Collegiate Times

The founding fathers thought militias should be well regulated, they thought people's rights to obtain weapons should not be infringed upon.

"Well-regulated" in the days of our founding fathers meant disciplined. If they wanted it to be well regulated as we think of today, why would they have added in that pesky "shall not be infringed" part?!

Tell that to the up to 2.5 million people every year who successfully use firearms to defend themselves from violent criminals.

A small sampling can be found here: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

That 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses statistic by Gary Kleck is completely without merit.

David Hemenway applied Klecks methodology to a 1994 ABC News/Washington Post survey in which people were asked if they had ever seen an alien spacecraft or come into direct
contact with a space alien.

The results indicated that almost 20 million Americans have seen a spacecraft from another planet and more than a million have actually met space aliens.

'Nuff said.

Anon, you conveniently neglect the other 13 surveys that confirmed Kleck's study. Sorry to burst your bubble with your non sequitor.

Oh, you want your bubble burst? How about the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) conducted at the same time as Kleck's survey that found only 65,000 defensive gun uses annually?

Keep in mind there are over 600,000 gun offenses in the U.S. each year.

Hey Anon:

I stopped a group of young men who were doing a series of B&es in my area after I confronted them with my openly carried .45.

I never reported it to the police. Does your stats include those events that were never reported :^).

Hey John Woods - A gun worked quite well to stop the fanatic muslim at Fort Hood from murdering more people.

Actually Eds, I'm glad you brought that up, though it might not suit your anti-rights crusade.

When soldiers step on a military base, they lose the right to carry they have everywhere else. Being armed is instant jail time.

So the terrorist fanatic was unloading on an unarmed crowd. Funny how they consistently pick Disarmed Zones (colleges, post offices, military base) to go on killing sprees...

I'm glad you brought it up, too.

Nidal Malik Hasan was a concealed handgun permit holder in Virginia. Because of a reciprocity agreement, that permit was also valid in the state of Texas.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/10/critics-point-to-terror-gap-in-gun-control-laws.aspx

So BobbyT, your proposed reform would allow future Hasans to carry handguns on military bases. Great idea.

These comments are pretty off-base -- pun intended. Nothing about having a permit makes a person an angel. Not one has been saying otherwise. On the other hand, statistics show that people who apply for gun permits and carry regularly are not troublemakers - less than 0.01% are revoked for any crime, let alone a gun crime. Yet I have a feeling anti-gun folks will continue to use even one example to advance their agenda.

Also, on the offensive vs. defensive uses: Kleck's study was only 1 of 13 that found defensive uses in the millions. The NCVS study was the only one that low, and was full of errors.

So the burning question for anti-gunners is:
Why do you take the one lone example as your shining star argument? It makes you look as stupid as your agenda.

It's far from one lone example. There's now been 5 confirmed mass shootings by concealed handgun permit holders so far in 2009, and a host of other documented violent criminal acts:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf

And that's just what we know about from media reports, the tip of the iceberg. The NRA has banned public access to even basic information about concealed handgun permit holders in 29 states, so a national accounting of permit holder behavior is now impossible.

As for the Kleck study, it is without merit.

An identical survey, using the exact same methodology, found 20 million American who claimed seeing a UFO and 1 million who had personally met aliens.

'Nuff said.

No government survey has ever found more than 80,000 defensive gun uses in a given year because they actually require documentation of these incidents and not just unverified self-reporting. The government's studies have made no value judgment as to whether those uses were appropriate or not. That Kleck repeatedly does apply value judgments to events he can't even document (much less substantiate with detail) is telling.

First of all the "well-regulated" you brought up was speaking of Militia not Fire arms. Concealed carry is a great right. It has been shown that crime decreases when a state or community is allowed to carry and does. Criminals do think twice when confronted with the idea that they may have a weapon pointed at them. It is a damned shame that people in this country have been conditioned to see a person with a gun as a bad person. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson

You could apply this to any other study and get the same results. Therefore, all studies are Without merit. Can you cite any peer review critical of the Kleck study? I would not expect ABC or the Washington Post, two of the most firearms rights hostile news outlets in the country, to give this study a fair assessment.

Nuff said.

"How about the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) conducted at the same time as Kleck's survey that found only 65,000 defensive gun uses annually?"

What do you mean only 65,000? Thats just over 178 a day. However, the problem with the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is it is only sent to victims of crime that have been identified by police. However, not all victims receive the survey, and many people who have used firearms to defend themselves dont fill it out because they dont consider themselves victims.
For example, when my sister lived in Tennessee she was an advocate gun control, and she supported a total ban on handguns. When she moved to Atlanta with its high rate of violent crime her views changed, she got her firearms carry permit, and she took up competitive shooting. In two separate incidents while she was stopped at traffic lights intruders tried to force their way into her car. Both times, she brandished her Glock, and both times the attackers fled.
Most criminologists would side with Kleck study as being the more accurate number, but if cant bring yourself to trust his study a Los Angeles Times study placed the number of times citizens use firearms to defend themselves annually against crime at 3,052,717 or just over 8,383 a day.
Theres more at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

The point is that most people who apply for permits aren't like Ms. Habtu. They already own guns and plan to carry them. They aren't people who choose to get a permit simply because they can. There's an implicit responsibility involved with carrying a deadly weapon, and I don't know any permit holders who aren't well-versed in handling and shooting their firearms, even though it is not required. Personally, I've spent many hours going through scenarios in my head and how I'd react to each, practicing presenting a weapon from a holster, target shooting at the range, etc.

Jason, I'm glad you have an active imagination and have prepared yourself for all contingencies. But the notion that you can somehow vouch for the good character and training of millions of individuals who hold concealed handgun permits in this country is laughable.

I don't want Jason's Word (or Nostradamus-like clairvoyance). I want an adequate screening process in place that makes DAMN SURE that someone who is carrying a handgun around me and my family is mentally stable and well trained.

The problem is less about vouching for people with permits and more about the people who carry weapons around you and your family illegally. I'll gladly put down my arms if there is a way to ensure that they do not exist. Just because someone doesn't have a permit does not mean they are not carrying a tool (gun or otherwise) that can be used to do you harm. Therein lies the problem. A permit holder who is carrying a properly concealed, properly holstered firearm for self-defense is not the person you need to worry about. The point is that if the gun ever leaves the holster, it's either because you're about to be assaulted, in which case whether the person has a permit doesn't matter, or that person is being assaulted and wants to have a fighting chance.

Anonymous, I'm pretty sure implementing such a system is near impossible- look at the licensing process we have for drivers, yet thousands more people die every year from car accidents than do from guns. How do you ensure your families safety from a car accident?

If the screening process allows individuals with criminal records to get permits, and does nothing to assure they have adequate training, then damn straight I have to worry about concealed handgun permit holders.

Denying guns to criminals is not rocket science. Every other democracy in the world does it just fine with tough gun laws.

Anonymous,

Claiming other countries deal with guns better than us may be true, but they also have different other laws that come into affect.
A large majority of US gun crimes can be attributed with drugs and prostitution being prohbited and strictly enforced. This results in higher prices to accompany the high risk in selling and using drugs in the U.S. These higher prices drive people to carry guns to protect their "assets" and also results in users needing more money to pay for their addictions.

If we look at Switzerland, they have one of, if not the lowest violent crime rate in the world, because a large majority of their citizens own and carry firearms. More % of Swiss own guns than Americans and it acts as a deterrent from violent crims from being committed. Also, they don't have a "war on drugs" as we do in America, but a responsible drug policy that helps treat addictions not punish them.

Anon - maybe you're not familiar with the concept of "Open Carry," but it's allowed in VA (and MANY other states for that matter) for those 18+. You need NO permit, NO training, NO background check, but you can carry a firearm openly virtually everywhere.

First of all, most homicides in this country are not drug-related. That can be verified through a quick look at the FBI Uniform Crime Report (under the table that describes the Circumstances surrounding homicides). So that theory goes right out the window.

Second of all, drug addiction is not a problem unique to the United States. It is a problem in all industrialized democracies.

As to Switzerland, their militia members do not carry their weapons in public, and there are extremely strict regulations on how those weapons are stored at home. Militia members are required to keep ammunition sealed and stored separately from their rifles. Ammo is inspected regularly by the government to make sure it is not used for non-military training purposes.

As the Open Carry guy, I think all you gun nuts should carry your guns openly, so that when we see you we can get our families away from you immediately.

What does paranoia sound like?

"As the Open Carry guy, I think all you gun nuts should carry your guns openly, so that when we see you we can get our families away from you immediately."

Actually, staying away from people who openly carry handguns in public and who have NO REQUIREMENTS OR SCREENING WHATSOEVER in doing so, well that's not paranoia. That's good ol' common sense.

"Gun-Rights Mom Killed in Apparent Murder-Suicide" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562801,00.html)

Actually, this is the only industrialized democracy in the world that doesn't stop maniacs from wreaking havoc with guns. The United States has more guns, weaker gun laws, and astronomically higher rates of gun death than any other industrialized democracy in the world.

Those countries do a wonderful job of denying guns to criminals and those who are clearly disturbed.

Actually you're wrong Switzerland has more guns per square mile than any other country in the world. Most people there own assault rifles even. They have much lower deaths because they armed the law abiding citizens instead of taking their rights away like you guys want to.

Your description of Switzerland's gun laws is totally inaccurate. The people you are describing with assault weapons are members of the country's MILITARY and they are required to undergo regular MANDATORY training in how to handle a gun. The regulations governing how they keep their rifles and ammo stored at home are also incredibly strict. Furthermore, Switzerland licenses all private citizens who want to buy firearms not associated with military service.

And those already tough laws could be strengthened again in Switzerland very soon:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Move_to_ban_rifles_at_home_gathers_pace.html?siteSect=105&sid=10366555&cKey=1235392065000&ty=st

It doesn't matter because in America your point is wrong because it goes against the United States Constitution. Which gives as the right to own and bear firearms free of government infringement. Besides it's a drop in the bucket compared to what else kills us in this country. I'll give you 4 things that kill more people every year the flu, cars, cigarettes, and alcohol.

Nice try, but Justice Scalia made it perfectly clear in the Heller decision that laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns are constitutional.

Scalia isn't the know all and end all when it comes to interpreting the constitution he's an activist judge. The Supreme Court also ruled that segregation is legal. Did that make it right?

Scalia is one of the most pro-gun, right wing judges in the entire country. Exactly how extreme are you?

I'm 100% behind the constitution, but as far as Scalia goes he's shown how not pro-gun he really is in that decision.

Scalia (DC vs Heller): Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Actually, gun-free zones are the safest places in the U.S., by far.

A 2001 study by the U.S. Department of Education found that the overall homicide rate at postsecondary education institutions was 0.07 per 100,000 of enrollment in 1999. By comparison, the criminal homicide rate in the United States was 5.7 per 100,000 persons overall in 1999, and 14.1 per 100,000 for persons ages 17 to 29.

Another study, conducted by the Department of Justice, found that 93% of violent crimes that victimize college students occur off campus.

As for Ghandi, anyone who believes that SCCC guys are experts on nonviolence, well, I've got a bridge to sell to you.

Thank you very much for posting this. It's certainly needed given some of the disgusting comments that have been directed at Ms. Habtu.

Too long didn't read

So we agree that shes trying to take away our second amendment rights. Only your side is against the Constitution.

There's nothing I agree with you about, starting from human decency and moving on from there.

I'm not saying she shouldn't have the right to speak. If you look at what I wrote you can clearly see I said she shouldn't speak on the basis that she's spewing drivel with the I've been shot excuse to cover up any logical retorts to her ignorant opinion. You should re-read what wrote.

Where are those logical retorts? You haven't addressed a single substantive issue she raised in her piece (probably because you know there are no good explanations). I guess you're too busy insulting women and victims of gun violence to formulate an actual argument.

My retorts are all over this comment section take a look I didn't just limit myself to 2 posts.

You're a fag she's a dumb cvnt that needs to be gagged with a big unclipped c@ck. Everyone here can see that.

Who stopped Nidal Hasan last week and why has the US military never allowed CC on US bases?

Regarding Hasan, it has been reported that he got a concealed handgun permit in Virginia!

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/10/critics-point-to-terror-gap-in-gun-control-laws.aspx

Weak laws? News flash Bobby: CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS. No matter how many "strong" laws you have on the books, they will be broken by the lawless.

Ah, the gun nuts' favorite line: "Criminals don't follow laws."

How many of you guys realize that that is an argument for anarchy?

It's not an argument for anarchy it's pointing out the fallacy in thinking that a criminal will be stopped by additional laws.

There's nothing about "additional laws" in what you wrote.

You wrote, "Criminals don't follow laws." And then you added that it doesn't matter how many laws you have, criminals will never follow them.

That is a clear argument for anarchy.

If you look at what lawless actually said he said that the lawless will break laws no matter how many you have. He's not arguing anarchy as you claim he is pointing out that laws only stop the law abiding.

Exactly, and his inference is: Since laws only hurt the law-abiding, why have them?

As I said, anarchy.

That's not at all what he's saying. For the thousandth time he's saying you can't stop criminals by passing more laws. He's not saying we shouldn't have laws he saying if you want to to stop a criminal you don't do it by passing additional laws.

Sorry, that makes no sense. If criminals don't obey laws (and laws only hurt law-abiding citizens), why have the original laws? What do "additional" laws have to do with anything? His comment was a blanket assertion about laws in general (not a specific category of proposed laws), and a clear argument for anarchy.

See you're making a mistake in your assumption that "laws only hurt law-abiding citizens," which no one here claimed except you and is false. He was saying that putting strong laws on the books would have no effect because the criminals would break them just as easily as the laws we have now. It was an argument for leaving the laws as is not abandoning them. In conclusion you're a moron.

That would be persuasive if Glenn Beck wasn't on your side in this debate.

Glen Beck's a twit just like common sense I don't care what side he's on

He loves you regardless. He's encouraged Americans to stockpile weapons against the "dictator" Obama and carry them everywhere. You should watch his show, you'd love it.

Thomas Jefferson,
Not only Hitler, but Mao and Stalin, rulers who are responsible for many more deaths than Hitler, all supported disarming their citizens.

That's absolute nonsense. Every other industrialized democracy in the world has very tough gun laws, and none of them have given way to dictatorships. The citizens of these countries are every bit as free as we are and a heck of a lot safer. They're just not able to indulge gun fetishes that put everyone else at greater risk.

No they make you safer, those of us with legal guns protect idiots like yourself everyday. You assume that a law will stop a criminal it won't. They will get guns the way they always get guns illegally. If you legislate against legal guns the end result will be that there will be fewer people to stop illegal guns. Gun control makes all of us less safe.

Interesting data, anonymous, but I went to CDC and used 2006 firearm death data, then went to North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics and found the whole story. For starters, DC, which has 3.8% gun ownership, has the highest firearm death rate in the country, at 19.92 per 100,000 (using 2000 census population data). There are many other cases which weaken your correlation, and it shows why the VPC study only shows top 5 and bottom 5 states...

Highest ownership, then lowest - middle 21 states omitted.
State/% Ownership/Gun Death Rate
WY/59.7/15.02
AK/57.8/16.8
MT/57.7/12.25
SD/56.6/9.7
WV/55.4/13.42
MS/55.3/16.6
AR/55.3/15.21
ID/55.3/12.74
AL/51.7/16.84
ND/50.7/6.79
KY/47.7/12.53
WI/44.4/7.54
LA/44.1/19.27
TN/43.9/15.36
UT/43.0/9.49
---------
DC/3.8/19.92
HI/8.7/2.44
NJ/12.3/5.84
MA/12.6/3.19
RI/12.8/4.24
CT/16.7/5.01
NY/18/5.08
IL/20.2/7.98
CA/21.3/9.13
MD/21.3/12.15
FL/24.5/11.17
DE/25.5/9.31
NH/30/6.15
AZ/31.1/15.87
OH/32.4/9.63

Here's another superlative way of twisting data: 4 of the 15 most gun-toting states have death rates among the 21 lowest, and 3 of the least gun-toting states have death rates among the 21 highest.

Yeah, the data above shows a correlation between gun ownership and gun death even if you include DC. I know...it works with autos too so make a graph if you want to see it.

States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death

http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm

So I took your advice, but I did more than just take a naked eye glance at a graph, which you misrepresent; it is a jumbled mess as a scatter plot, with x-axis ownership percentage, y-axis death rate. The correlation coefficient between gun death rate and firearm ownership across all 50 states and the District? 0.444. Pretty weak, considering that means that only 19.73% of the variation in gun death rate is related to the variation in ownership rate.

Is this the appropriate place to mention that 97% of D.C.'s crime guns come from the states with high gun ownership rates that you cite here (i.e., VA, NC, SC, GA, etc.)?

Or that D.C. is an entirely urban area and not a state?

I commend you for doing your own analysis.
Here's some others to crunch on....

Firearm Injury In The US (State Comparisons)

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section%201.pdf

Child Firearm Deaths Tied to Gun Availability

http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/march8_2002/injury_control.html

Yeah I know because "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that the government can tell us when and if we can carry guns.

How logical, because none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights are regulated, right?

And then there's that pesky part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

You know, those state militias that no longer even exist.

They aren't you have free speech, 0 slaves and no soldiers quartered in your house. The militia part is one of the reasons we have the right to own firearms. The founding fathers wanted a well armed citizenry so we could form a militia if need be. As a result we have the right to own firearms.

The only way to disarm US citizens is for a brainless & gullible electorate to keep putting more shallow, brainless politicians into public office as "their" representatives. Even Obama will cave! That will be the "Fifth Column" that will take us down from within.

Considering present direction, soon our friends won't trust us & our enemies won't fear us. And our citizens will live a much more risky life!

It's her constitutional right as a law abiding citizen to have one that's why.

Yeah, and it's my even more basic right ("Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness") to not have dangerous, untrained individuals walking around me and my family and deciding when to open fire.

Actually that's not a right you have. You have the right to not be hurt but you don't have the right to feel safe.

The majority of people here are missing the point completely. The VT shooter didn't need a permit to commit his cowardly crime. He didnt need any form of training either. He also didnt need any permission and he ignored all the laws prohibiting guns on campus.

The question of how easy it is to get a permit is moot. Criminals don't need a license to commit a crime. And vilifying law abiding citizens is not winning people over to your side either. Consider the extremely large number of permit holders who do not commit a crime.

What's interesting is that in all of this name-calling, whining, and generally rude behavior, not one of you guys has substantively addressed a single issue brought up in Ms. Habtu's piece.

Yes we have re read our comments.

"The Second Amendment has nothing to do with it, as the Heller decision noted that prohibitions against concealed weapons are perfectly constitutional."

Multiple people have mentioned this here in the comments section. All of you should understand that Scalia's comment was just that... a comment. It has no legal bearing on any future case. It is just a comment or a personal opinion made by the judge and not a part of the formal ruling. IANAL, but I believe those of you quoting this piece from Scalia are misrepresenting the legal weight it actually carries.

Yeah it's called the United States of America where the founding fathers so believed in the right to own guns that they put it into the nation's founding document. You're free to leave if you don't like it.

I have never heard of the SCCC before this article. I am a recent alum that was staunchly anti-gun until witnessing the events of 4/16.

A armed society is a polite and non-violent society, unfortunately America hasn't seen this type of society for quite sometime.

If an armed society was a polite society, the U.S. would be the safest country in the world. It's just the opposite, we have a higher rate of gun death (and higher rate of overall homicide) than every other industrialized democracy in the world.

To wow. You are obviously misleading people, you liar. No good person WANTS to arm deranged criminals.

OK, I'll bite.

Name one thing that either SCCC or VCDL is doing to prevent criminals from buying guns.

To wow. First of all I am not SCCC, but I am pro gun. You aren't biting anything. You stated that SCCC guys want to arm everyone (law abiding citizens and deranged criminals). SCCC doesn't have to do anything to try to stop criminals from getting guns, it isn't their job. Just wanted you to know that it is highly likely that they DONT want criminals getting guns.

SCCC can support any measure they want to prohibit criminals from getting guns, and it wouldn't cost them a thing.

They haven't supported a single measure to stop criminals from getting guns. In fact, if you look at their Facebook page, the talk there is all about eradicating EXISTING measures that curb criminal access to guns (and general moaning about even modest existing laws).

Thanks for those words.

"To those to take this issue in the most literal of senses, please tell me, how many cases in history has proper crack down of illegal possession and regulation of legal possession FAILED to reach its goal?"

Oh you mean like prohibition? And its a good thing we have that war on drugs, otherwise drugs could be found just about everywhere!

http://www.oag.state.va.us/OPINIONS/2006opns/05-078.pdf

Attorney General's opinion, January 2006:

"Accordingly, it is my opinion that the governing boards of Virginia's public colleges and universities may not impose a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons by permitted individuals. Pursuant to specific grants of statutory authority, however, it is my opinion that colleges and universities may regulate the conduct of students and employees to prohibit them from carrying concealed weapons on campus."

Incorrect. The campus is public property, anyone can come onto campus.

Interesting sidenote here. Cuccinelli is the guy who sponsored the ridiculous law that now allows Virginians to get a concealed handgun permit after a one-hour online course. Bob McDonnell is the Attorney General who issued the opinion cited here which allows members of the general public to carry guns on Virginia's campuses.

The University has in its power the ability to ban certain individuals from campus arbitrarily, and restrict who enters which buildings. If you enter a dorm without an escort, you are trespassing. Why should it be any different if you violate school policies by carrying the gun onto campus as a guest?

Yeah, right-wingers really hammered Bush for that Patriot Act, I tell ya'...

Laughable...

You left wingers sure did and the second you got in power you attacked the second amendment.

Actually, Obama hasn't signed a single piece of legislation or issued a single executive order that strengthens gun laws in this country.

But I understand the SCCC crew is paranoid by nature, so I understand your confusion.

I'm not talking about just Obama I'm talking about the left in general. People like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy (RIP). All of whom were critical of the Patriot Act all of whom undermine the second amendment.

Obama et al is best thing to happen to the NRA in years. Gun shops certainly want him re-elected in 2012.

It is atypical for a formal organization to have a representative post their entire platform in the comments section of an article. This is more for discussion among individuals. If you want to see the substance behind an organization's platform, perhaps you should visit their websites. http://www.sccc.org.vt.edu/ and http://vcdl.org/

The SCCC President has already commented here, as have a zillion SCCC and VCDL members. Why hasn't a single one addressed the serious substantive issues raised in this article?

Hi, this is Jason. Just showing that anyone can post as "SCCC President." An organization's formal response to an article generally comes in the form of a letter to the editor or an op/ed piece. Perhaps, since this article was just released today, we should wait to see if a response is forthcoming.

Perhaps you should send this memo to every other industrialized democracy in the world...you know, the ones that have enacted tougher gun laws than we have and now have astronomically lower rates of gun death.

Let me be clearer. Enforcement of gun control laws without infringement upon personal liberties is difficult to achieve. It's easy to crack down on guns if you, say, throw the 4th amendment out the window. Perhaps you can shed some light on exactly how the gun laws in these other nations are enforced?

The only "infringement" in these democracies is on gun fetishes. No freedoms have been lost. Their citizens vote, speak their mind, and are far safer than we are.

Perhaps you aren't following. How are we to be sure that nobody has guns without illegally searching and seizing them? Or should we not care about the 4th amendment either?

You don't need to be sure. In other democracies, if someone if found to be in possession of a firearm without having followed the proper licensing and registration procedures, they are charged with a criminal offense and the firearm is confiscated at that point. There has never been any situation in these democracies where police have gone door to door to every residence in the country.

The Confiscation Myth is a fundraising tactic designed by the NRA (or perhaps "The Turner Diaries).

It's a moot point because in this country we have the right to own firearms and the right to privacy. Both of those rights means that government stays out of our business when it comes to firearms.

So you think that we don't confiscate every gun once it's found to be illegally owned or is used to do something illegal? We do, and there are still plenty of illegal ones out there. You have to get rid of the existing supply and dry up the supply line. Show me how.

This might be hard to understand, but other industrialized democracies have enacted tough gun laws and dramatically reduced their gun death rates without going door to door and confiscating guns. The key issue is to have accountability (legal, commercial) for individuals who transfer firearms.

Those countries have worse gun violence than ours when you look at percentages and count the crimes that get misrepresented. Do some research and quit spamming lies.

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for giving us the credit for what the citizens of the US have done for their country. By falsely attributing it to the NRA, you bring us lots of donations every year!

No problem, when we finally begin to save lives in this country, I want it to be clear who was primarily responsible for getting all those people killed unnecessarily!

Regulation does not cause safety, it merely follows a backlash that is correctable by markets.

Regulation did not create seatbelts or do seatbelt laws make the US safer, people still choose not to wear them. Car-makers created seatbelts as well as engines that drop below on impact to avoid crushing the driver.
Regulations did not create airbags or anti-lock brakes, car-makers did. Regulations only insist these accessories are necessary, but if a car is sold without seatbelts not many people would buy that type of car and the company would be bankrupt. Regulations have no hand in increasing safety, this goes for other industries, not just automobiles.

Same for guns. More gun control isn't going to make the U.S. a safer place.

Wow Alumnus, that's the second argument for anarchy we've seen from a pro-gunner on here.

Yes, because German highway system is complete anarchy, yet it has a lower death rate than ours.

Free markets, they regulate themselves, it is not anarchy, it's natural.

Actually, if you drive in Germany (I did once in a rented car) you'll find they have strict road regulations and cameras covering every inch of the autobahn. You can open up there, but that's about it. http://octane.ie/news/article.php?id=517

Guns are highly regulated. Guns are only tools and like any tool they can be misused by criminals. I carry a gun because a bodyguard is too expensive and police cant be everywhere.

Guns are more weakly regulated in the U.S. than in any democracy on earth.

Guns are also the only consumer product not regulated for safety by the government (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Guns are weapons that are designed to kill. By contrast, we expect that consumer product should not kill under any circumstance. Gun ban zealots are attempting to make civilian firearms ineffective by regulating them consumer products.

Part 2..from above...

i also find it absolutely hilarious that anyone actually believes that limiting concealed carry permits would create any real reduction of murders. because the guy who plans on committing the irrational act of killing someone will act rationally and try to register and get the proper permits for the weapon he plans on using. you cannot apply rational thought to irrational people.

and everyone keeps wondering why don't those in support of gun rights don't respond to habtu's "issues" presented...she has none. she has proven that a normal, safe, citizen can obtain a CCP. that's it. she's not crazy, she has no ill-intent, so what did she prove? she doesn't have a background that didn't pop up on the check and she is responsible enough to know that her CCP doesn't mean she can actually handle a firearm.

The truth is that there's no way to find out how many crimes have been committed by concealed handgun permit holders, as the NRA has gotten laws passed in 29 states that ban the public from accessing ANY info about permit holders.

Thanks again, NRA!

it still does not change the fact that concealed carry permit holders account for less than 1% of all murders committed. so we will enact more legislation that doesn't actually address a real problem, so that we can be protected from .5% of those committing crimes. people laws for law-abiding citizens to follow to protect themselves so we can be protected from .5%?

Show me a citation for a national study that shows that "concealed carry permit holders account for less than 1% of all murders committed"?

It doesn't exist. There's never been any national study of the kind.

The Brady Campaign isn't exactly a neutral source. I could give you a whole list of cancer statistics from the fine people at Marlboro. How well would you trust them?

So the report has 21 people doing what they shouldn't in 2009 out of over 3 million with permits, and roughly 30 murders (if we project out for the rest of the year) from these cases. (http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html)

That's less than 1 crime per 100,000 permit holders and less than 1 murder per 100,000 permit holders. In contrast, considering murder committed with firearms alone, the rate in the US in 2008 is 4.7 per 100,000 people. Eliminate the permit holders from the equation, and non-permit holders commit murder with firearms at a rate of 4.75 times the rate of permit holders. It's amazing how raw data becomes a lot less striking when you put it into per capita perspective.

Before you ask, the murder statistics for permit holders were taken from the Brady report. I'm guessing that they go digging for this information everywhere, so I assume it's a complete list. The overall US murder rates were obtained from the FBI uniform crime report from 2008.

you need a citation? its numbers. theres no need for a study...but here are all the numbers, posted right above in my first post:
"soooo...60 murders and suicides from licenced CCP holders this year...out of?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/14/national/main5309836.shtml

there were 14,180 murders reported to the FBI in 2008, 8648 of them used a firearm. assuming your numbers continue, there will be 90 deaths this year from CCP holders. if you pretend that all 90 are murders, that means 1% of the total number of firearms murders in the country are committed by those with permits. but that is pretending that your survey had no agenda.

using the date from the violence policy center (vpc.org)
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf
in 2 years, CCP holders killed 6 cops and "at least 43 private citizens" with firearms (a seventh police officer was killed without a firearm).
so, in 2 years, 49 people were murdered by CCP holders. 49 out of roughly 16000 murder victims were killed by CCP holders. STAGGERING! .3% of all firearm-murder victims were killed by permit holders. that is POINT-THREE PERCENT"

No one needs to trust Brady at all. The document cited above links to news stories that confirm all those criminal acts by concealed handgun permit holders. Each incident can be independently verified.

And the Brady report certainly isn't complete. The NRA has banned the public (including the media) from accessing any information about concealed handgun permit holders in 29 states. So the Brady report provides just a small snapshot of criminal activity by concealed handgun permit holders.

The following articles confirm it:

George Sodini, LA Fitness Shooter Had Lethal Plan, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 6, 2009

Michael McClendon, Officials Identify Alabama Gunman, The Enterprise-Ledger, March 11, 2009

Richard Poplawski, Poplawski Bought Guns Through Shop in Wilkinsburg, Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, April 7, 2009

Frank Garcia, "Slaying Suspect Denied Gun Permit 3 Times Before Getting 2007 OK," Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, February 19, 2009

Poplawski was dishonorably discharged from the USMC. It's illegal to have a permit under those circumstances.

As for Garcia, "It's easy to second-guess it, knowing what we know now," said state Supreme Court Justice Thomas VanStrydonck, administrative judge for the 7th Judicial District. "But that would be unfortunate second-guessing. I'm not even sure that denying him a pistol permit would have denied him a pistol."

New York is a "may-issue" state, and with no consistent standards, permitting has the potential to be more of a corrupt, good-old-boys network than in shall issue states with uniform policies.

OMG! The permit process didn't prevent them from shooting people? I thought that pieces of paper - like laws and restraining orders - would keep people from ever doing anything wrong!

Well, these 4 people definitely should ruin it for the other 6 million permit holders in the US. Let's also take away knives, bats, and swords, then sticks, stones, fists, and bad words. Then we'll have perfect peace!

Oh before I forget - we can keep our cars, right? I know they are the biggest killer in the country, but I have good insurance to cover me.

You're assuming the record of Poplawski's discharge was located when he applied for his permit. Millions of disqualifying records are missing from the NICS database. Furthermore, there's no reason why Poplawski's friend would have lied about seeing his concealed handgun permit. Finally, your theory fails because Poplawski legally BOUGHT firearms. That same dishonorable discharge would have prevented those purchases had it been in the federal NICS database. It clearly wasn't, or an error was made.

He DID NOT legally buy them if he was dishonorably discharged. Just because you can pass the NICS check does not mean it's legal for you to buy the gun. If you can grow a beard and pass for 21 when you're 18, just because you dupe a cashier doesn't mean that the booze is legal.

OK, let's assume it was illegal. Why the heck is Pennsylvania selling guns and giving concealed handgun permits to people who are prohibited by law?

No I didn't read the article because I'm tired of her lying articles with facts that don't add up.

Anonymous, NOW you're asking the right question. Interestingly, it is exactly these breakdowns in enforcement that lead many people to arm themselves against those who have obtained weapons illegally and may use them to do harm.

So your proposal is to arm more people through insufficient screening processes, as opposed to fixing those processes?

I'm suggesting that the way to fix poor enforcement of laws is not to make more laws that are difficult to enforce. People who arm themselves for defensive reasons do so largely in response to a perceived threat. This threat exists not because laws are too lenient, but because they are poorly enforced, or may in fact be unenforceable without violating privacy, etc.

You're right Jeremy the "freedom to have a gun" is a gross oversimplification of the second amendment. It protects the citizen's right to keep and bear arms, which means that it covers more than guns and will cover laser weapons once we invent those.

Fricken Moron. Do enjoy being a Gestapo Nazi POS?

Why should any student trust "any student" with a concealed carry permit when there are virtually no requirements or training? ...thanks but no thanks...Our schools need to step up and do more to protect us so that this isn't even a question...you CCW permit holders think you're above it all and "SO GOOD"...you're just another joe shmo on the streets that needs an ego boost

Actually you have to be 21 to conceal carry so you would be trusting an adult. It's a moot point because you don't have the right to feel safe.

first, i am not a permit holder, nor do i have any plans to be. i also do not own a gun. so the all-encompassing "you CCW permit holders think you're above it all" is 100% BS. i don't need an ego boost, and i have had more firearms training than most cops...so thanks for the assumptions.
no requirements? why should there be anything more than sane and felony-free to OWN a gun? why should concealed carry require anything more than what owning a gun does? how does concealed carry imply anything at all? how does that imply that the person getting it is crazy or would abuse it? in fact, i would say that concealed carriers aren't in need of an ego boost, because they don't want people to know they are carrying. i am sure i will get the "ya, but they have more power now" crap response, now.

Leave your safety in the hands of the police and maybe they'll get there in time. Whats a ten minute response time in the grand scheme of things.

Its a shame you hate freedom so much. See, I don't need to create my own country because its already here. We have a Constitution which tells the government which freedoms they aren't allowed to mess with. You can move to Saudi Arabia or someplace where they also disagree with freedom. I hope this communofascism is not what they are actually teaching in schools. Good thing we have a 2nd Amendment to keep people from infringing on our freedoms too much...

I still think the best solution is to put these SCCC and VCDL guys on an island somewhere where they can shoot each other all they like in the name of "freedom and liberty" while the rest of us relax and enjoy our lives.

Apparently you can't just relax and enjoy yourselves because your fellow students go psycho and start blowing your friends away, with no chance of defending themselves. We, the ones who believe in defending ourselves (and you no less) are the last ones you need to worry about. If I can get through life without having to shoot or harm anyone that will be awesome. But if someone tries to harm me (or you), I'll do my best to defend against it.

I never asked for your "protection" and after the way you guys have treated Ms. Habtu on here, I don't believe for a second that you're advocating this insane policy for the good of "others."

Your protection is just a by-product. I'm looking out for number one first and foremost. In all honesty, I don't care anything about you, but I respect your right to freedom and life. All I ask for is the same but people like you don't think that way... you must try to control me so you "feel safe".

Having watched two kids get blown away about 15-20 feet from me, it was then and there I learned there were no cops, politicians, lawyers, school administrators, or anyone else to defend them. The only one to defend you is YOU, no matter what controlling BS others try to shove on you. Believe it or not I used to be an ignorant anti-gun person like many of you here. When you leave your sheltered lives you'll realize its a whole new world out there.

I think it's time for somefoo to log off...time to go check outside to see if the gov't is coming...nervous nelly

Of course I have a gun around. I refuse to be a victim. I'm sure the dead kids from Virginia Tech or any other shooting would have like to at least had that chance. Instead, because of fear mongering, lies, and people with control and overdeveloped mommy instincts, they had none. The people they trusted to take care of them left them to die with no chance. You think I'm going to let that happen to me or those around me? If you aren't armed, at least you can die morally superior to someone who is, eh?

"you're great" That's an awesome example of transference, thanks for that.

Cho didn't Conceal Carry though. That's ok though next 4-16 you can bleed for ten minutes waiting for the cops to show up.

If you have access to criminals' schedules for crimes I'd love to have a copy... Maybe you know a few (or are a criminal yourself) and could enlighten the rest of us of your itinerary so we can just not be there. Then we wouldn't have to worry about defending ourselves.

I'm curious as to what you guys think gives you the right to dictate and restrict others' freedom, in a land where we are all supposed to be equal and free?

LOL, yeah, that constitution stuff is stoopid!

No, the U.S. Constitution is not stupid. Though bad acronyms and bad spelling certainly are.

"Cops have a proven track record of blowing away all kinds of innocent people, and most people feel "safe" with these armed thugs..."

Ah, so SCC people are police-haters, too? That explains a lot.

CCW PERMIT HOLDERS COMMIT ATROCITIES ALL THE TIME AND HAVE KILLED DOZENS OF PEOPLE...

SOME FOOL

Stop avoiding the point I made by asking a stupid question that had nothing to do with what I said.

Did I ever say I felt unsafe outside because of the scary guns?

Whoa buddy, take a breath and step away from your keyboard for a minute. As perfect a specimen of humanity as I am, I sometimes (though rarely) replied to the wrong message. Thanks for calling my perfectly valid (and entirely relevant) question "stupid".

So we should basically arm everyone and everyone is completely find to own and carry a hand gun anywhere they wish. F any laws, F the loopholes, F the restrictions. Let's let all the psychos, felons, and terrorits have guns. I hope you never get elected, oh wait, the VCDL would love for you to run. Phil Van F The Laws Boy should run

We already have laws, they are in the U.S. Constitution. Harming other people is already illegal, so why explain the million ways its possible to kill someone and pass more laws? That is not logical. These anti-gun laws are not logical. You are punishing people for things they haven't done. That is a slippery slope. Whats next? License/register/ban kitchen knives because we can cut off other peoples' heads? Shovels? Bricks? Water? Etc etc etc? Where does it end? Everyone bubble wrapped and warehoused so they "feel safe"?

Actually, Hasan did his killing with a privately-bought handgun, not a military-issued weapon. He got his handgun at Guns Galore in Texas and his concealed handgun permit from the state of Virginia.

Wow it amazes me how missed this point is.

Ill put it in REALLY simple terms for you...

If 100 people drive cars and 30% get killed 30 people die.

If 10 people carry guns and 30% get killed 3 people die.

So the point is that of course more people die from cars because more people are exposed to cars.

I hope the people commenting here are not becoming doctors...

So, until you provide us with evidence that proves more cars in circulation that firearms, the argument still stands. And to add, if weapons are being carried concealed, according to these geniuses they are still being exposed to them which is what makes them afraid. So theres no telling how many firearms you are actually exposed to on a daily basis (and that don't shoot you, obviously)

Here, I'll help with some quick google fu.

304 million people in the US

350 million guns in the US

250 million registered vehicles in the US

30 thousand gun deaths in the US

42 thousand auto deaths in the US

You do the math...

Even with somefoo's data, it is still wise to steer clear of the car argument. Cars are actively put into use every time you turn the key and start moving, whereas guns are in an almost constant standby mode, but not in actual use. You have to normalize not only for prevalence, but for rate of use.

Actually, gun ownership is very concentrated in this country (only 38% of households now have a gun in them). Far more millions of Americans drive a car each day than handle a firearm. That the numbers are that close is staggering...and telling.