Collegiate Times

Excellent Glenn, really excellent. Now, if you end up getting thrown in jail or expelled due to some highly improbable incident which cannot be connected to this newspaper, I'll chip in a few bucks for your bail.

Way to go that was a well written opinion piece Glen

haha yeah he's going to have an unexplained academic hold when registering for classes. It looks like saying "gun rights" on campus is becoming the new "bomb" on an airplane. That's the fault of our silly lawsuits these days, not the overreaction to gun violence. The fact is people that want gun ownership are dumb. Those that are opposed to gun ownership are smart. And the smart people are the ones that should tell the dumb people what to do. Of course the day they want to take them away, well they have a list of concealed weapon carriers' homes and they know exactly where the weapons are. So I just don't see why they go door to door and rid the street of these weapons of death. How can they live with themselves knowing that people with guns could live right next door? If they thought it was that serious they would actually do something and stop talking.

obvious troll is obvious

"intellectual" bullying? they need to change the title of this article

@Anon "haha yeah" ... Are you bi-polar? In one sentence you're mocking the overreaction to gun violence, and in the next you're joining in on the bullying! Your sheer ignorance defines you in those later statements, calling for a gun ban that would be on par with the hostile takeover of America that Obama supporters claim will never happen. So, where you at on this??

Ignorance of what? I know what I wrote but I havent figured out a good way to convey sarcasm with words. I'm not that strong a writer. I'm on the side that I have a gun and don't mind if other people have guns. I'm also on the side that people can want to take away guns all they want. I was pointing out that if the patrons of gun removal were so fervent in their beliefs they would DO something about it. If by DOing they mean wait a while for the laws to change then have somebody else try to take away the guns, then it couldn't be all the serious of a problem. So in the same spirit of not owning a gun and leaving personal/property protection to others, they want to leave the gun removal to others as well. I guess that is the fundamental difference between the differing groups. One group takes the responsibility of protection as their own while the other group delegates the responsibility to others. I don't think either group is right or wrong, they're just different.

No, Anonymous, your sarcasm was clear to anyone who passed the reading comprehension portions of the SAT. Bi-polar obviously does not fall into that category.

Ahet hem, you are 'slightly' mistaken. Suffice it to say that I have been recognized for my 'reading and writing skills.' Regardless, Anonymous wrote back, Alum, and said he can't convey sarcasm proficiently - perhaps your social skills are the ones at odds here? I think, in time, you'll learn that forums and web text lack the ability to convey tones and emotions, and that one needs to make their intent clear. Now stop detracting and get back to the real issue here. Apparently we all agree on the article, and in-fighting will get us nowhere.

I think everyone can join the compromise that people can still have guns while others complain that gun ownership isn't in the best interest of the public. Settled!

Who recognized you for your reading and writing skills? If you were as proficient as you believe, you'd realize you should have written "one needs to make HIS intent clear." 'One' is singular while 'their' is plural. Funny, for centuries writers have managed to convey tones and emotions via the written word long before forums and web texts. Anonymous was being kind by taking the blame for your ignorance.

Alum, you're wrong again. First, "their" is possessive, and is a gender-neutral way of expressing something that belongs to a person OR group of people. Second, if you read carefully, you would have noticed that I said forums and web texts, not all text; again, you prove that you're the one with reading comprehension issues. Now, are we done with this pointless pissing match?

In proper formal English, which you clumsily attempted to use when you decided to use the ‘one’ construction, a pronoun must agree with the noun to which it refers in both number and gender. ‘Their’ may indeed be possessive but it is still a pronoun. Just because the politically correct hate the fact that English has no gender-neutral singular pronoun doesn’t make it proper to use a plural. It is certainly used in colloquial English, but that does not appear to be what you were trying to write. Additionally, in your original post you wrote “So, where you at on this?? “ Dare I point out the superfluous use of the word “at?” “So, where are you on this?” would have been proper English, the use of which you claim to have been recognized. I strongly suspect the recognition you received was written in red pen. If YOU read more carefully you would see I referred specifically to forums and web texts, not all texts. My point was that well-written English translates just as well to forums and blogs. That you missed both Anonymous’ sarcasm and the basic meaning of my posts proves you are the one with the shortcoming. You started this by sharpshooting Anonymous’ original post. Don’t get your panties in a wad just because someone did you one better.

Can we get back to guns? I think both of you should be shot for this senseless rambling, and alum you first for carrying on every time you were requested to stop. And for the record, Bipolar was right, you've just contorted it into a discussion of "formal" language versus common-use language. MOVE ON.

This is pretty funny. Bi-polar attacks anonymous, alum defends anonymous, bi-polar attacks alum, alum attacks bi-polar, anonymous attacks alum. I need a scorecard. What was this column about?

The gun control topic or any other topic for that matter isn't about discussion. It's pretty much about repeating what we hear on tv and on the radio and posted to a college newspaper forum. At least I didn't read a lot of repeating in this guy's article so for that I commend Glenn. I remember the outrages of so long ago like the world dying from eating peanut butter and tomatoes, illegal immigration, Russia's invasion of Georgia, etc. only to never be followed up on or talked about again. What changes were made in the FDA so that people won't die when eating salsa or a PB&J?

I like peanut butter...let allergic kids keel over.

Maybe it is because gun advocates are easily intellectually bullied? sniffle. After all, advocating for the presence and use of a weapon rather than intellectual or emotional persuasion is advocating an intellectual step backwards. But I guess it's much more glorifying to escalate violence, live out your hero-complex, and have a fire-fight instead of calming things down. Yippy kai yay, indeed, morons. Don't like a "no guns on campus" policy? The solution is simple. Quit school and go somewhere else.

Don't worry, pretty sorority girls who ignore me, I will save you from all of the baddies with my concealed firearm.

So essentially what I hear from the last two commenters is that violence can be stopped with a hug. and flowers. and maybe by blowing a kiss. Perhaps you would like to share that with the victims and survivors of April 16th or other shootings? Yea, just tell them that they didn't have to be shot and killed, if only they had just hugged a few more people. Idiots.. OBVIOUSLY you've never encountered real violence in your lives, but that isn't surprising as you probably hide away in your own euphoric world. Mommy and Daddy still gunna be there to save you when something happens?

A gun isn't something you need until the s hits the fan. Some people hope for the best. Others plan for the worst. That's what it all boils down to.

And introducing Gun nut...as a prime example of hero-complex. The first one to get caught in a cross-fire. "well, u-huh u-huh, if only I coulda been there i coulda dun sumfin..." enough said.

Oh Gun nut, if only you were there with your gun on April 16th! You would have saved us all!

It's like what Frosty said in Generation Kill, "The fact is people who can't kill will always be subject to those who can."

I think Generation Kill's writers would like a word with you about taking their material out of context and applying it to a completed unrelated situation.

So, Stupid, please explain this 'hero-complex' to those of us who are stupid and don't get it. I'm really wondering where you extracted that from my advocacy of self-defense. I never made any claim to wanting to be there to save anyone, so really its lost on me. But overall, your ramblings just go to show that anti-gunners are just ignorant hecklers. Got anything constructive to say?

What was the different context?

He thinks people that would like to have a weapon want to be heroes because that is what he's heard on the radio or the tv. Don't bother reasoning with him. The fact is he's against people owning weapons and that's the way it is. Should the police be allowed to have weapons? I am kind of curious of how the anti-gun crowd feels about police carrying guns. In other countries I don't even think police have guns right?

To those of you that think guns are not the answer. Let me paint a picture for you. You are in a classroom. You hear gunshots nearby. You get a text alert from admin that there is danger. Folks band together to barricade door somehow. Shooter attempts and possibly succeeds on breaking in. How could it be that waiting in the corner with a gun pointed at the door is not the most ideal defense? Waiting with a textbook doesn't seem like the right answer. Pleading with someone who has just killed others probably won't work. Please describe an appropriate defense as you see it. Assume there are no other exits (ie jumping from window would result in serious injury, etc).

ummm you call the police since, well, they have guns and can actually do something about it. i still haven't figured out why people carrying concealed weapons aren't looked at as cops out of uniform. there just must be a lot of mistrust in our fellow citizens but thats what the police are, citizens. the real problem is the fact that people are just picking a side in a political debate. it always comes down to the red team vs. the blue team, nothing else matters.

Good call anon. Dial 911 while you see the shooter in your classroom as he squeezes the trigger to injure/kill you or someone else. I am sure they will click their heels together and appear instantly. Rather, you will end up as a martyr for the anti-gun cause.

Well Andy, since we are in the spirit of painting fantastical situations, here's one for you. You are in that classroom when you hear nearby gunshots. You pull out your pistol and run out in the hallway with the intent to protect yourself and save the day. You see some guy with a gun drawn and you fire three times before he has the chance to fire at you. You spend a moment in shock, but before you can exhale someone else shoots you three times in the back. At the end of the day, 10 are dead. Investigations later revealed that the original 'gunshots' were nothing but nearby construction noise. But, of course, you wouldn't act like this because you know how to be so calm and strategic in life or death situations.

Eric, you're a moron. Gunfire doesn't sound like "construction noise." And, yes, I've been in and survived life or death situations. Have you?

The best argument against what you are saying Eric is the fact that situations like the one you described very rarely happen but the home invasion argument happens much more frequently.

Did I say anything about running out in the hallway? No, I did not. If you knew anything about the law and using deadly force, you would know that you are supposed to run away if this is feasible. So as I said a person should stay in a barricaded classroom. Only if offender makes entry would it be appropriate to use force. Oh and by the way it isn't a "fantastical" situation, it actually happened here on 4/16/2007 and many other school and workplace shootings.

that's why you have to PID your target man, watch your backdrop, and everything will be ok. I think Mr Wood has some impression that people will be running around with guns looking for people to shoot because it is a fun thing to do. There may be a good reason to have that impression but guns are just another tool in the box, in a glass case with the "in case of emergency break glass" message. Some people just don't like guns and want to remove them all. A gun holocaust perhaps, that is what we need. We need a final solution for guns. Eric will be Hitler and the guns shall serve the Jew role.

Very nice piece of work Glen. I'm very pleased to know that there are folks on today's college campus like you that show the promise of working to preserve what America was meant to be.

It was just last year when a nail-gun outside of Prichard Hall was mistaken for gun fire. Not everyone will act sensibly in a desperate situation; mistakes will be made. The hungover 19 year old with 30 minutes of training might not do the right thing when he thinks he hears gun shots and pulls out his pistol. And I'm all for gun ownership, I just don't like the idea that Andy presented. The 'if only I had a gun' argument is based on fantasy.

The 'if only I had a gun' argument is based on fantasy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- That "fantasy" is lived an estimated 2-3 million times a year, every single year... most of the time without a shot being fired as the assailant has no desire to deal with odds that are anywhere close to even.

Eric: "The hungover 19 year old with 30 minutes of training might not do the right thing when he thinks he hears gun shots and pulls out his pistol." LOL.. more of the same ol' ignorant arguments. First, you have to be 21 to get a permit in VA. Second, 30 minutes of training is quite an understatement, and inconsiderate of the high percentage of people who get additional training and practice. And any idiot knows that you don't draw your gun until you clearly identify a threat. Students set off fireworks all over town every week, do you hear of shootouts following every time? Wake up man..

To Eric Wood. Please review what I wrote as you obviously didn't pay much attention the first time. If someone is in critical danger, there is no chance for flight, and they stay barricaded in a room, then I don't see how using a firearm for self defense when attacker makes entry is inappropriate. You are twisting things dramatically. Do some reading and some free thinking and get back to me. Some humans violate the others physically with grave consequences. This is unacceptable, and will always continue. It has always been a reality for human beings. Why do you ignore this? Like defenseless victims of school shootings, I will assume that for people in danger of ethnic/racial/religious clensing (Kosovo, Congo, etc) you would advise that they sit back and take what is coming to them from the vicious armed aggressors. Tech has many history, sociology, and psychology classes, please take the opportunity to educate yourself. You and I will probably never see eye to eye because as I see it you would like to force everyone to be defenseless. Don't pull out the "call the police/UN" in relation to these examples. For too many people the damage is already done by the time first responders get on the scene and you know it.

That reminds me of that 50 year old woman who got her face eaten off and her limbs ripped off by a chimp for 12 minutes because the woman that owned her could subdue it with a knife. It took cops with guns to stop it, if the owner or a neighbor had a gun maybe th3 50 year old would still have her eyes, lower jaw, arm etc. but it was conn. so what can you do. Liberal gun laws = Chimp Attacks

haha Liberal gun laws = Chimp Attacks, what an analysis! Anyways, if the drama is going down, don't count on Eric to be any help. Unless you too are looking for the nearest exit. What's this huge debate over guns anyway? The only people I see on the news being affected by guns are the ones getting shot up at a school or some unhappy worker going on a rampage. I don't see too many Johny Heroes running around accidentally shooting innocents in a perceived attack. Anti-gun sentiment, just like racism and homophobia, is due to ignorance.

I'm just saying Connecticut has much stricter guns laws than Virginia and Connecticut has a higher rate of chimp attacks. The chimp knew the old woman was an easy target and good eats. You don't see chimps eating faces in states with tougher guns laws and it isn't because our eyes are somehow less tasty.

made a mistake it should read "in states with fewer gun laws" sorry about that

Prepare ya'll, continue to arm yourselves! Ain't no government will protect you. New World Order is coming.

Guns are bad. Ban all guns, shoot all gun owners.

obvious trolls are obvious

Oh yeah? I feel that treatment of ordinary Americans by gun lobbyists is an economic bullying.

Anonymous: Don't accuse me of being a troll, I'm speaking the truth. Most of our liberties are taken away and the Illuminati are now making their move - prepare for massive human inoculations in the near future. Wake up and defend yourselves. Just this week, we got Air Force One & F-16 flying right next to buildings, then now it came out in memos that people would be terrorized on purpose and it should be set secret. Wake up. Like Andy mentioned, don't simply expect global institutions like the UN to solve crisis, which is now it's expanding to health issues.

failed troll has failed