TrishAndHalli.com

Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.

About

Profile TrishAndHalli.com
Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations


Jerry Sproul, CPA
ThoughtfulConsideration.com

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

Virginia Tech: Gun Control Fails… Again

April 16th, 2007 by Halli

As the story of the tragedy at Virginia Tech unfolds, the gun control nazis will emerge again, more virulent and self-righteous than ever.

And a few lone voices will observe the truth: When guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns.

In fact, that is exactly what happened at Virginia Tech.

As Virginia law stands now, lawfully carried and concealed guns are prohibited on the campus of Virginia Tech. To be fair, we can assume that illegally carried guns are also prohibited.

Yet one man with criminal intent carried at least two guns on campus and killed 32 innocent people, with nary an armed soul to oppose him before he had killed two, then hours later, many more.

As WorldNetDaily.com reports today, about a year ago the Virginia General Assembly defeated a bill which would have allowed permit holders to carry guns on campus. A spokesman for VT heaved a sigh of relief at the time as he said:

“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.”

I’ll bet he wishes he had never uttered those words.

Del. Todd Gilbert, of Shenendoah, sponsored the bill to allow legal guns on campus. He was naturally reticent to comment today, but he did observe:

“The one thing that this tragic event does illustrate is that there is not a single gun law, rule or regulation that will stop someone with this kind of evil intent from going about their business and taking life at will, if they are committed to doing that… Had I been on campus today, and otherwise been entitled to carry firearms for protection and been deprived of that, I don’t think words can describe how I would have felt, knowing I could have stopped something like this.”

If some students and faculty had been carrying their legally permitted guns today, it is likely that a few deaths would have occurred. However, in at least two instances the murderer chained classroom doors closed and proceeded to fire at students. In all likelihood an armed student would have stopped him before 32 people had been executed.

It has never made sense to me that we designate certain areas where we educate, care for, and/or house our children, our most treasured possessions, as free of lawfully possessed guns. In essence we say, “Hey, you murderous scum, there are our kids. The folks there don’t have any guns. Have at ‘em!” And sure enough, the murderous scum show up and kill the innocent, in far too many instances.

As Gomer Pyle would say, surprise, surprise,

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Politics in General, Property Rights, Second Amendment | 20 Comments »

20 Responses

  1. gc3 Says:

    Consider hypothetically that everyone in the States carried a gun on themselves 24/7. Consider how many times in the day folks get mad enough to consider doing things that they would not normally do under normal circumstances. Do you think that there are many times that the only reason more folks aren’t shot is because at the time of rage the person didn’t have a gun literally straped onto their side? Your comment that “if some students and faculty had been carrying their legally permitted guns today, it is likely that a few deaths would have occurred” may be true, but consider how many more shooting deaths would occur on a daily basis if only a small percentage of normal people who get mad from time to time had immediate access to a firearm. The argument that having more guns would prevent bad guys from doing so much harm with their guns is tired and not very well thought out in my opinion.

  2. Barry Nolan Says:

    It is an act of magical thinking to pretend that more guns means fewer deaths. More guns mean it is just that much easier for the imbalanced, the insane, the intoxicated and the infuriated, to act on the impulse of the moment – and shoot what aggravates them. You imagine that some of the school shootings could have been stopped by armed good guys? I know that 100% of all the school shootings were committed by armed madmen. With 30,000 gun related deaths a year, the NRA does more harm to our national every year than 10 9/11’s. You seem like good ladies. Please work for the good of us all.

    Sincerely,
    Barry Nolan
    former NRA member

  3. You are nuts! Says:

    Gun training should start in kindergarten. The USA will be a lovely place in a few years when absolutely everybody will carry guns. It’s going to be a fun thing to watch… since this planet does need a country as crazy as the USA, anyway. You are going downhill and without brakes. Enjoy the ride!!!

  4. matt Says:

    With respect, what you ladies are proposing seems a bit unbalanced – you want *more* guns in schools? What is this, the wild west? Where do you live that you’d need a gun? Why don’t you visit a school in a big city and ask the teachers and staff what they think about your idea?

    And how about some statistics regarding who actually uses guns for self-defense? Most gun owners end up shooting themselves or family, not some boogie man trying to steal their LazyBoy. Do your research!

    Please, stop watching Fox TV, being so afraid, and get out of your houses.

  5. UK Says:

    The only thing that could have stopped the killings from happening would have been an appropiate handling of the first one, i.e., the university stopping the classes until further notice and advicing the students not to come out of their rooms with a long range audio device. Also, having effective police officers rather than filled-to-the-gull pigs would have helped to capture the perpetrator.

  6. UVA Student Says:

    Trish and Halli, thanks for stating the obvious truth to this sad situation. I am a student at the University of Virginia (only down the road from VT), and I have many friends who are holders of concealed carry permits, but who don’t carry their weapons to school because of the rules in place at all Virginia universities. If these no-guns-on-campus rules were eliminated, the reality of the situation is that very, very few students would choose to take advantage of their ability to conceal carry. What’s even more true is that it would have taken only one responsible carrier to have stopped what occured at VT. For those doubters, I reccomend they examine a frightfully similar incident at Appalachian State Law School around 2002, where an armed gunman killed three teachers and students before being subdued by two armed students. The massacre which could have taken place there was prevented, in a manner which spoke of both the bravery of the students, and the preventability of these mass-casualty incidents.

  7. Michael Says:

    Halli

    What utter trash! I have to agree with the prior two posters. You fail to recognise the fact that these massacres are almost all restricted to the USA – with little, if any occurring in Europe and Asia where gun control is infinitely tighter.

    You fail to see that effective gun control does not remove guns from society, merely restricts access to guns by those most likely to misuse them. Gun control means restricting the production of guns, controlling their distribution and monitoring the use, something, which is clearly lacking in the US. Why? Because it suits the politics current of greed.

    How long will the good, law abiding majority of the US stand for the indiscriminate slaughter of its youth, by idiots with automatic weapons merely because it suites the business needs of corporate America?

    It is about time Americans started asking questions of its representatives. It is about time Americans started about their right to bear arms and their right to bring up children in safe a safe and protective environment.

  8. Chad Olseon Says:

    “Most gun owners end up shooting themselves or family, not some boogie man trying to steal their LazyBoy. Do your research!”

    Um, where is the research which proves that most gun owners end up shooting themselves? Please show us.

    Twice in the past three years I’ve had to use a gun to protect myself from violence. The first time was when a man tried to rob me of the six dollars I had on my person, the second time was when my brother was being attacked by two men with baseball bats. Thankfully, lethal force was not used, but the fact that my gun saved my life and kept my brother from serious injury is why we’re here today. Gun control is a murderer’s best friend, as yesterday’s horror has shown. But we, the law-abiding, life-loving American citizens, will never be made victims in our own homes because some publicity-seeking politicians and celebrities want us defenseless. I, for one, will never reduce myself to a quivering blob of humanity, begging for my life as some hate-filled maniac stands over me with a 9mm. I will go down fighting, even if it kills me. Better to die standing up for myself and my loved ones than to live as a coward who allowed those I loved to die.

    And PS, I’m a lifelong Democrat. So there’s no “right-wing agenda” going on with me.

  9. Clay Says:

    Chad,
    In what part of Hillbillyville do you live? Twice you’ve had to use a gun to protect yourself? I’d move and find some new friends.

  10. Rod Says:

    Yes Halli, it would be a wonderful world if every human on the planet carried a gun. Oh how safe we would all feel. I think we should place a 9mm in the hand of every newborn as he or she leaves the womb. Better yet, let’s find a way to have it given in utero; talk about a concealed weapon! Just think of the possibilities! Those babies would be able to defend themselves from the abortionists too. I’m going out to get the family a matching set of AK47s!

    Typical knee-jerk reaction from Halli. Rather than address the tragedy and the mindless murders of 32 people, Halli thinks first of herself and her right to gun ownership. Nice job!

  11. Mademoiselle YBD » Blog Archive » Bang Bang Says:

    [...] 回過頭來,今天看了很多相關的評論跟報導,大多數了人傾向於要更加嚴格管制跟限制槍枝。然後在一個部落格上看到一個連結,這個連結是一篇在講述“如果槍枝更加容易讓一般人擁有,那Virginia Tech的事件會減少傷亡“,這看似有道理卻根本是充滿歪理的文章洋洋灑灑的闡述一堆所謂“擁槍派“的立場。簡單來說,就是如果槍枝可以更容易的取得,人們更可以保護自身安全;槍本身不會做壞事,是人用槍做壞事….等,的確,槍本身不會做壞事,在必要的情況下還可以補人家一槍自衛兼防身,槍這麼好怎麼可以禁了他呢?但是回過頭來想,大麻可以治療癌症病患,但是大多數的國家全部都是禁了他;性行為如果有收錢就算是壞事,所以禁了他;大部分的槍都是要拿來殺人的,但我們卻說這叫做自我保護。究竟有多少人用槍真的是用來保護自己的呢?又,除了美國之外,其餘不易取得槍枝的國家是否會發生相同的情況呢?顯然的,禁槍的歐洲跟亞洲在這種大型屠殺事件上是比較少發生的,更不可能是出現在“校園“。(台灣校園好像只有那種被車撞或是被鐵捲門夾起來的案子)由於槍不是合法可以取得管道,真正有槍的族群大家可以想見,甚至也可能因為有前科,所以警方有建立他的資料。這些族群裡發生槍擊案的原因多跟自己人尋仇、警匪槍戰、綁架搶銀行嚇人….等方式出現槍枝,也就是說真的會有槍的人,除非你真的跟他有仇,不然他就是要錢(那你乖乖給他就好了啊)。很少會有這種不理性的瘋狂掃射發生,加上取得管道的不易,精於計算的犯人也得好好想想怎樣省著用子彈。 [...]

  12. Halli Says:

    Not sure about that last comment, but it must have something relevant to the subject…

  13. Christopher Says:

    Yes, there are studies showing that households with higher gun ownership are more dangerous…to their own inhabitants. Here are the results of a Harvard School of Public Health Study that shows exactly that:

    http://www.physorg.com/news95408605.html

    Any logical person should not be suprised by such results.

  14. Guns kill Says:

    How can it possibly make any sense at all, that when shootings occur that you, Trish and Halli (and millions of other staunch gun-supporters in the United States), may have the AUDACITY to suggest that more people should be able to carry guns. Where do we draw the line?

    The kind of protection you´re talking about here, with more firearms to protect the “responsible” gun-toters from the madmen, is not only the worst solution to the problem of carrying firearms in the first place, but just plain insane. Why create that tension which exists when people carry arms in the first place?

    I hope for the children of Virginia, and for the citizens of a dynamic and culturally complicated USA, that someone with the power to change the gun-status-quo, will do so. And soon. The blood of the students of VT is on the hands of not only this government, but on the panicky, on-guard gun-owners across the US.

    (And the idea of having students bearing arms to school, guns shuffling through their bags, putting their weapons on the desk beside their pens, is grotesque to say the least.)

  15. chaseric Says:

    If just one person had a gun to protect themself HOW MANY OTHER’S MAY STILL BE ALIVE TODAY? Wake up or continue to die!

  16. Independent In Massachusetts Says:

    Gun control advocates unite! We’ll all live more peacefully when criminals can safely carry out their designs without threat of equal opposition!

    When will you get it through your thick skulls: these criminals have no regard for the law! They are complete cowards who seek out venues where they know they’ll be unopposed. Why don’t the gunmen make their last stand at a police station or military installation? Why do you think these massacres occur in states with stricter gun laws? Why do you never hear about such an incident in Utah or Idaho where (thankfully) guns are still allowed on university campuses?

    Several years ago the worthless Utah State University school paper ran a series of brazenly slanted articles supporting a movement to ban all guns (which naturally means only the legal ones, because bans don’t affect criminals) from campus in Utah. They touted the fact that there had been 11 incidents on campus with concealed weapons as evidence to support their position. What they neglected to report was that ALL 11 INCIDENTS involved ILLEGALLY carried handguns. Nobody who went through the effort of being fingerprinted, background checked, trained, and licensed had ever caused a problem on campus!

    And for all you nutjobs who want stricter gun control, instead of imposing your self-righteous, emotional, uninformed, weak-minded liberal politics on the rest of us, MOVE TO CANADA (OR BETTER YET, EUROPE) WHERE THEY HAVE IT ALL FIGURED OUT!!

    Oh, and take Barbara Streisand with you. Some of us really had our hopes up there a couple of years ago; maybe she just forgot . . .

  17. Peter Symonds Says:

    With thinking like this, its no wonder the USA and the crazy middel america mums like these two are held up to ridicule by the rest of us. I come from Tasmania, Australia which still holds the “record” for the most deaths in a single shooting. it horrified this small island state. The only good outcome was that the government banned guns and yep, the rate of gun deaths went down. But hey never let the need to carry an oversize -censored- stop Hatie from spinning her web of lunacy.

  18. OMG Says:

    Let’s make guns illegal, just like cocaine, heroin, etc. and then in a few years, there won’t be any guns around to hurt people. It seemed to work great with these drugs! And BTW, guns don’t kill people, people kill people and those that want to kill will find a way, if not with a gun then something else, say an airplane or a van loaded with fertilizer.

  19. Martin Says:

    In the UK, where guns are more or less illegal for private individuals to own, there were proportionately 30 times fewer deaths in 2001 from firearms than in the USA. Surely it is common sense that if guns are harder to get hold of, fewer people will get shot? I find it hard to believe that, had Cho Seung-hui been a college student in the UK, his madness would have made him either brave enough or clever enough to make contact with the right criminal groups in order to obtain firearms. Maybe he would have still attacked innocent people, but with what? His fists? A knife? The only hand-held device I can think of that is as efficient at despatching other people as a gun, is another gun. 32 people died because Cho Seung-hui was able to walk into a corner shop and buy the means to kill them.

    Your suggestion that more guns would have prevented deaths invites a violent, medieval society where violence can only be stopped by more violence. Where the good guy comes out with guns blazing and blows away the bad guys. Pretty much the type of situation that Hollywood just loves to portray all the time. And exactly the same fantasy that Cho Seung-hui doubtless imagined he was part of just a few days ago. A lone hero, blowing away the bad guys.

    If you really cannot see that more guns mean more death, and that a total unavailability of guns would make it much harder for this sort of thing to happen, then I fear there is no hope for America. Build a big wall across the bottom of Canada, I say, and leave The Idiots to it. I’m sure you’d waste no time in finding new and interesting ways to blow yourselves up, and right now, a USA-free planet is a happy thought indeed…

  20. TrishAndHalli.com » Blog Archive » It’s Hard to Argue with Facts: Legally Armed Students Prevent Deaths on Campus Says:

    [...] students and/or faculty can and do stop armed killers. Read the previous posts on this subject, Virginia Tech: Gun Control Fails…Again, and Guest Post: Second Amendment, Designed for Virginia [...]

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Copyright © 2oo6 by TrishAndHalli.com Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting