Collegiate Times

The quotations from students that appear in the actual paper just go to show how uninformed people are.

First, many of the "assault" weapons that are listed in the ban fire a round that is not much larger than a .22 caliber bullet. They are being banned because of the "scary" look they have.

Second, while automatic weapons are not banned, they are extremely hard to procure. A person who wants to purchase an automatic weapon has to have a license, must go to a licensed dealer and fill out multiple forms. Furthermore, the amount of automatic weapons that can be legally purchased is dwindling. A person can only buy an automatic weapon if it was manufactured before a certain date. This makes the price of the weapon astronomical and unfeasible for a general citizen to buy.

Finally, the ban would do no good at all. How many criminals follow the law?

I completely agree with the above poster in regards to assault weapons.
Furthermore, at least the actual print edition of Collegiate Times had Josh Higgins & Pricilla Alvarez article:
Weapon ban fizzles out
With the quotations from students
Then it had the usual editorial board follow-up.
Of course fair and balance does not exist as CT always shows its media bias but I digress. No where in the opinions section (or online in Collegiate Times) is Mr. Higgins & Ms. Alvarez article.
I understand that the financials of CT aren't that great. However at least presenting some similarity between the online edition of CT and the paper (print) edition would be nice.
I had to search for a few more articles as this is not the first time this has occured.
If editor(s) had to save space then get rid of the following articles & headlines:
First annual ePortfolio showcase to be held in April
Dorm rooms to be available for commencement
What (and who) exactly determines newsworthy content?

"Removing the assault weapons ban from the overall gun legislation eliminates one of the largest solutions to the gun problem plaguing the U.S" I would love for the editorial board to explain how the assualt weapons ban could be considered the "largest solution" to the gun problem, when "assault weapons" account for the smallest portion of gun crime. In fact, according to the FBI uniform crime statistics, rifles of all types (the category containing the AR15 and AK47 "assault rifles"), account for less murders than knives, less than blunt objects, and even less murders than those resulting from "hands, fists, or feet" as the weapon. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

One of the largest problems? You mean the one thats causing only 4% of gun related deaths? (I supposed this number varies between 1% and 10% depending on your source and what year/averages they took but still... 10% is not a large part of the problem). Also as others noted, 'assault weapons' are all about cosmetics...

"The power of these guns is extreme and unnecessary, and failure to ban them perpetuates the risk of high-powered weapons being used to harm citizens."

I'm so glad this is the highest-risk item to face our citizenry. From a risk-based approach, banning these weapons should be incredibly low on the priority list.

Start first with terrible drivers.

Ask anyone in law enforcement; assault weapons are not the problem. Background checks, strawman sales, unregistered private sales, and lack of inventory control by sellers are the problems. I don't like guns and won't own one, but the first posting is right, this ban is about "scary" looking guns. It's like trying to get resto-mod VWs off of the streets because they look like hot-rods. They're still VWs.

The editor would think differently if congress wanted to adapt legislation that restricted their FIRST AMENDMENT rights, lets say the right to freedom of speech if it was only allowed to apply to ongoing current situations: it shall be unlawful for the press or organization or individual to publish any information on any person(s) past. Who would that really hurt? People make mistakes should they have to worry about the press digging it up 20 years from now? What mistakes you make in life and especially college make you who you are today so is it fair that G.W Bush or B.H. Obama's coke use was brought up from college? i mean taking away part of your first amendment rights would be good for everyone!!! you wouldn't have to worry about that joint you smoked, or that time you got caught urinating in public ever surfacing during a senate hearing.
Its shameful that the press would have the opinion they do about amendment rights but if the shoe was on the other foot? If some senator initiated some law that prohibited even part of your freedom of speech?
I don't agree that ALL citizens should be armed but the ones that are deemed capable and responsible should have the right to bear ANY arm, just as it was written.
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away.

The editor would think differently if congress wanted to adapt legislation that restricted their FIRST AMENDMENT rights, lets say the right to freedom of speech if it was only allowed to apply to ongoing current situations: it shall be unlawful for the press or organization or individual to publish any information on any person(s) past. I mean, who would that really hurt? People make mistakes should they have to worry about the press digging it up 20 years from now? What mistakes you make in life and especially college make you who you are today so is it fair that G.W Bush or B.H. Obama's coke use was brought up from college? i mean taking away part of your first amendment rights would be good for everyone! You wouldn't have to worry about that joint you smoked, or that time you got caught urinating in public ever surfacing during a senate hearing.
Its shameful that the press would have the opinion they do about amendment rights but if the shoe was on the other foot? If some senator initiated some law that prohibited even part of your freedom of speech?
I don't agree that ALL citizens should be armed but the ones that are deemed capable and responsible should have the right to bear ANY arm, just as it was written.
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away.

Do you guys realize that the internet has made this argument obsolete overnight?

With the readily available power of 3D printing people can do more than make skull bongs, they can make high capacity ammo clips and eventually weapons right in their own homes. The designs already exist for fully functional high capacity ammo clips that can be printed with a 3D printer and resin. What's more is that we're extremely close to a fully functional AR-15 lower receiver which is the only part regulated on the firearm. With the ability to make your own lower receiver anyone can order the rest of the gun 100% legally with no checks or anything. Soon they wont even have to do that and will be able to make the entire weapon themselves. This argument about assault weapons bans and clip capacity is horribly outdated. The internet has ensured that assault weapons will never be eradicated from the face of the earth.

Full of misinformed emotion, this article does nothing but parrot the mainstream news. People who are not educated/informed in the safety and operation of firearms are hardly qualified to make such overarching statements about certain gun features being unnecessary. Semi-automatic firearms have been around for DECADES. "High-powered weapon" is such a misnomer as well; hunting rifles meant for medium to large game animals are capable of firing DRAMATICALLY more powerful ammunition.
Furthermore, I am shocked at such an outcry to ban AR-15s with standard capacity 30-round magazines. After the April 16th tragedy at Virginia Tech, I don't recall people screaming about banning commonly-owned .22 handguns with 10-round magazines and standard-capacity 9mm handguns. Magazine bans will do nothing to curb violence as the market is already flooded with tens (maybe even hundreds) of millions of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
One more thing: look up the average police response time, and tell me if you'd rather waste time reloading while multiple people break into your house. I'm not exaggerating, look up these news stories that don't get reported by the mainstream media. If you don't want to have an advantage over violent criminals who disregard the law, then so be it. Don't project your uneducated views on my rights. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Good luck finding FACTUAL evidence that supports gun control. Hint: don't waste your time on the FBI website.

The VAST majority of gun crimes are committed by inner city minorities with stolen handguns. If our nation wants to realistically address gun crimes, it should not involve restricting those who abide by the law. More people are killed with blunt objects (hammers, baseball bats) than rifles of ANY kind; the percentage of crimes using AR-15s is astronomically low.

Keep on promoting your gun-free safe zones for criminals, since the end result will undoubtedly make guns look like the culprit, not the person pulling the trigger. When will we hold people accountable to the thousands of existing gun laws? Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet they are dead last in the number of weapon prosecutions. If that doesn't defy common sense, then we cannot have a reasonable discussion about how to keep guns from falling into the hands of felons and the mentally ill.

I'm an Iraq vet and VT alum. Handguns are my main concern.

Handguns should be illegal. Everywhere.

Police should carry M-4 rifles. Locked down after shift.

10 round magazines are sufficient for hunting and home defense. If you are properly trained, 10 is all you need. If you can't drop your deer with 10 rounds, you are just a bad marksman.

Yes, handguns exist. Stop their manufacture and in 100 years America will be a much safer place.

Background checks should be mandatory, but these mass killers will just steal weapons.

There also need to be a network where people can warn authorities to watch people. The CA shooter was a vet and had mental problems. I do not approve at all of his killing. His message was very compelling. There is much abuse, mental, physical, and sexual in the Army so he saw these abuses and tried to stop them and was stonewalled. He was desperate and snapped. This could have been prevented. There was something very wrong with his police dept. and that is what caused this solider to kill targets. This was not random.

Transparency is the answer.

This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.

Just a little dark outfit is, inside fashion-speak, essential. It is said Coco Chanel developed the theory however, if the girl did, numerous some other makers made the idea a new hallmark. Regardless of who termed the phrase, just before Chanel reinvented fashion, clothes were certainly not small. <a href="http://www.timberlandschuhede.eu/22-womens-timberland-14inch-stiefel/" title="Frauen Timberland 14inch Stiefel">Frauen Timberland 14inch Stiefel</a>