Gun Free Zones
No link is necessary. Everyone knows that there was a shooting at NIU this week. 5 victims dead plus the shooter.
In a country where you must submit to a Federally mandated background check to purchase a gun. (He did.)
In a state where you must have a Firearm Owner's Identification card to own a gun. (He did.)
In a state where no one may legally carry firearms (no one in the classroom did.)
On a "gun free campus." (It apparently was...)
So V-Tech...NIU...how are those "Gun Free Zones" working for you? Wow, everyone seems to be following the policies to the letter. Cho managed to kill thirty+ classmates - all of whom were in strict compliance with the "no guns" policy. This latest killer offed five and wounded like eighteen or something. So he was in a room with somewhere around twenty-three (+) compliant victims.
And administrators, law enforcement, politicians and the antis all scream "LUNACY!" when we suggest that maybe, just maybe an armed good guy or two is the only answer that will actually make our students safer.
No, I'm not talking about armed campus security or campus police. I'm talking about armed students. And goodness, those words barely escape the lips before the bed-wetting begins. You want to send a disarmament advocate into hysterics? Just suggest that a college student shouldn't have to sit there and get shot. Suggest that forcible submission to massacre is outrageous. They'll go into hysterics. You'll be so barraged with emotionally driven baseless arguments devoid of any supporting facts or logic that you'll think you've been transported onto the set of "Bowling for Columbine."
"How will more guns make anyone safer?" This is one of the classics. The shooter was using a gun, so the emotional response is that no good can possibly come of guns. Guns are the evil, guns are the enemy, we must eradicate guns, lest the problem grow. Never mind the fact that a single gun in the hands of one of those students could have kept the body count at ONE. (The would-be killer.)
"You want to arm students??! They're so YOUNG." My gosh, you'd think you just suggested handing out Claymores at day care. Yeah, I guess 18 is too young to be responsible for your safety or anyone else's safety. Too young to be trusted with a gun. I mean, you're only a legal adult...only the same age as most of the guys (and gals) in Iraq. Only the same age as a lot of brave MEN who stormed Omaha beach.
The answer is as plain as the nose on your face, but it comes at a price. And the price is high for those in power: it is the admission that the individual- and not the government - is best suited to be the party responsible for safety and self-preservation.
Sadly, the government, institutions like colleges, and a disgusting portion of the general populace recoil at the notion of anyone daring to defend themself. They prefer disarmed submission.
They prefer massacre.
In a country where you must submit to a Federally mandated background check to purchase a gun. (He did.)
In a state where you must have a Firearm Owner's Identification card to own a gun. (He did.)
In a state where no one may legally carry firearms (no one in the classroom did.)
On a "gun free campus." (It apparently was...)
So V-Tech...NIU...how are those "Gun Free Zones" working for you? Wow, everyone seems to be following the policies to the letter. Cho managed to kill thirty+ classmates - all of whom were in strict compliance with the "no guns" policy. This latest killer offed five and wounded like eighteen or something. So he was in a room with somewhere around twenty-three (+) compliant victims.
And administrators, law enforcement, politicians and the antis all scream "LUNACY!" when we suggest that maybe, just maybe an armed good guy or two is the only answer that will actually make our students safer.
No, I'm not talking about armed campus security or campus police. I'm talking about armed students. And goodness, those words barely escape the lips before the bed-wetting begins. You want to send a disarmament advocate into hysterics? Just suggest that a college student shouldn't have to sit there and get shot. Suggest that forcible submission to massacre is outrageous. They'll go into hysterics. You'll be so barraged with emotionally driven baseless arguments devoid of any supporting facts or logic that you'll think you've been transported onto the set of "Bowling for Columbine."
"How will more guns make anyone safer?" This is one of the classics. The shooter was using a gun, so the emotional response is that no good can possibly come of guns. Guns are the evil, guns are the enemy, we must eradicate guns, lest the problem grow. Never mind the fact that a single gun in the hands of one of those students could have kept the body count at ONE. (The would-be killer.)
"You want to arm students??! They're so YOUNG." My gosh, you'd think you just suggested handing out Claymores at day care. Yeah, I guess 18 is too young to be responsible for your safety or anyone else's safety. Too young to be trusted with a gun. I mean, you're only a legal adult...only the same age as most of the guys (and gals) in Iraq. Only the same age as a lot of brave MEN who stormed Omaha beach.
The answer is as plain as the nose on your face, but it comes at a price. And the price is high for those in power: it is the admission that the individual- and not the government - is best suited to be the party responsible for safety and self-preservation.
Sadly, the government, institutions like colleges, and a disgusting portion of the general populace recoil at the notion of anyone daring to defend themself. They prefer disarmed submission.
They prefer massacre.
posted by M1Thumb at 9:40 AM
6 comments
