt comfortable and confident that I would be able to sky dive and enjoy it.

So, I would really enjoy seeing the source of this info. I tend to agree with you in principle with your statement, but it's comforting to know that it's based on good data. Plus, it may help further the cause of supporting the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. Thanks.

Lots of stats that reinforce the truth that more guns=less crime...

"Guns, Gun Ownership, & RTC at All-Time Highs, Less "Gun Control," and Violent Crime at 30-Year Low"

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

Bigbenr & Kirkbrew -
Buy a vowel and get a clue.

Or maybe read a study that was published in 1992!

From: 15 Myths About Gun Control - http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/index.html

Executive Summary
Firearms are used to commit as many as 650,000 crimes each year. But firearms are also used to prevent crimes as many as one million times each year. In fact, criminals are three times more likely to be killed by armed victims who resist them than by the police. Would tougher gun control laws make our lives safer? Fair appraisal of the issue requires us to put aside some common myths.

Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A careful review of 18 academic studies shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. International evidence tells a similar story.
Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. The nation already has 20,000 gun control laws, and the police arrest 220,000 people a year on weapons violations. Yet the violent crime rate is at an all-time high. Moreover, considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve a gun, gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime - even if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't. For example, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., experienced sharp murder-rate increases after passing tough gun control laws. Canada, Taiwan and Jamaica reported similar experiences.
Myth No. 3: Guns are of little help in defending against criminals. In fact, guns are a big help. Each year, potential victims kill from 2,000 to 3,000 criminals and wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. And mishaps are rare. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only 30 times a year, compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time.
Myth No. 4: Killing someone is the only reason to buy a handgun. The vast majority of gun owners cite protection from crime as one of the main reasons they own a gun. And for good reason. Americans use guns for self-protection about one million times a year. In 98 percent of the cases, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot.
Myth No. 5: People who buy guns are more prone to violence and crime than are other people. Violence and crime are higher among black than white, lower-income than middle- or upper-income, young than middle-aged, single than married, and urban than rural individuals - all contrary to the pattern of gun ownership.
Myth No. 6: Criminals mainly have guns in order to commit crimes. The number one reason criminals acquire guns is for self-protection against other criminals. Fewer than half of felons think handguns are important for use in committing crimes.
Myth No. 7: Killings and other violent crimes were prevalent in the Old West because guns were so plentiful. Much of the violence on the frontier involved clashes with Indians, bandits and foreigners. Even so, the frontier was a lot safer than America is today. There was very little ordinary crime - less than in most cities in the East.
Myth No. 8: Gun controls keep criminals from obtaining guns. In surveys of prisoners, a majority said that prior to imprisonment they had owned a handgun. But fewer than one in six guns had been purchased from a retail dealer. Three-fourths of the felons said they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions.
Myth No. 9: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most vicious crimes. If the Brady bill were law, it would not have saved Jim Brady. Nor would it have prevented the Killeen, Texas, massacre or the slaughter at McDonald's in Stockton, Calif. However, an instant records check (to identify felons when they try to purchase guns from retail dealers) and better enforcement of existing laws (to turn criminals into convicted felons) might well prevent some vicious crimes.
Myth No. 10: Most murders are committed by people killing friends or family members. The actual number is about one out of five. Most in-household killings are not crimes of passion. They're the culmination of years of abusive behavior, and often it is the abuser who is killed.
Myth No. 11: The availability of guns contributes to crimes of passion. In about 90 percent of "crime-of-passion" domestic homicides, the police had been called in previously to break up violence. In half the cases, the police had been called in five or more times. There is no evidence that a significant number of homicides occur simply because a lethal weapon is handy.
Myth No. 12: Automatic rifles and so-called assault weapons are too dangerous to be left in private hands. Over the past 50 years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on "Miami Vice" and in the movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer. Even gun control advocates concede that so-called assault weapons play a minor role in violent crime.
Myth No. 13: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the purchase of "Saturday Night Specials." Inexpensive handguns are involved in only 1 to 3 percent of violent crimes, and criminals are no more likely to use one than any other type of handgun.
Myth No. 14: People don't need guns for self-protection because they can rely on the police. About 83 percent of the population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives, and in any given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households. Considering that, effectively, there is only one police officer on patrol for every 3,300 people, the odds are not likely to improve. And the courts have ruled that government has no duty to protect individual citizens from crime.
Myth No. 15: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right. The Second Amendment reflects the founders' belief that an armed citizenry (called the "general militia") was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution's framers.

Scott -

You are poorly informed in regared to Australia's crime situation. Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

Maybe they need to issue more legal guns to the general population.

WorldNetDaily: Crime up Down Under - Reports
Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

Peacemaker,

I'm finding your argument inconclusive. I went to the website from which you copied those myths. I saw no reference to any supporting data for any of the 15 claims. I did, however, find this from WorldNetDaily, an organization I know nothing about. I have no idea whether this is biased or not. It certainly does not state a source, other than itself.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

Then I found this from BBC, a well-known reputable news organization. Note that its graph cites UN data and shows the deaths by firearm rate per 10,000 people in the U.S. to be 30 times as high as that in the U.K. and 6 times as high as Canada, Germany, and Switzerland. Don't worry though; South Africa is still over 20 times as high as ours.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6562529.stm

The world map in the BBC article is a tad difficult to read for specific smaller countries. I see only a few smaller countries in Europe, possibly Eastern Europe doing as badly as we are. No other nation that would be considered developed and democratic, with the possible exception of Israel that doesn't really show on the map, is in the category that is worse than ours. Few or zero are in the same class of as bad as ours.

Interstate comparisons are, in my non-professional opinion, nearly totally ignorable due to the ease with which guns may be transported intra-nationally in the U.S. As I noted above, the number one source of illegal guns in New York City is Virginia. So, New Jersey's tough gun laws probably do little to reduce either total number of guns or number of illegal guns, ditto for New York City's laws.

So, I'm still sitting on the fence on this, but only just barely.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

There have been a number of arguments advanced in the aftermath of this nightmare:

1) That more gun-restrictions could have helped.
- The campus of Virginia Tech was under the most extreme form of gun control - NO GUNS ALLOWED! Period! Some seem to want us to believe that somebody should have simply asked Cho to go outside and read the signs.

2) That this is a problem with the United States, a.k.a. "If only I were in Europe..."
- Bill Clinton grew up in a mud-pit and became President of the United States. Only this great country offers that kind of mobility. I can recall a professor telling of growing up in Cambridge, England (not of the elite classes) - how there were knife fights constantly in the schools. Some Europhiles have implanted their reading of Harry Potter on the realities of Europe. What about Eastern Europe?? Why must you add hatred of your country to everything?? Is this the attitude of Jack Kennedy?? Show your countrymen that you love your homeland and you will find them coming to your defense.

3) Gun owners are white, Republican nuts.
- There are 80 million guns in this country. Some owners are white, some black, and we saw many Asian ones during the LA riots. Stereotyping people will not help the argument.

4) The 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right.
- Think about it for a moment. So the Founding Fathers wrote an entire amendment of rights for the people to support THE MILITARY'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS??? The 1st and 4th amendments apply to the people, but the 2nd to the state??? Does this really make sense??

For a great presentation on gun control, watch this:

http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/60756/

I fear that if these NRA "Extremists" are not held to account for their actions, and stripped of lobby power at the very least, they will devise some new scheme to terrorize the populace once again into submission. In order to make this assessment, you have to actually refute or even address the material. You haven't been able to do this, despite my supreme patience on the matter.

I suspect that anywhere you post becomes a no fact zone.But you've given away the fact that you're posting for the NRA Propaganda machine, and we know that NRA LIES to people, and that its subscribers and their useful Idiots , insulated in their little bubble, are not at all well-informed. I asked you for facts, and you give none . Exposing lies isn't pissing and whining and there's no expiration date on lies. PROOF!!!! PROOOF!!!

Many of those posting comments here have made a mistake and are making fools of themselves. I stand by everything I have written, I can't help it if people
ignore what I write and substitute their own ideas. I have written on the Internet for years..Take a deep breath, reread what I have actually written and take some time to sincerely think about it. THINK, why is writing "NRA lies to
serve the Gun makers agenda" OK but this topic results in an irrational and intellectually dishonest response?

Bigbenr,

Like you (I guess), I do not like to be lied to even by people or groups which agree with my point of view. I also want proof.

I consider myself an average American trying to make a living and enjoy my life in our great country. I don't have time to review every post by groups that I support nor groups that I do not support.

I am not aware of any "NRA lies". Would you please provide us "PROOF" that they lied?

I should note for those that are reading each post (pro and con) with rational thinking that an 'inconsistency' or 'inaccuracy' is not the same as a 'lie'. Every web site which has chosen to post opinions on political or controversial will get things wrong from time to time - including this web site. I do not consider that they 'lied', perhaps misinformed and not aware of more of the facts.

For example, if someone tells you that it is 80 degrees outside but in fact it is 84 degrees - did that person lie? Of course not, it was simply an inaccurate statement.

My point is that if you find some inaccurate statement on NRA's website and call it a lie then by the measure you judge you will have to concede that the professional journalists on this web site also 'lie' frequently.

Even though we have different view points I appreciate reading your posts...keep posting.

Here is a good article from yesterday "Packing heat in plain view" http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/203279

Excerpts:

"LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa - The security guards at Park City mall don't carry guns, but Patrick Miller packs heat on his hip in plain view when he strolls amid the shoppers with his family."

"Miller, 30, of Atglen, has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but he has worn his loaded semi-automatic 9 mm handgun in the open to dozens of restaurants, sporting events, his church, movies — almost everywhere he goes in his leisure time."

Here is the first part of the article specific to Va Tech:

"The right to carry firearms issue has been spotlighted by last week's shootings at Virginia Tech..."

A side comment/question: In your lifetime, in America, how many crimes do you recall were committed by law-abiding citizens (or any citizen for that matter) that open carries (carries a gun in plain view)? I can't recall a single time. Law-abiding citizens are guaranteed the right by the US Constitution to "keep and bear arms".

If you are law-abiding, use your Constitutional rights - learn how to handle a gun. Don't pretend that you will never be attacked (although I certainly hope you never are). A gun is the only civilian weapon that equalizes the situation if an attacker (or attackers) wish to do you harm.

Here is good article from Saturday.

"Many in Utah glad for state's gun law
It expressly allows concealed weapons at public colleges"

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173350987183&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161

Excerpt:

"Brent Tenney says he feels pretty safe when he goes to class at the University of Utah, but he takes no chances. He brings a loaded 9-mm semiautomatic with him every day."

The article does a descent job of showing both sides of the issue. Two students interviewed that don't want to allow people to carry guns on campus were included.

One of them, who didn't even know that carrying guns was allowed, said "I don’t see the need for one up here, so that could only lead to trouble,"

What I found interesting about his comments was that some of the other students were lawfully carry guns and that he didn't know about it. One can infer that there is no "trouble" at all with law-abiding students carrying - because if there was "trouble" then he and everyone would know about it.

The other student quoted said "What happened at Virginia Tech might have been stopped," BUT...
"...that it is a bad idea to allow guns in dorms, and she fears that an accident could happen during a party on campus"

Again, obviously there have not been any "accidents" because if there were everyone would know about it.

These two examples illustrate the "feel safe" verses "be safe" mentality and how, in general, liberals and conservatives are on opposite sides of this issue.

Liberals tend to agree with disarming law-abiding citizens - so that they "feel safe". Yet they are less safe. Conservatives tend to agree with allowing law-abiding (and licensed) citizens to carry a concealed gun - so that they "are safe". Yet liberals don't "feel safe" even though they are safer.

My 2cents

Disarming potential victims will NOT prevent this sort of thing. The only examples of this sort of story come from groups that were forcibly disarmed. Those that break the law will always have guns. Police will always have guns. The question on the table is weather you want the liberty to protect yourself from both and be free or not.

Lets look at some of the winners in history that wanted to disarm the people and strip society of the right to be secure in their persons:

* Hitler: “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”

I think that is a long enough list. Now lets looks at some of those dirty rotten un-American scoundrels that think people should have guns:

* James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

* Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

* George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

* Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms"

Noah Webster : "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; “

From April 19.
WND Exclusive VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE
25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

My comment: Why isn't the liberal media covering stories like this every day?

thank you