Ricebrnr

Mon, Feb 1, 2010 : 1 p.m.

Students, teaches & workes on campuses, look up your institution here. http://ope.ed.gov/security/ Would you prefer to call the police to report on a failed crime against you or that you were the victim of a crime? Assuming you are able to make a report of course. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=206836

picabia

Mon, Feb 1, 2010 : 11 a.m.

'Responsible and vetted gun owners deserve the right of self defense.." You mean like this responsible and vetted CCW holder?: http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=349067

Ricebrnr

Mon, Feb 1, 2010 : 10:42 a.m.

U of M crime stats 2007/2008 http://www.annarbor.com/news/the-university-of-michigan-and/index.php Wonder if the 1 murder victim in 2007 would've preferred to have had a better chance at living? Wonder if the 102 victims of rape and sexual assualts (no doubt by attackers larger and stronger than themselves) might've liked to have even the odds and possibly prevented it? Or the 67 robbery victims, or the 205 aggravated assualt victims... OH and look 13 illegal weapons possessions incidents. Crime happens on campus, signs and prohibitions don't keep out illegan guns and weapons. Only law abiding citizens obey laws. Gun laws therefore disarm only the those who are least likely to commit crimes and ALLOW criminals to run rampant. Responsible and vetted gun owners deserve the right of self defense by bearing arms as ennumerated in the MI constitution.

Ricebrnr

Sun, Jan 31, 2010 : 4:59 p.m.

OK maybe we can believe in John Stossel late of ABC news 20/20? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Ricebrnr

Sun, Jan 31, 2010 : 4:52 p.m.

More for your enjoyment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGmFj9282Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax8SBYF60iM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH7XH74ewdM

Ricebrnr

Sun, Jan 31, 2010 : 4:31 p.m.

Cincinnati WCPO Channel 9 News talks to SWAT officers about the changes in the way law enforcement officers are taught to respond to school shootings and the changes in the way experts look at gun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FuIbujpLWA Those who know are saying the same things as I have. Statistically active shooters do not stop until their first confrontation with armed responders. Armed responders can minutes away. AND Gun free zones are target rich environments that these sickos target. And on campus who are the one's we should be watching out for? Not the ones you think! http://www.slate.com/id/2216122/ If it were YOU what would YOU do while waiting for rescue?

picabia

Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 10:05 p.m.

A previous post contains information that is apparently out of date; http://hubpages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public contains the following two passages: "Nationwide, there have been no law enforcement officials shot by any person with a CCW." "John Lott Jr. offers reassuring news: "There has never been a case where a person with a permitted concealed handgun has killed a police officer." These statements are not true. Following are quotes from a news story at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/04/threejudge_panel_will_hear_tri_1.html." "Three-judge panel will hear trial of accused killer of Twinsburg Police Officer Joshua Miktarian" "Although Thompson had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, he was charged with violating the concealed carry law because it is illegal to hold or use the weapon while stopped for a law enforcement reason, authorities said." Thompson has since been convicted of the crime. Joshua Miktarian is not the only police officer to die by the hand of a concealed carry permit holder. In addition, John Lott, Jr, cited in the Hub Pages post, fabricated a study. When questioned, Lott could produce no data and no evidence that that the study had taken place. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Lott) The remedy for disinformation is information.

Ricebrnr

Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 4:50 p.m.

http://hubpages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public

picabia

Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.

"http://www.concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php" Thank you for again mentioning this Web site, which Richard Meister first mentioned weeks ago. I love this site, 'cause its "answers" to "Common Arguments" are straight out of la-la land. For every "argument" this site has a risible answer. I wholeheartely recommend this site. "This is not the mythical NRA pulling strings and making backdoor deals." Ain't nothin' mythical 'bout the NRA -- this is a hardball lobbying group that is essentially a shill for gun manufacturers. What we're being offered here is a false dilemma. The apparent argument is "There is crime on college campuses and the only antidote is concealed carry." Many of us reject that conclusion. We believe that not only is concealed carry not an antidote, what it comes down to is a few politians (Randy Richardville and his cronies) deciding that this is a "remedy" that Michigan colleges need, and they're out to force it on them whether these colleges want it or not. The NRA has pretty deep pockets.

Ricebrnr

Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.

Crime happens. Often times it happens on campuses. http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56 Just because its a "nice" campus doesn't mean it can't happen there. If it's happenning to you, what is the only thing you are thinking about? How to get out of it? How to stay alive? Wouldn't you like a chance to even the odds? http://www.concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php I urge you all to learn about the actual legislation and take part in its support. Contact your representatives. https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml This is not the mythical NRA pulling strings and making backdoor deals. This is local people, local residents, students and professionals trying to rectify a terrible situation that profits only the criminals in the open, through legislation. Thankfully we still have some representatives willing to listen to and advocate for "sensible gun laws" and the will of the people. http://www.concealedcampus.org/state.php?sid=76

Ricebrnr

Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 11:10 a.m.

Please read this testimony: http://www.wmsa.net/gratia-hupp_1992.htm Then imagine this scenario: You are coming out or a restuarant near campus, maybe you're a teacher, maybe a student. A person or group targets you for whatever reason. You don't want any trouble so you retreat, they chase. If you stand your ground on one side of the street you are legally ok. If you retreat across onto the campus side of the street you are in deep trouble. Why? Because: 1) Do you imagine for one second any ruffians or criminals will stop because you crossed onto campus? 2) If you "stand your ground" on campus you lose your legal protections to do so. How is this common sense? Did you know that driving by or through campus on public streets a CPL holder could possbly be stopped and charged with serious crimes and tresspassing? For driving across some imaginary boundary. http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2009/06/msu_allows_people_to_carry_concealed_firearms_on_campus MSU has already voted to follow the state's laws. http://www.statebillnews.com/2009/12/gun-control-on-campus/ And finally, satire for your amusement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

picabia

Sat, Jan 30, 2010 : 12:27 a.m.

"Ask yourselves what is the difference between one side of a street or another?" Plenty. Go to a Detroit casino and there's gambling, right? But you start running your own game across the street, they're gonna shut your operation down. Why? Because the casino put up big bucks for a gaming license, allowing them to shake people down legally. But you're the one gettin' busted, even if your game is less crooked than theirs. Be that as it may, I see the trend in your postings is to report crime after violent crime, as if to say "See, Michigan? Here's what happens when you don't allow guns on your campuses." (By the way, that College Park, GA story was weird -- except for that one clip, I really couldn't find any other stories about it. The fact that the guy who threw the party was the only one interviewed bothered me; we didn't get any of the guests' versions of the incident.) So if you can paint Michigan campuses as Mogadishu West, your argument looks better. Except that it doesn't. If Michigan campuses do start looking like Mogadishu West, there are steps that these institutions can take to combat the situation. They may or may not conclude that allowing a self-deputized student/faculty/staff/visitor security force is the answer, one of several answers, or not an answer at all. But having concealed carry forced on them by cowardly legislators beholden to their paymasters in the NRA is not appropriate.

Ricebrnr

Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 9:09 p.m.

What can happen in no carry zones: please view the heart wrenching testimony of Nicole Goeser & Dr. Suzanna Gracia Hupp. Would any of us want to be in their positions and watch our loved ones be killed in front of us because we followed the law and left our protection behind an imaginary line? Criminals didn't respect the laws nor the boundaries and these ladies lives were forever changed. http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/23/ofcc-restaurant-carry-testimony-posted/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis Ask yourselves what is the difference between one side of a street or another? A college campus and a city library or a city park? To a criminal, absolutely nothing.

Ricebrnr

Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 9 p.m.

Georgia college student saves 10 lives with gun; Ohio's defenseless students targeted by criminals Submitted by cbaus on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 23:10. By Chad D. Baus One of the principle claims made in Diane Sawyer's rigged campus carry experiment, recently aired on ABC's 20/20, was that having a gun wouldn't protect a college student, that ordinary people like college students aren't trained to handle stress, that they might shoot innocent people, and that the bad guy might take their gun away. Apparently someone forgot to tell a student in College Park, GA that they were better off without having a gun ready at hand...and at least ten college students say they are alive today because of it. From Atlanta, Georgia's WSBTV: A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they're thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment. Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident. "Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all," said student Charles Bailey. Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door. "They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, 'Give me your wallets and cell phones,'" said George Williams of the College Park Police Department. Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. "The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough," said Bailey. The story says that's when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment. The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women. "Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window," said Bailey. A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby. "And I heard someone say, 'Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,'" said a neighbor. The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away. Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive. "I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed," said Bailey. One female student was shot several times, but is expected to make a full recovery. Police told the media they are close to making the arrest of the second suspect. Meanwhile, back in Ohio, officials at The Ohio State University say that the increasingly high level of street-level crimes - thefts, robberies, assaults and break-ins - in the University District is no coincidence. In fact, criminals are targeting students specifically because they know they'll be defenseless. From OSU's The Lantern: "What we're seeing is a shift into the university area where [criminals] are finding that students are an easy target," said Tom Wildman, the Code Enforcement & Safety Committee chair of the University Area Commission. In the past six months, 680 street-level crimes were committed in the district, according to a Lantern analysis of crime data from crimereports.com, which takes its information from the Columbus Division of Police. These statistics include only the off-campus areas of the district, and not the OSU campus itself. These numbers dwarf the statistics for Columbus' less densely populated core downtown area, which tallied 301 street-level crimes over the past six months, according to crimereports.com data. Ohio is one of at least eight states that have had bills pending in the current legislative session which are designed to restore students' self-defense rights on college campuses. Campus carry legislation has already been signed into law during the current legislative session in North Dakota. In Missouri, the House of Representatives has already passed campus carry legislation, and hearings are now being held in the Senate. A campus carry bill is currently stalled in Indiana's Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Oklahoma legislature allowed that state's campus carry bill to die for this session. Things are going better in the Tennessee House House Judiciary subcommittee, where hearings have been held on a Vol State campus carry bill. Hearings on campus carry legislation are also being held in both chambers of the Texas legislature. Back in the Buckeye State, Rep. John Adam's HB129 has yet to receive a hearing. And the students of Ohio's campuses continue to pay the price in the loss of blood and treasure. Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman, and a NRA-certified firearms instructor. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2072 http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=563 http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1949

picabia

Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 4:32 p.m.

'Please all note that neither Constitution states "with the exception of"' Wow, guess it's time to pass out firearms to all those guys in Jackson Prison, 'cause a lot of them guys got their weapons taken away before they were locked up. There's no "with the exception of..." "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Wow! Kids in Michigan are people too. Think of all the 4 year-olds who can't pack heat. There's no "with the exception of..."

Ricebrnr

Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 12:16 p.m.

Main Entry: infringe Pronunciation: \in-frinj\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): infringed; infringing Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break more at break Date: 1513 transitive verb 1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another 2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate intransitive verb : encroach used with on or upon synonyms see trespass infringer noun U.S. Constitution, Amendment II (also known as the Second Amendment) A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6 Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Please all note that neither Constitution states "with the exception of"

picabia

Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 10:20 a.m.

"an innate right enumerated in both the US & Michigan Constitutions" These constitutions are not violated. Neither the Heller decision nor the Michigan Constitution specifies a right to carry everywhere. Your argument fails on this point.

Ricebrnr

Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 10:03 a.m.

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/11/16/extending-firearms-preemption-to-college-campuses/ Helpful glossary: Main Entry: preemption Pronunciation: \-em(p)-shn\ Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin praeemption-, praeemptio previous purchase, from praeemere to buy before, from Latin prae- pre- + emere to buy more at REDEEM Date: 1602 1 a : the right of purchasing before others; especially : one given by the government to the actual settler upon a tract of public land b : the purchase of something under this right 2 : a prior seizure or appropriation : a taking possession before others http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preemption In this case the State of Michigan has set forth that no other unit of government can make firearm laws more restrictive than that of the state. See article above for examples. Main Entry: disenfranchise Pronunciation: \dis-in-fran-chz\ Function: transitive verb Date: 1664 : to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote disenfranchisement \-chz-mnt, -chz-\ noun http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchised In this case, a body of law abiding citizens who are deprived of an innate right enumerated in both the US & Michigan Constitutions simply because they crossed an imaginary boundary. What is legal on one side of the street is not on another. Would the premise of anti gun arguments still hold if one were to replace gun owners with African Americans, Jews, Catholics, Gays, etc? How would those arguments sound then? They sound like the same arguments which begot Jim Crow laws, segregation, separate but equal and thankfully the Civil Rights movement here in America and kristallnacht and genocide in others. I would imagine that both sides of an issue will always feel disenfranchised in one way or another. Very likely white southerners felt that way which lead to the Civil War. Very likely white Missippians felt that way when the civil rights workers invaded and tried to get Blacks to register to vote. Very likely many Afrikaaners felt the same disenfranchisement when Mandela and others fought for their equal rights too. Those who take power and rights from others or benefit thereof will always feel disenfranchised when called to share equally.

picabia

Fri, Jan 29, 2010 : 12:14 a.m.

I took Ms. Heflin's comment as an admonishment to keep to the issue, and that is what I shall do. If Michigan colleges and universities want to allow concealed carry, then those administrations and student bodies should decide that. These campuses should not have concealed carry rammed down their throats by craven legislators whose loyalty is to the gun lobby and not the people of Michigan. We saw that happen with concealed carry in Michigan. We won't sit back and let ourselves be disenfranchised again.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 8:18 p.m.

I'm sorry Picabia but as per the moderator I was not and will no longer be responding to you. I was simply referencing another related story but it seems to have been removed for some reason. Perhaps if I rephrased? http://www.annarbor.com/news/u-of-m-police-officer-remains-on-leave-after-drug-arrest/ Police should not be the only ones to be trusted with guns on campus because besides this story the victims are the forever the first responders to a crime. Also here is a U of M employee acccosted in a garage near campus. She was lucky to have escaped her assailant. http://www.annarbor.com/news/woman-groped-in-church-street-parking-structure-university-of-michigan-police-say/index.php#comment-57133 Because of the current situation even if she chose to be armed she could not have had it on her person. This is the situation the proposed bill will hopefully remedy. That a person working or studying on campus might be able to retain their firearm to and from campus rather than leaving it at home or locked in their vehicle. Both of these stories illustrate that crime and criminals do not respect campus borders. In the later case, as in the Law quad incident criminals count on those traveling to and from campus to be easy victims.

picabia

Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 7:35 p.m.

The story about the cocaine-possessing cop is not terribly relevant to the incident on the Ohio campus. If I or relative were attending the college, I would want the FBI to investigate. You may feel otherwise.

picabia

Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 5:46 p.m.

The incident you mention on the Ohio campus is one for the FBI, not for concealed carry holders. Since Utah has concealed carry on its campuses, I suggest that those who agree with that policy consider a Utah college for themselves or for their children, much the same way that people choose a given college for its math, theater, or music curriculum. ("I hear that Utah State has a good concealed carry program.")

Ricebrnr

Thu, Jan 28, 2010 : 12:35 p.m.

Good thing Ohio students know they'll be safe on campus! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35108655/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/

Ricebrnr

Wed, Jan 27, 2010 : 8:39 p.m.

Colorado student can legally carry on campus and have for years with no issues. Now there is an attempt to restrict that freedom. http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/01/larimer_sheriff_jim_aldernen_w.php Again the proposed bill is to restore rights, not grant them.

Ricebrnr

Wed, Jan 27, 2010 : 12:41 p.m.

Minnesota also prevents weapons on their campuses. http://www.concealedcampus.org/state.php?sid=83 Do Minnesotan criminals respect the campus boundaries? http://www.startribune.com/local/82670292.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU Maybe those students should move to Michigan where the criminals respect...Oh wait, never mind.. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/21/us/ex-university-employee-held-in-michigan-shooting-spree.html?pagewanted=1 http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2009-04-10/2-killed-dearborn-mich-community-college-shooting http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/06/university_of_michigan_police_1.html

picabia

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.

"So thanks so much for your permission to believe as I wish..." You're welcome. But you mustn't confuse my words as an attempt to confer permission on your thought processes. It was, in the main, the textual equivalent of a sigh of resigned amusement. Hope this clears up any miscommunication.

Ricebrnr

Mon, Jan 25, 2010 : 8:14 a.m.

hmmm what am I on about? As with this whole thread elitism: the concept that a person or group believes it to have the authority to grant or take rights and abilities which are "God" given or innate. Ex: ref Bloomberg, Daley, Brady Campaign.....who else? So thanks so much for your permission to believe as I wish... Very generous.

picabia

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 10:40 p.m.

Whatever, Ricebrnr. As for calling me elitist, I don't know what you're on about, but if it pleases you, think that too.

Ricebrnr

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 10 p.m.

OH and the state is ALREADY one big happy gun toting zone for the criminals anyway. Would oh would that law abiding citizens get the same rights...

Ricebrnr

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 9:57 p.m.

Now who's trying to quash the will of the people by not giving them a vote? Eh eh? Elitist hypocracy in action. And isn't the House and Senate covered under the a "sensitive" area (Federal control?) I don't believe that those gun free zones are in question...

picabia

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 9:22 p.m.

"And you keep on believeing that this is a debate between you and me." That's what I do believe,'cause that's what it's become. I happen to believe that only two people read this thread anymore. As for the rest of your stuff, I feel like a kid in a candy store 'cause there's so much to which I could respond. However, if nothing else,I hope the word is getting out about John Lott's fabrication. He was the darling of the NRA until he was questioned about a study for which he could produce no data and no evidence that the study had ever been conducted.. Heck, he still may be their darling -- it's not like the NRA ever cared about whether the stuff they were putting out was true or not. Now about Randy's bill -- they're thinking of expanding it. It wouldn't be just college campuses, but bars, stadiums, the entire state would be one big, happy gun-totin' zone. To quash the bill, all that would be needed is a rider stating that the Michigan house and Senate would also be included.

Ricebrnr

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 8:31 p.m.

Actually cowardly politicians are the ones usually on the side of anti gunners due to not wanting to look soft on crime. Cowardly politicians are the ones who usually put up infringments in bad door deals against the people. CCW laws were always the will of those who wanted to be "more equal" than others. CCW laws were always about the haves against the have nots. Elitists such as Bloomberg and Daley against the peons. CCW laws as pointed out previously have their roots in racism. It was about control of newly freed blacks. Gun control has always been about CONTROL, not guns, not safety of the masses but safety of those in POWER and their attempts to maintain and usurp more power. I will continue to believe CCW holders commit crimes at a lower rate than even LEO's because an LEO agency, the FBI and the Dept of Justice have said so for many years. I will also continue to see that fact in that elitist tend lump ALL gun usage under "GUN CRIMES" and disregard those stories where gun owners are defending themselves lawfully. In the Law Quad case, first a law abiding CPL holder can't be their because its a gun free zone. Second, you're right the police response time was unusually fast but again that was still after the fact. The victim had already been robbed. The robbers undoubtedly chose campus as a victim rich environment due to the low likelyhood of a deadly response can not be denied. Third a CPL holder if they were allowed to carry on campus would not have been charged for summarily executing the perps IF they had a reasonable fear of their life. The perps bringing a fake gun modified to look real is besides the question. The charges for using a fake gun in a robbery is the same as a real one for a reason. And you keep on believeing that this is a debate between you and me. I agree with you that neither of us will be able to sway the other from such entrenched positions. As I stated, so long as you provide such glorious sounding points, I will make sure that anyone still reading this thread will in fact get more than your side of the story.

picabia

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 6:36 p.m.

"So when anti gunners have for years been RESTRICTINGour freedoms..." Whatever, Ricebrnr. The passage of CCW in Michgan had nothing to do with the will of the people. This was a blatant example of cowardly politicians disenfranchising the voters. Keep believing that the gun lobby gives a rip about freedom and rights. Keep believing that more guns is the solution to every problem involving guns. Keep on thinking that CCW holders hardly ever use their weapons to commit crimes. Keep thinking that John Lott, the oft-cited darling of pro-gunners didn't fabricate a survey (Hint: he did -- http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Lott). And keep thinking that just because I haven't always responded to a link you've provided that I had no refutation. In the Law Quad case, I could have observed that the system had worked because the thugs were soon apprehended. You would have then responded "Aha! But the cops can't always be there!" To which I would have responded, maybe not, but CCW holders are not always the law-abiding citizens that you think they are -- a CCW holder may have decided to summarily execute the robbers, as happened recently in Detroit when a man confronted an intruder in his backyard, then gave chase (http://www.freep.com/article/20091231/NEWS01/912310364/?imw=Y). To which you would have responded... I could go on, but I hope you get my point -- some lines of argument ultimately lead nowhere.

Ricebrnr

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 4:23 p.m.

And sorry you don't get to control the message here and those that do haven't said one thing to me since I am following the rules. Gun owners stepping down have allowed the message to be controlled for to long by the anti gun movement and I will not be a party to it. How about commenting in this story? Crimes don't happen on or near campus right? Nor guns being carried by criminals there? Wonder if you were there in 2000 when these things didn't happen making bills such as this unecessary? http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2009/01/former_wolverines_cornerback_c.html All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Burke, Edmund So not going to stop wasting bandwidth so long as you provide so many wonderful opportunities to get the message out. http://www.annarbor.com/news/former-michigan-football-player-sentenced-in-assault-case/

Ricebrnr

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 4:11 p.m.

So when anti gunners have for years been RESTRICTINGour freedoms behind closed doors and not allowing the citizens to vote against those restrictions its ok but when pro gunners fight in the same manner to RESTORE freedoms its dirty pool. Yep, cowardly, craven and hypocritical. Were the ones whove been regularly and systematically disenfranchised sir, and we are finally winning back those rights. Sorry deal with it. And so sorry that Im wasting bandwidth. Darnit I keep on forgetting that only YOUR opinion is valid and worth seeing here. Only YOUR general statements, misinformation, and citations are relevant. My apologies. Oh and no comment on the armed robbery on campus story? Didnt want to share your experience at U of M and how this didnt happen back in the day? Guess its not relevant anyway... http://www.annarbor.com/news/four-arrested-after-robbery-on-u-of-m-law-quad "Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." L. Neil Smith

picabia

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 1:48 p.m.

"So because gun owners used the same lawful techniques as anti gunners but in this case to stop an unconstitutional referendum" meant to restrict the CCW laws already voted in the previous year, it's cowardly when they do it? Really? Disingenuous or hypocrite?" Yep, cowardly, craven, and hypocritical. These legislators put the appropriation in solely to prevent the people of Michigan from being able to decide the issue at the ballot box. Again, gunners are always on about freedom and rights, but when people are disenfranchised by their legislators, its OK with them as long as the gunners get what they want out of the deal. Now, Richardville and company may try something similar, but the State of Michigan has a lot less money than it had in 2001, so theres no guarantee theyll be able to get the appropriation should they try that tactic. By the way, stop wasting bandwidth with guys like Kierkus. He speaks in generalities and provides nothing to back up his statements. The fact that hes an assistant professor means little, as he offers nothing but his opinion.

Ricebrnr

Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 10:45 a.m.

Guns on campus a smart policy By CHRISTOPHER A. KIERKUS Author's Bio January 08, 2010 I am writing in support of state Sen. Randy Richardville's proposal to remove college classrooms and dormitories from the list of "pistol free zones" under Michigan law (SB 747 -- co-sponsored by Sens. Cropsey, (Michelle) McManus (R-Lake Leelanau), Patterson, Brown, Jansen and Barcia). I believe that the present regulations, which restrict concealed carry on campus, actually make colleges into crime-friendly environments. There are four main reasons why I support this bill: -- "Pistol-free zones" just don't work! The only thing they accomplish is disarming law-abiding Concealed Pistol Licensees (CPLs) while ensuring that violent criminals (who ignore all of the laws) have access to a pool of defenseless victims. There are dozens of cases that illustrate this point. (The recent shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University are among the most tragic examples.) Moreover, while mass shootings are rare (as opponents of CPL will point out), other violent crime is not. Armed robberies, assaults, rapes and even homicides happen on university campuses every year. -- It is a dangerous myth that calling the police is a viable substitute for being prepared to defend oneself. Despite their best efforts, law enforcement rarely respond fast enough to save crime victims. They usually only arrive to apprehend the offender after the fact. Conversely, cases in which CPLs have successfully thwarted violent crimes in progress are numerous. -- There is no scholarly evidence showing that expanding carry privileges on campus will lead to increased violence. States that have permitted college CPL (e.g. Colorado and Utah) have not experienced increases in campus shootings. This is because CPLs are among the most law-abiding citizens in our society. (Statistically, they have lower crime rates than police officers.) -- There is little scholarly evidence to suggest that campus suicides or "drunken accidents" will increase if CPL on campus is permitted. As stated earlier, CPLs take their carry privileges very seriously, and always take great care to store their weapons safely. Moreover, there are already strict restrictions in place that prohibit CPLs from carrying while drinking. Consequently, these concerns, like most arguments in opposition to concealed carry, are simply driven by the "fear of the unknown," which brings me to my concluding argument: Fear is an extremely poor basis for criminal justice policy. It leads to ineffective measures that may make people "feel better" but in reality leave all of us vulnerable to crime. Public policy should be based on facts. The facts here suggest that CPLs often use their firearms to thwart crime, but hardly ever abuse their carry privileges. If people want to keep the ban on campus carry in place because they are afraid it might place a "chill on the academic environment," the answer is education that raises awareness about the safety and effectiveness of CPL. What we don't need are dangerous, arbitrary laws that benefit criminals while penalizing responsible, law-abiding citizens. About the author: Christopher A. Kierkus, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Grand Valley State University.

Ricebrnr

Sat, Jan 23, 2010 : 10:35 p.m.

So then because you got Blair Holt from that story negates that fact that many children were killed by guns in a city that banned them. Really? So because the purpose of the RKBA site is to aggregate positive stories on gun use, that negates the fact that every day lawful gun owners are using guns to protect themselves? Really? So sorry that only YOU get to cite stories in the media. http://www.micatholicconference.org/pdf/focus/focus_20010101-ConcealedWeaponLaw.pdf So because gun owners used the same lawful techniques as anti gunners but in this case to stop an unconstitutional referendum, meant to restrict the CCW laws already voted in the previous year, it's cowardly when they do it? Really? Disingenuous or hypocrite? Read the PDF, notice that the same arguments where used then as now against? http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/gt-report/Report76.htm see almost midway down Yep they're being uppity again.

picabia

Sat, Jan 23, 2010 : 8:49 p.m.

The first link is to a story on the gun free utopian City of Chicago and the numbers of children being killed there. Yep, and I did my homework and got the story of Blair Holt that the story referenced. These stories are from the regular media, but don't let the facts get in your way now. These stories are carefully culled and spoon-fed to the sites avid readers. Do they ever cite a case such at Michael McLendons at this site? Apparently not, 'cause I checked. The result: We did not find any results for Michael McLendon site: www.keepandbeararms.com. Same for Hasan and Christopher Speight. Rights are perishable and are constantly being whittled away at the edges. You don't watch out eventually it will come down to rights you care about. It already has. Pro-gunners are good at talking about rights and freedoms, but only when it advances their agenda. Lets go back the history of CCW in Michigan. The People Who Care About Kids coalition was a registered ballot committee seeking to reject Public Act 381 (the CCW bill) using the referendum process in Michigans Constitution. The coalition attempted to place the issue on the November 2002 ballot. What did the pro-gunners do? Well again, theyre all for freedom except when they arent; in a joint legislative conference committee, an appropriation of $1 million was added to the legislation to pay for trigger locks. Michigan law prohibits referendums on laws that include an appropriation. The placement of an appropriation on legislation in conference committee violated the rules of the legislature, as neither the House nor the Senate versions of these bills contained an appropriation. The addition of the appropriation was a cynical effort to frustrate referendum efforts. And hey, it worked. So dont tell me that gunners care about rights they were too cowardly to let the issue be put before the people of Michigan.

Ricebrnr

Sat, Jan 23, 2010 : 4:37 p.m.

What is laughable and pathetic is that you obviously didn't even bother to look beyond the link itself before passing judgement. The first link is to a story on the gun free utopian City of Chicago and the numbers of children being killed there. ""http://www.keepandbeararms.com/" Hmmm... Something in the name of this site suggests that these folks just might have an ideological bent..." You had but to click this link also to see it simply aggregates news stories from around the country relating to gun ownership, specifically stories of defensive uses of firearms. These stories are from the regular media, but don't let the facts get in your way now. "Next will be rights you like, nothing you can't live without of course, freedom of speech or assembly" This is pure duckspeak. So if you can't carry a gun on a college campus, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly will be the next to go? Don't be obtuse, No obviously this one fight does not mean directly another right will be taken away. Rights are perishable and are constantly being whittled away at the edges. You don't watch out eventually it will come down to rights you care about.

picabia

Sat, Jan 23, 2010 : 11:25 a.m.

"Blair.Holt.gun.2.337365.html" Since his son Blair's murder, Ronald Holt, a Chicago Police Officer, has become a gun-control advocate. (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/blair-holts-killer-faces-sentencing-today.html) "http://www.keepandbeararms.com/" Hmmm... Something in the name of this site suggests that these folks just might have an ideological bent... "Next will be rights you like, nothing you can't live without of course, freedom of speech or assembly" This is pure duckspeak. So if you can't carry a gun on a college campus, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly will be the next to go? This is a laughable as it is pathetic.

Ricebrnr

Fri, Jan 22, 2010 : 10:44 p.m.

Right and how many are killed daily in gun free zones? http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Blair.Holt.gun.2.337365.html How many crimes are foiled by gun folk? http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ Yep, definitely let a few bad apples be the excuse to take away rights you don't like from the rest of us. Next will be rights you like, nothing you can't live without of course, freedom of speech or assembly...you don't need those...no sporting purpose...too many use it for subversive activities anyway...like prayer (except for approved deities)... yay way to go.

picabia

Fri, Jan 22, 2010 : 10:09 p.m.

"That does not conveniently forget the very few who do break the law as you say." Yep, don't let a few bad apples spoil your Pollyanna vision of a world where everyone is watched over by benevolent CCW holders. The incidents I cited resulted in only 30 people being killed. Them uppity anti-gun folks are always nit picking.

Ricebrnr

Fri, Jan 22, 2010 : 3:13 p.m.

Oh look these criminals must've not gotten the memo about the utopia that is U of M's campus... http://www.annarbor.com/news/four-arrested-after-robbery-on-u-of-m-law-quad/

Ricebrnr

Fri, Jan 22, 2010 : 12:14 a.m.

And that still does not discuss how CCW holders commit crimes at lower rates than the general public or even LEO's as the FBI's own statistics show. That does not conveniently forget the very few who do break the law as you say. Just as it does not excuse those in power who break the law also. However unlike some, thanks the the Bill of Rights INCLUDING the 14th amendment, you can't just paint everyone with the same broad brush nor can you strip them of their rights or their property just because you don't like it or it scares you. If that were the case, we'd still have segregation, only some allowed to vote, some not being able to travel as the please, basically the same things law abiding gun owners have to deal with daily. Because some are ignorant and scared of what might happen when freedoms enjoyed by them are also shared with the rest of us peons.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 11:37 p.m.

"This may shock ya, but some attribute a lower crime rate to factors other than CCW holders: "The changes in law enforcement policies and significant declines in homicides cannot be ignored or dismissed as coincidence or fluke. Policing has become more strategic and smarter than it has ever been." http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1705342,00.html. It also might have something to do with the fact that police are recruiting ex-gang members to mediate disputes and help quash rumors (and thereby stop violence from escalating) in cities such as Los Angeles." Not to mention the goons that have already caused Federal oversight in bastions of anti gun activist such as Chicago and New York. Thank you for making my point, so guns should be only be in the hands of who again?

picabia

Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 11:10 p.m.

"Yes he is reportred [sic] to have a CCW but that had what to do with this shooting?" In a previous post you had asked, "Where are the mass killings by CCW holders?" I decided to answer you. You seem to have forgotten Malik Nadal Hasan who, as noted in another post had a CCW permit. There is also Michael McLendon, another permit holder who killed 10 people and wounded 6. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us/12alabama.html?_r=4) "BTW 1) that you brought your history at U of M into the comments made how you would handle being a crime victim relevant. You openned [sic] the door." Sorry, but I've already been chided for not staying on topic. Please see your comment on January 5th: "How about staying on topic and relevant as per the usage guidelines." BTW, mentioning my history at U of M does not oblige me in any way to discuss self-defense strategies here. "2) And still waiting your rubuttal [sic] of the FBI's crime statistics." This may shock ya, but some attribute a lower crime rate to factors other than CCW holders: "The changes in law enforcement policies and significant declines in homicides cannot be ignored or dismissed as coincidence or fluke. Policing has become more strategic and smarter than it has ever been." http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1705342,00.html. It also might have something to do with the fact that police are recruiting ex-gang members to mediate disputes and help quash rumors (and thereby stop violence from escalating) in cities such as Los Angeles. "3) Thank you for coming back, I was getting worried there..." Well, I kinda thought that this thread should really die a natural death, 'cause no one ever convinces anyone else in these kinds of forums, but I decided to continue anyway.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 8:16 p.m.

Yes he is reportred to have a CCW but that had what to do with this shooting? Would not having it have prevented this? He shot people in the home he also resided in. Where he could have pleanty of weapons including kitchen knives to do mayhem with. how about the 12 years before this where nothing happenned? CCW holders still are LESS likely to commit crimes than the general population and even law enforcement officers. Less does not mean none. How about the 6 home invasions across the nation that were stopped by gun owners in the last few days? http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ Or the other multiple examples of defensive use of firearms? BTW 1) that you brought your history at U of M into the comments made how you would handle being a crime victim relevant. You openned the door. 2) And still waiting your rubuttal of the FBI's crime statistics. 3) Thank you for coming back, I was getting worried there...

picabia

Wed, Jan 20, 2010 : 8:02 p.m.

Christopher Speight had a concealed carry permit: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/20/national/main6118943.shtml?tag=stack

Ricebrnr

Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 12:18 p.m.

Ok then...lay down and die it is. Still waiting for a rebuttal of all the FBI crime statistics ergarding crime dropping since gun laws have been "weakened". http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm Where is the blood in the streets? Where are the mass killings by CCW holders?

picabia

Fri, Jan 8, 2010 : 11:45 a.m.

"Still waiting to hear how you personally would handle an attack on you or loved one?" Sorry Ricebrnr, this thread is about carrying firearms on campus. My personal strategies regarding self defense aren't relevant. "Despite the words I see, that you respond so aggresively here seems to bear evidence that you would not just roll over and play dead..." You're certainly free to speculate, but again, I'm not going to discuss this here.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 11:16 p.m.

I guess innocent until proven guilty is ok for criminals in America but not for law abiding gun owners no matter how many times we prove ourselves when predicted catastrophes don't happen.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 11:08 p.m.

Still waiting to hear how you personally would handle an attack on you or loved one? Despite the words I see, that you respond so aggresively here seems to bear evidence that you would not just roll over and play dead...

Ricebrnr

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 11:02 p.m.

WOW talk about ostrich syndrome. Because YOU didn't hear it, it must not exist? This would be an example of Grinch's "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logic error wouldn't it? Ummm..hello??? Quoting from the article: "U-M history senior Julian Lizzio is a member of Students for Concealed Carry, a volunteer group of activists that supports expanding gun rights on college campuses. It has 42,000 members on its Facebook page. "Our group supports allowing qualified individuals with concealed pistol licenses to do on campus what they do everywhere else," Lizzio said. "We don't think campus is a special place where you are automatically safer by not having a gun. We want the same rights that apply everywhere else to apply while we're at a school."" As for your history lesson, you forgot that prior to the current CPL law going into effect in 2001 Michigan already had "may-issue" CPL's. That meant the same as it means in Chicago and New York. IF you can prove "need" or more likely were well off and/or well connected "they" might issue you a CPL. Shall issue as it is now is the much more egalitarian, if you qualify then you can have it. http://www.kc3.com/news/michigan_ccw.htm http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2001/ccw-law-goes-into-effect-in-michigan/ But then as now the "blood in the streets" cry was enormous. Yet crime is down. Yes yes causation blah blah but you cannot deny then that the blood in streets, OK Corral arguments are definitely proved FALSE. http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2002/shocking-results-of-michigan-concealed-carry-law/ http://gunowners.org/op0803.htm Feeling our oats, pushing the envelope, forcing our agenda, wow not inflamatory. Prior to the need for pushing envelopes there were no envelopes. Self defense was an innate right that none but madmen would dispute. Then came laws infringing on those rights. When gun owners throw words like bigotry and fascism around we do it honestly and refuse to stand by and allow it to happen again. Gun controls roots in racism - http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm 1968 Gun Control Act almost verbatim from Nazis - http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm Der grte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen knnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Vlkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, da alle Herrenvlker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten. [The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.] --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

picabia

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 9:35 p.m.

@Mike "I think that's pretty close, yes?" No, way off -- I stated that over the years I had never heard anyone express a desire to carry a firearm on campus. For this reason, I believe that the impetus for concealed carry on campus comes from outside the U, not from within. Despite that fact that the Heller decision was a narrow one and not a blank check for indiscriminate concealed carry, pro-gun groups are feeling their oats right now, and they're out to push the envelope. If that means forcing their agenda on college campuses, so be it. Again, I think Randy Richardville is their willing stooge. Now, with a politician in their corner, the chances of this going through are not too shabby. Look at concealed carry in Michigan. It was passed in a year-end lame duck session and John Engler signed it into law just before he left office. Was it something that had overwhelming support from the people of Michigan? Nope -- most people didn't even know about the legislation. Same thing with Randy's bill. It doesn't have widespread support from the people of Michigan -- most people don't even know about it. This time around though, the state's economy is in the cellar, many don't have jobs, and thousands have lost their homes. Randy Richardville, however, is focused on concealed carry.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 2:45 p.m.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8446728.stm Another rampage and what were the choices of the unarmed employees? Get shot, hide inside, hide on roof (in -11 weather)or die. Take aways: - The police response time is not noted but whatever it was too late for the 3 that are dead and 5 that are wounded (3 critically). - As of 12:30 pm (~6 hours after the rampage began) Police were still searching the building for the gunman. I wonder how long before they were able to evacuate those who hid on the roof? And those fleeing to the roof if they had time to grab their coats? - First responders to a crisis will forever be the "victims" of the event. If I was the "victim" of this circumstance I'd like a fair chance at surviving it. If my family is involved and I might not survive the event I'd sure like to stop the threat before they were harmed. but that's just me...

Ricebrnr

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 12:20 p.m.

We in the gun culture believe in several things. Two of which are: - An armed society is a polite society. We tend to be very polite and believe that people are generally good and treat them accordingly. We only treat criminals like criminals. - Better to have it and not need it, than to have it and not need it. See previous post. Anti's tend to treat everyone like criminals and don't seem to believe in preparing for catastrophic events. Why? May I get more personal for a moment? We've been arguing statistics and heady abstract concepts. I'd like an honest, non snarky answer from you and any other "anti" person. Please let us know what YOU would do if you were attacked. This doesn't have to be on campus. This is a general, someone or a group is attacking or about to attack YOU. What is your plan? To help, most of the answers here revolve around: -laying down and taking it -calling the police (and laying down and taking it while waiting for the Police to stop the attack for you) -what a stupid question, I'm never going to be attacked. Seriously I want to know.

Mike

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 11:44 a.m.

@picabia Just so I understand your position... - guns shouldn't be allowed on campus because college-aged students cannot be trusted with them - guns shouldn't be allowed on campus because law-abiding gun owners who may be older than the typical college student might suddenly start shooting people - guns shouldn't be allowed on campus because, in your opinion, there's no need for someone to have a gun on campus I think that's pretty close, yes? So, we have students who are 18 years old who cannot be trusted with guns. But, we allow them to vote. And we allow them to join the military and carry guns as well as pilot fighter planes and drones, fire artillery, drive tanks, etc. It appears they're mature enough for some things, but not others? Further, we pass very strict laws restricting anyone under the age of 21 from buying, possessing or drinking alcohol. This may sound sarcastic, but it isn't: how are all those alcohol laws working out on the U-M campus? The next one doesn't make any sense...what is it, exactly, about a college campus that would make a law-abiding citizen who is older than typical college age suddenly start shooting people when a similar risk obviously does not exist at places like shopping malls, public parks, the streets and sidewalks, and so on? Further, doesn't this position assume that all law-abiding firearms owners are guilty without having done anything first? That does not compute. They're law-abiding by definition, and they've already been vetted by the state for the right to carry a concealed pistol. So, what is it about a college campus that would suddenly make a citizen start shooting vs. someplace else where they are allowed to carry their firearms? And lastly, your assessment of "need" is irrelevant. If there's no risk of crime on campus, why does U-M have its own police force? Students in dorms are encouraged to lock their doors...why? If there's no need for a firearm on campus, certainly there's no need to lock your dorm room door. Or carry pepper spray. Or lock your car door. Or lock the computer lab. In the end, your assessment of need does not apply to me...that would be like me saying you don't have a need to choose, or you don't have a need to protect your privacy, or you don't have a need for free speech.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 10:27 a.m.

Need based arguments fall flat. In America, do you NEED a: fast car/motorcycle/snowmobile/jet ski - no and those are not protected by the Constitution. OK a better analogy, based on the chances of "NEED" do you need: smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, monoxide detectors - no seat belts, spare tires, car jack, jumper cables - no insurance? By definition a hedge or bet against disaster - no for that matter, Police, Fire and EMT's, likelyhood YOU will need them in your lifetime? Thankfully low. But will YOU do without? The Second Amendment and all of the Constitution - not a "need" based document. A "HEDGE" against a tyranical government by protecting innate rights of the individual. Does a country NEED one to run? NO, but those that do are certainly that much better for their citizens. This is not the machinations of an outside cabal. This as it is also happenning across the nation is the action of local freedom loving, educated, law-abiding friends and neighbors fighting for the restoration of rights that "shall not be infringed." "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

picabia

Thu, Jan 7, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.

@MikeyP "It's a common sense request IMHO! " Mikey, that's the part I don't get. I attended the Big U, and later worked there for 4 years. In that time, I never heard a single faculty member, student, or staffer complain that s/he couldn't carry a firearm on campus. Nor did I hear anyone fret that they were about to cross the diag and felt like a defenseless victim. This seems to be an issue that's driven by outside interests, not by people in and around the Big U. I think that Randy Richardville is acting as a stooge for these outside interests. Yeah, you can adopt a tone of righteous anger and talk about rights, etc., but if you argue that there's a need for students/faculty/staff to be armed, the argument is not a strong one.

MikeyP

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 11:23 p.m.

The right to carry a concealed weapon on state property is not asking for "absolute gun rights." There are many restrictions that pro-gun groups (even the NRA) fully support. For instance, if you walk into a bank and rob the place with a gun NOBODY would claim that the Second Amendment should protect that behavior. Compare this to the (albeit factually incorrect) "yelling fire in a theater" example with the First Amendment. Saying the word "fire" isn't the crime, it is how you are using the word that is the crime (using it to create panic.) The same should apply to guns. Having the gun shouldn't be prohibited, but USING it illicitely should be (and is, of course.) Nobody is asking for the right to use a gun to shoot up a classroom, or point it at someone to get your way... THOSE would be examples of an "absolute right" in terms of the Second Amendment. Rather, we're simply stating that those who jump through the (not insignificant) hoops required to become a concealed pistol license holder in Michigan be permitted to carry while, say, walking across campus (or parking on campus)... just like they can carry while walking down any public street or while shopping or while driving on any public road or in their own homes or in state-owned rest areas or in state (and soon National) parks, etc. It's a common sense request IMHO!

picabia

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 11:01 p.m.

You had already said that you weren't going to use the Kleck stuff, so I will not comment. "There fore [sic]; # of justified / ( total # of deaths suicides) or 28 / (231 -16) = 13.02%' Given that these numbers represent one week, it's not a good sample As for the story of the young woman in New York, I view it as an illustration of how an altercation can turn lethal when weapons are involved.

Ricebrnr

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 8:50 p.m.

153: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n1_86/ai_n28663294/pg_21/?tag=content;col1 Wrong source was cited in my material, it should have been, Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185 original quote: The banal and undramatic nature of the reported incidents also undercuts the dishonest respondent speculation. While all the incidents involved a crime, and usually a fairly serious one, only 8% of the alleged gun defenders claimed to have shot their adversaries, and only 24% claim to have fired their gun. If large numbers of Rs were inventing their accounts, one would think they would have created more exciting scenarios. 154: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970085-1,00.html Danielle Bock was one of 231 homicides by gun in America during the week of May 1 through 7, 1989. (In 16 cases, the suspects died or committed suicide, and 28 cases were ruled justifiable.) Those killings, along with 233 suicides and gun-related accidents, were chronicled in a 28-page TIME cover story, "Death by Gun." There fore; # of justified / ( total # of deaths suicides) or 28 / (231 -16) = 13.02% As for Ms. Brown, oh well I can only go by what was reported. But that does not change the fact that disarmed citizens die daily and criminals can and will find guns (remember Colin Ferguson? http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/insane/lirr.html) or knives (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html) as in this case. All of New York City is an example of sensible gun restrictions only affecting law abiding citizens.

picabia

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 4:15 p.m.

@Edward Vielmetti "the site I was able to track down is this http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/" Yep, I saw that one too, but I don't find the statement that Ricebrnr cites therein. Thanks for the tip.

nnameee

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 2:41 p.m.

reading this seems more like a battle of whos got a bigger "stick" what gets me the most is what ALL this branches from @picabia i commend you for doing your research and not simply saying "guns are bad" i recall you earlier practically throwing your hands up saying "its the supreme courts rules, i cant do anything" yes i understand, we have to follow the courts rules or you go to jail but its not just gun rights its EVERYTHING that is being restricted soon there will be no smoking any where why?? whats the point? how many ridiculous laws are on the books that no one listens to or even knows about? laws like: a woman has to get permission to cut her hair, you cant walk your alligator on a sunday, if you are gonna shoot a buffalo you cant do so from the second floor, a man can only wear a dress if it has straps everyone of these laws exist and went through process to be put on the record. again, why? why is the court (government) wasting their time with silly things such as those? to control us sounds like a winner so many people are siting there saying "here, take my liberties, take my freedom" just watching it all happen did you know that income tax was supposed to be a limited thing? it wasnt meant to continue, it was just to help the war efforts now 50 some-odd years later we still pay them the higher-ups dont follow their own rules prime example: this health care, everyone in office is exempted from it (side note: no i dont know much about this plan other then things just dont look right. 1. why is it being shoved in our faces, 2. why is soo much being done behind closed doors, 3. why are votes being bought and 4. if its such a wonderful plan why dont the higher-up want to have to follow it) i wasnt intending to have this go towards a political debate, my point is we are giving up our rights why are people so afraid of guns? why is there such opposition to allowing the law abiding citizen a way to protect themselves in case that "what if" situation comes up? it seems to me that guns are only associated with the bad never do you hear about how a mugging was broken up because a cpl holder pulled out his gun and scared the criminal away or about how a family of four was able to drive away an intruder because they had a pistole to protect themselves i dont want to be a person whos only defense is to scream and hope someone will hear me and i will get help before mr. bad man does something to me how far do think a rapist would get if the woman was packing? in a very commonly used path behind my house used for the college track team has had multiple occasions of women taken and raped. because it is part of the campus the only thing they have to defend themselves is their ipods, a lot of good that will do what is so wrong with people protecting themselves?

picabia

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 2:07 p.m.

"Fact: The rate of defensive gun use (SGU) [sic] is six times that of criminal gun use.152 152 Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics - National Crime Victimization Survey (2005). DGU" You're going to have to be more specific here. There's a buncha sites on the Web that reference this study, but I'm going to need a URL or something to narrow it down. Basically, I'm trying to find the passage that you're referencing. If I'm going to address this, we need to be on the same page.

picabia

Wed, Jan 6, 2010 : 10:08 a.m.

"Again with the personal attacks and avoidance of the issues..." That was hardly a personal attack, Ricebrnr. "Still waiting for you to address the multitude of citations and statistics per your promise." OK, here're a couple now: "Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.153 153 Critical Incidents in Policing, FBI, 1991" I searched the text of the document (http://www.archive.org/details/criticalincident019110mbp) and I do not find that sentence. If it's in that document, kindly reference the page. "Fact: Of all forms of firearm homicide, 13% are civilian legal defensive homicides.154 154 Death by Gun: One Year Later, Time Magazine, May 14, 1990" Same with this one. The text you quote does not seem to be in the article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970085-1,00.html Too, you may note that there have been updates to the news story you posted. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/12/24/2009-12-24_woman_fatally_knifes_thug_in_subway_attack.html). The young woman will or has been charged with manslaughter and weapons charges (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/12/29/2009-12-29_cyan_brown_16_accused_of_stabbing_man_to_death_on_christmas_eve_surrenders_to_co.html) Later, Ricebrnr

Ricebrnr

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 9:55 p.m.

Again with the personal attacks and avoidance of the issues....who's diminishing their credibility now. How about staying on topic and relevant as per the usage guidelines. Still waiting for you to address the multitude of citations and statistics per your promise.

picabia

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 9:40 p.m.

Got a copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations for Christmas eh, Ricebrnr?

Ricebrnr

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 8:52 p.m.

"Both the federal government and the Michigan state government put restrictions on firearms. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's a fact. If you can't grasp that fact, you shouldn't be wielding a firearm." "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Abraham Lincoln "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." We the people are ultimately responsible for the laws upon which we are governed. We the people can redress said usurpations and infringements. We the people are attempting just this as is the point of the article. If one can't grasp these concepts, perhaps England would be a better choice for "living".

picabia

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 8:36 p.m.

@Mike "But the former has a better FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) factor so that's the phrase you use." No, I use it 'cause I want to; I call it packin' heat. You can call it what you want. "All of your assertions that firearms on campus will result in bloodshed and shootings are blatantly false..." I never made such a statement. If you're going to refute someone, at least bother to accurately quote them. "Both the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution guarantee me the right to bear arms for self-defense." But neither one specifies an absolute right. Both the federal government and the Michigan state government put restrictions on firearms. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's a fact. If you can't grasp that fact, you shouldn't be wielding a firearm.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 7:05 p.m.

Ok can we all agree that the FBI can be a trusted source of information on all things criminal? If so then the FBI's own records indicate that since the sunset of the assualt weapons ban, since Heller, since gun ownership has been reaching all time records, since multiple states have passed concealed carry crime has been going down. No I am not arguing that more guns = less crime, those examples are only meant as time references. What I am pointing out is that the correlation "more guns = more crime" or "less restrictive gun laws = more blood in the streets" is patently false. That argument doen't fly and CAN be disproven.

Mike

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 6:21 p.m.

@picabia picabia said: "Fears, insecurities, illogical hype, hysteria? You're the one who wants to pack heat." "Wants to pack heat"? No, that is incorrect. "Does lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense" is correct. But the former has a better FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) factor so that's the phrase you use. All of your assertions that firearms on campus will result in bloodshed and shootings are blatantly false and simply an attempt to use fear and hysteria instead of fact to influence the opinions of others. Law-abiding citizens are by definition those that follow the laws. Criminals, also by definition, are those who do not follow the law. Passing gun laws does nothing to control criminals. The logic isn't mind twisting, anyone should be able to understand it. Gun laws are laws. Criminals ignore laws. Therefore, criminals ignore gun laws. Pretty simple. Thus, gun laws restricting guns on campus will be ignored by criminals. Therefore, there are already guns on campus. Yes, even criminals can be U-M students and vice versa. In the end, it comes down to one simple thing: you can pass all the laws you want. Criminals won't care one way or the other. The only people who will follow the laws are the very people whose rights are being trampled by the laws and politicians and who are victims of the criminals. Very, very simple concept. Passing a law and expecting a criminal to follow it is absurd. picabia said: "As for your rights, it's not at all clear that you have any right to carry on college campuses." Both the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution guarantee me the right to bear arms for self-defense. Even if you want to debate the wording of the Second Amendment, Michigan's Constitution is crystal clear: every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. That's exactly what it says, and there's nothing ambiguous about it. Further, the University of Michigan is a public institution. It is funded with state dollars. A portion of those dollars that fund the University of Michigan are my tax dollars. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that a state-supported institution can restrict my state Constitutional right to bear arms. Which institution takes precedence? The university, or the state itself? Surely it must be the state itself, and we already know what the state's Constitution says on the matter, don't we? Federal law only has jurisdiction between the states. States are not required to follow federal law when the issues are entirely within their own borders. For example, see the recent Montana Firearms Freedom Act. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

Ricebrnr

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 5:40 p.m.

@Grinch, I keep forgetting to come back to this: "Second, for all of you gun nuts, let me introduce you to the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logic error--that is, the attribution of one event to other conincidental event(s) that have no clear connection." I think other great examples are: Criminals use guns. Guns make crimes easier for criminals. Therefore more guns equal more crime. Or Guns are dangerous. Law abiding ctizens like to use guns for self defense. Therefore law abiding citizens are dangerous. Or Signs make things safer. Campuses should be safe from criminals. Therefore posting no gun signs will make Campuses (or other sensitive areas) safer from gun carrying criminals.... Logic is a double edged sword is it not?

Ricebrnr

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 3:01 p.m.

You quoted Heller regarding restrictions in sensitive areas. The whole point of this article and the subsequent comments are pro or con against concealed carry especially in "sensitive" areas, Schools, Federal buildings etc..what we gunnies like to call CEZ's (Criminal Empowerment Zones). Chicago, New York City and DC are whole cities where guns are banned and are defacto CEZ's. The last article in particular illustrates a point many of us have already stated. "No-gun" areas only stop law abiding citizens. These imaginary boundries mean nothing to crazed and/or determined criminals. In this case the shooter must have known he'd meet immediate armed resistance but that did not stop him either. In places where there is no such armed security, oh say a school, what would've happenned then? Hmm, trajedies like VA Tech & Columbine come to mind. The point was not whether those guards should have been armed but that as in so many other precedents, when time is of the essence it takes arms to STOP THE THREAT. We CPL holders would like to have that same right of self preservation restored in areas where criminals are by default ALLOWED to carry.

picabia

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 1:29 p.m.

I will respond to your other points later, but I don't see how this news story is illustrative of the benefits of packin' heat on campus. The men who responded were deputy marshals, not students, faculty or college staff. No one has argued that marshals shouldn't be armed. Just like the Chicago story you cited last night -- if anything, it illustrated that packin' heat can backfire on you, as one of the criminals fatally learned.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 12:23 p.m.

Another rampage in a "sensitive" place. How was it stopped? By other people with guns! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34688730/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ If guards were unable to respond in kind, this madman would've been roaming the halls like VA Tech. How long did it take for police to respond? How many would've died while waiting? "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Ricebrnr

Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 12:12 a.m.

Actually I did not dismiss them, I addressed it without joining you in the muck-raking. I instead again tried to steer the conversation back to the topic you yourself deemed important not so many posts ago. Statistics and citations. OK for the sake of argument, John Lott and his findings are out, happy? Now address the news articles and other citations I've given. Explain the why there are always blood in the streets arguments whenever gun restrictions are loosened and how that never happens? Michigan passed a concealed carry law in 2001. At that time Jennifer Granholm was the attorney general and she was against the law. Seven years later, she is now governor. All of her fears have been proven unfounded. The law works great in Michigan and in all of the 48 states in which it has been passed."-http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/01/politics/main2747886.shtml How about DC? Im disappointed in the Courts ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,- Mayor Fenty, June 26, 2008. No increased blood in the streets by legal gun owners in the year since Heller. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didnt happen...I think its worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. Im a convert. - Glenn White, president, Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997 I... [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to lawabiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless. - John B. Holmes, Harris County Texas district attorney, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997"

picabia

Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 10:10 p.m.

"And once again the other side devolves into character assassination rather than adressing [sic] the studies and statistics." It's hardly character assassination when John Lott provided the ammo -- he created an online female persona for the purpose of praising his own work. Had one of his detractors done that you would have jubilantly proclaimed him a fraud. I could have chosen a less gaudy Web site to make the point, but that is the basic fact. As for Lott's research, it has been challenged by academics Tim Lambert, Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, Jens Ludwig Daniel Webster, the list goes on. I could provide links, but as you will only dismiss them, you can find them yourself if you're so inclined.

Ricebrnr

Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 6:28 p.m.

And once again the other side devolves into character assassination rather than adressing the studies and statistics. John Lott's detractors have detractors of their own, etc etc ad nauseum. Besides which there were plenty of other statistics cited not least from our government that you pointed didn't address. Go figure. In any case yet another example of citizens in a "gun-free zone" (AKA CHICAGO) that was kidnapped by multiple perps and only through his luck, wits and the criminal's own weapon was able to escape. Nope no lessons there. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/12/woman-found-shot-in-bronzeville-alley.html

picabia

Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 5:38 p.m.

"John Lott,... took a quick look at Hemenway`s article and humorously observed that it showed that "liberals are much more likely to engage in road rage.." Did he say that? Lord knows that John's a zany guy. Here's another funny thing he did: http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/ The man's just a stitch!

Ricebrnr

Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 8:55 p.m.

Well, maybe all of those professors (of whatever study) and statistics still aren't good enough. Perhaps we can take the word of criminals themselves on armed citizens? http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/08357 FYI these studies were done by avowed anti-gunners who when faced with cold hard facts reformed their views. Live and learn (for some).

Richard Meister

Sat, Jan 2, 2010 : 10:51 p.m.

David Hemenway? Professor of HEALTH POLICY? Not "criminal justice"? Not "violent crime studies"? Not even "statistics"? Your source is flawed. Sorry, I'm going to have to take everything a HEALTH TEACHER has to say about GUN CONTROL with a grain of salt. He's not a lawyer, a professional statistician, or someone in the field of law enforcement. Let's see: Gary Kleck : Professor of Criminology. BINGO! Mark Gertz : Criminology. BINGO AGAIN! So, who would you prefer to listen to? A health teacher? Or people that deal with crimes and laws on a daily basis?

Ricebrnr

Sat, Jan 2, 2010 : 8:49 p.m.

Funny how anti gunners rarely submit to the same rules and scrutiny that they place on 2A supporters. In the meantime, yet another example of self defense in a "disarmed" populace. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/12/24/2009-12-24_woman_fatally_knifes_thug_in_subway_attack.html How sad that a woman had to fight for her life against a pack of wild animals with only her wits, her knife and lots of luck.

Ricebrnr

Sat, Jan 2, 2010 : 9:32 a.m.

Oh and by the way: John Lott, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Michael Brown, of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, took a quick look at Hemenway`s article and humorously observed that it showed that "liberals are much more likely to engage in road rage (both making obscene gestures and driving aggressively) than conservatives." To thoroughly evaluate the survey, Lott has since asked Hemenway to share his data, but, he says, "Hemenway is not responding." See http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2006/03/hemenway-and-co-authors-refuse-to.html for more information about Lott`s attempt to evaluate Hemenway`s silly anti-gun "study.

Ricebrnr

Sat, Jan 2, 2010 : 9:25 a.m.

Why is it that the greater good argument and individuals such as Nidal Malik Hasaan are trotted by anti-gun people against when the reverse argument is always argued by gun owners? What's your point? At the time of application and for over ten years this guy was a law-abiding citizen with a CCW permit? That like anti-gunners people should be able to predict the future with no consideration or evidence from the past? The argument already has been made BY the gun culture that you cannot predict or prevent every mad man or criminal but disarming those who can and want to protect themselves from the like is not the answer. So you don't like Dr. Kleck and his studies/methodology, I won't argue the point but there were several other statistics cited that you didn't care to address? When you do and I will rebutt, I'll be sure to "weed" Dr. Klecks statistics out. Perhaps only the government published studies, such as the DOJ & FBI ones. I would think you'd believe those to be a "trusted" source.

picabia

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 11:40 p.m.

To MikeyP: "However, allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves does NOT pose a danger to the general public." Mikey, it's not that simple; some law-abiding citizens forget the part about being law-abiding somewhere along the way. http://gawker.com/5401371/nidal-malik-hasans-application-for-a-concealed-weapons-permit To Richard Meister: "Hitler, Mao-sae Tung, and Stalin would have loved you. They shared your same common goal of disarming the populace." Richard, you have no cred here. You've already admitted that you invented a statistic. The three thugs you mention lied whenever it suited them. True, your puerile mendacity is nothing compared to these masters of the Big Lie, but the difference is not in kind, only in degree. To Ricebrnr: "Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 time." I assume that you're referring to a survey of civilian defensive gun use in 1992 conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, as this was the figure they cited. Other researchers have questioned Kleck and Gertz's estimate. "Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States." http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

Ricebrnr

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 10:40 a.m.

Unfortunately not haveing verifiable statistics is bad habit that we have learned from anti gunners, like the Brady Campaign and Mayors against illegal guns. That being said, it's not like irrational people pay attention to logical arguments or statistics anyway so at times it's hard to find the motivation to produce them. Luckily for us footnoted, sourced and verified information can be had at gunfacts.info for those willing to research for themselves. For those unable or unwiilling to see for themselves a few pertinent statistics that Richard should have used in his argument. Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.151 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. 151 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, Fact: The rate of defensive gun use (SGU) is six times that of criminal gun use.152 152 Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics - National Crime Victimization Survey (2005). DGU Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.153 153 Critical Incidents in Policing, FBI, 1991 Fact: Of all forms of firearm homicide, 13% are civilian legal defensive homicides.154 154 Death by Gun: One Year Later, Time Magazine, May 14, 1990 Fact: When using guns in self-defense, 91.1% of the time not a single shot is fired.155 statistics: Targeting Guns, Kleck (average of 15 major surveys where DGUs were reported) 155 National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000 Not that facts and statistics ever got in the way of a fanatic's argument, eh?

Richard Meister

Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 7:11 a.m.

...I was unaware that because there are 39 concealed carry states, you are therefore entitled to fabricate statistics... Implying that it DOESN'T entitle me to fabrication statistics. Implying that PCBEs (polybrominated diphenyl ether) are harmful. Hitler, Mao-sae Tung, and Stalin would have loved you. They shared your same common goal of disarming the populace.

MikeyP

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 7:51 p.m.

I'm not contending that the lower murder rate was a result of Heller, I'm pointing out that the prediction by Mayor Fenty (amongst others such as Keith Olbermann) that the decision would lead to MORE crime in D.C. was patently false. Yet these claims are made every time gun laws are loosened in any way, shape or form. It was made after Heller, it was made when Michigan went to shall issue, it was made whem Castle Doctrine passed here, it was made after the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, it was made when restaurant/bar carry passed in Arizona and Tennesee this year... it's the default claim of the gun-grabbers, and it EVERY SINGLE TIME it has been proven false when crime does not go up afterwards. The reason why is obvious: criminals don't care about gun control laws. They know full well that the first charges to be plead away will be the gun charges, so they literally laugh at gun control laws (even outright bans such as the defeated one in Washington D.C. and the soon-to-be defeated ban in Chicago.) However, allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves does NOT pose a danger to the general public. They aren't the one's committing crimes! All we want is the ability to defend ourselves, our families, etc., against the criminals who ARE armed regardless of the laws. Look at the story on this very website about the hold-up on Forest the other day, the two alleged perpetrators were armed with a pistol and shotgun... and BOTH had felonies on their records! It is ILLEGAL for felons to possess guns per federal law, period, end of discussion. Yet they were armed anyway, were they not? For some odd reason they didn't have any problem violating federal firearms laws... may have something to do with the fact that they're CRIMINALS. Pass all the gun bans you want, criminals will still be armed. The only people who won't be are their would-be victims... and that's JUST how the criminals want it. I'd rather follow the Constitution and let the good guys be armed, it's a win-win in my book.

picabia

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 2:53 p.m.

"...the murder rate in D.C. this past year was the lowest since 1964! It wasn't just murders that went down, crime rates went down across the board." Mikey, I'm not impressed; as any statistician will tell you, correlation is not causation. Check out the graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dchomicidechart.svg. It shows the DC homicide rate from 1986 to 2005. After peaking in 1991, the period covered by the graph shows an overall downward trend. This period precedes Heller. Was it because of the ban? Probably not. It this year's DC murder rate down because of Heller? Probably not. As others have pointed out, "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a logical fallacy.

MikeyP

Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 1:55 a.m.

Invariably when changes like these are suggested (or enacted) there are predictions of "blood in the streets!" It happened after Heller in Washington D.C., when their mayor (Adrian Fenty) said that it would lead to more crime. Well, the Washington Times has just published an article pointing out how the murder rate in D.C. this past year was the lowest since 1964! It wasn't just murders that went down, crime rates went down across the board. I'm not saying that this means more guns = less crime (though that argument has been made) but rather that the prediction that more guns = more crime was dead wrong... as it is EVERY TIME it is made! The same argument was made before "shall issue" concealed carry became the law in Michigan in 2001, yet crime has fallen since then. Invariably this prediction is made every time a gun law is loosened, yet every time these predicted disasters fail to materialize. Maybe, just maybe, law-abiding gun owners aren't the problem. I know, crazy thought! Why do I care? Well, as has been pointed out staff and faculty members are effectively disarmed due to this law... not only while on campus but for their entire commute to work and home from work as well. They can't even lock their gun in their car while parked on campus per the law currently on the books! That's patently ridiculous IMHO. If it takes challenging the entire campus gun ban to correct this gross injustice then so be it. Nobody should have to give up their right to self-defense because they happen to work at the U... it's unconscionable that anyone would even support such a thing IMHO.

picabia

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 11:21 p.m.

"Yes, it was a made up statistic. You know why? 39 other states allow concealed carry. 15 of them allow carry on campus." Sorry. I was unaware that because there are 39 concealed carry states, you are therefore entitled to fabricate statistics. Now where's that copy of Alice in Wonderland...

Richard Meister

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 8:05 p.m.

The second man didn't shoot the attacker, Yitzchok did. I can't tell you how many students in the USA are ROTC as well. And the way the law is written, not even THEY can carry. Key word was : Hypothetical. More realistic option, is someone gets mugged at knifepoint, they pull a gun, and the attacker drops the knife and flees. This happens more often that not. Yes, it was a made up statistic. You know why? 39 other states allow concealed carry. 15 of them allow carry on campus. What have you heard about those 15? Blood on the streets, and shootouts in the hallways?

picabia

Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 2:24 p.m.

Richard, It was a bit disingenuous of you to fail to mention that a second man was present and that IDF refers to Israel Defense Forces? We're not talking some kid on his way to Biology class here, these were military men. Be that as it may, the hypothetical situation you describe comes straight out of La-La land. Awfully sporting of the would-be attacker to lean against the young woman's car in plain sight and announce his intent, don't you think? The trouble is Richard, we're living on the Earth, not in a contrived world were the "Law and Order Criminal Intent" meets "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm." "This is the 99.99998% chance of what WILL happen." Where did you get that statistic, Richard? You made it up, didn't you? It's too bad that only a half dozen or so people are reading this thread anymore. More people need to recoginize this stuff for the risible nonsense that it is.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 9:31 p.m.

POLLYANNA?!?!?! Wow that is an amazing argument. Going through life arguing against the most effective, prudent means of warding off attacks as if they can't happen to you. THAT is the definition of a pollyanna. Might as well never get insurance, fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, etc etc etc

Richard Meister

Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 9:15 p.m.

@picabia And? Not sure what you're getting at with the first paragraph. It's pretty obvious that you'd have to have no regard to your own life for attacking an armed person(s). Also, and? Do you think being 21, 25, 29, 31, or 40 years old is going to change anything? I can tell you : No, it won't. If this is law is enacted, you'll see this happen: Nothing visibly changes. No one even notices. Yet behind the scenes, crimes in progress go unreported as a "self defense statistic", because the mere PRESENCE of a firearm is more than enough to diffuse the situation. Let's say a young woman is walking to her car, alone at night. She arrives at her car, to see an individual leaning against the car with a knife in his hand. He tells her "Give me your keys, wallet, your purse, and get in the back.". She reaches down, and unholsters her sidearm. The carthief quickly realizes that this theft/rape is not worth his life. He drops his knife and runs off. She calls the police, they show up and take a report. Yet another case where the MERE PRESENCE of a firearm stopped the crime without bloodshed. This is the 99.99998% chance of what WILL happen. Yet even though the streets are safer, chances are, no one will notice. Also, currently the way the law is written, not even STAFF OR FACULTY can carry on campus, even if they're a CPL holder.

picabia

Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 8:45 p.m.

The "common arguments" page must have been written by Pollyanna on electric Kool-Aid. "Argument: A dangerous person might jump someone who is carrying a gun, take the gun, and use it to do harm. Answer: Even assuming that this hypothetical dangerous person knew that an individual was carrying a concealed handgun, which is unlikely, there are much easier ways for a criminal to acquire a firearm than by assaulting an armed individual." Wow, that's a relief. Who knew? Whoever wrote that shouldn't be allowed to carry a concealed rubber ball, let alone a firearm... Incidentally, although a student, Yitzchak Dadon was a 40 year-old Israel Defense Forces officer assisted by David Shapira a paratrooper.

picabia

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 9:26 p.m.

That will be most entertaining.

Ricebrnr

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 8:39 p.m.

To paraphrase Mrs. Feinstein: That's correct, We'll pick the time and the place, no question about that."

picabia

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 7:05 p.m.

The Federal building is under Federal jurisdiction!? Nonetheless, it's in Michigan. Sounds like your rights are being trampled. Better get a lawsuit going...

MikeyP

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 6:36 p.m.

The Federal Building is under FEDERAL jurisdiction, the University of Michigan is not. It is subject to state laws and the state constitution.

picabia

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 3:44 p.m.

Nice try Jonathan. Again, these aren't my words -- they're the words of the much-vaunted Heller decision. Tell you what -- head down to the Federal Building on Liberty Street and tell 'em that that the considerably more specific Michigan Constitution allows you to bring firearms into the building. Let us know how that works out for you.

jonathandureund

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 3:22 p.m.

Nice try picabia. The Heller case was in DC and the decision made in light of US Constitution, not the considerably more specific Michigan Constitution. Furthermore, it is atleast a moderate stretch to say that sensative buildings such as Schools and Government buildings are the same thing as a college campus. But all of those minor details aside, what is your big concern about law abiding citizens packing heat on a college campus as opposed to where they currently do on the other side of State street? There are tons of CPL holders in Ann Arbor and I've yet to see a rash of running gun battles on Main Street at high noon. How is allowing these same people to cross over and walk through the diag going to pose any new and unique threat? I'd like to see what kind of mental gymnastics you have to go through to answer that one.

picabia

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 10:40 a.m.

Fears, insecurities, illogical hype, hysteria? You're the one who wants to pack heat. As for your rights, it's not at all clear that you have any right to carry on college campuses. As the court observed in Heller: "...nothing in our opinion should 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..." A college campus would seem to fall under the category of "schools and government buildings." Deal with it.

Mike

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 8:26 a.m.

FACT: CPL holders in MI are law abiding citizens. They go through extensive background checks at the local, state, and national levels, and their fingerprints are on file with Michigan State Police. They are not criminals. FACT: Michigan's Constitution, Article 18 Section 7, specifically says: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Period. There's nothing in there about college campuses or anywhere else being different. FACT: The generally accepted course of action for a "shooter on the loose" incident on a campus or in a workplace is "hide and turn off the light". That's just absolutely absurd. Next we'll be telling women that they should stand in one place with their fingers crossed and hope nobody rapes them. Telling me I don't have the right to carry a gun to defend myself on campus is no different than telling someone on campus they cannot speak freely. Think about it, people. Think about it. Your fears, insecurities and illogical hype and hysteria do not take precedence over my rights. Period.

picabia

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 3:52 a.m.

You seem to be pinning your hopes on what a future court will say. The line in question could well be applied to concealed carry.

MikeyP

Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 12:27 a.m.

That line does not necessarily have any bearing on concealed carry. After all, it is illegal to carry a fully-auto machine gun into a bank in order to rob it, Scalia was certainly saying that the Second Amendment doesn't protect that kind of conduct (just as the First Amendment doesn't protect libel.) But that's a far different thing than carrying a concealed handgun, which a future court decision could indeed say falls within the sphere of the Second Amendment protections. And it is true that McDonald won't answer that... it isn't part of the case after all (just as incorporation wasn't part of Heller.)

picabia

Sun, Dec 27, 2009 : 8:46 p.m.

Regardless of how McDonald v. Chicago is decided, it will not be a blank check to pack heat. The line in Heller that states "...the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" would seem to preclude that interpretation.

MikeyP

Sun, Dec 27, 2009 : 8:17 p.m.

You are right that it was a narrow decision picabia... but it set a strong foundation to build upon. First the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is deemed to be an individual right (Heller did that.) Then it is incorporated via the 14th Amendment (the likely result of McDonald v. Chicago later this year.) Then the boundaries of the right will be tested. It isn't at all clear that concealed carry is outside of those boundaries, but rest assured that the Supreme Court will be looking at the issue one day.

picabia

Sun, Dec 27, 2009 : 6:13 p.m.

Sorry Ricebrnr, but nothing in your citation invalidates anything I cited. The court's opinion was not an endorsement to pack heat wherever you want. The decision simply wasn't that broad.

Ricebrnr

Sun, Dec 27, 2009 : 9:34 a.m.

I counter that quote with another from the same document. We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding interest-balancing approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government even the Third Branch of Government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an interest-balancing approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people-which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

picabia

Thu, Dec 24, 2009 : 9:17 a.m.

Too bad, Ricebrnr. Those are the Supreme Courts words, not mine. It's the court's view that you can't pack heat wherever you want. Deal with it.

MikeyP

Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 11:54 p.m.

@psaume23 Interestingly enough I was given my first gun by a police officer I know. He asked what I had for home protection, at the time the answer was a dog. He took me to the range, taught me how to shoot and gave later gave me a gun because (in his words) "You need something to protect your family with." I have the utmost respect for law enforcement, but they will be the first to tell you that they can't be everywhere a the same time. Criminals certainly know this... they count on it. Recently in Oklahoma there was a story of a woman who was home alone when someone started to break into her house. She called 911... and was still on the line with them 17 minutes later when the guy finally broke in. She shot and killed him, then waited several more minutes until the police finally arrived. The whole time she was BEGGING for the cops to hurry up, praying that she didn't have to shoot the guy. Obviously we have much better response times here in Ann Arbor... but there are still only so many officers on the road at any one time, they certainly can't be every staff, student and faculty member's body guards. Again, the crimials KNOW this, they COUNT on it... why that is so hard for some people to realize is beyond me. If you aren't going to take responsibility for your own safety, how can you ask someone else to do so?

Ricebrnr

Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 11:48 p.m.

Oh yah that's right, only the criminals are allowed to carry in sensitive areas. Columbine, Appalachia State, Virginia Tech, Ft Hood, etc. etc. etc. Sensitive areas where the criminals knew they'd find little to no resistance. How's that been working out again? History has provided examples of private citizens stopping mayhem in sensitive areas. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunatly dying is a common symptom of the schooling.

picabia

Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 11:31 p.m.

Richardville and his cronies aren't on very solid ground here. In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court found: However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Furthermore, in an obiter dictum, the Court also noted: Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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." This could prove problematic for Randy and his buddies...

Ricebrnr

Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 10:02 p.m.

Again with the cowboy argument. We are not and do not pretend to be the police. We are nether obligated nor inclined to run towards the sound of gunfire. We just want the best chance to get ourselves and our loved ones out of life threatening situations. Why is that concept so h ard to understand. If YOU or someone YOU loved were being viciously assualted and it didn't look like it was going to stop, what are you going to do? From the posts here, turn the other cheek? Watch as your loved one is beaten to death? Lay there and accept death? Even cornered mice will fight back for their survival. Guess that's more than can be said for some. And those prefer we're all in the same boat, unarmed, defenseless, lambs for the slaughter.

psaume23

Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 9:09 p.m.

Is this what Michigan really needs right now, or ever? Trained law enforcement officers are not always accurate when responding to a firearms-wielding subject. What makes the Dirty Harry wannabees in the state legislature think that rootin, tootin gun-totin'regular Joes would do better in similar situations? Only sworn police officers should be allowed wearing guns in colleges and schools.

Ricebrnr

Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 12:19 p.m.

@d, a more careful reading of the article would show that this legislation is specifically for firearms and Concealed Pistol Licensees. Your sword and crossbow would not be allowed. I would suggest you fight for your ability to do so if it's that important to you though. Also if you can aford a good quality sword and crossbow, might I also suggest you have enough to get the CPL training and possibly a decent used pistol. Feel free to contact me if I can help you out with that. Cheers

Pete Bigelow

Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 11:55 a.m.

A comment has been removed from this thread because it contained multiple personal attacks.

Ricebrnr

Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 8:03 a.m.

And yet, sheeple never extend this "one idiot" argument to cars do they? Many orders of magnitude greater idiots driving than CPL holders misbehaving but they wouldn't dream of restricting lawful drivers rights to use or ownership.

nnameee

Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 1:57 a.m.

ps. about the cop in dc i love how the act of one idiot speaks for all gun holders the world isnt perfect, and taking away a means of protection isnt going to help

nnameee

Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 1:46 a.m.

before i moved back to the ann arbor area i lived in grand rapids were i was for a short time vice president of the students to conceal carry on campus (sccc) and the community collage the previous president of the group was a cpl holder, but he rarely ever concealed his pistol. 99% of the time he opened carried as an experiment. he found that people didnt notice most the time and if they did they would start a conversation about gun laws, and the people were either calm and agreed, or were angry and protested. not only that but the people who protested knew next to nothing about gun rights and laws and all the hoops a person needs to go through to just purchase a firearm in the first place, nor did they know much of anything about all that is needed to be done to obtain a concealed pistol license and keep it. my uncle is a gun collector and is 67 years old, but because when he was 16 and got into a bar fight and was thrown in jail he has to wait an additional two months to purchase a firearm the law abiding citizen arent the people to worry about having a pistole, there are soo many people walking around with a pistole in their pocket and people dont even know about it. the gun club where my parents got their cpl, certifies about 20 people a month to conceal carry. as far as i know i havent seen any headlines reading "cpl holder shoots up the local food mart" another fun fact: compare crime rates to areas where guns are baned and areas where having a loaded gun is required a criminal isnt going to go somewhere where they know there is someone who can shoot them

picabia

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 10:16 p.m.

Seems like Randy Richardville is consistently present for gun votes (41 votes from 2001 to the present, didn't miss a single one), but couldn't be bothered to vote on bills addressing mental health issues, a bill to increase the penalties for failure to stop at the scene of an accident resulting in injury or death, and one to ban products containing PCBEs (polybrominated diphenyl ether), to name a few. Randy's missed votes for the same time period (2001 to the present) also total 41. If it's shootin' Randy's all for it. If it's your health, chances are Randy just ain't gonna vote.

Merkava

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 9:54 p.m.

Still tired (and still don't proof read) "I don't think the application of any force is the best way to resolve nearly any confrontation you are likely to have. " (fixed)

Merkava

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 9:49 p.m.

@ Grinch Also, no I don't like being called a gun nut. I don't think you can that the application of any sort of violence is the best way to handle nearly any confrontation you are likely to have. For me personally, I'd rather be sure just in case. Sorry if I was nasty to you before...I was tired :( Non gladio, sed gratia.

Merkava

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 9:35 p.m.

@ TheGrinch So what is your solution? It sounds like you think we should get rid of all guns, including police officers (or perhaps you just meant all off-duty officers). Good luck with that.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 8:34 p.m.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html Williams also filed for a charter from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and formed the Black Guard, an armed group committed to the protection of Monroes black population. Members received weapons and physical training from Williams to prepare them to keep the peace and come to the aid of black citizens, whose calls to law enforcement often went unanswered. The NAACP suspended Williams for advocating violence. In 1961, the Freedom Riders came to Monroe to demonstrate the efficacy of passive resistancethe hallmark of the mainstream Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. An angry mob of Klansmen and Klan supporters overwhelmed the Riders, who called upon Williams and his Black Guard for help. History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are. - David C. McCullough

EldiaOctavo

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 7:19 p.m.

Ricebrnr: I apologize for not reading these posts more carefully before commenting. I confused your remarks with someone else - sorry.

John Galt

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 7:04 p.m.

Grinch: Not a good way to argue a point. They say that insults are the last refuge of a lost cause.

The Grinch

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 6:37 p.m.

As I said, gun nuts.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 6:28 p.m.

@ Grinch, if you'd study history rather than deny it, you could learn a thing or two: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Information/XcIBPrintItem.asp?ID=2960

Ricebrnr

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 6:20 p.m.

close the gun show loophole, you mean private sales of legally owned items? The gun show loop-hole does not exist. prevent the ownership of semi-automatic weapons, so all firearms that fire once per pull of the trigger? That would include 90% of all existing firearms including some bolt actions and revolvers depending on who controls the definition. and that make illegal ammunition that has no purpose but to penetrate bullet-proof gear, so ammunitions that coincedentally can penetrate bullet RESISTANT gear too? That'd include almost ALL rifle ammunition. Specifically designed ammunition is ALREADY tightly regulated and only Law enforcement and military can have it. So if these sensible restrictions are passed, how do you enforce it? For those who legally own these now banned items? What of them? CONFISCATION or grandfathering. The so called Clinton Assault Weapons ban was in place for 10 years with grandfathering. How did that work out again? OH that's right, not one crime can be attributed to having been prevented or prosecuted by this law, which has thankfully sunset. Anyone who opposed these basic ideas is, by definition, a better informed than the general populace on how "sensible" gun restrictions actually equate to confiscation and worse.

The Grinch

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 6:15 p.m.

Who knew that the NRA was the best friend of African Americans? Yeah, I'm certain that the KKK in the South in the 1960s saw the NRA as a supporter of civil rights.

The Grinch

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 6:01 p.m.

Merkva: No one is crystal balling "the future (someone will throw a snowball at a Hummer and there will be a shootout, it will be the OK Corral all over again)". This happened in D.C. over the weekend in the blizzard--caught on tape in all of its glory. And who was the gun-weilding nutjob? It was an off-duty COP. Do 'ya think he knew that what he was doing was illegal? Do you think he's had better training about gun use than the average citizen will receive before they receive their carry permit? So much for well-trained citizens using their guns only in appropriate circumstances. If an off-duty COP can lose his cool to the point that he pulls his piece on a bunch of college kids having a snowball fight, one wonders what might happen with a gun-toting I'm-packing-heat nutjub in similar circumstances. And, watching the tape, it is abundantly clear that this gun-toting I'm-packing-heat nutjob was but one snowball away from opening fire. So, if you don't know about an event that has been all over the news, you'll forgive us if we think your legal expertise regarding state, local, and federal gun laws is even more flawed. As for post hoc ergo propter hoc, its simple logic. Try it, you'll like it. Finally, as to "gun nuts", me thinks you doth protest too much. Don't like the term? Quit being one. No one I know want guns taken away (Charlton Heston's crapola notwithstanding). We want sane gun laws that, among other things, close the gun show loophole, prevent the ownership of semi-automatic weapons, and that make illegal ammunition that has no purpose but to penetrate bullet-proof gear. Anyone who opposes these basic ideas is, by definition, a gun nut. But, interestingly, most of the NRA's members seem to support some of the ideas I have suggested but which the NRA has steadfastly opposed for years(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-guns16-2009dec16,0,641659.story). So, apparently, even within the NRA, the gun-nut position is nutty. Nuff said.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 5:53 p.m.

Yes and how many of those lost their lives? Quite a few, how about Black Panthers? Funny you should mention racists considering the genesis of most gun laws began in the South after the Civil War as a means to keep those same people unarmed and victimized. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

groland

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 5:10 p.m.

I wish the gun enthusiast wold stop pretending that they are the only ones who have fought for freedom. Consider the civil rights marchers, who were unarmed and were opposed at times by gun-toting racists. I think the contribution of non-violence to freedom in this country is equal to or greater than any military adventures we may have had overseas.

bedrog

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 4:43 p.m.

as i noted earlier, while an erstwhile adamant gun control advocate ive become more of an agnostic on the issue ( helped by things like ft. hood) and also the thoughtful, unfanatic posts of merkava...who in an earlier post signed his name in hebrew, suggesting a connection with an extremely widely armed country where crime rates are low, people are civil/civic minded and those dangerous to the public weal ( like, say, suicide bombers) often get pretty short shrift from that public...and good for them for that... so let's dial back the rhetoric a bit and look at things as they are.

Merkava

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 4:12 p.m.

TheGrinch and those who agree with him throw around "gun-nuts" or "inmates" or "insane" a lot. How about using a less bigoted term like "firearm enthusiasts" as opposed to "gun-nuts". Funny that you lot call us insane, when "this" side of the debate is actually using logic, reason, statistics and knowledge of law. How about stop using knee jerk arguments that appeal only to the emotions? How about people on your-side stop pretending like they have crystal balls and telling us the future (someone will throw a snowball at a Hummer and there will be a shootout, it will be the OK Corral all over again, etc). How about site some case histories to back up your wild-eyed prognostications. Stick to the argument at hand. We can already carry firearms all over the place. What makes college campuses different. Just a little advice for "your" side of the debate;) You're welcome

jlkddd

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 4:09 p.m.

My comment on removing federal aid for students who recieve an MIP is a little different then someone gettin convicted of any of those offenses INVOLVING guns and still being able to ever in their lifetime carry a gun legally. Nice try though, I like your research in to my other posts. But I think I'm pretty consistant on my beliefs and fair.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 3:51 p.m.

EldiaOctavio, Actually we're on the same side and I wholeheartedly agree WITH you. The protion in qoutes is by jlkddd from anther story on this site. I found it amusing that he/she/it would think a person who is law abiding after 8 years deserves less than the criminals as they stated previously.

EldiaOctavo

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 2:48 p.m.

Ricebrnr: The last I looked, conviction of a felony made it impossible to obtain a CCW. Last I looked, a gun board made of three officials of the county of residence made the decision whether the applicant received a license. All three must agree. If those three people - the sheriff, prosecutor, etc. - decide to let felons have weapons then you need to deal with it at the ballot box. Finally, the entire point of "punishment" is to atone for your crime against society. If you have paid your price the law states that you return to full citizenship and the rights accorded. Do you wish to change this? Seriously: Do you wish to change this? Over "gun control"?? Again, let's punish the crime not the inanimate object. CCW holders are subjected to vastly more stringent background checks and training than the general population. They are due some respect and so is the process that sensible, law-abiding people have created to govern this aspect of our culture while supporting the concept of individual rights.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 12:46 p.m.

Oh would that the words of some that are so generous, understanding and forgiving of actual convicted criminals be shined if even faintly upon those that are law-abiding and can pass Police and FBI backgrounds checks.... "You honestly think that a person that makes one mistake and gets an MIP shouldn't be allowed to have help to go to college? That because they make a mistake when they are in HIGH SCHOOL that should determine the rest of their lives? Come on people think about it. It's not like they went out and murdered someone. Chances are a lot of the MIP's that happen are from kids getting together at eachothers houses when their PARENTS are away, and staying their the whole night, but they end up being too loud and the cops come and then give everyone MIP's. That is probably most of the cases that occur in this area at least. I personally never recieved an MIP but I made mistakes too...at least I grew up and realized it and went to college and recieved a degree. For some people not getting financial aid could ruin the rest of their lives."

Ricebrnr

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 12:15 p.m.

GUN CONTROL - how's that working for the English? Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade By James Slack Gun crime has increased five-fold in some parts of the UK Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold. The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent. In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold. In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled. The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place. Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets. The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time. Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said last night: 'In areas dominated by gang culture, we're now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers. 'We need to redouble our efforts to deal with the challenge.' He added: 'These figures are all the more alarming given that it is only a week since the Metropolitan Police said it was increasing regular armed patrols in some areas of the capital'. The gun crime figures, which were obtained by the Tories from official Parliamentary answers, do not include air weapons. But they provide the first regional breakdown of the increasing use of firearms. Lancashire suffered the single largest rise in gun crime, with recorded offences increasing from 50 in 1998/99 to 349 in 2007/08, an increase of 598 per cent. Armed: Officers engaged in routine policing are carrying sub-machine guns for the first time Only four police forces - Cleveland-Humberside, Cambridgeshire and Sussex - recorded falls in gun crime. The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent. The figures follow a warning by Mr Grayling that U.S.-style gang culture has reached some parts of the UK. In August, he made a controversial speech warning that a collapse of 'civilised life' had allowed a brutal drug and gun crime culture - like that of the U.S. TV show The Wire - to flourish in Britain. The hit TV series tracks the nightmare of gangs and organised crime in inner city West Baltimore and the futile efforts of police to deal with them. The Met's decision to employ armed officers on the streets has attracted criticism. But the force, which has already begun the scheme, insists that the unprecedented tactic is a proportionate and temporary response to prevent armed gangs from controlling estates. Trident poster campaign warning of dangers of young women and girls storing and transporting guns for others Last month, police warned that teenage girls were now being dragged into the gun culture by hiding weapons for their boyfriends. Police are targeting girls between 15 and 19 with an advertising blitz warning them that they can expect a five-year prison sentence if they are caught. The number of women charged with firearms offences in London has increased six-fold in the past year - 12 have been charged since January. Seven of them were teenagers, including a 16-year-old arrested after a 9mm Browning self-loading pistol was found in her bedroom. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html##ixzz0aRGDLpBA

jlkddd

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 12:04 p.m.

I kept reading the requirements to get your CCW and I find it very interested that after being charged with the following crimes, you only have to wait 8 years to get a permit. My belief is that if someone is convicted of these crimes they aren't going to change within 8 years. They aren't going to change within 10 years, they shouldn't be allowed to ever get a gun ever, in fear that they might repeat the offense, however this time it could be worse...they would have a gun: Assault or domestic assault, MCL 750.81 Aggravated assault or aggravated domestic assault, MCL 750.81a Illegal Sale of a firearm or ammunition MCL 450.223 Solicitation to commit a felony, MCL 750.157b Improper transportation of a loaded firearm, MCL 750.227c Failure to have a pistol inspected, MCL 750.228 Accepting a pistol in pawn, MCL 750.229 Failure to register the purchase of a firearm or a firearm component, MCL 750.232 Improperly obtaining a pistol, making a false statement on an application to purchase a pistol, or using false identification to purchase a pistol, MCL 750.232a Intentionally aiming a firearm without malice, MCL 750.233 Intentionally discharging a firearm aimed without malice, MCL 750.234 Possessing a firearm on prohibited premises, MCL 750.234d Brandishing a firearm in public, MCL 750.234e Possession of a firearm by an individual less than 18 years of age, MCL 750.234f Intentionally discharging a firearm aimed without malice causing injury, MCL 750.235 Possessing a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug, MCL 750.237 Weapon-free school zone violation, MCL 750.237a Stalking, MCL 750.411h Fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520e Reckless, careless, or negligent use of a firearm resulting in injury or death, MCL 752.861 Careless, reckless, or negligent use of a firearm resulting in property damage, MCL 752.862 Reckless discharge of a firearm, MCL 752.863a SERIOUSLY??? I can get convicted of any of these crimes and then 8 years and 1 day later...go fill out an application for a permit and start the process to recieve one....not looking good...

Ricebrnr

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 11:47 a.m.

Let us not forget your right to bleat ad nauseum is and has always rested on the ability of those of us who choose to bear arms to defend it.

jlkddd

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 11:47 a.m.

dmj12652 - Yes, obviously I was kidding because that would never be allowed to happen here. Also, please read the rest of my posts before you jump all over me. So I decided to do some research on the mentally ill thing because I was wondering just how they determine that you are mentally ill and this is what is on the Michigan State Police Website for qualifications to get your CCW: 5. Not be subject to any of the following: An order requiring involuntary hospitalization or alternative treatment An order finding legal incapacitation A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity 14. Have not been found guilty but mentally ill of any crime and has not offered a plea of not guilty of, or been acquitted of, any crime by reason of insanity 15. Have never been subject to an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to a mental illness 16. Not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment As I mentioned before, these are all things that had to have happened BEFORE they applied for the permit. What if they have a severe mental disorder at the time applied however they just haven't been diagnosed by a doctor yet?

EldiaOctavo

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 11:46 a.m.

Grinch: Yours would be a good argument...if it were true. The true statistical evaluation is "gun ownership per capita" or "how many citizens own a gun" compared to crimes that were enabled or facilitated with guns owned legally. You will find that as legal gun ownership increased, gun crime overall decreased. Another comparison worth making is how many gun owners were victimized compared to non-gun owners. And please drop the inflated "gun crime" stats and other silly rhetoric. We all know who is killing whom with guns. We ALL know...and so do you. And, since we all know, reverse your cute Latin logic and let's look at who commits the gun crimes (legal or otherwise) by race and then ban gun posession by anyone of that race. Are you saying that, if your logic exercise is valid then all people of a certain race are forbidden to protect themselves because a majority of the crimes are committed by people of that race? So law-abiding people should be forbidden their 2nd Amendment rights on the basis of race? Logic is not all it's cracked up to be, sir. Simple legal logic - especially post mortem - is specious. All the legal arguments on Planet Earth are worthless if the result is the abrogation of a civil right. Arguments about the exact wording of the 2nd Amendments are political and, frankly, silly. The wording is clear, as is the intent, and only fools waste time fussing over it. Punish crime...not inanimate object ownership. And treasure your civil rights because sooner or later they'll get around to taking away one YOU care about.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 11:42 a.m.

"post hoc ergo propter hoc" logic error? Funny coming from one who count prescience among his abilities. Being able to fortell the future surely is much more "logical" than studying history and making reasoned conclusions based on the actual facts and statistics available. But no, cry "OK Coral", cry "blood in the streets", cry cry cry that's what sheep do after all. That is until the wolves come and then what happens?

EldiaOctavo

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 10:40 a.m.

Just a comment...the sheriff of our county is the guy that teaches the CCW training classes in our area. He is a life-long police officer and has been sheriff for many, many years. He will tell you candidly that police cannot "protect" you. Their job is the find the person that committed a crime and bring them into custody to be prosecuted. On rare - very rare - occassions, they are present at exactly the right moment to prevent a crime. This occurs so infrequently that each officer remembers each instance "as though it were yesterday". The fact is that people are responsible for taking care of themselves. Some people are unable to do so...and other responsible people are permitted by law to step in and help them. The CCW permit system is very, very good. It has been a success in every state in the country where such a law has been enacted. The training, particularly in Michigan, is excellent and creates a strong sense of legal and ethical responsibility among those who undergo the training. Almost every single instructor in the country is a police officer or retired officer. This is an excellent program and has saved many lives and promoted responsbility and professionalism across the entire gun-ownership community. Arguments against it are political. That is not to say they are unworthy of discussion - just that the arguments against are not supported by evidence that the system is not working. The debate over extending or contracting prohibited zones is a political one. If the facts are examined objectively, the program is clearly a success and this is good for all citizens.

M.

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 10:04 a.m.

Kirk - College aged people and students are already allowed to have CCW permits. Are you suggesting that the legal age to own a handgun or get a CCW be raised?

Kirk Carlson

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 10:01 a.m.

What a debate. I agree that people should be allowed to carry their concealed weapons as they walk across campus, but the university and teachers should be able to govern the laws of its classroom. Education has historically been governed first by the local laws and second by the state. Not the feds. However, it begs the question: should the university be notified which students have these permits? Should there be a place that students can "check in their gun" before attending class? Would students bringing concealed guns into class, in effect, allow anxiety to rise in individuals with or without guns therefore damaging their mental health? And what about the rights of the professor or teacher as well to teach in an environment they deem as safe? I do believe in no-gun zones: students in a classroom, playgoers in a theatre, or fans at a stadium, but do we need to find a way for concealed gun holders to have a "gun-check" for their rights as well? Also, mental health can be at one of its most unstable times during the years of study at a university. I wonder if the debate should consider this as well? How often is the mental health of an individual checked and how exactly is it checked?

Kirk Carlson

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 9:55 a.m.

What a debate. I agree that people should be allowed to carry their concealed weapons as they walk across campus, but the university and teachers should be able to govern the laws of its classroom. Education has historically been goverened first by the local laws and second by the state. Not the feds. However, it begs the question: should the university be notified which students have these permits? Should there be a place that students can "check in their gun" before attending class? Would students bringing concealed guns into class, in effect, allow anxiety to rise in individuals with or without guns therefore damaging their mental health? And what about the rights of the professor or teacher as well to teach in an environment they deem as safe? I do believe in no-gun zones: students in a classroom, playgoers in a theatre, or fans at a stadium, but do we need to find a way for concealed gun holders to have a "gun-check" for their rights as well? Also, mental health can be at one of its most unstable times during the years of study at a university. I wonder if the debate should consider this as well? How often is the mental health of an individual checked and how exactly is it checked?

M.

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 9:41 a.m.

Wow http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html is a great site for gun statistics, though the last year available is 2006. There were only 642 accidental gun deaths in the U.S. in 2006. There were 8,478 gun homicides in the U.S. in 2005. So the last stats are from 2005/2006, but do you think they've more than tripled in 4 years? I don't.

M.

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 9:31 a.m.

@Grinch - check your statistics. Your 30k count is pretty exagerated. www.ojp.gov/bjs/guns.htm

The Grinch

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 8:04 a.m.

A couple of points here. First, yes, the Heller decision is the law of the land. But it is a tortured decision, one where Scalia had to go through the entymology of the words of the 2nd A to arrive at that decision. I've never read a SC decision like this, one that justified its finding based on arcane word meanings (ones the authors of the 2d A likely did not know) rather than on what the 2d A clearly says. But Scalia and the other four horsemen of the apocolypse, jurists who allegedly are "textualists" who honor the words as they are written, and who honor _stare decisis_ (that is, precedent), did neither in this case, finding meaning in the words that can not be found in a sane reading of the 2d A and, in so doing, overturning 200 years of precedent regarding the 2d Amendment. Second, for all of you gun nuts, let me introduce you to the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logic error--that is, the attribution of one event to other conincidental event(s) that have no clear connection. A great example is: I woke up at 6AM today. The sun rose at 6:05. The sun therefore rises five minutes after I wake up. In this case, gun nuts are attributing the nation's current low crime rate to the highest gun ownership rate in our nation's history. Sorry, but post hoc ergo propter hoc. The last time our crime rate was this low was in the early 1960s, when the gun ownership rate was much lower. The crime rate, then, appears to have little if any relationship to the level of gun ownership. But keep trying to make your case that 30,000 (+) gun-related deaths per year is somehow appropriate in a civil society.

The Grinch

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 7:27 a.m.

Guns for everyone? I say thermonuclear weapons for everyone!!! Then the world will truly be safe!

Bryan123

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 7:22 a.m.

@LGChelsea Yeah, why in the world do we allow cops to carry guns! Obviously they're not mature enough and shouldn't be allowed to carry loaded firearms. I guess that one incident should prejudice us against that whole class of people and none of them should be allowed to carry because of the potential for future tragedy.

LGChelsea

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 3:10 a.m.

So, hey. How about a snowball fight on campus? And guess what? Someone throws snowballs at a cop's hummer. Whoa! Pull out that gun-flash it around and threaten anyone to hit his beloved hummer again! Doesn't this sound improbable?!

Anonymous Due to Bigotry

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 3:07 a.m.

Lets address the whole "guns are only designed to kill so they're just evil" argument. 1) The NRA's concealed handgun class teaches that the purpose of using a firearm in self defense is NOT to kill someone but to STOP them from whatever action is threatening the life of other people. Again, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO KILL SOMEONE TO DEFEND ONE'S SELF. For some reason it's the anti-gun types who are obsessed with killing and death without any concept of how self-defense actually works. 2) Unfortunately it is sometimes legal and, in the sense of "lesser of two evils", the morally correct choice to kill someone. Extreme example: if that person is quite clearly like to kill 10s of people as a mass shooter I would personally rather kill the person than sit by and do nothing while they kill one person after the other. The majority of people in society would support me in my actions. Therefore a gun, even if it only exists to kill, can serve in a morally and legally superior capacity when possessed by the right person in the right situation. Therefore tools intended to kill have a legitimate purpose. 3) 95% or more of the time in a self-defense situation, simply the threat of being shot is enough to STOP an attacker from doing whatever they're doing. No shots are fired. Again, the point in self-defense is to stop the attacker, NOT KILL THEM! Only the anti-gun types seem to think that in order to defend yourself do you need to outright kill someone. This is based on ignorance and irrational out-of-control fear and nothing could be further from the truth. Even if someone is shot, though they stand a high chance of dying, they don't necessarily die. Again, you don't need to go up and shoot someone in the head after they've been injured to the point that they're no longer a threat. It's very amusing to me that people have such low expectations of anyone in the 18-21 year old range. Honestly, if they're such children then we need to raise the age of legal adulthood to 22 which would preclude them from voting. (This, BTW, would ensure that the Democrats would lose every election.) The other amusing thing is this idea that students who can legally possess a gun off campus (which many do all the time) suddenly become all drunken and stupid as soon as they walk onto campus. We have a very very simple way of proving that allowing students to possess guns on campus won't result in "blood in the streets" because they have guns off campus and it doesn't happen! I challenge someone to find one single incident of a college student with a concealed handgun permit who has gotten drunk or something at a party off campus and started shooting people. If it hasn't happened off campus then it won't happen on campus.

MikeyP

Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 12:02 a.m.

@Jon... um, did you miss the D.C. v. Heller decision last year? That WAS the Parker case! It turns out that Parker didn't have standing, but Heller did, so it was renamed and the case was decided a mere 18 months ago. I don't want to give away the ending... but I have a feeling you aren't going to like it one bit.

Jon Saalberg

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:42 p.m.

Umich2008: So you're saying that people who like guns [are] Being prepared for the one day that hell breaks loose is the point? - that scares me much more than any possible crime that looms in our future.Also, to throw a bit more into the mix - the Second Amendment does not say people can have guns. The most recent Supreme Court ruling said: In Miller, the Court affirmed a [middle] interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia.Yes, there is a more recent court case, Parker v. District of Columbia, and it is being appealed to the Supreme Court at this time.

MikeyP

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:12 p.m.

@Natalie there is NO SUCH THING as a "legal taser [sic] gun" in Michigan since tazers are illegal for citizens to own here. Likewise, pepper spray is regulated as well (certain strengths are prohibited.) However, carrying a concealed pistol is legal almost everywhere but on college campuses in the state (along with some other, smaller, specific restricted areas) for those with CPL's and open carry is legal (with the same restrictions as above) for ANYONE legally permitted to own a gun, CPL or not.

MikeyP

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:58 p.m.

@TripleVSix I believe you'll find that what is "special" about a college campus in regards to gun possession their is the utter ignorance 90% of the people running the place have of firearms and/or the Second Amendment. I guarantee that those 90% disagree mightilly with the Heller decision, see the NRA as nothing but a quasi-terrorist group, etc. In other words, they're "special" alright. They're certainly entitled to their own opinions, but they aren't entitled to their own facts. The facts are that Concealed Pistol License holders are amongst the most law-abiding people you can find in this state. You're literally in more danger from the people operating cars on the roads (legally or illegally) than you would be from CPL holders carrying anywhere on campus. It isn't a matter of safety, it's a matter of hoplophobia, pure and simple. Some people who should clearly know better seem to be suffering from it as well, though politics may explain that oddity. Some day it will all end up in court... and that has the gun grabbers scared out of their minds given the current court decisions on these matters. Frankly changing the law would save everyone a LOT of money in the long run... meaning it probably won't happen (when has the legislature saved anyone money in this state?)

Ricebrnr

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:10 p.m.

Name calling is a phenomenon studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricicians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse. And what do all children do when confronted with logical arguments that they are not winning????

The Grinch

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:43 p.m.

Using the gun-nut logic, the world would be a safer place if every nation had thousands of ICBMs tipped with thermonuclear weapons. No sane person thinks this, so why do we it true with guns? Only a gun nut could think this way.

DaveG

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 6:14 p.m.

I'm a returning student/retired Marine GySgt, who has always had a license to carry concealed in at least one state since the late 80's. When the state has given me a thorough investigation, and then a license to carry concealed all throughout the state, why shouldn't I be able to use a firearm to defend myself in that one particular location? If there is a fire, there are fire extinguishers and dedicated fire suppression systems throughout campus buildings, as well as a fire department just minutes away. No one ever suggests that students shouldn't be capable of responding to a fire. A firearm is just as much an effective response to averting a tragedy, one that has been allowed to happen too often already when well-meaning legislators and faculty members created an environment where someone's murderous intent and aggression will go unchecked.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 6:07 p.m.

Maybe 18 USC 922R import compliance Federal laws are what consider "basic". Yes you are right, States can draft less permissive laws. However, don't blame the FAILURE of "gun-control" in places like Chicago on other states or municipalites. Its like people who say most of the guns in Mexico are from the US. They neglect to mention that most of the weapons confirmed of US origin in the hands of the cartels are weapons the US government gave to the Mexican government and found their way to organized crime through political corruption. Many of those weapons are Colt M16s. Its impossible those could have been bought here and shipped South of the border, since the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act banned the creation of new transferable select fire and full auto weapons.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 5:43 p.m.

@ TheGrinch You do know that if you want to transfer a gun from one state to another it must be done through a FFL. What do you mean "basic" gun laws Are you talking about NFA laws? The Federal Registry? NICS checks? It doesn't sound like you really know much about Federal or State firearms regulations at all.

Ricebrnr

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 5:39 p.m.

The FBI just released new crime statistic today for the first half of 2009. http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec09/crimestats_122109.html Continuing the downward trend of crime AS GUN OWNERSHIP INCREASES. Crime is down. Gun ownership--by law-abiding, responsible citizens who pass a mandatory FBI background check at retail--is up. Don't let anyone get away with telling you that "more guns equal more crime." http://blog.nssf.org/2009/12/violent-crime-continues-decline-even-while-gun-ownership-increases.html CPL holders are not the problem, why should we be infringed upon?

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 5:37 p.m.

@ Cash "A good friend working in a graduate department at University of Iowa watched as a student walked past his office and began firing at my friend's coworkers because the student had failed in his graduate work. The employees died, one by one." I'm very sorry to hear about your friend's coworkers. That is awful. On the University of Iowa's Code of Student Conduct: Use or possession of serviceable firearms, ammunition, explosives, fireworks, or other dangerous articles on campus or within any University building on the campus, or at any University-sponsored or supervised function or event. Weapons of any kind are prohibited on campus, including paintball markers and other devices that fire projectiles. Devices that resemble serviceable weapons are also prohibited, such as a pellet gun or toy gun that a reasonable observer would believe to be a handgun. Unfortunately the University of Iowa's firearm policies did nothing to help the victims of this shooting

The Grinch

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 5:37 p.m.

djm: yes and no. yes, basic gun laws are federal. But, as with most laws, states can enact gun laws that are more strict than their federal counterparts. That is what the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago have done, as have most northern (i.e., civilized) states. It is MUCH more difficult to buy a gun in NY and IL than it is in VA, and it is guns from VA that make their way, legally and illegally, to those and other states. Make it more difficult to buy a gun in VA and in other gun-nut states, those of us in state with sane and semi-sane gun laws will be much safer.

djm12652

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 4:33 p.m.

@Grinch...you are such a beaming light of reason...except, basic gun laws are Federally regulated. Some states have more rigorous protocols regarding personal weapons, however, even the most "lax" state must follow Federal law...everyone must go through a background check when legally purchasing a weapon, as well as the require BATF Form 4473 for purchasing. The majority of weapons on the street were NOT purchased legally by the users but stolen from a break-in at a business or residence...lest we forget the drug business where weapons are traded for dope...so the gang bangers in Chi-town didn't go to Virginia and buy their guns legally...didn't happen and won't happen. If someone in Virginia LEGALLY bought a weapon, following all Federal requirements then took it to Chicago to commit a crime, he could also be charged with Federal Firearm violations regarding the purchase.

Cash

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 4:12 p.m.

This is horrifying. College age students thrown into an extremely competitive, sometimes frightening environment,away from home without support of a family, now can legally carry a weapon to effect change. Lovely. As a retired university administrator I saw several students over the 30 years lose it and strike an employee. Now they can just shoot them. While it's true that they could be carrying a weapon previously at least before the moronic senators hadn't made it legal. A good friend working in a graduate department at University of Iowa watched as a student walked past his office and began firing at my friend's coworkers because the student had failed in his graduate work. The employees died, one by one. The senate should have included a boatload of funding for the lawsuits to follow. Or maybe the NRA will pay for them.

djm12652

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 3:53 p.m.

@jlkddd....are you serious? Has banning handguns worked in the UK and Austrailia? Did the law breakers turn theirs in...NO, only the law abiding people did. I currently don't have a CCW permit but will be applying soon. I have had permits in other states, as well as being an FFL holder...so I am fully aware of the laws. As a permit holder, you cannot enter any establishment that serves alcohol and that's just for starters...If the "students" that wish to legally carry are not responsible [which I doubt} then any act of negligence or irresponsibility would be dealt with severely; well, at least anywhere but Ann Arbor, where there is no crime...When I was raped, I didn't have any defense...and that will never happen again...

David Briegel

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 3:52 p.m.

Leave it to The Grinch to have a great post! I too side with the people responsible for law enforcement and not the NRA! What clinches it for me is the simple fact that the military, trained military, trained in weapons use and care, don't allow people to carry open or concealed except for the police! Pretty simple and logical. Where will we find "Boot Hill"?

J.T.

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 3:35 p.m.

Randy is right.Those who are against this do not understand,there may already be a CHO sitting next to them in class,with a gun stuffed in his pants illegaly,ready to jump up and shoot the defenseless fish in a barrel.Thats the point!Good people should never be forced to be defenseless,because someone doesn't "feel comfortable".The good people who have been forced to be defenseless are no longer with us,so how comfortable can anyone be with that.I'm comfortable with 90% of the good people being armed 24/7,because you can be sure that the 10% of evil people are armed,despite any law that has been written on a peice of paper!

Ricebrnr

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 3:32 p.m.

I apologize for the excessive post. Maybe this is better: WHAT?!!!?!? Assuming a "strict gun ban" equates to less "gun" crime is naive. There are countries with armed borders and strict import policies that aren't controlling criminals getting their hands on "contraband". Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime especially violent crime has risen for example. Prohibition, the current drug war, are these ringing any bells? Banned or strictly controlled and that's keeping it out of whose hands? So again, curtail the rights of law abiding citizens only makes us easy prey for the criminals and worse the politicians. You don't need to believe me but the information is there for the asking and history is on "our" side.

The Grinch

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 3:04 p.m.

Merkava: Regarding the Fort Hood shootingss you posted "If those soldiers had been armed or if there were MPs present, even with just their sidearms, don't you think things would have been different?" Yes, I do. I think it likely there would have been even far more dead and wounded than there were had armed folks, having no idea who was shooting, all pulled out their weapons and, seing others with weapons, began fring with little or no knowledge about who was doing the firing. That there were no armed personnel other than the shooter at the shooting site made it far easier for the MPs and civilian security personnel, when they arrived, to sort out who was a potential threat and who was not. This is why the vast majority of police and sheriffs as well as the most important of their national orgainzations support strict gun control--in the middle of a firefight they don't what to be having to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. And the reason the crimminals have guns in places like Chicago is because gun-nut states like Virginia have lax gun control laws and are therefore the points of origin for illegal guns in states where sanity prevails. A strong national gun control law will bring gun violence to a screaching halt.

Ricebrnr

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 2:59 p.m.

@kmgeb2000, actually, most military bases did have this capability until President Clinton signed orders restricting it. To my knowledge there was no "incident" that predicated it, only a politician's anti-gun agenda. I think you could easily argue that if Clinton's ban had never been in affect or overturned that yes the body count would've easily been less.

Ricebrnr

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 2:54 p.m.

Please do some research, even current police training acknowledges that "active shooters", a la Columbine, Virginia Tech, Appalachian State, etc. etc., do not stop killing until they are met with like armed force. Most active shooters give up are shot or kill themselves at the first armed response. Regardless of police or armed citizens, history has bourne this out. For this reason, police no longer secure a scene and wait for SWAT to show up. For this reason more and more departments train to respond with whomever is available. For this reason, victims are THE FIRST RESPONDERS to any incident. Armed citizens have in the past and can in the future stop mass killings long before emergency responders can. For those arguing the likelyhood of needing this, 2 responses. By this same reasoning, you don't use your seat belt? have smoke alarms? have fire extinguishers? see your doctors? have insurance? etc. etc. What if the gun culture lobbied to take away your right to have those things? Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

kmgeb2000

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 2:40 p.m.

@Merkava, You point out that a military base does not allow service men and women as well as other to carry on base, so you think this is wrong too? Obviously, the armed services has learned over many, many decade that they don't need to be armed all the time and that rigorous controls for weapons are needed. Having attended a Community College and two universities over a about a 6 year span, never had the need shown itself for someone, anyone to carry a gun on campus. P.S., I am a registered handgun owner and have several long guns, as my father before me who was USMC and former member of the Indiana State Police. He too didn't see the need either. One of his best stories was of his partner shooting a hole in the roof of his cruiser, while touting the safety of his automatic over my fathers revolver. This is only to show that even thoroughly trained people can do stupid thing, let alone someone with a few hour of CPL training.

djm12652

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 2:32 p.m.

@A2Dave, do you not think that if just one person like Former Marine Dysart in the photo above had been allowed to carry a weapon with a legal permit that perhaps the death count would have been much lower or even a non issue because someone took out their weapon in defense and stopped the insane gunman? Should you ever find your self [God forbid]in that same situation, I hope I am there to cover you...and by the way, I, along with other law-abiding gun owners that I know are not insane...

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 1:49 p.m.

@ Macabre Sunset "A month or so ago, an armed man walked into a MILITARY BASE and killed a dozen people. So much for legal use of weapons in defense." Believe it or not, most soldiers on post are unarmed most of the time. And yes he was an "armed man", but also a Major in the US Army and a religiously motivated terrorist. Ft. Hood is a unique situation. However, your I don't see your point. If those soldiers had been armed or if there were MPs present, even with just their sidearms, don't you think things would have been different?

baker437

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 1:46 p.m.

Sunset- A month or so ago, an armed man walked into a MILITARY BASE and killed a dozen people. So much for legal use of weapons in defense. Just a note by executive order all military bases are no carry zones for CPL holders and that also go for officers carrying their government issued pistol openly. Only people that have a loaded gun outside the firing range are the base security forces. I will point out he did not attack the firing range when he was on the base.

Bryan123

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 1:35 p.m.

It still seems like many of the arguments here are that typical college students are too immature to carry a firearm. If that's what people are worried about, then they should be arguing to have the age raised for people to carry firearms in ALL locations, not just college campuses. Another group of comments is that very few people should be allowed to carry firearms, so then the real argument is that Michigan should go back to a few years ago before Michigan became a "shall issue" state. Not many arguments (compelling or otherwise) on why we shouldn't make college classrooms similar to everywhere else in Michigan. How exactly is having a concealed weapon in a college classroom more dangerous than taking one into a bank or supermarket?

Macabre Sunset

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 1:33 p.m.

It's rather foolish to assume a carry permit would have prevented the Virginia Tech tragedy. A month or so ago, an armed man walked into a MILITARY BASE and killed a dozen people. So much for legal use of weapons in defense. Should a business owner have the right to demand that people not carry weapons? I'm not certain. I am certain the pro-gun lobby has not yet made the case that special accommodations for gun enthusiasts is necessary.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:56 p.m.

A2, now I'm not LEO...I think we both agree I don't have the right personality for the job. I get a bit too passionate about things sometimes (sorry everyone)...and I have a hard time being objective sometimes. Police need that in spades LOL. Also, I wasn't trying to say that I'm the only one here with any.mil experience or that having that background makes any of my arguments more valid. I just mentioned it because it relates to my firearm experience. "One person (or 3 or 5) can't stop a knot of people fighting in a hallway or outside of a bar with a pistol- but surely some idiot (or several at once) who thinks he or she knows better will certainly make that error and TRY TO DO SO." Its best not to try to break up fights with force. Leave that to the police. the best way is to prevent fights with words. I will say. When I carry I also carry OC spray. Like I said its no substitute for a firearm...but its another tool in the box in your escalation of force. Its an less lethal alternative with at least some sort of stand off distance. I don't think Michigan formula OC is that great, but it will make some think twice or slow them down...and it could work for an aggressive dog. I think everyone should have it. Sorry Roxanne :/ Should have taken a step back there.

jlkddd

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:53 p.m.

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a communist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a Jew; Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak out for me. - Pastor Martin Niemller " Great quote...not understanding it in this context...

Ricebrnr

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:47 p.m.

Once again, I must ask: If we take away the rights of law abiding citizens because we're afraid of what criminals might do, take that to it's logical conclusion and ask yourself, is that a country YOU want to live in? No private ownership of cars, why should we? Only businesses and "certified" drivers should have them. That WILL decrease the number of accidents and misuse of vehicles but do YOU wnat to live there? Drinking, how many deaths caused by drinking? Ban it. Swimming pools, how many injuries and deaths per year? Ban it. Bicycling? Ban it. Smoking? Ban it. None of these are protected by the Constitution, firearms ownership is. Take away or infringe upon the one right which protects all the others and what do you get? Ask Chicago, New York, Australia, and England how that's working out for them? First they came for the communists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a communist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a Jew; Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak out for me. - Pastor Martin Niemller I thank you advocates for trying to inform in a logical and well spoken manner as I am late to this thread.

John Galt

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:47 p.m.

xmo: Now, only criminals are carrying the guns. I would rather the law-abiding have the same options. If we cannot trust the "supposedly" best of our young people with their rights, then the country is truly doomed.

xmo

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:38 p.m.

So, only law abiding citizens would be packing guns in schools etc. Sounds good to me!

A2voter

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:36 p.m.

Merkava, I understand that this is a passionate subject for you and others as well. Your points seem fairly well thought out and I appreciate that. My certification to carry might be a bit different than yours, and you are also not the only one who has endured military training. Yep, some of us still have to qualify on a regular basis. With that said, my only comments are that it also requires long training, money, and certification to obtain a just a driver's license, but that training does not seem to some prevent people making the poor choice to drink & drive, does it? Just because you twist my comments and make them seem so literal (ok, for the sake of your argument we will make '18, 19 yr old Freshmen' into '21-yr old Sophmores or Juniors') doesn't change a thing. Hormones are still raging, inexperienced youth-fueled choices, alcohol-fueled bar fights and student stress inside the classrooms or hall issues still occur no matter what your argument is....and those with proper training and respect for weapons knows full well that shooting into a crowd is not a good thing. One person (or 3 or 5) can't stop a knot of people fighting in a hallway or outside of a bar with a pistol- but surely some idiot (or several at once) who thinks he or she knows better will certainly make that error and TRY TO DO SO. If you really want to pack, why don't you become a cop? Or have you already tried? The required psychological evaluation process is fascinating. If you are already a LEO, then I respectfully say that, in this regard anyway, I don't think I care much for your mindset. Before I sign off, I say THANK YOU for your military service and sacrifice.

jlkddd

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:31 p.m.

@ John "It is expensive to buy a gun, undergo a background check, apply for the permit, and get the training course required to carry. Only responsible people would do so." HA that is laughable. Only responsible people would do so...that's a very very big assumption. And not accurate.

Moose

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:30 p.m.

In a perfect world. "Only responsible people would do so." (carry guns)

David Nielsen

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:28 p.m.

To all you naysayers, multiple schools and states allow this, so based on your unsubstantiated fears, lets see all those wild wild west incidents. Come on lets see all these fears played out in reality. The Chicken Little the sky is falling cry has reverberated thorughout the last 3 decades as we went from 8 to 48 states, 41 shall and 7 may carry states and no bloodbaths in the streets or schools, other than those pesky Gun Free zone incidents like Columbine, VT, etc......as the anti gun pundits predicted. Again, and again this fact is shown. Yet we have supposed intelligent college students relying only on emotional reasons and unsubstantiated fears to defend their positions. If that is a measure of what our colleges are teaching students today, to debate and support serious issues only with emotional diatribe, then everyone here should stop paying any taxes and support to these Pathetic so called centers of higher learning!

Moose

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:25 p.m.

"But with this law, it improves the odds someone would be there to prevent a "mass murder". It improves the odds that more people get killed. Let gun owners play judge, jury and executioner!

John Galt

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:19 p.m.

The criminals already carry guns illegally. This would simply allow law abiding folks to have the option of carrying if they so desire. I doubt if the result would be many additional guns on campus. It is expensive to buy a gun, undergo a background check, apply for the permit, and get the training course required to carry. Only responsible people would do so. The irresponsibe carry guns regardless of the laws. Excercising a right should not be subject to these arbitrary restrictions on campus. Students, who live on campus cannot excercise their rights to carry, or even own a gun in their home (in this case university housing). Strange how many "liberals" are afraid of liberal gun rights. There seems to be a trend to restrict the rights of others if you are not personally affected. Whether smoking, gun rights, speech (if it is contrary to your views), property/money (if others are taxed, but not you) etc. Eventually we are ALL going to be squeezed as various groups pass laws to "protect" us from everything that can be construed as dangerous/undesireable by various segments of Society.

cinnabar7071

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:18 p.m.

One thing I learned from reading all the comments, is that we have a very large supply of natural born victims for the taking. Swimming pools kill more people then legally carried guns do. Wheres the out cry about swimming pools?

GoblueBeatOSU

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:15 p.m.

so this is what is important to State Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland? How does the Senate have time to even think about this issue? So the Senate "LIES" to a lot of Michigan college students and ends the Promise Grant when students need the money the most. (I doubt if anyone in the State Senate knows what the word promise means!) Instead of trying to find ways to restore "their" promise they turn their attention to campus gun laws? This is a great illustration of how out of touch our elected officials are. I will say, those long hallways in the dorms will look like a great gun range after some heavy drinking at the bar. You can envision a bunch of empty beer cans at one end of the hall with some drunk that got their hands on a gun shooting at the cans...this isn't going to end well...

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 12:05 p.m.

@jlkddd Yes, I concede there will always be irresponsible people. There will be irresponsible drivers, and drinkers, and even irresponsible cops and politicians who are supposed to be there for us. We are a flawed species. "You don't think that people have been killed in a bar fight before? So you might need to have "life protection" in that incidence" I think if you are still getting in bar fights, you are not responsible enough to carry a pistol. "I noticed however that you didn't have a comment towards students drinking in their dorm rooms, which at Michigan State is completely legal." Drinking is fine. Just follow these basic steps: unload your weapon. Double check to ensure it is unloaded. Triple check, just because it can't hurt...then secure your weapon in your safe. Then you may imbibe libations to your heart's content. "I apologize I did not mean to put words in your mouth..." apology graciously & gladly accepted. Sorry if I was confrontational. It was good talking with all of you...sorry if I got too Charlton Heston on you and thank your for challenging my ideas, I truly appreciate it.

jlkddd

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : noon

Here is an idea. Why don't we just destroy all guns, and then we wouldn't have to worry about protecting ourselves?

M.

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:55 a.m.

jlkddd: Let's say my mental health deteriorates and I have a CCW permit. You think this law banning my gun on my campus would stop me from breaking the law that says I can't murder someone with it? At least I know none of my targets will have a gun to stop me since they're following the laws.

Bryan123

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:54 a.m.

I agree that CPL holders shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms in every location, such as bars. But why is an entire college campus one of those locations? The question raised by this legislation isn't whether concealed carry should be legal in Michigan, but whether entire college campuses should be exceptions to the rights granted to Michigan citizens when they have a valid CPL. Sure, I think I would agree with not allowing firearms in dorms, but why are students who have met the statutory requirements for a CPL not allowed to carry a firearm even on sidewalks on campus or in classrooms? If students in dorms could carry concealed weapons, then they have to leave it unattended when they go to the bar or the football game and there is some amount of risk if it is not properly secured, but in a classroom the firearm is on the person the entire time and a classroom setting itself doesn't increase the risk of the weapon being used improperly (such as in a bar).

jlkddd

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:50 a.m.

@merkava "A Concealed Pistol is for LIFE PROTECTION ONLY." You don't think that people have been killed in a bar fight before? So you might need to have "life protection" in that incidence. "Your argument about room-mates holds no water if people store their guns responsibly" I wasn't referring to people that would store their guns properly. I'm referring to the people who won't. I know you keep saying that being a gun owner is something to take seriously, but do you honestly believe that EVERYONE takes it as seriously as you do? Yes people have had their permits taken away for improper usage, or because of a misdemeanor. However, how many people do you think are just not caught? "You're setting up a hypothetical situation where someone is knowingly breaking the law" Yes, I am setting up a hypothetical situation where somoene is knowingly breaking the law. This happens all the time! In response to your drunk driving argument...it does happen! People are not perfect, people do not do the right thing every time. They just hope they don't get caught. "Anyway, just to clarify, I never said people should be able to carry in bars, like you asserted. " I apologize I did not mean to put words in your mouth... I noticed however that you didn't have a comment towards students drinking in their dorm rooms, which at Michigan State is completely legal. @Malorie "CCW courses and tests would try to screen out someone with psychopathic tendencies toward murder. If you're itching to shoot someone that bad, more than likely you won't care a bit about going through training and paperwork to get a CCW permit. But with this law, it improves the odds someone would be there to prevent a "mass murder"." TRY to screen is the main word that you used in your argument, they don't screen them all out. Also, you misunderstood what I was referring to. As someone had mentioned previously on this, your mental health changes A LOT during your life time. Whose to say that someone is in fine mental health when they first get a firearm and then something happens with their mental state? It's too late now...

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:38 a.m.

OMG I butchered this sentence...i MEANT TO say "There will always be irresponsible people. I've heard many a case of such lackadaisical people who get their CPLs pulled because of their irresponsibility......" sorry. I think that should be my queue shut up already;) I'm sure everyone is sick of hearing me talk...even me.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:33 a.m.

@jlkddd Firearms are not to "protect" yourself from a beatdown outside a bar, like you mentioned in your scenario. A Concealed Pistol is for LIFE PROTECTION ONLY. Its not for scaring people into backing down. Its not to look cool. Its for one things only and nothing else. Parents: teach your kids proper respect for firearms and gun safety at an early age. Don't hide guns in drawers or under beds. Keep them LOCKED in a safe, and with proper supervision show them to your kids and explain the DOs and DON'Ts.

Moose

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:29 a.m.

This has little to do with students being able to carry weapons on campus. It's about widening the reach of NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:27 a.m.

@jlkddd "So, I went to Michigan State University, and I along with tons of other people on Thursdays and Fridays would go directly to the bar after class in the late afternoon evening for their specials...what is stopping someone who feels that they should be able to carry a gun on campus from not carrying it at the bar?" You're setting up a hypothetical situation where someone is knowingly breaking the law I beleive in something called personal responsibility. Its not that hard to go home, lock your weapon in your safe and then go to the bar. I could make similar arguments for drunk driving. What's to stop people? How about being a decent human being and obeying a moral and legal code? "Fights happen all the time in a bar...you may need to "protect" yourself their too..even if you have been drinking. Obviously I don't believe this, because obviously alchol and guns don't mix very well...but from all the information that you have been talking about you seem to be ok with this." Now you are putting words into my mouth. I have NEVER carried in a gun-free zone. I do not carry while intoxicated. Whenever I carry a weapon I avoid situations where a fight would be more likely, such as clubs and bars. I'm not a kid who's obsessed with binge drinking and partying and I object to you saying that I'm ok with people carrying weapons under any and all circumstances. I never said anything of the kind. "I have known people to get a permit to carry a gun and still don't treat it that way. I completely agree with the other persons comments about someone just leaving it in their dresser drawer and then walking down the hall and leaving their bedroom door unlocked. Some people simply just don't think about stuff like that." If you own a gun you have to think about "stuff like that." As I have said. I think that all guns must be stored in SAFES. At the very least all guns should be stored with a disabling lock of some kind...but there is NO SUBSTITUTE for safes. Your argument about room-mates holds no water if people store their guns responsibly. There will always be irresponsible people. I've heard many a case of such lacksidasical who get their CPLs pulled because they of their irresponsibility. Usually its for non weapon related misdemeanors, at least in the cases I've been privy to. Anyway, just to clarify, I never said people should be able to carry in bars, like you asserted. As I said before, firearm ownership is no trivial thing, its not to be taken lightly. Firearms should always be given the respect and reverence that their power demands. It is clear that with the exception of a few people, nobody in the comment section has any conception of safe weapon handling, responsible firearm ownership, or the defensive mindset. Its sad that this is what our country has become.

M.

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:26 a.m.

@Moose: Everyone needs to stop grouping "students" into these assumptions. You seriously can't trust any college student to cross the street??? I highly doubt anyone stupid enough to fail crossing a street would pass the CCW courses and tests. @jlkddd: CCW courses and tests would try to screen out someone with psychopathic tendencies toward murder. If you're itching to shoot someone that bad, more than likely you won't care a bit about going through training and paperwork to get a CCW permit. But with this law, it improves the odds someone would be there to prevent a "mass murder".

Yogi

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:25 a.m.

What's next guns at a snowball fight? Oops I guess I'm too late.

baker437

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:24 a.m.

21-year-old students with a CPL can carry off campus already. What is so mind altering about a college campus that they instantly become a dangerous on campus? When I was undergrad and 21 I had a CPL and carried all time when off campus and now I am grad student and still do. We are not debating if 21 year old college student are responsible enough because state law already allows that and there has been no out crying to increase the age to get a CPL. The questions is do universities have the right to limit your ability to protect yourself from a violent confrontation of any type.

Moose

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:09 a.m.

Merkava makes my point exactly. Laws restricting gun ownership never stopped a criminal from owning or using one. Right? But human nature being what it is, (campus shooters come to mind) what's to stop a law abiding or a not so law abiding student, or anyone for that matter from breaking the law no matter how strict or lenient it might be? Because it's illegal? Like you said, that never stopped someone with criminal intent. Well, just because something is illegal won't stop anyone, crazy or sane, regardless of their intent Can we expect everyone who legally carries a gun to abide by all the laws of gun ownership? What makes them different from anyone else? Something is only illegal until you break the law. In the case of gun ownership and use, it only takes one short moment for tragedy. Why increase the chances for tragedy, just because you say that the law gives us the right? We can hardly trust students to cross the street safely and now you want to give the them the right to carry guns on campus?

jlkddd

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:08 a.m.

@merkava "Those who are intent on commiting murder and mass-murder, couldn't care less about firearms laws." You're right, they don't care...but they could also have a permit to carry by the time they decide that they would like to commit murder or mass murder. "Law enforcement officers ENFORCE THE LAW." Isn't a mass murder breaking the law? "YOU CANNOT CARRY TO SPORTING EVENTS, YOU CANNOT CARRY IN BARS, YOU CANNOT CARRY WHILE INTOXICATED." So, I went to Michigan State University, and I along with tons of other people on Thursdays and Fridays would go directly to the bar after class in the late afternoon evening for their specials...what is stopping someone who feels that they should be able to carry a gun on campus from not carrying it at the bar? If you truely believe that you should be able to carry a gun anywhere why would it make a difference if you were at a bar? Fights happen all the time in a bar...you may need to "protect" yourself their too..even if you have been drinking. Obviously I don't believe this, because obviously alchol and guns don't mix very well...but from all the information that you have been talking about you seem to be ok with this. "Carrying a weapon is not something taken lightly. You must make it a lifestyle choice. You must train. You must use retention holsters so that your weapon cannot be snatched away from you. You must store using safes." I have known people to get a permit to carry a gun and still don't treat it that way. I completely agree with the other persons comments about someone just leaving it in their dresser drawer and then walking down the hall and leaving their bedroom door unlocked. Some people simply just don't think about stuff like that. They have too many other things going on. And most of the time you have roommates in a dorm room. If one person is going to have a gun, shouldn't all of the people living in the same dorm room go through all the training as well, so that they make sure that they always lock their bedroom door, or don't touch the gun. And not to mention, I'm pretty sure that their are a lot of college students who are drinking in their dorm rooms. DO WE SERIOUSLY THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA??? COME ON!

M.

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 11:01 a.m.

Natalie - You aren't allowed to own a gun if you have any history mental health issues. You are screened. I would never use pepper spray or even a taser on an armed person; that's pretty much asking to be shot. Not every college student is going to run out and pick up a CCW permit. It just isn't that easy!!! The vast majority of those who would use this law already have a CCW and just aren't allowed to carry on their campus! Merkava - Thank you for your support of this legislation and your effort to clear up the misunderstandings and misinformation regarding the issue.

David Nielsen

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:58 a.m.

In the US per census bureau, 2008 18.4 million students 43% of whom are 21 or older = 7.912 million x.046% = 363,952 who could be CPL holders. Wisconsin Government study 2004 on self defense, 9 states reviewed, CPL holder license revoked.2% to 2% for ANY reason or.7% avg. We will use Colorado State University as an example 25,000 students x.43% = 10,750 old enough x.046% = 494 possible CPL holders x.007% possible CPL revocation = 3 possible people on campus who may get their license revoked for any reason. Percentage of violent crimes where guns used per FBI UCR databse in 2008 381,000. Number of firearms injuries related to violent crime approx 77,000 (FBI UCR & CDC databases). Violent crimes reported in 2008 1.368 mill so risk of CPL holder using a firearm illegaly 77,000/1,368,000 =.056%. Chances of CSU student being near 3 people 3/25,000 =.012%. Risk of firearm being used illegally by CPL holder against student at CSU.00012% x.056% =.00000672%. Wow, the sky is falling, the sky is falling at how risky this is. Of course there were 41,000 deaths and over 1.5 million injuries due to car accidents. Risk of being harmed by auto is 1,541,000/ 304,000,000 =.0051%. Take.0051% /.00000672% = 754 times more likely to be harmed by a car than a CPL holder. Wow such risky behaviour, cars should all be banned right? US Population 304 mill Conceled license holders 8 million 8 mill / 304 = 4.6% chance of being near a CPL holder

WRTurner

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:53 a.m.

I belive the statistics on concealed weapons carriers speak for themselves. In this state and across the country there is virtually no incidents of misuse or abuse by those individuals. In a related note, currently the UK is experiencing an increase in strong arm robberies where the criminal simply knocks on the door and when it is answered, force their way in, assault the home owners and make off with their belongings. It's a way to get around the house alarms, you see. Of course, the criminals in the UK know there's no one able to use deadly force on the other side of the door, unless you count kitchen knives or baseball bats (or whatever they use for Cricket over there). Crime is on the rise in that country and areas of our own country where there are laws limiting gun ownership. The bottom line here is when the criminals no they have nothing to fear from their potential victims, they will have their way.

baker437

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:53 a.m.

Guns are meant to kill, and nothing else. If you're that worried about your safety on campus, take self defense classes or own pepper spray and a legal taser gun. Taser are illegal for non-law enforcement to carry in MI along with things such as nightsticks. While O.C. spray (which has to be water down for civilian use in MI) is better than nothing it is still not nearly as good as a firearms in stopping a violent deadly conformation. Many people get sprayed can still continue to fight though it.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:40 a.m.

@Natalie How much do you really know about Oleoresin Capsicum (pepper spray)? Have you ever been sprayed with it? Have you ever been tazed? I've been tazed, and exposed to OC and CS gas They are no substitute for a firearm when it comes to stopping a threat to your life.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:36 a.m.

and what do gang members have to do with carry on campus? was there a study to determine how many of the weapons used in gang related shootings were legally purchased, registered and carried? I'll tell you that in Chicago it would be 0%, considering that normal citizens can't legally carry there

Natalie

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:36 a.m.

I am completely against this. Just because someone is certified to carry a gun, or can legally bear arms, that doesn't mean that they are mentally stable or in the proper mental condition to use their gun safely. There are plenty of people in this country who have legally been able to own a gun, and they have used it in the wrong way. There are things like pepper spray and legal forms of taser guns that the public can use, as opposed to something so deadly. Guns are meant to kill, and nothing else. If you're that worried about your safety on campus, take self defense classes or own pepper spray and a legal taser gun.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:33 a.m.

Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. It hasn't helped anyone has only put law abiding citizens at risk.

David Nielsen

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:31 a.m.

The USDOJ Gang Activity Report 2008 released on Jan 13 2009 identifies that over 1 million active gang members in the US are responsible for up to 80% of all violent crime in the US. Wow, there is a tangible thing that could be addressed; after all, what drives those 1 million plus gang members to violence? The largest portion of their activities is tied into the Illicit Drug market that supplies around 60-70% of their monies. Does mainly the cash available from illicit drug dales, yes or no, enable the root source of gangs power and ability to recruit new members? If you cut off this revenue source for the gangs, you would have a small or dramatic effect on how the gangs are able to recruit & grow their power base, yes or no? If you destroy a significant portion of a gangs powerbase, will this reduce the number of those followers who are not truly violent to begin with, but follow the group dynamics that membership in a gang culture promotes, yes or no? How is it that in multiple police studies, especially one performed in the early 1990s in Chicago identified that between 60-76% of all shooters and victims in the city of Chicago, were both involved in criminal activities at the time of the shooting? This result is closely repeated in multiple other small studies.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:31 a.m.

@ David Briegel "boot hill" Simply more ignorance. I'm no cowboy. I'm not walking around looking to blaze sixes at high noon with a guy in the black hat. The crux of your argument is that when you can carry it will the the OK Corral Well 40 States now have CPL laws and its just not happening. Much of the violence people would love to attribute to permissive gun laws probably have more to do with the slashing of police jobs and with the economic situation in general. No, I don't have stats to back this up, just my opinion.

David Nielsen

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:27 a.m.

Repeatedly, anti-gun lobbyists revive the tired slippery slope argument to promote what they claim are common sense gun laws, such as mandatory background checks. Of course, we see from the USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008 that of the 99 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, since 1994. We see 1.67 million valid rejections, a 68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons. We see that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted, or less than 1%. We of course see how the anti gun lobby claims such effectiveness of this pathetically useless law with the hard data they can present that the 1.66 million plus who werent prosecuted then did not go and buy from an unlicensed source. We also see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows. Then that 68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street buys at 90% in todays numbers. Amazing how ineffective that poster child of futility is and this trend is similar with ALL gun control laws. We are waiting to on your stunning expose on the massive legal system reform programs to eliminate all this inconsistency and liberal BS that allows convicted killers and career criminals, those responsible for 70-80% of all violent crime to go loose, again, and again.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:24 a.m.

@ Moose (sorry i guess i just can't keep quiet) " Just like anyone with criminal intent, give anyone a gun and they'll have the opportunity to use it, improperly, dangerously. All it takes is one crazy person who has a grudge against another student or a professor... This is just asking for trouble." CARRYING A WEAPON WITH CRIMINAL INTENT IS ALREADY A CRIME *hypothetically* If i have a grudge against a student or a professor, what's to stop me killing them with the laws as they stand right now? Oh i'm planning to kill them, but i cant because i can't legally carry my gun on campus. How does that make any sense? You allude to people showing off their guns, by ILLEGALLY brandishing. That doesn't make sense. It makes as much sense as the gunfights in bars argument. Carrying in a bar is illegal. The people who are stupid enough to do that, will do it whether they have a CPL or not.

Moose

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:15 a.m.

Allowing students to carry guns on campus is nuts. Before we know it, sidearms carried by students will be the next fad like ipods. If your buddy has a pistol, you'll want one too! Many students can hardly cross the street safely. Now you want to let them carry guns on campus. And carry, store and use them safely. Then once in hand, of course, they'll never bring them to the bar, or carry them while intoxicated. You have to be kidding. This is really asking a lot of immature adults who have a hard time parallel parking a car. How many people, even those over 21, even with training, can you expect to always to do the right thing? Then you want to let them carry a sidearm. Next time you see a bunch of students walking down the street, in a dorm room or at a sporting event. Just look and imagine. Do you really want them to be able to carry a weapon that in an unthinking minute, do something stupid with it, like pulling it out, showing it off? Just like anyone with criminal intent, give anyone a gun and they'll have the opportunity to use it, improperly, dangerously. All it takes is one crazy person who has a grudge against another student or a professor... This is just asking for trouble.

David Briegel

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:14 a.m.

Merkava, And which one of our cemeteries will we name "boot hill"?

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:11 a.m.

@Malorie I know, I already addressed that in an "correction" post to A2Voter, but thank you for pointing it out anyway. It was an oversight I shouldn't have made to begin with. Take Care :)

M.

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:11 a.m.

local guy - The law would allow only CCW permit holders to carry on campus, not everyone. You are right, nobody should have to worry about guns on campus. But to some extent, everyone needs to worry regardless of any legislation allowing CW's on campus. What is to stop someone from bringing a gun to class with the intent to kill? A law banning guns on campus? I seriously doubt it. Another student/teacher with a gun on the GOOD side of the law? More likely. I think most gun owners relate to the statement "I'd rather have one and not need to use it, than to not have one and need it."

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10:09 a.m.

@localguy "Except in extraordinary situations, I don't know why one needs to be packing a gun." Ordinary moments can turn into extrodinary situation in the blink of an eye. "Also, in a crisis, how will the cops know who's the good guy vs. the bad guy. " A concealed carry weapon should be used for the protection of one's own life. Someone with a CPL should not try to be a hero. Any good concealed carry course which are mandatory for licensing will cover those ethical issues. You should never interfere with the job of the police. You should never create negative officer-safety issues for law enforcement. Those who carry know they have to be extra accommodating and always "declare" to a LEO when interacting with them. "but do we need every Tom, Dick and Harry to be entrusted with making those judgments at the risk that so many more injuries and mistakes in judgment will occur? " Most everyone I personally know is not some bumbling Joe Blow of the street. Some of us have 3 combat deployments, all of us compete in tactical shooting events and all of us seek out regular training from respected instructors in addition to training we put in on our own time. Like I said, if you want to carry, I beleive it must be a lifestyle choice. It requires discipline. Everyone I know takes it very seriously, but I'm sure that has a fair amount to do with the company I keep. I've hogged enough AA.com bandwidth in the comment section. I'll bid you all adieu. Even tho I do not agree with all of you, I did consider all of your arguments carefully. I can only hope you will do the same with me. Peace to both sides of the isle and those in the middle, Merkava

Umich2008

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 10 a.m.

"Right. And this happens practically every day. Or is it that one time in Virginia. And when else, exactly? Why is the only people who feel we need guns everywhere are people who have guns? The rest of us are just afraid." are you kidding me? Being prepared for the one day that hell breaks loose is the point? Not that it doesn't happen every day. Riots dont happen every day in a city, but the city doesn't disban the riot police? You got to be kidding. Ever hear of prevention. Jon, you of all people should know what appeasement brings. Hitler went after the guns before he murdered millions. Sound familar?

M.

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:57 a.m.

Merkava, the headline does say "classrooms, dormitories". I do support carrying on campus. The comments on this post are showing me how much misinformation and ignorance is out there. Gun ownership IS a serious choice that is taken seriously. To go even further and get your CCW permit only proves more dedication and commitment. CCW permits require you take classes and pass tests which usually costs a few hundred dollars. As of right now, the only people taking guns onto campusses are the people with bad intentions. If you don't care about the law banning murder, then you don't care about a law banning guns on campus. Gun ownership is not for everyone, but I'd like to give responsible gun owners the right to defend themselves and their classmates.

TXteacher

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:56 a.m.

Countries with strict handgun laws have fewer guns deaths per capita. Period.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:55 a.m.

@A2Voter my apologies, i was wrong about Dorms. that is on the table. mea culpa

local guy

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:48 a.m.

We're not living in the wild west, and thinking that restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment is absurd. Colleges and universities should be able to control what occurs on their grounds in the interest of public safety. Their judgment that weapons should be kept out of dorms and elsewhere should be respected. The 2nd Amendment is in place to protect us from government takeovers, not to carry guns whereever we feel like. We have (or should have) the right to say no guns in our homes, or restaurants or businesses, and colleges should be able to say no guns on campus. We don't want to make it easy for stressed out students and others, in a moment of weakness, use their guns unwisely, or to have their guns accessible to others who may use them unwisely. We should not have to distract ourselves as educators to worry that everyone is being a responsible gun-owner/carrier. The presumption should be that we should not have to worry about guns in our work places, etc., and campuses should be able to regulate their own grounds. I also believe the Legislature can also state the policy that guns should not be on campus. Yes, some lives may be protected, but do we need every Tom, Dick and Harry to be entrusted with making those judgments at the risk that so many more injuries and mistakes in judgment will occur? Also, in a crisis, how will the cops know who's the good guy vs. the bad guy. Except in extraordinary situations, I don't know why one needs to be packing a gun.... It is moments like this that I'm glad we have a divided dysfunctional legislature. Hopefully their dysfunction will assure defeat of this law.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:43 a.m.

@ A2Voter PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THE LAW "Wow. I support our right to bear arms, but NOT when it's hundreds of Freshmen who might be the bearers! " Freshmen are generally 18 or 19. This law only applies to those 21+ "I sure don't want to be near the campus bars for the next fist fight or when Michigan finally beats OSU at home." YOU CANNOT CARRY TO SPORTING EVENTS, YOU CANNOT CARRY IN BARS, YO CANNOT CARRY WHILE INTOXICATED. "Some students can't even keep their backpack or ipod from being stolen because they forget to lock the door to their rooms or they walk away from their bag at the library; how can I be sure my child's hall mate will care enough to keep his gun from being taken?" Carrying a weapon is not something taken lightly. You must make it a lifestyle choice. You must train. You must use retention holsters so that your weapon cannot be snatched away from you. You must store using safes. Nobody is talking about guns in dorm rooms. We are talking about CLASSROOMS. What about commuter students? Graduate and post-grad students? What about educators themselves who would like to exercise their right to carry?

A2voter

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:36 a.m.

Wow. I support our right to bear arms, but NOT when it's hundreds of Freshmen who might be the bearers! I suppose it would certainly make a child's elementary shool field trip to the museum, or the Hash Bash, or football games more interesting. Some students can't even keep their backpack or ipod from being stolen because they forget to lock the door to their rooms or they walk away from their bag at the library; how can I be sure my child's hall mate will care enough to keep his gun from being taken? What about when classes are over for the day?? If this bill passes, does that mean that the students that are allowed to carry in the classrooms will just bring those weapons home at night to their dorm rooms? Will they have a place to lock the weapons up at night, or will they just leave them on the dresser in their dorm room and later leave the door unlocked when they go down the hall to visit some of the hundreds of other kids that reside in the same building? This has potential for disaster written all over it, and somebody, somewhere, will most certainly hold the University, The State of Michigan, and Rep. Sheltrown responsible when that disaster does happen. I sure don't want to be near the campus bars for the next fist fight or when Michigan finally beats OSU at home.

Truthisfree

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:35 a.m.

@Technojunkie, The incident highlighted in an earlier post happened in A2 so, why the Ypsi reference and the EMU reference. In case people didn't know Ypsilanti is a suburb and not the wild wild west. There are cities that actually have a lot more crime and if you check the stats, A2 is not that far from Ypsilanti with crimes. For pro-gun folks, a college student that gets drunk and does crazy things has been "accepted" -- add a gun and things can escalate to tragic levels when disputes occur or just goofing off. Imagine a drunken dare with drunk college students carrying firearms. There is not a reason for this legislation. Michigan has more serious issues to address than writing legislation about carrying guns.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:35 a.m.

@48104 (great zipcode /vusermane by the way) We're talking about classrooms here specifically. How many fistfights between MSU football players break out in classrooms every year? has that ever even happened? There's a lot of wild speculation, nebulous arguments and opinion stated as fact going on here. I have to be intellectually honest, yes I have an agenda, I believe in this legislation...but I'm at least trying to be reasonable and fair with my arguments.

An

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:31 a.m.

Maybe I should quit school. I really don't want to get shot trying to improve my situation through education. LOVELY.

48104

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:29 a.m.

Terrific. So every fist-fight over a girl amongst Michigan State football players can become the shootout at the OK Corral. Awesome idea.

A2K

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:26 a.m.

First of all we're a liberal, pro-choice, pro-Obama household...but we also support 2nd amendment rights...so stop with the "Evil Liberals" will ya? How many students are going to run out, sign up for a CCP/CCW course, Pay $300+ for the class, spend the necessary hours at the class, take the tests, then apply for the permit, wait for the paperwork to process, go to City Hall, get more signatures, then spend $500-$1200 for a decent pistol and holster, then get the pistol registered and more paperwork and fees. All of them? Some of them? No, very, very few will bother, I assure you...they're too busy studying, partying, working etc. Hardly a raging threat. CCP/CCW has been legal in Michigan for quite some time but the populace is hardly "saturated" with weapons. A tempest in a teacup if you ask me. Granted, most people need to spend more time practicing/going to the range so that in the highly-unlikely event they need to use their firearm, they know what they are doing.

Technojunkie

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:16 a.m.

If you venture just off EMU's campus, I should think that being armed would be a very good idea. Some of Ypsi's more interesting residents would visit the COB parking structure from time to time, leading to the usual "be careful" mass e-mails to students. Throwing a few CCW holders into the EMU student and staff mix would be helpful. As Michigan's economy continues to collapse and budget cuts decimate police ranks, large numbers of guaranteed to be unarmed students will become increasingly tempting targets. Besides, it's not like that many students will have both the ambition to acquire CCW licenses and have the money to buy a gun and ammunition after paying tuition.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:10 a.m.

@ A2Reality I've had heated debates with people while I was carrying concealed. You think people will start shooting each other over heated lecture discussions? I don't see you point at all. I've had heated discussions with friends of mine, when they were armed and I wasn't. I was never in fear of my life. Are you scared to have a heated debate with your wife in the kitchen if there's a block full of chef's knives right there?

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:04 a.m.

@ You must be 21 to buy a handgun or have a concealed carry permit. And so what if they're 21? I've been shooting since I was 6 years old. I'm 32 now. I've introduced children, men, women from all walks of life to shooting sports. I'm not sure why some liberals are so dogmatic when it comes to firearms and why they feel the need to demonize inanimate objects the people who use them responsibly in accordance with the laws of this nation and state.

TripleVSix

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 9:03 a.m.

@A2Reality - unless the professors plan on physically attacking the students, they have nothing to fear.

A2Realilty

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:57 a.m.

I can only imagine how comfortable it will be for a professor to teach a group of 150 students knowing that several of them are carrying concealed weapons. Nothing opens up free and heated debates like 20-year-olds with concealed weapons.

voiceofreason

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:48 a.m.

I am amazed how much support there is for the political process, but only when rights are being taken away. People in Ann Arbor would never do a silly thing such as giving people the right to choose, would they?

TripleVSix

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:39 a.m.

@jon - OK, so in a car, then, and right here in Ann Arbor. http://www.annarbor.com/news/pittsfield-township-police-say-evidence-points-to-self-defense-man-who-was-shot-was-armed/

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:36 a.m.

@ Jon "This initiative is a waste of time - how about spending time working on really important issues facing the state." I can respect your point of view. Hopefully you will hold the same opinion when a piece of anti-gun legislation is on the table.

TripleVSix

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:31 a.m.

I've never been able to get an answer out of the anti-gun people as to what is so special about a college campus that when you step on to it you lose your right to defend yourself.

Jon Saalberg

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:28 a.m.

You might have a different point of view if you were trapped inside a building with an active-shooter situation and the campus police and and security personnel you mentioned are busy securing the perimeter.Right. And this happens practically every day. Or is it that one time in Virginia. And when else, exactly? Why is the only people who feel we need guns everywhere are people who have guns? The rest of us are just afraid.This initiative is a waste of time - how about spending time working on really important issues facing the state.

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:27 a.m.

At any rate, if you wanna come for my nomenclature blunders you will have to pry them from my cold dead keyboard.

bedrog

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:26 a.m.

ive always been an adamant gun control advocate and until recently would have gagged at the notion of guns on campuses...but after ft hood ( which involved a freakin" SHRINK" with an agenda)im not so sure anymore. There are some in ann arbor whose agendas are exactly those of dr.hassan--whose "mental stability" was not an issue until after the fact. if these people ever decide to "go ft.hood" i hope someone in the vicinity IS "packin". i feel "mugged by reality" on this issue i guess

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:22 a.m.

"At least get the nomenclature correct. That "hole in the end of the gun" is called a muzzle." Thanks for the correction. The problem is, my post was supposed to be a joke of sorts. Often correct nomenclature can conflict with the attempt at humor.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 8:05 a.m.

@ Craig "I should also like to point out that guns don't kill people, the bullet that come out of that hole in the end of the gun does." At least get the nomenclature correct. That "hole in the end of the gun" is called a muzzle. Sorry, but your comment reminded me of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of NY. She had an anti-2nd Amendment House Resolution in committee (HR1022). The interviewer was asking her about her own legislation and why "barrel shrouds" were considered an assault weapon feature. He asked what's wrong with barrel shrouds, in fact what IS a barrel shroud? Her response: "the shoulder thing that goes up". Sorry but that is incorrect. If you are involved in legislating something, you should at least know what you're talking about. Sadly too many anti-gun activists and politicians for their opinions based on emotion and not reason and certainly not on The Constitution.

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 7:56 a.m.

I should also like to point out that guns don't kill people, the bullet that come out of that hole in the end of the gun does.

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 7:52 a.m.

while we are at it, I think they should put a loaded gun up where the oxygen masks are in airplanes. That way if there is a disturbance in the cabin all the pilot has to do is flip a switch to deputize all the passengers. What could possibly go wrong?

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 7:24 a.m.

Dave, We can agree to disagree. On polarizing issues, sometimes people can't come to an agreement. I hope we can find common ground that when it comes to firearms, always exercise utmost care when it comes to gun safety and storage. Good day to you.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 7:20 a.m.

A2Dave "Making it up doesn't make you right, you know." I'm not making anything up. The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high, and rises by about 4.5 million per year.1 Below, statistics from 1981 forward are from the National Center for Health Statistics; those prior to 1981 are from the National Safety Council.2 NCHS annual numbers, rates, and trends of common accidents and selected other causes of death, for the U.S., each state, and the District of Columbia, are available on the NRA-ILA website in spreadsheet format.3 The firearm accident death rate is at an all-time annual low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94% since the all-time high in 1904. Since 1930, the annual number of such deaths has decreased 80%, to an all-time low, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 90% since 1975. Today, the odds are more than a million to one, against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident.

ypsimom

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 7:12 a.m.

With all the issues facing our state, especially in the area of education, I can't believe this is what our legislature wants to spend their time on. Seriously? This is a real problem that college students have to leave their guns at home? How about coming up with a solid plan to reform education funding, or ideas on how to improve our 15% unemployment rate. Come on!

A2Dave

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 7:03 a.m.

Merkava-- As a Vietnam war vet (not era--war), if I offended you, so be it. Your claims about the UK are unsupported by the data--but that has never stopped the NRA. Look at the data on US handgun deaths--the vast majority of which are not caused by "gun-totin' criminals", but by other law abiding citizens, usually in their own homes. Making it up doesn't make you right, you know.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 6:59 a.m.

@zollar "I say leave the gun carrying to campus police or trained security personal." You might have a different point of view if you were trapped inside a building with an active-shooter situation and the campus police and and security personnel you mentioned are busy securing the perimeter. Law enforcement officers ENFORCE THE LAW. The police are not there to be your personal bodyguard detail. Not only that, more and more police officers are losing their jobs in the current economic climate. If you expect police or campus security to be able to neutralize an active shooter scenario before a bunch of innocent lives are lost, that is just not a realistic evaluation of their capabilities.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 6:52 a.m.

A2Dave, I find your comment to be quite bigoted and needlessly pejorative in tone. The near elimination of firearm ownership in the UK and its severe restriction in countries like Australia has done nothing to curb gun violence. In fact, in the UK it caused gun violence to increase. If you want to pass restrictive gun laws, that will not stop the criminals from possessing and carrying gun. You're use of the word "packin'" with a dropped "g" as well as your your reference to those who support 2nd Amendments rights as being inmates in an insane asylum are patently offensive. Its always those who know the least about firearms and the laws governing them who are the first to decry their employment. I am former military. I have a CPL and I've carried a handgun concealed, every day for the past 5 years. I'm currently looking at graduate schools. What makes a classroom so different from all the other places in which I carry a firearm? People probably walk past you armed every day and you are none the wiser. Here's a surprise, they might look and sound just like you, with a similar educational and cultural background.

zollar

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 6:46 a.m.

"To obtain a concealed weapons permit a person must have a clean bill of mental health"........ well folks, peoples mental health changes thr-out their lives. I say leave the gun carrying to campus police or trained security personal.

Merkava

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 6:39 a.m.

Those who are intent on commiting murder and mass-murder, couldn't care less about firearms laws. "Pistol Free Zones" are nothing but "Defenseless Victim Zones". Police standard operating procedure is to cordon off an area and wait for tactical teams. Usually by the time they make entry, the massacre is already over. Allowing law abiding adults who already hold concealed pistol licenses to carry when they attend class is logical. The deterrent factor alone could stop a future tragedy like the VA Tech murder spree from occurring. Thank you Ms. Keeping for the thoughtful article.

A2Dave

Mon, Dec 21, 2009 : 6:26 a.m.

The inmates are taking over the asylum, and they're packin'. The solution to gun violence is--surprise! More guns. Addled by 31 deaths at VaTech but enured to the thousands who die by guns every year in America.