Gun fanatics should stop using tragedies to promote ideology that 'more guns equals less violence'

There are two types of "gun nuts," those who will say, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands," and those who insist on bringing their Mossberg 590 shotgun to heaven once the rapture comes.

Gun enthusiasts are an interesting crowd. They are our fathers and uncles, our neighbors and friends and often times they are our elected officials. Though there are many things wrong in this country, gun nuts often hold the gun rights issue as the No. 1 concern when heading to the polls to vote. They often have a pettiness toward their love of guns, too - using "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" as their MySpace profile song even though there are about two dozen better Beatles songs to choose from. And that's just the beginning of their pettiness.

But what has always irritated me most about many gun nuts is their audacity to use tragedies such as the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres to promote their causes for fewer restrictions on carrying handguns in public.

"Yes, students have right to protect themselves," he said. "Do I think they should carry handguns? No."

Today marks the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech school shootings, a tragedy that occurred when a gunman shot and killed 32 people and then himself in a shooting rampage. As we commemorate this tragedy, we will probably hear twisted logic from gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association to promote the idea of allowing students and professors to carry concealed handguns on campus.

They use Virginia Tech as fodder for what could have happened if more people were packing heat the day gunman Seung-Hui Cho shot so many people. Their logic goes something like this: If more students were armed on the day these events occurred, there would have been a bystander in the crowd who would have ridden in on a white stallion, weapons blazing, and valiantly stopped the gunman in his tracks. But disregard that this fairy tale fantasy relies on outside factors. One: This white knight would need the accuracy and the courage to perform such a feat. Two: The superhero would have to be miraculously standing within 100 feet or so of the gunman to be able to take him down. Three: This courageous gun owner would have to do all this without getting killed.

No evidence supports the idea that if someone in those tragedies had a gun the damage would have been prevented or minimized, Zingg said.

Gun advocates might counter by saying, "Well if he'd known more people had guns it may have prevented him from doing it." Are you kidding me? Did you see that videotape he sent NBC saying why he did it? That guy was crazy. He knew he was going to die that day and wanted to take out as many people as he could before he did it.

The bottom line is: Students and professors should not be allowed to have guns on campus. This myth that "an armed society is a polite society" is unproven and silly. I say, "an armed society is a paranoid and pompous society." Having to watch your manners and hope your gun is bigger than everyone else's is not an appealing way to go through life.

As for guns on campus, it's unsafe and unnecessary. Just because Second Amendment nuts want a Glock tucked in their pants 24/7 to overcome some mental insecurity, doesn't mean I should have to feel uncomfortable knowing a shot could accidentally go off while the teacher is lecturing.

Zingg said the key to safety on campus is "caring and vigilance for one another" and greater visibility of law enforcement. I agree.

The campus community needs to have more appreciation for University Police and respect officers "as not being rent-a-cops, because they're not," he said.

Living in a country that gives its citizens the right to bear arms has advantages and disadvantages, but arming students and professors isn't logical - it's ideological - and won't stop massacres such as Virginia Tech from happening again.

The writer obviously understands that armed people around the VA Tech shooter wouldn't have dissuaded him. We all agree on this. I think we also all agree that if it hadn't been semi-auto pistols, it would have been something "else". He could have stolen and driven a semi truck into a loaded classroom....through the wall. The mind of an evil person has no limits.

Now along with this comes the common liberal idea that only police and military should have firearms. However, out of the 32 people that the VA Tech shooter killed, 30 of them were shot and killed AFTER the police arrived! I don't remember the number killed at Columbine, but the scenario was similar. The SRT didn't go in until they were pretty sure that the shooters were in a spot where they weren't going to end up chasing them all over the building. Liberals believe that the police are going to come charging in, guns-a-blazing and shoot the armed thug right between the eyes as the same thug holds you around the neck with his free hand. But the truth is that a well paid LEO makes about $40k/yr here in America, and that's not enough to risk life and limb. That's why it's called "LAW ENFORCEMENT" and not the "SAVE YOUR LIBERAL WHINING ASS" team. Not only this, but every case where citizens have sued LEOs for instances where the LEOs were accused of "failure to protect" have been ruled in favor of the LEOs. It's fairly well established in our court system that LEOs do NOT "generally" have an obligation to personally protect you, or I, or anybody for that matter.

We've established three basis of fact in this issue.

1. Some badguys are ruthless and crazy badguys don't care how many armed people are around them.

2. LEOs don't have an obligation to save you, or I, or anybody, and calling them in a true crisis without taking action historically leads to trouble...death in the case of VA Tech.

3. Crazy badguys don't care about gun-free zones, and are by their nature lawbreakers and will commit evil acts whether they can acquire firearms or not.

Given the three facts above, we as a people "should" be able to make an informed decision on a best course of action. Calling the police hasn't historically done a lot of good. Police are "almost" totally reactive.... so much that it's the running joke here in America that "There's never a cop around when you need one". Unless, of course you're speeding. But that's another issue. A certain number of badguys observe or "perceive" an armed presense and shy away. But we're not talking about "regular" criminals here. We're talking about crazies like the VA Tech shooter. This type of individual brings real credence to the saying, "Some people just need shooting!".

A crazy is going to do whatever evil act he/she has planned, and nobody is going to stop him/her from "initiating" the act. VA Tech had enough information on the nutjob to probably have him committed and yet they failed to act. They had previously made it illegal for "law abiding" people to carry weapons. They created a "Victim Rich Environment" for the shooter. Like I said though, he could have done the same thing with a semi-truck. But even in that instance somebody still could possibly have stopped him with a firearm.

Crazy people are unavoidable, and the VA Tech shooter was "unavoidable". VA Tech made a willful decision to ignore this nut case, and in doing so permitted him to perpetuate en evil act. But to blame firearms themselves shows how little they understand human nature. Somehow, they've become less intelligent in their closed culture of academia and tenureship.

So even though I think we would all agree that the VA Tech shooter could not have been prevented... I also believe that we all agree that he could have been stopped after only killing a few people IF a few willing individuals around him had been armed.

But to understand the root of the problem, we have to look past the fact that he used firearms to kill. He could have used anything. It's an issue of human nature and has been a problem since Cain bashed in Abel's head out in the field that day a long time ago. As a culture, we have far too many people who are afraid to "act". They're afraid to grab somebody like the VA Tech shooter (even before the day he killed), and haul them before a magistrate and explain WHY he is a crazy person, and should probably be kept away from the rest of society in general...at least until he can get some help, if possible. But VA Tech didn't do this. They let him go, knowing he was almost certainly a very disturbed person.

So what if the VA Tech shooter had used an AmNo bomb? A knife, or machete? Molatov coctails? Poison?

The answer is still the same...and that answer is that firearms are a very efficient and effective means of stopping mean, crazy people. So until university, intellectual asshats can figure out a more effective way of stopping mean, crazy people, I'll just stick with firearms. Gun free zones OBVIOUSLY don't stop them! As if it takes any great amount of intelligence to figure that out!

...and finally... I hear that the families of the deceased at VA Tech are forming up a class action lawsuit. I hope they ream VA Tech royally. Because VA Tech is responsible for giving the predator a good "hunt".

Gun Control

Something I've noticed...and you and I have talked about this before...

Since 9-11, there's been a bit of a "shift" in lefties around us. Not those on high in positions of power and living in "ivory towers". Just those liberals around us. The shift has been that those who know me have commented that they're glad they know some people who are well armed, and will even come to their aid if needed. A few times, we've debated gun control and I've reminded them that IF they were to try to sway public opinion such that law is changed which could (for example), reduce my ability to remain armed, or outlaw my weapons completely, then this would cause me to be "unavailable" if they were to have a "crisis". Because (as I've explained to them)... I have no intention of getting rid of anything in the unfortunate event of a legislative "shift". But I'm certainly not going to show up at their place willing to help.

I've suggested (with a smile :-) that if this were to happen that they could just "Dial 911 and DIE". They laugh nervously and tell me not to "worry". I remind them that they get a lot of security from people like us, and they know it's a fact.

So even though we hear a lot of clamoring and there are morons like the author of the subject of this thread, those people around us who have historically lived in abject fear of our EBRs trust us more than the crazies, or LEOs. I let them know every chance I get that IF they were to push gun laws, that people like us will simply "not be there" when they need us. This seems to really get their attention and cause them a degree of concern. I find this interesting, because before 9-11 and the influx of illegal immigrants, and the gang problems, they could have cared less. But it's not that way anymore. I wish they would arm up and be "with" us, but at least more of them are thinking about how the results of gun control could affect them PERSONALLY now!

A Massacre We Didn’t Hear About
by J. Neil Schulman

Author, Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns & Self Control Not Gun Control
Webmaster, The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock

The following article appeared in the January 1, 1992 Los Angeles Times.

This is the story you saw on the evening news:
At lunch hour on Wednesday, Oct. 16, George Jo Hennard of Belton, Tex. smashed his Ford pickup through the plate glass doors of Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, injuring some patrons immediately. While other patrons rushed toward the truck believing the driver was a heart-attack victim, Hennard calmly climbed out of his pickup, took out two 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistols, and started shooting people in the cafeteria’s serving line.

Hennard continued shooting for 10 minutes, reloading five times. One of his pistols jammed repeatedly, causing him to discard it. There would have been plenty of opportunity for any of the cafeteria’s customers or employees to return fire. None did because none of them were armed. Texas law forbids private citizens from carrying firearms out of their home or business. Luby’s employee’s manual forbids employees from carrying firearms.

Police officers were inside Luby’s within minutes. But before they were able to corner Hennard in the cafeteria’s restroom, where he turned his gun fatally on himself, Hennard had killed 15 women and 8 men, wounded 19 and caused at least five more to be injured attempting to flee.

The Killeen massacre was ready-made excitement for the media: a madman with a gun, lots of gruesome pictures. CBS News devoted an entire “48 Hours” Dan Rather report to it. Sarah Brady of Handgun Control Inc. capitalized on it in a nationally published column to call Congress cowardly for voting down more stringent gun laws the next day.
Now here’s a story you probably didn’t see:
Late at night on Tuesday, December 17, two men armed with recently-stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoney’s restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into the walk-in refrigerator, and locked it. Continuing to hold the manager at gunpoint, the men began robbing the restaurant.

Then one of the robbers found a customer who had hidden under a table and pulled a gun on him. The customer, Thomas Glenn Terry, legally armed with a .45 semi-automatic pistol, fired five shots into that robber’s chest and abdomen, killing him instantly.
The other robber, who was holding the manager at gunpoint, opened fire on Terry and grazed him. Terry returned fire, hitting the second robber several times and wounding him critically.

The robbery attempt was over. The Shoney’s customers and employees were freed. No one else was hurt.
Because Terry was armed, and used his gun to stop two armed robbers who had taken a restaurant full of people hostage, there was no drawn-out crisis, no massacre, no victims’ families for Dan Rather to interview. Consequently, the story hasn’t received much coverage.

Among those who rely on national news media for their view of the country, the bloody image of Luby’s Cafeteria is available to lend the unchallenged impression that guns in private hands serve only to kill innocent people. The picture of 20 hostages walking out of Shoney’s refrigerator unharmed, because a private citizen was armed that night, is not.

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.