[steplock]

leftist crap!

"An armed citizen would have to evaluate such a rapidly changing scenario in a split second"

Yeah - Look for the "smoking gun!"

[appalachian_dweller]

liberal BS continues unabated

gotta go puke now, back later.....

[babyface00]

David R. Keller is director of the Center for the Study of Ethics at Utah Valley State College

Apparently, the capacity for logical thought is not a prerequisite for managing the Center for the Study of Ethics.

[blau993]

Mr. Keller, I respect your right to assume that you would react to a shooting by soiling your pants and being totally incapable of taking any effective action. However, I see nothing to suggest you have the background or experience to generalize that the rest of the world must react in the same fashion.

[ICX]

"A shoot-out between a criminal and an armed civilian increases the potential for carnage, instead of decreasing it."

No s***. My chances of injuring an armed criminal if I don't have a gun are slim and none.

[theFIRMbss]

>Simply obtaining a permit hardly prepares one for hitting a moving target in a churning crowd

When co-eds get raped,
how often do they get raped
in a "churning crowd?"

[camle]

imagine a situation where a Harris and Kleibold were able to casually stroll down the hallway opening fire at whim, and nobody could oppose them. imagine the death toll!

oh! it's been done. nevermind the truth.


but, but - the public is so STOOPID! they aren't capable of defending themselves - just look at colombine!

yeah, right /sarcasm

[AppyPappy]

Man who killed two at UNC escapes from mental hospital

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1151726/posts

[dirtboy]

Attackers are not likely to be standing alone out in the open, providing an easy target. Rather, they probably would be in the midst of a panicking crowd. An armed citizen would have to evaluate such a rapidly changing scenario in a split second, and be incredibly accurate in discharging a weapon to avoid accidentally shooting an innocent person near or behind the attacker.

I guess this guy never even read about the timeline for Columbine. The killers took their time going from room to room looking for students hiding from them. It would have been quite easy to pick out who they were. Instead, this idiot wants gun-free zones that become killing fields if someone with bad intent gets a gun inside.

Another wasted college education, apparently...

[Always Right]

Seems like Utah Valley State just put up a bullseye on their chest.

[dirtboy]

Hence, the claim made by W. Clark Aposhian, the chairman of the Self Defense Instructors Network, that there is nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens with guns, could not be farther from the truth. A shoot-out between a criminal and an armed civilian increases the potential for carnage, instead of decreasing it.

Hence my a**. When you start with a flawed premise, your conclusion is also flawed.

[Joe 6-pack]

"First, it is extremely dubious that the presence of armed citizens makes campuses "safer."

Must be why so many schools sponsor security escort services for female students who have to cross campus at night.

[xsrdx]

A shoot-out between a criminal and an armed civilian increases the potential for carnage, instead of decreasing it.

More bleating from the sheeple. Yes, yes - much better to simply hope the bad guy doesn't pick YOU, than to actively resist and thus increase the "carnage".

As if, being a hapless victim of an armed criminal is somehow morally superior to shooting back. The UK Labor philosophy in action.

Leftist drivel.

[hopespringseternal]

It is the kind of intensive training and experience that we require of our law-enforcement officers and military personnel.

*Howling with laughter*

This clown knows nothing about self-defense, law enforcement, or the military.

Must we point out that at Columbine, law enforcement ran away, then waited outside until the shooting stopped?

[Tacis]

"Imagine a scenario in which shooters, like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or the characters in Gus Van Sant's movie "Elephant," open fire at school."

Or, "an advance party of reptilian safropods from the planet Mongo." They'd have such superior weapons that our fire arms would only brosgifate them. Mine is a much more powerful argument.

This left wing silliness will change quickly should there be a serious of rapes or attacks on campus. It will have been too late for those already attacked but this jerk can always place that blame somewhere else, Bush, global warming, too much cafine, for example.

[Exeter]

What the author conveniently overlooks is that one of the first school shooters, Luke Woodham at Pearl, Ms. High School, was stopped from continuing his slaughter by an assistant principal who went out to his car, retrieved his own pistol, and subdued the assailant with it. What the author also conveniently overlooks is that if someone is determined to turn their school into a shooting gallery, a simple rule against carrying a firearm onto campus will not be much of a deterent. Look how much weight the rules against firearms at Columbine H.S. stopped Klebold and Harris.

[BurbankKarl]

Once again they leave out the anti-depressant drugs these kids were prescribed by "therapists" The prescriptions were suppressed as they were deemed private and confidential.

>>Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

[Redbob]

Or, Mr. Keller, imagine that a loony with a gun started shooting folks at a small college in West Virginia, and then imagine that another student retrieved a firearm from his car, and subdued the shooter by threatening him at gunpoint.

No, wait a minute: we don't have to imagine this - it really happened, just a couple years ago.

---

Now I've got one for you, Mr. Keller: imagine that students were encouraged to take responsibility for their own safety, and thus the would-be rapists in the town had no way of knowing if that young girl walking back from the library late at night is clutching a .38 in her pocket, or merely a wad of Kleenex...

[ZGuy]

Ban firearms on campus? The NCAA has another opinion.

[cripplecreek]

When Alan Keyes had his show on MSNBC he ran a story about a shooting at a Georgia law school. The gunman had killed or wounded several people but was eventually subdued by police. (according to the press)

The story was accurate right up to the part about the gunman being subdued by police. In fact another student had gotten his own weapon from his car and confronted the gunman who immediately gave up and waited for police.


If I recall correctly Keyes set out to contact some 200 newspaper editors to ask why they had omitted the obvious fact in the story. Some papers did agree to print corrections. On the other hand the usual suspects like the LA and NY times felt that the student confronting and subduing the gunman was unimportant and didn't add anything to the story.