Posted on 04/22/2007 8:21:21 PM PDT by jdm
Gun advocates in the United States say last week's massacre at Virginia Tech university may not have happened if students were allowed to carry concealed guns on campus."This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defence League.
"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he told AFP.
"You want people to be able to defend themselves - always," he said.
Thirty-two people were killed when student Cho Seung-Hui went on the rampage in the worst campus massacre in US history.
Mr Van Cleave said the tragedy could give a boost to a years-long effort in Virginia to pass legislation allowing students to carry weapons on campus - especially since existing laws failed to prevent Cho's murderous rampage.
"Gun control failed. That student under university rules was not to have a gun," Van Cleave said.
"Come legislative season, which is in January, we're going to be fighting to get a bill put in again - the third year in a row now and hopefully this time it will pass - that would let students that are over 21 with a permit ... carry concealed self-defence," he said.
The bill, which would also allow any faculty member possessing a concealed carry permit to carry a concealed weapon, has a "greatly enhanced" chance of passage following the Virginia Tech shooting, Mr Van Cleave said.
The south-eastern state where the shootings took place allows anyone 21 years of age or older and holding a concealed handgun permit to carry a weapon.
That is not true, however, of college campuses, where most universities have a strict prohibition against carrying guns.
Other gun rights advocates echo Mr Van Cleave's view that had even one Virginia Tech student or faculty member been armed, last week's carnage might have been prevented.
"The only person who is responsible to defend you is you - the police are incapable of defending each and every one of us all the time," said Mike Stollenwerk, 44, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, a Virginia-based gun-rights networking group.
"Citizens have an inherent right to be able to defend themselves," he told the Washington Times newspaper.
"You can't always have a policeman on every street corner to take care of you. Whenever you have a bunch of gun-control laws that prohibit people from carrying, the ones with the guns are the criminals."
Yea verily, "Gun-free" zones = free killing zones.
On the news tonight (may have been local news I wasn’t paying too much attention) but some moron compared the murder rate of Houston, Texas with the country of Israel, Houston having 3 times the murder rate.
After it had been stated that citizens of Israel are far more likely than Americans to be armed, this idiot says Houston’s murder rate is because of too many guns. Failing to see that armed citizens in Israel, is what keeps their murder rate down, not the opposite conclusion he came to.
Liberals are plain old stupid.
“Failing to see that armed citizens in Israel, is what keeps their murder rate down, not the opposite conclusion he came to.”
Israel’s low murder rate is not attributable to the fact that that Israelis are more likely to be armed.
My conclusion that I intended to establish was that not enough law biding American’s are armed. I misstated my case.
I am one of those unarmed citizens. Not by choice. I live in Illinois, where concealed carry by ordinary citizens is a felony.
Funny how the Aussies are usually right in these cases, isn’t it? Maybe it has something to do with priorities and common sense.
I like the sound of that. What's the bag limit? ;)
If only they had all thrown their text books at him and charged. It would have ended there.
Graybeard, I like your tag line. Our vehicles carry Matt’s magnetic ribbons always, good to see his name on an FR tagline.
It’s my tag line until Matt is accounted for.
I’d really like to see the idea that “concealed-carry would have prevented the VT tragedy” put to the test.
On the surface, this seems like a reasonable assertion. But it is a very serious assumption, wide-open to all sorts of Bullsh*t arguments that mean nothing because they are only words.
Words are not deeds. Intentions are not Capabilities. And Assumption is the Mother of all Cluster-f*x.
If Concealed-Carry is the best solution, and if it can be proven effective by anything other than statistics and anecdotal evidence, and if it solves more problems than it causes, then it naturally follows — and it stands to Reason — that Concealed Carry should be implemented immediately, without delay. World-wide.
Does anyone disagree?
What do you attribute it to? I think Houston's problem is a huge influx of poverty stricken illegal aliens and Katrina efuguees.
I’ve been waiting for a post like yours.
I’m pro-gun but I’m also pro “Let’s Roll,” or do what you can with what you’ve got.
There was no need for all those deaths. Guns or no. Swarming, throwing things, even just shouting to distract the guy. Jumping out windows (up to the third floor is almost certainly survivable).
We know what makes mass killers: young male loners.
What makes mass killees?
(what do you use... a 12 gauge on that? Or I guess it’s more like shooting rodents ... so a .223?)
Israelis feel a strong sense of community. They morn every war death. They are all fairly well educated and there is low poverty there. I don’t think deterrence plays any roll. I don’t even know that so many Israelis carry weapons but I just assumed it was true for argument sake.
Also worth mentioning is that every Israeli is served in the military so they are very well versed in firearm safety, use, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.