Aa
The case for gun rights is stronger than you think
(CNN) -- On NBC's "Meet the Press" this past Sunday, I was asked how we can make our schools safer and prevent another massacre like Sandy Hook from happening again. I suggested that if one person in the school had been armed and trained to handle a firearm, it might have prevented or minimized the massacre.
"And I'm not so sure -- and I'm sure I'll get mail for this -- I'm not so sure I wouldn't want one person in a school armed, ready for this kind of thing," I said. "The principal lunged at this guy. The school psychologist lunged at the guy. Has to be someone who's trained. Has to be someone who's responsible."
Well, I sure did get mail. Many people agreed with me and sent me examples of their son or daughter's school that had armed security guards, police officers or school employees on the premises. Many others vehemently disagreed with me, and one dissenter even wrote that the blood of the Connecticut victims was ultimately on the hands of pro-gun rights advocates.
To that person I would ask: Suppose the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary who was killed lunging at the gunman was instead holding a firearm and was well trained to use it. Would the result have been different? Or suppose you had been in that school when the killer entered, would you have preferred to be armed?
Evidence and common sense suggest yes.
In 2007, a gunman entered New Life Church in Colorado Springs and shot and killed two girls. Jeanne Assam, a former police officer stationed as a volunteer security guard at the church, drew her firearm, shot and wounded the gunman before he could kill anyone else. The gunman then killed himself.
In 1997, high school student Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then drove to Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, and shot and killed two people. He then got back in his car to drive to Pearl Junior High to continue his killings, but Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, ran to his truck and grabbed his pistol, aimed it at Woodham and made him surrender.
These are but a few of many examples that the best deterrent of crime when it is occurring is effective self-defense. And the best self-defense against a gunman has proved to be a firearm.
And yet, there is a near impenetrable belief among anti-gun activists that guns are the cause of violence and crime. Like Frodo's ring in "The Lord of The Rings," they believe that guns are agencies of corruption and corrupt the souls of whoever touches them. Therefore, more guns must lead to more crime.
But the evidence simply doesn't support that. Take the controversial concealed-carry permit issue, for example.
In a recent article for The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, by no means an avowed gun-rights advocate, declared, "There is no proof to support the idea that concealed-carry permit holders create more violence in society than would otherwise occur; they may, in fact, reduce it."
Goldberg cites evidence from Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, that concealed-carry permit holders actually commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population.
The General Accountability Office recently found that the number of concealed weapon permits in America has surged to approximately 8 million.
According to anti-gun advocates, such an increase in guns would cause a cause a corresponding increase in gun-related violence or crime. In fact, the opposite is true. The FBI reported this year that violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows.
This comes in spite of the fact that the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Supporters of the ban (not including anti-gun groups who thought it didn't go far enough in the first place) claimed that gun crime would skyrocket when the ban was lifted. That wasn't true at all.
In fact, after the expiration of the ban, The New York Times, whose editorial pages are now awash with calls for more gun restrictions, wrote in early 2005, "Despite dire predictions that America's streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban in September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several city police departments."
But let's take the issue one step further and examine places where all guns, regardless of make or type, are outlawed: gun-free zones. Are gun-free zones truly safe from guns?
John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all took place in gun-free zones.
Do you own a gun that fell under the now-expired federal weapons ban?
These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They shoot up schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back. Perhaps "gun-free zones" would be better named "defenseless victim zones."
To illustrate the absurdity of gun-free zones, Goldberg dug up the advice that gun-free universities offer to its students should a gunman open fire on campus. West Virginia University tells students to "act with physical aggression and throw items at the active shooter." These items could include "student desks, keys, shoes, belts, books, cell phones, iPods, book bags, laptops, pens, pencils, etc." Such "higher education" would be laughable if it weren't true and funded by taxpayer dollars.
Eliminating or restricting firearms for public self-defense doesn't make our citizens safer; it makes them targets. If we're going to have a national debate about guns, it should be acknowledged that guns, in the hands of qualified and trained individuals subject to background checks, prevent crime and improve public safety.
SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
"And I'm not so sure -- and I'm sure I'll get mail for this -- I'm not so sure I wouldn't want one person in a school armed, ready for this kind of thing," I said. "The principal lunged at this guy. The school psychologist lunged at the guy. Has to be someone who's trained. Has to be someone who's responsible."
Well, I sure did get mail. Many people agreed with me and sent me examples of their son or daughter's school that had armed security guards, police officers or school employees on the premises. Many others vehemently disagreed with me, and one dissenter even wrote that the blood of the Connecticut victims was ultimately on the hands of pro-gun rights advocates.
To that person I would ask: Suppose the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary who was killed lunging at the gunman was instead holding a firearm and was well trained to use it. Would the result have been different? Or suppose you had been in that school when the killer entered, would you have preferred to be armed?
Evidence and common sense suggest yes.
In 2007, a gunman entered New Life Church in Colorado Springs and shot and killed two girls. Jeanne Assam, a former police officer stationed as a volunteer security guard at the church, drew her firearm, shot and wounded the gunman before he could kill anyone else. The gunman then killed himself.
In 1997, high school student Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then drove to Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, and shot and killed two people. He then got back in his car to drive to Pearl Junior High to continue his killings, but Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, ran to his truck and grabbed his pistol, aimed it at Woodham and made him surrender.
These are but a few of many examples that the best deterrent of crime when it is occurring is effective self-defense. And the best self-defense against a gunman has proved to be a firearm.
And yet, there is a near impenetrable belief among anti-gun activists that guns are the cause of violence and crime. Like Frodo's ring in "The Lord of The Rings," they believe that guns are agencies of corruption and corrupt the souls of whoever touches them. Therefore, more guns must lead to more crime.
But the evidence simply doesn't support that. Take the controversial concealed-carry permit issue, for example.
In a recent article for The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, by no means an avowed gun-rights advocate, declared, "There is no proof to support the idea that concealed-carry permit holders create more violence in society than would otherwise occur; they may, in fact, reduce it."
Goldberg cites evidence from Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, that concealed-carry permit holders actually commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population.
The General Accountability Office recently found that the number of concealed weapon permits in America has surged to approximately 8 million.
According to anti-gun advocates, such an increase in guns would cause a cause a corresponding increase in gun-related violence or crime. In fact, the opposite is true. The FBI reported this year that violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows.
This comes in spite of the fact that the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Supporters of the ban (not including anti-gun groups who thought it didn't go far enough in the first place) claimed that gun crime would skyrocket when the ban was lifted. That wasn't true at all.
In fact, after the expiration of the ban, The New York Times, whose editorial pages are now awash with calls for more gun restrictions, wrote in early 2005, "Despite dire predictions that America's streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban in September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several city police departments."
But let's take the issue one step further and examine places where all guns, regardless of make or type, are outlawed: gun-free zones. Are gun-free zones truly safe from guns?
John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all took place in gun-free zones.
Do you own a gun that fell under the now-expired federal weapons ban?
These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They shoot up schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back. Perhaps "gun-free zones" would be better named "defenseless victim zones."
To illustrate the absurdity of gun-free zones, Goldberg dug up the advice that gun-free universities offer to its students should a gunman open fire on campus. West Virginia University tells students to "act with physical aggression and throw items at the active shooter." These items could include "student desks, keys, shoes, belts, books, cell phones, iPods, book bags, laptops, pens, pencils, etc." Such "higher education" would be laughable if it weren't true and funded by taxpayer dollars.
Eliminating or restricting firearms for public self-defense doesn't make our citizens safer; it makes them targets. If we're going to have a national debate about guns, it should be acknowledged that guns, in the hands of qualified and trained individuals subject to background checks, prevent crime and improve public safety.
SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
And if you tell me to "knock it off EL" I swear on my Granny's grave that I'll bang my fists on the ground and start crying like a little girl!
LOL
When I reread the post, I understood the objection from NG. I just read yours.
I really really didn't mean it as a snipe but I can see how it was taken that way and I really am sorry.
I have said it may times and I say it again, just because I push for more ethical behavior does not mean I do not often fall short of those standards. I can only try and sometimes i will fail
My only regret is that I hurt NG's feelings. As I told her, I am sorry.
I am not sorry for laughing at Mike's pondering silliness. I like his humor and I truly enjoys everyone's humor, however I do admit I was insensitive and dense in not seeing how it would look like I was laughing at NG.
I am putting away the whip and hair shirt now and movin on.
:)
Sorry NG- I didn't mean to laugh at your expense and it sure did seem that way as I reread it.
Mike makes me laugh, so does Glass. Even when they insult me, they are funny sometimes. So is el at times.
I sometimes try to be but usually do not succeed.
Anyway apologies, I really think you are very cool and I understand your sensitivity, I am that way too (unless Glass is poking fun at me)
Please forgive me.
Mike makes me laugh, so does Glass. Even when they insult me, they are funny sometimes. So is el at times.
I sometimes try to be but usually do not succeed.
Anyway apologies, I really think you are very cool and I understand your sensitivity, I am that way too (unless Glass is poking fun at me)
Please forgive me.
My response was based on my reaction to the avalanche of articles, news features, and shows supporting one side or the other or both. I watch the news and read the internet sites and watch the Sunday Morning news shows and the idea that anything posted here could provide something for us to ponder struck me as absurd. Basically I was trying to express the fact that this issue has been exhaustively pursued from every conceivable point of view ad nauseum.
I just honestly don't get it...I made such a simple, short comment...just don't know what was objectionable about it, or worth making fun of?
It's that kind of stuff I don't like...I mean, I love to joke around as much as the next guy, but I can't see how mocking a word I used in a serious statement, on a serious thread is funny?
Others in CE get "scolded" all the time for "starting things", being antagonistic, and so on. Yet, when someone else does it, it's met with an "LOL"?
Oh well. Maybe I'm just really dense and failed to see the humor in it. Maybe I'll ponder that a bit.
It's that kind of stuff I don't like...I mean, I love to joke around as much as the next guy, but I can't see how mocking a word I used in a serious statement, on a serious thread is funny?
Others in CE get "scolded" all the time for "starting things", being antagonistic, and so on. Yet, when someone else does it, it's met with an "LOL"?
Oh well. Maybe I'm just really dense and failed to see the humor in it. Maybe I'll ponder that a bit.
You really thought that his comment warranted an "LOL" from you?
All you have to add to the discussion, is an "LOL" at a stupid comment that had ZERO t do with the article and thread/discussion???
You're all WAAAYYY too proud of your little snipes.
It's not cute and it's not funny and it's for sure not "LOL'able".
Grow up a little, perhaps?
And if you tell me to "knock it off EL" I swear on my Granny's grave that I'll bang my fists on the ground and start crying like a little girl!
All you have to add to the discussion, is an "LOL" at a stupid comment that had ZERO t do with the article and thread/discussion???
You're all WAAAYYY too proud of your little snipes.
It's not cute and it's not funny and it's for sure not "LOL'able".
Grow up a little, perhaps?
And if you tell me to "knock it off EL" I swear on my Granny's grave that I'll bang my fists on the ground and start crying like a little girl!
Try not to feed the animals, NG. It won't get you anywhere.
I engage them as little as possible, and it's served me well.
We'll be called "crybabies" in 3... 2... 1...
(wait for it)
I engage them as little as possible, and it's served me well.
We'll be called "crybabies" in 3... 2... 1...
(wait for it)
Indeed there is a great deal of pondering that absolutely must go on.
I'm pondering and pondering right this very minute.
Thank you so much for that ponderous article. It sure is a lot of food for thought and for pondering.
Ponder me this Batman........................... .
????
You don't like the word ponder?
I got the sarcasm...but not sure I understand where it came from.
I'm pondering and pondering right this very minute.
Thank you so much for that ponderous article. It sure is a lot of food for thought and for pondering.
Ponder me this Batman........................... .
????
You don't like the word ponder?
I got the sarcasm...but not sure I understand where it came from.
Scott Brown becomes first Republican to back federal assault weapons ban
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scott-brown-becomes-first-republican-back-federal-assault-134440437--politics.html
A little excerpt:
“As a state legislator in Massachusetts, I supported an assault weapons ban thinking other states would follow suit. But unfortunately they have not and innocent people are being killed,” Brown told Massachusetts paper the Republican on Wednesday. “As a result, I support a federal assault weapons ban, perhaps like the legislation we have in Massachusetts."
I swear, I didn't expect this....
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scott-brown-becomes-first-republican-back-federal-assault-134440437--politics.html
A little excerpt:
“As a state legislator in Massachusetts, I supported an assault weapons ban thinking other states would follow suit. But unfortunately they have not and innocent people are being killed,” Brown told Massachusetts paper the Republican on Wednesday. “As a result, I support a federal assault weapons ban, perhaps like the legislation we have in Massachusetts."
I swear, I didn't expect this....
LOL
Indeed there is a great deal of pondering that absolutely must go on.
I'm pondering and pondering right this very minute.
Thank you so much for that ponderous article. It sure is a lot of food for thought and for pondering.
Ponder me this Batman...........................
I'm pondering and pondering right this very minute.
Thank you so much for that ponderous article. It sure is a lot of food for thought and for pondering.
Ponder me this Batman...........................
A very good article, in terms of the facts being presented. A lot to ponder.
Education is the "people" thing that I've been talking about. The facts in this article clearly and precisely prove my point.
So... in a nutshell, the answer to gun violence and massacres, is MORE guns, not less guns.
More guns, and more education regarding self-defense.
More guns, and more education regarding self-defense.
Key point in the article, IMO:
"John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all took place in gun-free zones."
VERY good article...
"John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all took place in gun-free zones."
VERY good article...
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
