It wasn't that long ago that pretrial discovery unveiled the goods on the makers of the anti-depressant Paxil--a bogus study was "created" in order to counter a study that predicted childhood suicide...

Now, is it such a good idea to be selling selective enforcement of the law...???

Talk about your blatant travesties of justice--the CA Legislature says it's OK to poison the workplace with cancer and reproductive harm causing chemicals--and certain people receive this like it's God's Word coming down from way up high...

Oh right--that's what life's all about--...10 Million Illegal Aliens--damn the torpedos...

My point is: yes, these things happen... Especially if the Govt. is doing its best to increase medical industry profits by poisoning all kinds of people to the gills...

How about a "health tax" on junk food--plus an appropriate warning label...

BAN MARGARINE!!!!

Hey Lib's,

You DO know that if the teacher or ONE student was carrying a concealed weapon, the shooting would have ended much different..??? !!! I hope that this shooting will spur the law allowing our kids to carry guns on college campuses... Teachers are already sueing to be allowed to carry on campus, and maybe this will be the start of something to help stop the deaths...

Bill..

The one important question I have is; how is that 100% of the time, 100% of the perpetrators shoot themselves? Strange!

Hey Bill, this is Illinois!
A 'Designated Innocent Victim' State.

NOBODY is allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection in Illinois!

That's what 'Police Protection' is all about!
Only..., the Supreme Court has said the police aren't required to actually Provide you with any, but that won't stand in the way of Illinois Gov't's position that You aren't allowed to provide Your OWN!

I don’t understand the position of those that think Gun Control will ever stop these types of attacks. First of all, the gun is no more responsible for killing than a pencil is for misspelling a word! Good gun control in my opinion would consist of being a legal firearm holder, meeting all state and federal background requirements, and being able to shoot, and; hit the wolf that came into that school, intent on killing the sheep, that day. When will people understand, that, not; all people that own firearms are crazy “run for the hills take everyone’s guns” Just look at the statistics on what kills more people each year compared to “people” killing people using guns. I think the media should stop playing all of shootings, I believe that these Wolfs crave publicity, they are spineless little cowards that watch to many videos, instead, if these idiots want a gunfight, pick one with a gunfighter! Not, children crowded into a hall. My prayers and thought go out to the families and staff, I only hope that the shooter took a real long time to expire, in fact, they should have revived him and left him to the crowd.

"Wouldn't the simpler solution be to make sure handguns stay out of the hands of children and those with a history of mental illness?"

Out of whose hands? It is always curious who a "we" chooses" as a "them."

Children have been taught to responsibly use guns, and do, every day.

About 20% of Americans have a health history that includes mental illness, and many own and responsibly use guns. I do not. My health history is not the reason, I choose not to.

We live in cultures that have become increasingly dangerous, because our access to dangerous weapons has so increased. How we stem the violence remains a mystery.

Jen Phillips,

You are absolutely right!

I'm very concerned about these NRA-type people who think the solution to gun violence is more guns. We can see how well this strategy works in Iraq.
Once everybody has a gun (or a dozen) then the mentally ill who are bent on homicide will start using rocket propelled grenades or some such thing.

{"I'm very concerned about these NRA-type people who think the solution to gun violence is more guns."}

Right! What we need to do is make strict laws against taking guns to school and shooting people!
Maybe Illinois should make it illegal for anyone but a police officer to have a loaded gun.
Matter of fact, why don't we make schools GUN FREE ZONES!!

Why..., they ARE Gun Free Zones!
Illinois DOES have a law like that!
THAT's why nobody on the scene had a GUN, except the guy who was killing people.

{"We can see how well this strategy works in Iraq."}

Who's employing any such a strategy in Iraq?
From what I understand, Iraqi citizens had no trouble acquiring legal AK-47s when Saddam was in power (only one full-auto assault weapon per household, though), and the US backed government in Iraq today has MUCH stricter laws regarding citizen ownership of firearms.

Was the average Iraqi-on-the-street more likely to be gunned down THEN, do you think, or NOW?

{"Once everybody has a gun (or a dozen) then the mentally ill who are bent on homicide will start using rocket propelled grenades or some such thing."}

Israeli citizens go about armed, legally, and in fairly substantial numbers.
Once in a while, someone with a grudge DOES fire off an RPG or some such at a bunch of innocent people at a bus stop.
They never seem to get off a second round.

They USED to do shootings in Israeli schools too, but when would-be martyrs-to-the-cause found themselves being taken out by armed and trained, 55 year old school-marms, they gave it up as a bad form.

Harold – how would you suggest that we do that?

How many of those 20% with mental illness have access to a car, or a knife, baseball bat, meat cleaver, etc, how do you recommend that these should be controlled?

I have to disagree with you, regarding the increasing dangers, because of; increased access to dangerous weapons, they have always been available, and most likely always will be.

How we stem the violence really is not a mystery, look at the statistics related to states that have concealed carry laws, and you will find a significant drop in crime. Education in the school systems has been lacking for years; you may be surprised at how many colleges, and schools have daily and weekly threats to students and factuality that are not acted on because of a fear of discrimination! I know this to be a fact.

My guess is that; sooner or later, students will get smart and arm themselves for this type of violence; nothing will stop an active shooter quicker than a trained marksman with a 45, God created man – Colt made them equal.

Good point, Well Harold!

In my father's day (1940's/50's), you could walk into the local hardware store with $50.00 and take home a new pistol and box or two of ammo.
No paperwork, but you Might have to show a driver's license to convince a clerk you were old enough.

Or, you could get one through the mail by signing a little statement with your order, saying you were 18.

You can find old copies of Mechanics Illustrated or Sports Afield with ads in the back, selling military surplus weapons from WWII and the Korean War.
Those dreaded SEMI-automatics by mail-order! And high capacity magazines for them!

How can one argue that American's have GREATER access to weapons in today's America?

How can anyone argue that the exponential INCREASE in gun laws over the last 40+ years has made us a safer society than we were in 1960?

All I can say is keep on top of this site, I travel and my ability to monitor it will be short! Keep up the good work.

Friends of Colt!

Get rid of the legislators who refuse to do their job: pass laws for the benefit of America...not for select lobby groups.

The problem is guns alright. The bigger problem are our lawmakers who have let this happen.

What I don't understand is that I have seen multiple page articles all about the shooter's life, etc. but only the names of the innocent victims who were killed. How about the media start spending more time remembering the victims then glorifying the gutless killers. I also read that there were six crosses at the site... this maniac does not deserve a cross - he is a cold-blooded murderer. Maybe if there were less media "glorification" there would be fewer repeats of this horrible occurance.

An ultra-right wing blog had decided that NIU students had it coming, and it was their fault for attending an 'athiestic college.' I find it repellent that someone would use this tragedy to score political points. Go to www.conservapedia.com and click on the 'talk' page. This is a wiki so you can add your own comments if you register.

While this is an awful event in the lives of the victims and their family and friends, many are calling for knee-jerk reactions. I realize that many are calling for total gun control but that would create even more problems.

In my column, I wrote how every day gun owners use their firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones.

And many have to realize that countries that have do gun control have seen a huge increase in crime. The sad fact is that criminals will always get guns or use other weapons to hurt others.

We need to enforce the laws that we already have now.

timesobserver.blogspot.com

This is a tragic event and things like this shouldn't happen, but, they will continue unless we change our society's attitudes. We must demand the , so called, leaders of our country set a proper example! Stop getting on the "news"? media and telling everyone that they want to kill, kill,kill, we want them dead not captured,etc. This society has degraded to less than animalistic level. More laws, more controls and more hype on the media will not help with our problem. I do agree that i you were faced with the possibility that everyone carried a gun and was capable of using it effectively that it would give criminals pause when they think about doing you harm. We need to take an HONEST look at ourselves and the examples we are setting by OUR statements and actions.We are failing our children and the world! Peace be with you all!

wow, the pro-gun trolls really came out for this one. also, i don't believe a goddamm word any of you say. you will say ANYTHING and lay the blame ANYWHERE but on guns when these things happen. as far as i've ever been able to tell, your priorities are, first, guns, second, innocent life. screw you , your rationalizing, your convoluted gun-nut horseshit, and your unwillingness to do anything about these massacres but try and push more guns down our throats.

Well, NMC, maybe you should read my comments again and take a look at my column.

While I don't consider myself a "pro-gun troll," I do care about innocent life. What you and others fail to realize is that if we get rid of the guns in this country, we will only disarm the honest citizen. Do you honestly think a criminal will hand over his gun? I don't think and the criminals interviewed in England, where there is gun control, say they won't hand their guns over either.

Now, you can like or hate what I'm saying but you have to realize I am trying to solve this problem by pointing out what will happen in this country if we disarm the honest citizen. It would be foolish to ignore this important fact. Please read my column and you'll see what I'm talking about.

timesobserver.blogspot.com

{"also, i don't believe a goddamm word any of you say."}

The PERFECT opening, of course.
The first step in ANY civil dialog between reasonable parties is to establish that you're listening and trying to understand their position, thereby giving others some incentive to listen to, and try to understand YOU.
Nicely achieved.

{"you will say ANYTHING and lay the blame ANYWHERE but on guns"}
Of COURSE it's the fault of the guns, NOT the people who use them. It's ALWAYS the fault of the guns!
EVERYONE knows SOMEONE who's had a gun jump into his hand, point itself at a liquor store owner and fire itself at him! Guns resort to such antics every day!
Likewise, when a man beats his child to death with a shoe, it's the fault of the shoe.

{"screw you, your rationalizing, your convoluted gun-nut horseshit"}

There's a well reasoned and presented argument, sure to incline many contemplative minds toward your cause and your positions.
Really clinches your case.

Lucky for us you don't have a gun.
You sound like you're on the ragged edge there pal.

great retort, droolius. you're a real champ at that rationalizing i was referring to. guns kill; i would think it's obvious that a person needs to be involved, but i should have been more explicit for you, lest you have bad dreams about inanimate objects coming to life. why shouldn't i be on the ragged edge? you like seeing these stories about gun massacres every week? you want to do something about it now, or wait around and argue theoreticals while the bodycount keeps rising?

NMC, Droolius did make a very good point. You didn't even try to be objective and see another person's viewpoints.

Now, I don't like to see this happen either but you have to realize what would happen to this country if we made guns illegal. The honest gun owner would turn his or her guns over but not the criminal. That doesn't sound like a very good solution either, does it?

timesobserver.blogspot.com

The gun problem is only the bad guy has a gun. Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

I am in the airforce for security forces. I understand that it would have been alot different if someone in that class had a weapon of there own. But you cant just have teenagers and college students roaming around with a weapon. People arnt taught had to fire a weapon or how to keep that weapon so no one will try and grab it. Mostly likely if students carried weapons; they wouldnt understand the power and responsibility behind it. We would end up with MORE ACCIDENTAL SHOOTINGS, then people loosing there minds and having school shootings. This world is corrupted with people full of hate and desire to kill. All we the people can do is just hope. Hope that, stuff like that doesnt happen to us. Or you. Shootings will never end, nor will crime. Cops do there best, to solve crimes but its just like this guy, no one knows his motive. Its sad. Lets just hope that your on the good side and not the bad.

Relatively recently, AP News listed all the instances where someone brought a gun to work to settle differences... There were an awful lot of them...

There are two issues here: Why do people "dish it out," and why do people get so upset about merely "having words..."

Actually, if the "disher outer" is in a position of authority... Though a lawyer would be your better bet here...

And so..., what about the other side of the equation--when "society" decides that Might is Right...

This is generally the story with law enforcement types... To the extreme that a photographer caught a San Francisco cop brutally assaulting an innocent demonstration organizer (in conjunction with the police photographer)--yet I, for one, never heard about him (them) being punished...

It seems to me that Universities are the prime breeding ground for this type of irresponsible behavior: like with the Lord of the Flies--whatever kind of "bashing" the bigger, socially "adept" students decide should be metted out...

And "people" would seem to like it--seeing some poor "loser" getting harrassed by big, popular footballers.... Or am I wrong...?

I think you have to be pretty naive not to understand that this is exactly where our "Masters" want society to be at...

When you shake up a pail full of crabs, they start fighting each other... And then none are "crabbing" about how their Great Leader broke his campaign promise to go after the worst greenhouse gas polluters... Or how an MIT study determined that ethanol actually causes more greenhouse gas pollution--at the same time it causes more everyday type smog, plus it raises the price of natural gas...!!! Or how the new Maglev environmentally friendly wind turbines produce twenty percent more energy, at the same time cutting operating costs in half--and can run off of wind as slow as 3 mph!!!

Sure, that's probably it!!!--or perhaps the deal is that with the Govt. now in the illicit drug business--with that grim fatty Richard Armitage the facilitator--the sky's the limit as to how many people they can "push over the edge..."

I dont think concealed weapons would have helped. We already have tons of gang violence involving weapons. Weapons dont stop gang violence and they wont stop more young depressed emotionally crippled adults for seeking fame, even if it has to be done thru killing. The question is what in our scoiety causes such actions? Is it something in the water, on tv, DNA?

Trained Gun Fighter
I wont bore you with the qualifications and training background I have, but; I will tell you that I have trained thousands of people in the law Enforcement – Military –OTGA –Civilian arenas for over thirty years, I have trained liberals, conservatives, children, etc, I have “Thank God” not had a student on the civilian side use deadly force to date.

I can without any reservation tell you that most of the civilians that I have trained, can, do; and most likely will always out shoot 90% of the police officers that “qualify” yearly with their firearms, not train, but qualify. The other 10% or less in law enforcement are HRT and SWAT operators, they train daily or weekly, so they have an ability to use skills far above any civilian trained individuals. I personally feel more secure with a civilian that makes it a priority to go to a qualified training center, advance their skills because they want to, not because they have to, most officers never receive any training outside of their basic training, let alone know how to effectively use their firearm.

You can scream and cry foul all you want about the concealed carry – Pro Gun groups – but, I challenge you to provide any statistics that show where legal firearm owners have any negative press relating to concealed carry, look at what CNN did to the good state of Florida when the castle doctrine was passed, they had nightly news of protesters that were meeting visitors coming out of airports, at tourist centers, etc chanting the bodies are going to be stacked in the streets, welcome to Florida where killing is legal, etc – not one problem to date.

College kids with firearms, I think it is a great idea, but; not for everyone, someone has to do it, look, two minutes of shooting in an auditorium with a madman could have ended very quickly with a skilled shooter that has the mindset and training to take out the shooter, and yes I am talking about that young lady or gentleman that has trained, don’t be fooled, you may be surprised at who can save your little lambs of the world., it isn’t always that thin blue line!

Gang violence – what does gang violence have to do with concealed carry anyway? Perhaps you should check the statistics of concealed carry incidents relating to gang violence, you will find that some of the so called Bangers, met an early demise, because some concealed carry individual was left with no choice but to defend their life, or some other lamb that stuck their head out the door and let out a Bahhhhhhhhh, I really love the little lambs that scream at the sound of “firearm” they want to pull the teeth of the Sheep Dog until they are in need of help, or being slaughtered, then they want to know why the sheep dog wasn’t around to help.

Why don’t you suck up that snot nose whiney mouth, and go get some training, so you can run to the gunfire, and help, otherwise stick a sock in that pie hole, and let the sheepdogs worry about how they will shag your shaking body, clinging to them like a dog crapping peach seeds, off of them; to get to the fight. Taking guns off the street will never work!

Check the crime rates in the various countries that have already passed complete gun bans, bad news, crime is up 40% + in all of these countries.

As always – pray for our loss!

Well excuse me, but I thought concealed firearm permits were only granted to jewelers, ect.--people with an obvious need for protection...

What gets me is how it's legal to "appropriately" defend oneself by firing off one's 357 magnum, ect.

Like your bullet isn't going to pass right though the armed assailant, though the wall, through the house next door, ect.--these weapons are powerful enough to shoot through an engine block!!!

In CA the cops were on TV going on about how this politician didn't vote to ban assault rifles--telling everyone these rifles are powerful enough to shoot through two engine blocks!!!

It seems to me that being a cop can't possibly be too very dangerous--how many jerks ran out and bought an assault rifle after seeing that commercial...--why don't the stupid police... pass a voter's initiative to ban such "toys of mass destruction..." Instead of advertising how powerful of a rifle is available nowadays... And after all--what, one person in a thousand wouldn't vote to ban them...!!!

Let people keep their super-powerful handguns..., but only sell (allow) the ammunition at shoooting ranges...

You can keep a gun for protection so long as it's not powerful enough to shoot through a cop's bulletproof vest...

The US Supreme Court is about to hear a case that revolves around the right to bear arms... I think they're going to outlaw guns... You know--ye ol' well regulated militia. I think their trying to get everyone all pissed off...

What's happened to America...?

"The desire of the righteous is only good, but the expectation of the wicked is only wrath," The New Testament.

Does anybody think this is pertinent where, apparently, the Establishment is a bunch of actually nice guys--who're simply being meanies because they're trying to take over the global illicit drug trade...

There is only one "gun control" solution that would prevent these types of shootings.

That would be for the governors of all 50 states to call up their respective National Guard units and have those soldiers go door to door and forcibly remove all guns from all households.

Of course, this process would result in what would be, in effect, a civil war. This operation would take years and the carnage would be staggering. Tens of thousands of dead civilians and soldiers - all because the gun-grabbers hate people who own firearms.

Is the nation ready for a "Waco" on every block?

“I think the media should stop playing all of shootings”
When that happens, we will no longer see how truly sick our society has become.

This isn’t a gun thing. This is MUCH deeper. Until we get over that, this will happen – more and more I am sad to say.

With or without increased gun laws. I know one thing, if everyone had a guy, then domestic violence, suicides and shootouts outside bars will go through the roof. The high probability that someone else will have a gun won’t matter. Especially if you have a quick hand and a slow head.

["Well excuse me, but I thought concealed firearm permits were only granted to jewelers, ect.--people with an obvious need for protection..."]
In some States like California, that's true, but MOST States that issue concealed carry permits hold that it's the right of an ordinary citizen to be able to defend himself against violent criminals, not just a privilege for rich merchants.

["What gets me is how it's legal to "appropriately" defend oneself by firing off one's 357 magnum, ect."]
It's only "legal" when your life is at risk, or as the legal minds would say: "When a reasonable person would conclude that there is an immediate threat of death or bodily injury".

["Like your bullet isn't going to pass right though the armed assailant, though the wall, through the house next door, ect.--"
If you've chosen an EFFECTIVE round for self defense, then it will not. A bullet that does that creates a minimal amount of shock in the assailant, and often isn't even felt.
EFFECTIVE bullets enter, penetrate to an appropriate depth, and stop without exiting. That ensures that ALL the energy is deposited in the person trying to do you harm, and that's what you want when you REALLY need to stop someone NOW.

["these weapons are powerful enough to shoot through an engine block!!!"]
.357 Magnums? In standard loadings?
Afraid not.
I've been shooting since the mid 60's, and learned to load my own ammunition in the early 70's, and being a mechanical engineer, I know a little about energy and force.
Any .357 Mag that could do that would be disasterous to any standard revolver shooting it, and to the wrists of the shooter.

["In CA the cops were on TV going on about how this politician didn't vote to ban assault rifles--telling everyone these rifles are powerful enough to shoot through two engine blocks!!!']
Police chiefs are political animals, beholden to those who appoint them, as you've well illustrated.
The .50 Cal round will do what you describe. They've been around since World War One, and available to citizens who cared to abuse themselves by firing them.
The rifles are MASSIVE beasts, and it's by no means classified as an "assault rifle".
As far as I know, NO .50 has ever been used in an American street crime.
Until someone shows me an article indicating that one has been used, I consider all the hype about what MIGHT happen with a cartridge that can penetrate TWO engine blocks pure, political scare tactics, that score some points with the hoplophobic voters, but do absolutely NOTHING to prevent crime or keep people safe (sort of like Clinton's ban on attaching bayonets to those old military relics some people like to display on their walls...).

["You can keep a gun for protection so long as it's not powerful enough to shoot through a cop's bulletproof vest..."]
I'll bet they haven't explained to you that Ordinary hunting rifles with Ordinary hunting ammo can do that.

["The US Supreme Court is about to hear a case that revolves around the right to bear arms... I think they're going to outlaw guns... "]
Given that LIBERAL legal scholars, in increasing numbers, have been coming to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment, like all the rest of the first 9, describes an INDIVIDUAL Right, and does not enumerate a power for the government to Arm ITSELF (which would be completely out of place in the Bill of Rights) I'd be surprised if that happens.
Here's one such LIBERAL legal scholar telling about how he came to that understanding of the 2nd:
www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html

["great retort, droolius. you're a real champ at that rationalizing i was referring to."]

For a position to be of any value in an enlightening exchange of views, it MUST be rational.
If we formulate our arguments and base policies and laws on emotional responses to situations, rather than rationality and logic, we're apt to pursue some pretty poor policies and pass some pretty bad laws.

["guns kill; i would think it's obvious that a person needs to be involved, but i should have been more explicit for you,..."]

I can only..., WILL only, deal with what you've said. I won't put myself in the position of basing a reply on what I think you most probably meant.

["...lest you have bad dreams about inanimate objects coming to life."]

Not going to be a problem for me, you see, because I don't think guns DO get up and kill and therefore should be viewed as the underlying cause of senseless deaths.

["why shouldn't i be on the ragged edge?"]

There are lots of good reasons, beginning with it's not good for your mental or physical health.
There are ways to cope with that stress, rather than pushing for more and more laws and government control of people, trying to get "authority" to adequately control who-and-what scares you.

["you like seeing these stories about gun massacres every week?"]

Absolutely not.
I have school/college age children. Fact is, I'M still taking college classes myself, though I'm over 50. (call me an educational addict, I'll deny it)
But according to the law, even though I'm licensed and qualified to carry a concealed weapon for my defense, that of my family and the defense of other innocent's under assault in this State, it still would be a crime for me carry it in the one location our over-the-edge wacko loves to target the most these days.
Do you suppose the wacko fringe is aware of this law, and the tendency of the law abiding gun owner to obey it, and perhaps they tend to choose that location for that very reason?
That, plus the high concentration of unarmed victims in a confined area?
I certainly do.

["you want to do something about it now, or wait around and argue theoreticals while the bodycount keeps rising?"]

Depends on what "something" is..., and whether "something" is likely to have an impact on those willing to ignore the most fundamental laws we have. Like laws against killing innocent people, peacefully going about their business.

Right--FEEL FREE to spew nonsense...

First off--rich merchants are going to be stalked by criminals for their goods...

Consider how: Moonlighting as a security guard at a mall, off-duty Officer Jones was informed by a mall patron that a man appeared to have a gun under his pullover--pointing to Mr. Smith. After shadowing him for twenty minutes, as Smith left the mall Jones came up behind and instructed Smith to raise his hands and get down on his knees. After initially starting to comply, Smith then decided to first reach into his back pocket to turn his radio off. That's when Jones shot him three times. The bulge was an eyeglass case...

[It's only legal when your life is at risk] The Court threw out Smith's excessive force lawsuit: The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the officer on the scene..." The Court cited, "The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer."

[If you've chosen an effective round for self defense] Like that's going to be real comforting to a person who's life was destroyed by an ineffective round... Like ordinary walls are going to stop a 44 caliber magnum hollow point...

San Francisco passed its handgun ban after a shootout between a bad guy and a cop--the cop was reloading when he got wasted... And my point is: like that's really a great idea--replace the cop with your ordinary citizen and have shoot-outs with bullets flying everywhere on Main Street...

Don't bother getting your piece magna-ported, because, of course, the US Supreme Court can intrepret the Constitution any way they want (like when they determined that a person can be sentenced for crimes they were acquitted of, See
United States v. Watts, 519 US 148 (1997).

If a person has a hunting license--only then could he/she pick up their ammo at the Police Dept.... They would have to return the empty shell casings or be fined...

Bottom line here... Why is it that there's still all kinds of loop-holes allowing criminals to buy a gun...?

I believe we have a serious societal problem, and all we can come up with is a quick fix slavery solution. While this looks like a large problem, it would look differently if you realize this is not just a country, it is an Empire. The US of A is like fifty countries and if you do compare to other country/state you need to keep this in mind. We need an intelligent long term repair to our society and it won't be easy . we've been spinning our wheels for half a century and the only thing I keep hearing is take away knives, forks, spoons, sticks, stones, fists and oh yeah guns, bows, arrows and i think we better do chairs too. Time to get real folks.

I am not legally permitted to own a gun, but could get one if I really wanted any time. And if I decided to get one I guarantee I would definitely shoot some people. Not randomly...but people would surely die.

A gun in the hand beats a cop on the phone. If these shooters had to worry about being ignominiously shot before completing his "task", they might think twice before beginning it in the first place.

With all due respect to those of you on both sides of the "gun debate", this is not a 2nd Amendment issue.

It is a MENTAL HEALTHCARE issue.

Nothing can 100% prevent any kind of senseless tragedy, especially when the perp intends to kill himself at the end of the deed. But we have failed the mentally ill in this country for decades. The well meaning among us led the fight to "de-institutionalize" the mentally ill in the 60s, promising that "community-based" programs would be a more humane and productive way of dealing with mental illness. Except by and large those programs never materialized in numbers large enough to deal with the tidal wave that came. Most of our chronic homeless are untreated or under-treated people with mental illness. ALL of the school shooters have been failed by a system that spends thousands, sometimes millions on elderly patients in the last few months of their lives, but is too stingy to spend sufficient money on what too many people still view as a "defect" or a personal failing. Until we all recognize mental healthcare on equal footing with other medicine, we will see this happen again -- and with alarming and increasing frequency.

["Right--FEEL FREE to spew nonsense..."]
You civility is much appreciated.

["First off--rich merchants are going to be stalked by criminals for their goods..."]
Therefore, they should be extended the 'right' to defend themselves and their wealth?
The ordinary citizen, who is stalked by a vicious criminal for whatever he has in his pocket, or because she is a hot chick who looks like someone he'd like to rape and mutilate, or for whatever reason a twisted mind can conjur up, should enjoy no such right.
That's your position, then?

["[It's only legal when your life is at risk] The Court threw out Smith's excessive force lawsuit: The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the officer on the scene..." The Court cited"]
And your example does not disprove the legal standard.
This court proposes that a sworn officer is the sole determiner of reasonable force. (do you agree with that ruling, BTW?)
And that ruling was made ONLY because a sworn officer of the law happened to be the one involved.
The cases we WERE discussing were those involving ordinary citizens, and it then becomes the job of a jury to decide whether or not a reasonable person would have concluded that his/her life was at risk, IF the case is doubtful enough to go to trial. Often, it's a clear-cut case of self defense, and the prosecutor doesn't pursue charges.

["Like that's going to be real comforting to a person who's life was destroyed by an ineffective round... Like ordinary walls are going to stop a 44 caliber magnum hollow point..."]
Your original statement implied that ALL (originally it was .357s) rounds would pass through walls and into the house next door.
I simply tried to point out that knowledgable people interested in a round for self defense would not choose a round such as you describe.
You ignored all of that, just as you ignore the people who's lives would be SAVED by the judicious use of an EFFECTIVE round of ammunition.

["replace the cop with your ordinary citizen and have shoot-outs with bullets flying everywhere on Main Street..."]

I've been hearing this prediction of 'shoot-out on main street' ever since States, in large numbers, started issuing concealed carry permits back in the '80s. The Brady Campaign (then operating under one of it's several previous names, Handgun Control, Inc.) launched a HUGE campaign to scare the voters of Texas with just that predicted 'certainty'.
Texans didn't buy it.
And you know what?
HCI's dire predictions didn't happen in Texas.
Violent crimes went DOWN.
And the scenario didn't happen in ANY One of the 41 States that now routinely issue carry permits to qualified citizens.
So why are we still buying into that story when it's so obviously not only inaccurate, but a simple scare tactic to begin with?

["Don't bother getting your piece magna-ported..."]
Just curious, but do you know, without looking it up, what 'magna-porting' is, and what it does?

[" because, of course, the US Supreme Court can intrepret the Constitution any way they want"]
Do you agree with THAT principle? That 9 men and women, appointed by politicians, can decide what are the limits (if any) to the powers of the politicians who appointed them?
And what Rights (if any) are actually retained by the citizens?
Founders didn't exactly interpret it that way: {"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
--Thomas Jefferson--1804}

["If a person has a hunting license--only then could he/she pick up their ammo at the Police Dept.... They would have to return the empty shell casings or be fined..."]
Which immediately creates a HUGE black market in the hundreds of millions of shell casings and other reloading components currently in private hands, as well as placing a massive profit incentive in front of those willing to deal in stolen-from-police-&-military or illegally imported ammunition.
Let's have criminals setting up powder and primer factories in their basements, or better yet, in the apartment next door to yours!
Hell, you might as well outlaw the recreational drugs people enjoy using while you're prohibiting things. Throw in alcohol while you're at it.
Prohibition ALWAYS works.
And criminals can ALWAYS use another source of wealth.

["Bottom line here... Why is it that there's still all kinds of loop-holes allowing criminals to buy a gun...?"]
There AREN'T any 'loop-holes' allowing criminals to buy guns.
Bottom line is (and this is a fundamental maxim): Criminals IGNORE laws.

It is a MENTAL HEALTHCARE issue.

Absolutely.

Michael L. Wagner writes: "Well excuse me, but I thought concealed firearm permits were only granted to jewelers, ect.--people with an obvious need for protection..."

You know Michael, if a State insists on placing those at TRULY greatest risk at the head of it's list for handgun permits, the rich jewel merchant wouldn't be getting one, as his goods are delivered by armed courier, his deposits are picked up by a Brinks truck, and meanwhile he's surrounded by tens of thousands of dollars worth of monitored alarms and security cameras.

The fact is, the people who are Least Likely to get a permit in States like California are actually those at Greatest Risk of suffering a violent crime: People living in POOR neighborhoods.

FBI Crime Stats show this year after year: Those most likely to suffer violent crimes are the poor. Particularly, poor minorities.

So why can the 'secure' rich and powerful get permits while the at-risk poor are denied?

'Equal Rights', anyone?

All I can say is the day my students have permission to carry concealed weapons to class is the day I quit my job.

Most of the 'facts' thrown about on this website are completely fictitious. Murder rates are at least twice as high in the US as they are in countries with stricter gun control legislation (including Canada, the UK, and several European countries). See http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita&int=-1

["Most of the 'facts' thrown about on this website are completely fictitious."]

An example or two, with refuting evidence to support your thesis if you please, professor?

["Murder rates are at least twice as high in the US as they are in countries with stricter gun control legislation "]

Historically, they always have been higher here than in most of the rest of the industrialized world.
50 years of increasingly strict "gun control" laws haven't changed that, and if anything, the disparity between us and 'them' is even higher today than it was in the 1960's.

Are those facts 'fictitious' as well?

You bring up Canada and the UK specifically.
Do you have any official figures on violent crime, and specifically gun-involved crime, before vs. after those two countries passed much stricter gun control laws in recent years?
They might be helpful to your case, if you're proposing we follow their lead.

I await your figures and statistics.

Thought I'd examine what you had already provided in the way of 'facts', professor, so I went to the site link you provided.
Then did a little web research on gun laws in some of the countries listed.

Guess what I found?

At least 4 of the top 6 countries in murders-per-capita (Jamaica, South Africa, Russia and Mexico) have MUCH stricter 'gun control' laws that the US, with #3-Jamaica having instituted a total ban over 30 years ago, in 1974, with house-to-house sweeps and confiscations.
All have murder rates higher than the US by a factor of at least 3:1, with South Africa by a whopping 11.6:1.

I would have liked to find information on gun laws in #1-Colombia and #4-Venezuela, but there didn't seem to be any trustworthy info available.

I can't imagine what you thought you'd illustrate with that link, but it IS most definitely educational for someone who wants to see if there is a correlation between strict 'gun control' laws and low murder rates.

"All I can say is the day my students have permission to carry concealed weapons to class is the day I quit my job."

judging from the ability to analyze, interpret and understand facts, figures and tables you've demonstrated here, it's obvious the kids would be better off

unless your field happens to be political science, in which case the ability to analyze, interpret and understand facts, figures and tables is of no consequence whatever

A few facts you can find easily if you look for them:
• More Right To Carry, less crime. Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976.1 (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.2) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million,3 and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates.4

• RTC and crime trends. Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”5

• False predictions. Dave Kopel has written, “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”6 A article related to Michigan’s RTC law said, “Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded....National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.”7

• RTC permit-holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state (due to its large population and having had an RTC law since 1987) has issued over 1.2 million permits, but revoked only 157 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.8

The good news is we aren't running out of students.

There are now so many guns circulating that elimination of them is impossible. Besides, these sorts of things happen even where guns are totally illegal (Europe). Let's hear from more thoughtful voices.

Roll dog, I carry my gun on me in my back pack! Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6. beside what are you afraid of?

Michael L. Wagner states:
The US Supreme Court is about to hear a case that revolves around the right to bear arms... I think they're going to outlaw guns...

Any follow-up comments?