Opaque Lucidity

Here at the University of Louisville, there are signs everywhere stating that having a weapon in a campus building is illegal. Of course, that does nothing to prevent someone from bringing one in and shooting; makes you wonder who the law is actually protecting.

I can tell you that if it were legal to have concealed weapons on campus, and if a shooter like this were to invade *my* engineering school, he would have been dropped within a few minutes. Here in Kentucky, some people know what it's like to be part of a well regulated militia.

Posted by: Tony at April 16, 2007 11:00 PM

Tony,
You're lucky to be located where you are. Here in central Indiana, any mention of the word gun will result in a protest outside your place of residence against your constitutional right.

Hi

>I can't help but wonder how today would have been
>different if one or more of the students near the
>shooter had been carrying a concealed weapon.

A handgun is designed to quickly kill another human being from a close distance. If you increase the amount of guns, this quick killing will increase as well. Yes, it is guns that kill people. Guns give people the means to act upon their emotions, however twisted.

More guns lead to more killings and make life for law enforcement tremendously difficult. Just think of being a cop when everybody can pull a gun at any moment.

Knives, bows and arrows or other weapons are much harder to use, so lead to fewer killings.

Just look at the amount of guns in a certain country in relation the amount of gun deaths.

A handgun is designed to quickly kill another human being from a close distance. This fact is undesirable in any human society.
As long as people think more guns are the answer, more killings will follow.

Given the amount of guns in the US, this will be a problem for decades to come, regardless of any law that will be written. The only thing that would help is God himself turning all weapons to mush. Trouble is, God hasn't done anything for the last 2000 years. Some say 4000 years. I say people should solve their own problems instead of hiding behind God. Guns are a nasty human-created problem.

"The only thing that would help is God himself turning all weapons to mush. Trouble is, God hasn't done anything for the last 2000 years. Some say 4000 years. I say people should solve their own problems instead of hiding behind God. Guns are a nasty human-created problem."

I can't tell if your post is about gun control legislation or a personal bitterness towards God and religion. Do you mean to say that God is dead? If that's the case, it's more or less a contradiction of terms. God, as God is usually defined, can't be dead. So to say that God "hasn't done anything" for thousands of years implies that God came at one point and then left. What would the point of God existing be if that were true?

But I digress. Here's the problem. Let's say guns are indeed outlawed. It is not legal to own or purchase firearms in the United States. A person has only to import a weapon from a foreign nation or smuggle one in to own one. At this point, one person holds an almost infinite amount of power over innocent, law abiding citizens. Should say person decide to exercise their power, there is no defense against it and no quick way to stop it - except for another gun. Is gun violence an ugly fact of life? Yes. But outlawing weapons won't get rid of the problem. Far from it. Also, not to sound like an extreme conservative, but it's in the constitution, regardless of how one interprets it, that citizens have the right to own their own firearms. Until that amendment is repealed (a Bill of Rights amendment repealed? Doubtful, to be generous), it's ridiculous to even argue that guns should be outlawed.

The Second Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that law-abiding citizens should not need to beg the government for permission to carry a firearm. That would turn the "right" to bear arms into a mere "privilege." Likewise, one should not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Criminals certainly do not jump through these "hoops." The Second Amendment is no different than any of the other protections contained in the Bill of Rights. That is, honest citizens should not need a government issued permission slip; rather, they should be able to carry as a matter of right. The power to license a right is the power to destroy a right. Officials cannot license or register a constitutional right. The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers -- even if such material is "communist political propaganda." Why, then, do we allow the government to license or register those of use who are merely trying to exercise our Second Amendment right? Also consider citizens, even when untrained, show amazing accuracy and self-restraint with firearms. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year. And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." I don't state the above fact to try and make the police look bad. They are, much more often than the commen citizen, involved in very difficult, complicated situations that often call for them to make quick decisions so it stands to reason that their error rate would be higher. The point I'm trying to make is that those of us who own guns, whether it be for sport or for protection, are very reluctant to use it against another person. Criminals, however, feel no such reluctance.

The Second Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that law-abiding citizens should not need to beg the government for permission to carry a firearm. That would turn the "right" to bear arms into a mere "privilege." Likewise, one should not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Criminals certainly do not jump through these "hoops." The Second Amendment is no different than any of the other protections contained in the Bill of Rights. That is, honest citizens should not need a government issued permission slip; rather, they should be able to carry as a matter of right. The power to license a right is the power to destroy a right. Officials cannot license or register a constitutional right. The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers -- even if such material is "communist political propaganda." Why, then, do we allow the government to license or register those of use who are merely trying to exercise our Second Amendment right? Also consider citizens, even when untrained, show amazing accuracy and self-restraint with firearms. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year. And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." I don't state the above fact to try and make the police look bad. They are, much more often than the commen citizen, involved in very difficult, complicated situations that often call for them to make quick decisions so it stands to reason that their error rate would be higher. The point I'm trying to make is that those of us who own guns, whether it be for sport or for protection, are very reluctant to use it against another person. Criminals, however, feel no such reluctance.

John,
While I support your argument that (sane) civilians show much more restraint than criminals when it comes to weapons, I have to ask a question: Could the government use the theory of implied powers of the Constitution as a reason to register and keep track of everyone officially owning a firearm? I have no problem with every civilian carrying a weapon on them at all times; I know I'll sleep better at night with a 9mm in the nightstand beside me to protect the wife sleeping next to me on the other side. With that said, I think the active registration of and vigilance over gun owners is probably a good thing, at least in this day and age.