Read this!

HERE. Phlegmfatale will make you proud.

I'll say here what I said there. This is the spirit that makes America America.

Gun Control Claims More Victims...

From an essay, "Gun Control Claims More Victimes", by Benedict LaRosa on LewRockwell.com

...Consider that in all such incidents, the shooters are not so deranged as to attack police stations, shooting ranges, or gun shows. They have enough presence of mind to assail unarmed people in gun-free zones because they will encounter no effective resistance. (The one incident in which an individual was foolish enough to threaten to kill hostages where guns were prevalent was at a shooting club in California in July 1999. The gunman was promptly shot by an employee, without harm to the hostages.)...

...How many more victims must be sacrificed on the altar of gun control? How many more Virginia Tech incidents must occur before common sense prevails? Blaming inanimate objects for criminal acts and legislating barriers to self-defense is foolish and self-destructive. The hostile atmosphere to gun possession and training fostered by gun-control advocates is costing lives. Frustration, pain, and other emotions shouldn’t drive legislation; reason should. Though we may not be able to prevent such incidents, we can limit the damage they do.

Instead of listening to gun-control advocates whose advice brings death and injury, we would do better to abide by the Boy Scout motto: Be prepared!

My name is GreatBlueWhale, and I carry concealed

(This is used with permission from Mad Rocket Scientist who says, "I give leave to anyone to copy the damn thing verbatim, or tweak it to fit local laws, and sign your chop to it. Giving me credit is appreciated, but not required, as I feel the message is bigger than me.)

At any given moment, on any given day, I can legally conceal a firearm on my person for the defense of myself or others.

As a person who carries concealed, I have accepted an enormous responsibility to myself, my family, and to my community at large. I bear the responsibility to be aware, at all times, of my surroundings and of myself. I bear the responsibility of being trained and confident in the use of my firearm, and to take any and all measures to maintain control of myself, and my firearm, whether it is riding in the holster, or I have drawn it to confront a threat.

Before I can accept this responsibility, I had to be certain of my own moral center, to know that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the two pounds of steel and plastic on my hip is more than an uncomfortable bit of weight. To know that should I reveal my weapon, the situation may escalate to a point where I must use deadly force in defense of myself or others, and to know that my skill and training may not be up to the task, and despite the firearm, I may die, and that I am OK with that

Before I can accept this responsibility, I must be old enough, I must have enough money for the permit fee, and I must subject myself to a complete background check, one that involves local, national, and possibly international police agencies. If I have any instances of violence in my background, or events that have demonstrated my inability to be careful, lawful, and responsible, I will be denied this responsibility.

Before I can accept this responsibility, I need to know how to use a firearm safely. I need to know the four rules and have them such a regular part of my daily regimen that I am always aware of them and never forget them. Depending on where I live, I may be required to bear the expense to attend firearms training, or demonstrate my skill with a firearm at the range, or demonstrate it during a mock combat scenario.

Before I can accept this responsibility, I have to have a firearm. I must do my research and choose a firearm that fits my needs, my lifestyle, and my hands. I must again have the financial resources to purchase this firearm, which can range from $200 to $2000. I must have a holster that can safely secure my firearm on my person for carry, and it is likely a good idea to have different holsters for different occasions or seasons.

Before I accept this responsibility, I must know the law governing it. I must know how I may carry, where I may or may not carry, and under what circumstances I may reveal, draw, or discharge my firearm; and I must know the consequences of being wrong in my ability to discriminate these circumstances.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand that I will be expected to maintain a higher standard of behavior than my fellow citizen, and, it could be argued, a higher standard than even the Police, as should I make a mistake with my firearm, I will be required to defend myself against criminal charges, and I will not have the resources and influence of the Police Union to support me.

As I accept the responsibility, I must understand that I can not be allowed to make a mistake with my firearm, as one mistake will result, at the very least, in the suspension of my responsibility, and should I be convicted, the permanent revocation of that responsibility, and possible loss of my freedom.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand the following:

• I cannot verbally reveal to anyone that I have a firearm in a manner that could be considered threatening, intimidating, or otherwise hostile without the existence of a credible threat.
• I can ot visually expose my firearm in a manner that could be considered threatening, intimidating, or otherwise hostile without the existence of a credible threat.
• I cannot draw my firearm in any manner without the existence of a lethal threat.
• I cannot discharge my firearm for any reason without the existence of a lethal threat.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand that I can not allow myself to become involved in an easily avoidable physical, or even verbal, altercation while in possession of my firearm, and that I am required to attempt to leave or defuse a tense situation that may escalate. I must make every reasonable effort to "turn the other cheek" so that should I be forced to fight, it is only in self-defense. I must always stay in control and keep a cool head. I cannot give someone a piece of my mind in the parking lot, I can not belt the guy who is talking smack about my mother, I can not go drinking and get into a fight, I must avoid confrontation whenever possible.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand that I can never be complacent as I carry, as I cannot allow another to gain control of my sidearm, nor can I ever place an innocent in jeopardy because I am careless. I must make every effort, and bear every expense, in order to improve my skill with a firearm and my ability to safely use it.

I have to be better than a model citizen, I have to an exemplary citizen.

I accept this responsibility not because I think "guns are cool" or because I want to be a gangsta, or because I want to make someone my "beyotch", or because I want to be a hero, or because I am expecting trouble and want to be tough; I am not so shallow in my self.

I accept this responsibility because the police, as honorable and courageous as they may be, cannot be everywhere. I accept this responsibility because criminals, and those that would do violence for their own purposes, respect no boundaries, and can ply their trade anywhere, from the slums to the gated communities.

I accept this responsibility because I firmly believe that the only person that is responsible for my defense is me, and that every citizen, not just the police, is responsible for the defense of the community. I accept this responsibility with the same honor and courage that calls me to the aid of others, whether they are in peril for their life, or they merely stumbled on the sidewalk.

I bear this responsibility willingly and with love because I am a citizen of this great nation, and I want to protect it and all her people, and this desire imposes on me a duty to defend her with my skill, my determination, and possibly my life.

My name is GreatBlueWhale, and I carry concealed.

Gun buybacks a noble idea that always misfires

From The Oakland Tribune. I really enjoyed his old sneaker analogy.

Alex Tabarrok is research director for the Independent Institute in Oakland, and associate professor of economics at George Mason University

02/23/2008

...

The buyback has been criticized as a poorly organized fiasco, but even the critics say it was "the right idea" and "a step in the right direction."

On the contrary, the buyback was a bad idea from the beginning. Gun buybacks have been tried before, in cities from Seattle to Washington, D.C., and they simply don't work.

In an authoritative study, the National Academy of Sciences reported that "the theory underlying gun buy-back programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs."

It doesn't take much insight to understand why gun buybacks don't work. Gun buybacks attract low-quality guns from people who aren't likely to use them to commit crimes. The Oakland police, for example, bought a dozen guns from seniors living in an assisted-living facility. Are you relieved to know that Don Perata has disarmed these dangerous senior citizens?

The Oakland buyback was especially absurd because of the high price offered: $250.

Did no one running the program think to look at the price of a new gun? In

fact, the first two people in line at one of the three buyback locations were gun dealers with 60 firearms packed in the trunk of their car.

One wonders why the police even bothered to buy the guns from Oakland residents. Why not buy directly from gun manufacturers? ...

#1 Brady state (California) has "unintentional" mass shooting...

Read about it here. (thx to ProGunProgressive)

Yes, all those anti-laws surely protected all those poor folks, didn't they?

Kentucky Gun Shows thru December 2008

Sep 13-14 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center West Hall A&B RK Shows

Sep 27-28 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls National Gun Day
Dec 13-14 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls National Gun Day
Dec 26-28 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center West Hall A&B RK Shows

Bronson of The (Cincy) Enquirer has another good article

Actual journalism strikes again.

'More Guns, Less Crime'
Why a convention center in Wilmington was Ohio's safest place last weekend by Peter Bronson

As I waited in the parking lot for the doors to open at 9 a.m., two guys pulled up next to me in a black Chevy pickup. They wore camo ball caps, jeans and sweat shirts. Nothing unusual there - until one slung a rifle over his shoulder as they headed for the door.

Anywhere else, people would grab their cell phones and dial 911. But this was the Pro Gun Show at the Roberts Centre in Wilmington. Dozens of guys were toting shotguns, rifles and handguns, not to mention swords and knives.

It looked like a not-very-well regulated militia from Red Dawn, reporting for duty.

As the line spilled out the door, each gun was carefully inspected and tagged to certify that it was unloaded, and safe to sell or swap.

"No cameras," said a sign. It occurred to me that I could get kicked out for carrying a Kodak, but nobody would blink if I flashed a Glock. Apparently, gun owners and dealers value their privacy.

I'd heard ads for these shows and always wondered about them. So when a guy in my concealed-carry class last month gave me a flier, I decided to find out what a gun show looked like. The pictures I couldn't take would show:

It looked sort of like a craft show. There were leather belts, German helmets from World War II, polished stones, wood carvings and special handbags for women who carry guns.

It looked sort of like an Army surplus store, with bayonets, canteens, Samurai swords and even a box of disarmed grenades that could make panic-inducing paperweights.

It looked sort of like a convention of hunters, with lots of bright orange and camouflage.

But mostly it looked like a gun show.

Once I got past the surprise of so many firearms in public, it was quite interesting. There were John Wayne Winchesters, Davey Crockett muzzleloaders and Dirty Harry magnums. A retired cop from Middletown showed me his WWII Colt Commando .38 in vintage condition: $425.

Nearby, new Glocks sold for $490. And for guys who need to have the biggest gun in the woods, there was a .50-caliber Barrett rifle for $11,500, with cartridges as long as ballpoint pens and as thick as broom handles.

Long tables displayed teddy bears, targets and nearly every kind of ammo known to mankind.

And everywhere in the crowded aisles, men talked guns; buying, trading, selling or just swapping bullet points about magazines, holsters and ammo.

They all were very polite - as people are prone to be around so many guns.

But there was one cringe-inducing item: a T-shirt that said, "One Person Can Change the World" on the front. Then on the back: "With Enough Ammunition."

Not the best message on a weekend after five college kids were killed by a deranged campus shooter at Northern Illinois University.

And that's a shame, because the gun owners I've met are among the nicest, most helpful, most law-abiding people anywhere. They're no scarier than collectors who hoard coins, baseball cards or Beanie Babies. In fact, gun shows are probably safer. Even the world's dumbest criminal is not stupid enough to hold up a gun show packed with armed NRA members.

The rules are stricter, too.

Private gun owners can sell guns to anyone of legal age (18 for long guns, 21 for handguns), without federal regulations or paperwork. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence wants to close that "gun-show loophole."

But the so-called loophole applies anywhere. You don't need paperwork to sell a gun to your neighbor. And you don't need a gun show to buy a "nine" in Over-The-Rhine.

The notion that gun-control laws can disarm law-breakers is so irrational there's no place to even begin that conversation. And when I see media stories about outlawing "assault weapons," I just wince.

I'm not a gun expert. But I'm not that ignorant. Yes, there were guns made to look like military M-16s at the gun show. But they're not automatic. Real automatics are regulated almost to extinction. The ones on sale at the show are no more deadly than any semi-automatic varmint gun. They might look scary. But a pellet gun in the wrong hands is scary enough.

The truth is, there's probably no way to keep mentally ill or dangerous people from getting a gun. But gun shows do their best. Gun-show dealers do instant, while-you-wait federal background checks. If there's a wrong answer to any of the 15 questions about mental health, criminal records, drug use and citizenship, the buyer has to walk away empty-handed or find a private seller.

Gun-phobics refuse to believe it, but researcher and author John Lott says state after state has proved that concealed-carry laws reduce shootings by putting more guns in the hands of law-abiding people. The title of his book says it all: "More Guns, Less Crime."

His comment on recent shootings: "At some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: They keep occurring in gun-free zones. Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks."

I guess that gun show last Saturday might have been the safest place in Ohio.

Peter Bronson is a columnist for The Enquirer. E-mail pbronson@enquirer.com or call 513-768-8301

SCOTUS docket page for D.C. v Heller

Lot of info here.

Names and addresses for all counsel and all parties which have submitted amicus briefs.

March 8th looms.

John Lott can't find PSH* bugaboo...

From Investor's Business Daily comes an article from John Lott. A sample:

Indeed, despite the fears being discussed about the risks of concealed handgun permit holders, I haven't found one of these multiple-victim public shootings where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander.

With about 5 million Americans currently with concealed handgun permits in the U.S., and with states starting to have right-to-carry laws for as long as 80 years, we have a lot of experience with these laws and one thing is very clear: Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Those who lose their permits for any gun-related violation are measured in the hundredths or thousandths of a percentage point.

We also have a lot of experience with permitted concealed handguns in schools. Prior to the 1995 Safe School Zone Act, states with right-to-carry laws let teachers or others carry concealed handguns at school. There is not a single instance that I or others have found where this produced a single problem.

Though in a minority, a number of universities — from large public schools such as Colorado State and the University of Utah to small private schools such as Hamline in Minnesota — let students carry concealed handguns on school property.

Many more schools, from Dartmouth College to Boise State University, let professors carry concealed handguns. Again, with no evidence of problems.

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was closely following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

With all the media coverage of the types of guns used and how the criminal obtained the gun, at some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: They keep occurring in gun-free zones.

Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks.

Lott,  a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland is the author of "Freedomnomics", "More Guns, Less Crime", and other books.

*PSH - pant soiling hysteric

Even crazy predators look for sheep...

I don't think for one minute that allowing concealed carry everywhere would stop shootings. It would only stop those shooters who had some idea of coming out of it alive. If you are going to kill yourself any way, getting shot at isn't that big a deal. And we have to realize, even crazy predators go where the sheep are, even if there's a sheepdog near.

As Dennis Miller said, "The nutters are always gonna get the drop on you." The only thing I would expect is that people would be allowed to have the means to protect themselves.

Responsible, law-abiding adults should be allowed to carry anywhere they have a right to be.

Another student heard from...

Zundel: Protecting oneself is a human right

from an opinion piece by Aaron Zundel from the Daily Utah Chronicle, an independent student newspaper at the University of Utah.

...

Until we have metal detectors and security guards posted at every entrance to every building on campus, the anti-gun (and current administration) position of "we'd rather risk everyone's lives than our own ideology by 'banning' guns on campus" is a hollow, selfish and moronic stance perpetuated by those who have never been required to check their ideas against the reality of the outside world.

"I'm willing to run the risk of being shot in a school massacre," the anti-gun students say. "So long as we take reasonable measures to keep guns off campus." That's fine. People get to make their own choices. What's not fine is to demand that everyone else make that same choice. That's called fascism.

When sufficient protection isn't provided by others, people ought to be able to protect themselves if they choose. It's a human right. What's not a human right is to demand that other people jeopardize their own safety so that we might all have a false sense of security.

That's just the way things are.

Mr. Zundel possesses an apparently rare skill seldom found in college student. The ability to think critically.

Wait, can I say that?

There has been much noise from the Left the last several years about "censorship" in the U.S.A. Of course, the world in which many of these folks live has very little in common with reality. Below is a bit of the real stuff, just for comparison.

Pakistan removed from the Internet by ZDNet's Richard Stiennon -- 4:30 PM Eastern (US). The telecom company that carries most of Pakistan’s traffic, PCCW, has found it necessary to shut Pakistan off from the Internet while they filter out the malicious routes that a Pakistani ISP, PieNet, announced earlier today. Evidently PieNet took this step to enforce a decree from the Pakistani government that ISP’s [...]

Ignoring all the facts, studies, and statistics, as usual

Found this little rant in the Chicago Daily Herald. I'm beginning to believe that projection stuff.

Once again, tragedy strikes and the NRA pops out of the woodwork -- Give every impulsive, low self-esteemed, road raging hot shot a pistol and we'll have peace on earth.

And this garbage about having safer streets when law-abiding citizens can carry weapons?

Murderers are usually law-abiding before they pull the trigger.

Familiarity with human nature is not an NRA strong-suit. Imagine the carnage at NIU if 20 or 30 armed and frightened students had opened fire.

Art Dulan

Palatine

Actual Journalism, says the Mikester...

And he's right.

Concealed-carry course graduates are armed but not dangerous

BY PETER BRONSON | PBRONSON@ENQUIRER.COM

On a cold and early Saturday morning, the class at Scarlet Oaks in Sharonville begins the usual way. Students take their seats and the instructor introduces himself.

Then he makes an announcement: "No guns today."

"Did anyone bring their gun in?" he asks. Nobody raises a hand. Good. The shooting starts Sunday morning.

A few plan to bring .22 revolvers. A man with a neatly trimmed gray beard says he and his daughter will use .38s. Others mention Colts, Smith & Wessons, a .32 Beretta. A big man across the room says he's bringing a 1911 Colt .45, and he's not talking about malt liquor.

"That's a man's gun," says the instructor, retired FBI agent Dennis R. Lengle.

I don't have a man's gun. I don't even have a woman's gun or a "mouse gun," which is what serious shooters call .22s. I don't have any gun at all. But the Great Oaks Police Academy Concealed Carry Course has a great deal. For $25, I can rent a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver and get 200 rounds - cheaper than cartridges alone.

There's a 20-something couple in the back, but most of my classmates are 40s and 50s, I'd guess. A man in bib overalls wants to legally carry the gun he uses on his farm. A husband and wife own a business. One man tells me his kids are grown and he's interested in shooting. Another guy says during a break that he worries about being mugged when he goes for walks. He says he has no doubt he'd use a gun if he has to.

But a few hours later, after we've been through the legal minefield and gritty details of what "controlled expansion" hollow-points do to a body, someone half jokes, "I'm not so sure I want to do this anymore."

I understand.

The course is excellent. We start by naming the parts of a cartridge, a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol, then move on to 25 true-false questions on dozens of topics. "Being armed is a tremendous responsibility," it says. True.

And while police cadets open fire at the indoor range across the hall, making muffled bangs like someone pounding a file cabinet with a ball bat, Lengle targets safety, safety and more safety.

He tells true stories of stupid gun tricks by trained lawmen who shot the carpet in their office, or put a 9mm round into their neighbor's car - through their own house and the garage next door. Lengle has our attention. During the state-mandated 12 hours of instruction, all 17 students are riveted.

In cover and tactics, Lengle warns that a doorway is a "vertical coffin," a "fatal funnel" for anyone silhouetted in its frame. If an intruder ignores warnings and keeps coming, "immediate incapacitation is your only goal."

And that requires accuracy.

So Sunday morning we go to the range. I start out jumpy, but get the hang of it and pass all the tests, hitting paper outlines of bad guys from five, 10, 15 and 20 feet.

Safety is drilled in as loud and clear as that booming 1911 Colt, which barks with deep authority, even through ear protection.

Everyone passes. Nobody gets hurt. From what I can tell, legal concealed carry is nothing like the anti-gun crowd made it sound when Kentucky and Ohio passed laws in 1999 and 2004. There are no cowboys. No wild shootouts. No blood in the gutters, as gun-banners predicted. Just law-abiding adults who want to exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense.

As we're leaving, classmate Jim Hansel, who lives "out in the country," tells me about the night he woke up to a break-in. He called 911, told his son to take cover and waited on his couch with a shotgun. He warned he would shoot, but the guy kept coming until the cops arrived, 40 minutes later. "He had seven outstanding warrants for automatic weapons use," Hansel says, shaking his head.

Now Hansel has a certificate to get a concealed carry permit from his county sheriff. "It gives me knowledge and confidence," he said. "Most people are afraid of guns because of what they don't know."

If every gun owner took a class like this, we'd all be safer. But meth-heads, crack junkies and street muggers don't take classes. They don't get permits or certificates like the one Lengle gave me Sunday. They just grab a "nine" and use it against defenseless victims.

Each month another concealed-carry class graduates from Scarlet Oaks. And the bad guys are a little less sure their next victim is defenseless.

E-mail pbronson@enquirer.com or call 768-8301.

Virginia House of Delegates passes expanded concealed carry bill...

But they expect Governor Timothy Kaine to veto the bill. That should be expected. Governor Kaine is not a friend of responsible, law-abiding citizens who choose to carry concealed for personal protection. Read about it in The Daily Progress.

Here is the money quote for me.

Del. Harvey B. Morgan, R-Gloucester, said the legislation is years overdue. If someone is walking down the street with a legally concealed weapon “and someone says let’s get some lunch, what are you going to do, put it under an ash can?” he asked.

“Are you going to take it into a restaurant and say, ‘I wonder if the proprietor will hold this for me,’” Morgan said. “I’ve always thought it was absolutely insane to require someone legally carrying a firearm to somehow dispose of it before getting a bite to eat,” he said. He said experience in other states shows that “concealed weapons permits have reduced armed robberies.”

Nebraska "Assault Weapon" ban proposed to prohibit "inherently dangerous" firearms.

LINCOLN -- State Sen. Brad Ashford (Omaha) amended his proposed Gun Crime bill to remove everything, but to add the formation of a seven-member panel to meet every two years to decide what guns are inherently dangerous and should be prohibited from sale or ownership in Nebraska.

Preliminary attributes would criminalize a very large number of firearms.

This amendment comes AFTER the public comment period.

For the full story, please visit joemerchant24.blogspot.com

LINKS:
Omaha World-Herald article

Joe's Crabby Shack

Gee, I'm glad most of mine are in a safe. Who knows when they otherwise might jump up and attack me!

Another student opinion on campus carry from Boise State University in Idaho.

From Arbiteronline, Boise State University's independent student newspaper, comes a letter from the editor-in-chief, Dustin Lapray. Mr. Lapray approaches the issue of campus carry with more honesty than Linsen Li at the University of Kentucky's Kentucky Kernel, but reaches some contradictory conclusions. Here is the letter, with my comments in red.

Today on the quad The Arbiter is hosting a Free Speech Forum, with the topic "Guns on Campus."
We decided to open our media to students because we honestly are not sure how they feel about this. Our online forum flooded with pro-gun writers who bashed on everyone who refused to accept weapons on campus. Only a few comments online were from students. Anyone can post at arbiteronline.com, even people who are not students.
We want to know how students at Boise State University feel, so we will be on the quad today, rain or shine, asking you how you feel about allowing guns on campus. (Good idea, just don't get caught up in the "feeling" thing. Depend on critical thinking. gbw)
Our editorial board had such diverse and complicated opinions on this subject we were forced to write each of our opinions individually in Monday's paper. (Honest)
As state legislators work their way toward a solution, the students of this campus are left waiting, unsure of what this will mean to us.
One thing that is certain is the trend of violence we have seen on college and university campuses in the last year needs to stop. We cannot continue to kill each other. (Statistically, your age group is more at risk for murder. Humanly speaking, there are some very disturbed individuals out there who are unpredictable, and their actions are not preventable. In light of these two facts, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on protection in addition to prevention? gbw)
For those out there who have been calling college students cowards for not wanting guns on campus, I think you have us mistaken. It's not that we are afraid of guns, it's that we are honestly afraid of the people who wield them. Realize that, yes, if students are allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, they will be able to stop would-be murderers from a continued rampage, but also that passage of this law would also allow those same criminals the same right to legally bring weapons on campus. (Well, not really. Responsible, law-abiding people act responsibly and obey the law. Criminals do what they want regardless of the law. No one has the right to use a weapon to commit a crime. Please remember, it isn't the weapon that's dangerous; it is the person who carries it with ill intent. gbw)
By legalizing concealed weapons on campus we are inviting anyone who wants to carry a gun to bring one. BSU is a metropolitan university, in the heart of an active city. I have seen dozens of homeless people and absolute creeps walking around campus, some of whom are sex-offenders and others are just people I misconstrue as dangerous. (It isn't an invitation, it's a warning; we are not sheep here. Wolves look elsewhere for victims. I could carry on your campus every single day, and your safety is not compromised by it. In fact, as you noted above, it might even save lives. Please do not make the mistake that criminals need an invitation to bring a firearm on campus. They will do what they want to do, remember? gbw)
I am always on the lookout for others willing and able to due harm to students at this campus. I think that as a student leader it is my responsibility to keep an eye out for my employees, to assure them of a safe working environment. (Awareness is the first and best tool of self-defense. Good for you. But as Dennis Miller says, "A nutter is always gonna get the drop on you." Awareness is not enough. gbw)
There are people willing to commit these crimes. Legalizing guns on campus would make them able. I don't want that atmosphere of kill or be killed to exist on this campus. That atmosphere should exist in open war (which is why the Second Amendment was added to the constitution, to assure that when push came to shove, Americans could protect their homes), but not on a university campus. There is no war in Idaho. (How does allowing responsible, law-abiding adult students the means to defend themselves if attacked enabling criminals? There is no logic to your statement. And the U.S. was not at war when the Constitution was written or ratified. Part of the security of a free state is also the safety and security of individual citizens. gbw)
I do agree that the police are not in position to stop this from happening. In both of these major shootings, the gunmen killed themselves. I have seen nothing from Boise Police to make me think things are different at BSU.
But the consensus of my staff is that guns are plum dangerous, that people who wield them are often irresponsible and that though there are people out there who are very responsible with their weapons, we don't want them here.
Sincerely,
Dustin Lapray
Editor-in-Chief

(OK. You have no confidence in the police to protect you. That's smart because police respond, they are seldom in a position to prevent or protect. "There are people willing to commit these crimes", so the crimes are obviously going to happen. But in spite of these facts, you want to limit the ability to responsible, law-abiding adults to protect themselves from the criminally irresponsible you readily admit are present in community. I'm sorry Mr. Lapray, but not wanting him there does not make the boogey man go away. gbw)

Now, just die like a good chap, and you'll stay out of trouble...

From Blue Crab Boulevard comes this.

A shopkeeper in the British town of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, fought back against a career criminal who was in the process of trying to carjack the man. Despite being stabbed himself in several places, the shopkeeper, Tony Singh, managed to wrestle the knife away from Liam Kilroe, a wanted fugitive with warrants out for his arrest. Singh stabbed Kilroe, killing him.

The police then promptly arrested Singh and charges of murder are being considered.

In the Comments, Lars says,

You have a civic responsibility to be assaulted in a location convenient to the police.

Yes, the police will protect us. Heh. And if you don't think that will happen in the U.S. after we're all disarmed...

I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

-- Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776)

But, gee occifer, I didn't mean for anyone to get hurt...

How would you like a SWAT team to surround your home in the middle of the night, handcuff you and your spouse, put your kids in a police car, and search your home because some 19 yr. old punk 1000 miles away pulled a practical joke by spoofing a 911 call to Orange County, CA.?

In the Orange County case, (Randal) Ellis is facing five felony counts and one misdemeanor for the March incident, including computer fraud, assault with a machine gun and false imprisonment by violence, Emami said.

The last two charges offer a novel prosecution strategy for a crime that doesn't have much precedence. Prosecutors will argue Ellis is guilty of both crimes "by proxy," meaning that because of his actions, the responding officers acted, in effect, as an agent for him.

"Even though the defendant wasn't actually there in Lake Forest pointing weapons at them, he was directly responsible for what happened to these victims," Emami said.

Public caning before the jail time is what I say.