[HTML1]
“Why in the world do students needs guns to go to school? They don’t. Students are at a university to learn. The yahoos we let loose on campus with guns are a far bigger threat to the student body than the isolated nut case that goes over the deep end. And there is no guarantee that these ‘licensed’ gunmen (and, we suppose, gunwomen) that might defend themselves or others can hit what they are aiming at.” editorial at ahwatukee.com
I used to go to school there. Their “description” at the end literally describes over 75% of the guys on campus.
*barf*
sorry, I’m allergic to blatant ignorance.
Joel, Yours is the blatant ignorance. Arming those young women would create more problems than it solves. You just don’t want to see that, it doesn’t help your justification of guns for everyone.
More problems for whom Mikey? Potential rapists and muggers?
I guess you must think criminals just assume that the person they are attacking just can’t handle a gun and they won’t get hurt.
What is your advice to these young women? Enjoy the monment?
You are not just anti-gun. You are are anti-self defense.
mike’s right, arming people like that would create many problems…for wannabe tyrants, rapists, murderers, and every other enemy of free and decent people, including mikeb and his ilk, and other loathsome, sickening excuses for human beings.
Why would it be problematic to arm female college students? Women with at least some college are some of the least likely members of society to commit violent crimes.
Because then those women become self-reliant and not dependent as victims upon an oppressive government. Major problem for leftists, right?
You can apply that logic to about any group. The government is there to make you dependent on the despots.
Never met my daughters, did you Mikey?
More victim mentality. I wonder if this fool would like to express this sentiment to the faces of the victims’ parents in the next school shooting.
And students don’t need guns to go to school; they need guns to defend themselves against nutjobs and wannabe-tyrants like this person. I don’t need a gun to go to the 7-11 either, I need it in case a masked “yahoo” busts in and decides he doesn’t want witnesses.
“The yahoos we let loose on campus with guns are a far bigger threat to the student body than the isolated nut case that goes over the deep end. ”
One of the dumbest statements I’ve heard in a long time. Nice touch to label responsible 21+ year-old students who can pass a background check and CCW course as yahoos.
Isn’t it strange to hear about “the isolated nut case [who] goes over the deep end” in such an anti-gun editorial? Usually, such rare but still too frequent tragedies, would be played up as if they were daily incidents, caused by “lax gun laws”, and most certainly not the result of the enlightened “gun-free zone” laws which are supposed to protect the public from such madmen. Such laws make the presumption that homicidal madmen will obey the law, and honor the “gun-free” restriction. Why do I find myself considering that unlikely?
These same people fail to learn the lessons taught by Virginia Tech and the individual who shot Representative Giffords. Both mentally ill and nothing was done by their respective institutions to 5150(72 hour psyc hold) them. As a result they obtain a handgun LEGALLY, and kill innocents in a GUN FREE zone.
Liberals like mass murder. Killers and terrorists are only afraid of one thing, failure. If there are people that will shoot back, you deny them the opportunity to commit the crime. Liberals keep our schools unarmed and unprotected. That is why the terrorists and killers love to attack them and will continue to do so!
Actually, when the lone gunman shot Gabby Giffords and others, no fewer than five people in the audience were armed. Acting responsibly, none drew their weapon, since none had a clear shot.
To say that anyone who disagrees with you “likes murder” is just name-calling. That is not a real argument.
I’m glad you brought up that Giffords shooting. Even before they reported that one guy had a gun there, I suggested there were many. My point was although there were many, the location being Arizona and all, not one of them could save the day. I think it’s total bullshit to say the reason was because they were so responsible and none of them had a clean shot and therefore every one of them made the sound decision to stand down. You’re projecting your own justification onto the situation. You don’t know whether any of them had a shot any more than I do.
My idea is that some of them did or could have had that shot but they weren’t able to act quickly enough. Some of them may have been obese white males who just can’t more that fast. Others probably froze up for a couple seconds and then thought better of revealing the fact that they were armed.
That’s all understandable human nature stuff. Obviously there was not one single, well trained, competent guy capable of intervening in a timely manner in the near vicinity. Among gun owners those types are few and far between. Too bad.
So which is it, Mike? On one hand you say that gun owners are all gungho and would cause more problems having guns. On the other you quote what happened with Giffords. No one there that had a gun stepped in to be the hero. You know why? Because no one wants to die and Giffords protection or lack thereof is Giffords responsibility. No one elses. Thanks for proving a point.
Wow, the level of cowardice projection here is astounding, and wholly unsurprising. Mikeb, like all morally-bankrupt and useless antis, knows that he would huddle and cry in a corner while he and others were killed, so he assumes everyone would.
Funny thing is, even assuming you’re right that amongst gun-owners, those who would intervene with a cool head are few and far between (and you being right or even coherent about anything is a stretch in itself), there would still be those “few and far between” people as opposed to antis, who would NEVER intervene, or even have the option to since they pride themselves on being unarmed victims throughout every day. So, once again, thanks for proving your side to be inferior in yet another regard.
On the contrary, a well trained or skilled gun owner would not take a shot in that enviroment because there is too high a probablity of collateral damage. The Giffords incident proves that private citizens will act responsibly in a crisis situation. Sounds to me like you have been watching too many cop shows where the lead character takes down the bad guy holding a hostage from 50 yards.
+1
“And there is no guarantee that these ‘licensed’ gunmen (and, we suppose, gunwomen) that might defend themselves or others can hit what they are aiming at.”
******* I could not post this at the editorial’s “comment” facility. For some reason it would not allow me to register, and kept insisting I was not entering the random code to prevent robo-registration accurately. ********
No. There is no such guarantee. But more innocent people are killed by “trained Police officers” ( I can use quotation marks to suggest skepticism about what I am stating as well as the author of this editorial) than by holders of any form of CCW.
It was a nice try using the term “gunmen”, and the blatant non-sexist neologism “gunwomen”, to connote to the readers that CCW holders are merely criminals armed with a legally sanctioned gun. I wonder, do you consider LEOs in the same category —- that is, armed people trained in proper gun use with investigation of their background and establishing that they are responsible for their actions?
After an alleged sexual assault in a parking lot at the community college i once attended the college has put up the money to have one (1) unarmed security person there now after about 10 pm. Sound like a half-a$$ed measure anyone? Ah well, sometimes it seems like blowing smoke in the wind.
So is this writer worried that the lady who was raped may have fired enough shots wildly into the air (not hitting the rapist – because we all can’t shoot ;)) that she would have hit the throng of people who didn’t help her while she was being raped on campus? Oh, wait. It was dark. It was just she and him. Or was he just concerned that her gunshots may have alerted someone to her situation? What a nut job.
Another anti-gun affiliate with the common sense of a bottle stopper.
I went to a gun free zone today and guess what…I didn’t see one single gun there. IT’S WORKING PEOPLE, DON’T MESS WITH IT!
Hey BC—I’ll bet that right up until April 16, 2007 a lot of people at Va. Tech thought the same thing.
Studies suggest inexperienced gun owners are just as likely to have their own gun used against them as to defend themselves. I have no problem with a law that requires gun owners to know what they are doing. The argument that this is a step toward taking guns away seems unlikely.
The phrase “studies suggest” is usually a sign of a BS study.
Studies suggest? Please cite one. I want to read it.
Don’t any colleges or universities have rifle and pistol teams any more? And if yes, how in the world does that work in a “gun free” zone?
Back in the day, my high school had a rifle club, but it was off-campus.
Actually, my school had the rifle range above the swimming pool.
Comments are closed.