Friday open thread

.....Advertisement.....

« Yikes, that's hot! | Friday's letters to the editor »

2009.06.05

Hey, man, I'm alive; I'm takin' each day and night at a time
Yeah, I'm down, but I know I'll get by
Hey hey hey hey, man, gotta live my life
Like I ain't got nothin' but this roll of the dice
I'm feelin' like a Monday, but someday I'll be Saturday night

What are you feeling like today?

Posted at 08:45 by The Roanoke Times Editorial Board | Category: Open threads | 156 Comments

156 Comments »

Report today says unemployment has reached 9.4%, the highest in 25 years!

We have almost reached the first leg of the Jimmy Carter Tripple Crown of Misery, that is double digit unemployment, inflation, and interest rates.

I think Obama can do it!

Comment by John R — June 5, 2009 @ 9:06 am
John R - Most of those unemployed lost their jobs under George W. so make sure you give credit where credit is due.

Comment by Greg — June 5, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Interest rates are at a record low. I'd say we're pretty far from that "triple crown".

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Red letter day for the gun guys, Tennessee says OK to carry in bars and a Kentucky pastor invites them to carry in church and offers a handgun raffle!

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 10:28 am
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp

According to this grid, inflation right now is also dramatically lower than it was under Bush.

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 10:29 am
John R...

You know the best thing about President Obama?

Well, I'll tell you... it took a Jimmy Carter to get a Ronald Reagan.

Comment by Jack — June 5, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Greg

Nice try but not true. Those are Obama's numbers. Check out 2001-2007 and see what unemployment did.

Comment by Henry — June 5, 2009 @ 10:30 am
"Red letter day for the gun guys, Tennessee says OK to carry in bars and a Kentucky pastor invites them to carry in church and offers a handgun raffle!"

Thomas Malthus at work. Certain populations tend to be self-culling.

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Didn't we already cover how Clinton cut Bush1's unemployment rate in half, and how Bush2 doubled Clinton's unemployment rate?

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

1993 - Clinton takes office - 7% unemployment rate!

2001 - Clinton leaves office...4.3% unemployment rate!

2009 - Bush leaves office ...8.5% unemployment rate! (ooops)

I guess it never gets old.

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Stands to reason. It took a Bush to get an Obama!

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 10:44 am
I suppose you could think that the Bush Depression would not cause continued job loss. You'd be delusional, but you could think it. Remember to come back to us when those numbers start going back up.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Henry it is true. I don't remember anyone resetting unemployment to 0% when Obama took office. All the people who lost jobs under Bush didn't magically get jobs again and then lose them. The current unemployment rate had a huge jump start thanks to Bush. Personally, I don't think you can blame the unemployment rate on any one person including the President but since everyone here wants to blame Obama for the current rate they need to look at the hand he was dealt back in January.

Comment by Greg — June 5, 2009 @ 10:51 am
During the campaign last year, the economy was the worst since the Great Depresion! Now the ecomomy is rosey.

Why all those millions of unemployed people are enjoying their time off from work and spending more time with their families!

The dollar is falling in value, the housing, auto, banking, etc. industries are in the tank, the deficit is the highest in the history of the Republic and the gov. has presses running 24/7 printing money...

Reminds me of that old saw about the man who jumped off the top of a 10 story building and someone (probably a liberal)looking out a 5th story window and later saying: "I don't know what killed him! He looked alright when he went by here!"

Comment by John R — June 5, 2009 @ 10:58 am
Stands to reason. It took a Bush to get an Obama!

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 10:44 am

Pretty funny Sandi. The US electing a democrat named Barack Hussein Obama, whose name is so referential of Bush's 2 biggest boogiemen, could not possibly be any more of a repudiation of the Bush era. The only bigger slap in the GOP face would have been electing Bin Laden himself.

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 11:04 am
@ Kristen # 9.

"Didn't we already cover how Clinton cut Bush1's unemployment rate in half, and how Bush2 doubled Clinton's unemployment rate?

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

1993 - Clinton takes office - 7% unemployment rate!

2001 - Clinton leaves office...4.3% unemployment rate!

2009 - Bush leaves office ...8.5% unemployment rate! (ooops)

I guess it never gets old."

Great link.

Couldn't one also view the numbers as:

- Jan., 1995 Republicans gain control of congress - Unemployment at 5.6%

- Jan., 2007 Republicans lose control of congress - Unemployment down to 4.6%

- Today, with Democrats in control of congress for 2+ years - Unemployment up to 9.4%

I don't think either argument is valid, but it's hard to say that only one could be without linking the other.

Comment by Mike W. — June 5, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Just heard today that Morgan Stanley is repaying their TARP money in August. They got $10 Billion and are repaying $10.5 Billion. Not a bad short term investment getting $500 million.

Comment by Will — June 5, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Good news Will.

Let me be the first to blame Obama.

Comment by Blue John — June 5, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
@Kristen: "The only bigger slap in the GOP face would have been electing Bin Laden himself."

At least you are admitting that there isn't much worse than Obama.

Comment by Jack — June 5, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Sandi and Kristen: It's legal to carry guns in bars here, too.

Comment by Patrick — June 5, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Yes Patrick, I know. Isn't it exciting to be on par with TN and KY now? How about in our BFF, West Virginia? Life is good.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
It'll be even better when people can carry concealed in bars.

Comment by Patrick — June 5, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
@Kristen: "The only bigger slap in the GOP face would have been electing Bin Laden himself."

"At least you are admitting that there isn't much worse than Obama."

Oh I think they're all worse than Obama. I just can't name any bigger anti-GOP and anti-Bush-era vote than Obama

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Sandi and Kristen: It's legal to carry guns in bars here, too.

Comment by Patrick — June 5, 2009 @ 1:05 pm

Yet another good reason to drink at home. No smoking AND no guns!

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
I saw on the news last evening where the governor of South Carolina signed into law making it legal to carry loaded guns to school in that state.

I still think we all should strap on a side arm just like in the old west days. Vigilante justice and the whole routine.

Comment by Will — June 5, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Will, I think that yes, we will eventually have to.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
South Carolina schools are perennially in the bottom 3 in the country. I wonder how the governor thinks guns are going to help that.

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Kristen: "Yet another good reason to drink at home. No smoking AND no guns!"

Have you ever been shot at while you were dining in a restaurant? We're not just talking about bars, as Virginia doesn't technically have any. We're talking about restaurants.

Comment by Jack — June 5, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
@Will: "I saw on the news last evening where the governor of South Carolina signed into law making it legal to carry loaded guns to school in that state."

Utah has had this law on the books for quite some time now. Anyone (including teachers while teaching) with a concealed handgun permit can carry into a school.

Comment by Jack — June 5, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
@Kristen: "South Carolina schools are perennially in the bottom 3 in the country. I wonder how the governor thinks guns are going to help that."

I don't think it was meant as an educational benefit.

@Sandi: "Will, I think that yes, we will eventually have to."

Currently you have more than 125,000 issues CHPs in Virginia. Something tells me that if you multiply that by ten, you still won't have to carry a gun to defend yourself from a CHP holder.

Comment by Jack — June 5, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
Good point Jack. What sort of benefit WAS it intended to be?

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
According to this, the guns have to stay in the car in SC.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/03/sanford-priorities-guns/

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Excuse me, Jack. I know you love your gun statistics and your guns but where exactly do you get the idea that I (or any one else) thinks we might need "to carry a gun to defend yourself from a CHP holder".

Not thinking people should just walk around armed for no reason is not the same as thinking you are in danger from them and I do not appreciate the inference.

As more people become armed, more people will feel the need to become armed. Since I was threatened with a mad "God will deal with you" threat over the phone just yesterday, I do not think I am wrong to think guns are not the solution.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Sandi the only answer to a comment like that is..."Eventually God is going to deal with all of us".

Comment by Kristen — June 5, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Jack...

Re your post#28...Yippee for Utah. I don't particularly care for it anymore there than I do South Carolina or any other state for that matter.

They weren't allowed when I was in school (and granted, that was 40+ years ago) and I can't see the reasoning for it today.

Comment by Will — June 5, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Terror Mosque in Ohio

Nuradin Abdi was convicted in 2007 of planning to blow up an Ohio shopping mall.
Iyman Faris was convicted in 2003 of planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.
Christopher Paul was convicted in 2008 of conspiring to use explosives against targets in the U.S. and Europe.
All three terrorists worshiped and socialized at a small mosque in Columbus, Ohio, and, according to David B. Smith, an attorney for Faris, were part of a larger group of jihadists and extremists who frequented the mosque.
The FBI now is investigating reports of links to that same mosque by Muslim-convert Abdulhakim Muhammad who allegedly shot and killed one soldier Monday and critically wounded another in a drive-by attack on a Little Rock, Ark., recruiting station, ABC News has learned.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/comments?type=story&id=7758485

Comment by Henry — June 5, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Yeah well the righteous soldier for God hung up on me after he delivered my warning.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
I like the saying from Mohandas Ghandi (I think he said this, I've seen it written before, so I can only assume he did). 'I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.' Times like what Sandi mentioned (which I've my fair share of likewise), make me think of that.

Comment by Other John — June 5, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
White House Strategy on Sotomayer Superiority Question takes a beating

The "It was a poor choice of words" strategy falls apart under the evidence that she repeated the terms about her racial and gender superiority over and over. This was not a slip of the tongue. She really meant it.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/legal_beat/2009/06/sotomayor-repeatedly-reference.html

Comment by Henry — June 5, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
"I like your Ghandi. I do not like your Hindus. Your Hindus are so unlike your Ghandi. "

Comment by Henry — June 5, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
I am sure the wise white guys think their decisions are pretty hot too. The way they all scream "reverse discrimination" and "racist" whenever anyone else references their own cultural identity you gotta think they feel neglected and abused by those wise latinas.

At least she didn't cut and paste to make it sound worse than it is:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906040053

"Sean Hannity edited a clip of President Obama's speech in Cairo to claim that Obama "decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage." In fact, the context of Obama's words makes clear that Obama was condemning those who would "justify the events of 9-11."

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Sandi, do you think people walk around armed for no reason?

Comment by Patrick — June 5, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Patrick, yes.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Sandi, thank you for being honest.

Comment by Patrick — June 5, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
I thought thats what women carried purses for, to hold a pistol and a pint of whiskey

Comment by wayne p — June 5, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Patrick, do not mistake my answer to mean that I do not know that there are people who are in fear for their life and may have good reason to carry a gun. If I am going to believe we have a great country full of hope, opportunity and goodness, I cannot believe that people need to walk around the mall or the park armed. If I am wrong and the need is real, then we should all do it and be done with the debate.

I don't carry a pint of anything but Dr. Pepper and so far it does not have to be concealed.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 5, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
I'm not afraid of the people who have a concealed gun and has a conceal carry permit, I'm afraid of the people who have a concealed gun and don't have a permit. The problem is, it's darned hard to tell who's who.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 5, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Rob..the one without the permit is wearing a down-filled Oakland Raider jacket and it's over 70 degrees outside.

Comment by BUD — June 6, 2009 @ 7:36 am
What are the standards for getting a concealed carry permit. Does anyone do a backround check or get a psych history?

Comment by Kristen — June 6, 2009 @ 8:47 am
@Kristen: "Good point Jack. What sort of benefit WAS it intended to be?"

Safety, I'm sure.

My mother is a teacher. Their plan, should a gunman come into the school, is to hide under the desks.

It would be much nicer if someone who had been through a background check and was qualified could be allowed to protect themselves and those children if they wanted to.

That is why we see so many shootings and violent crimes in schools, because the shooter knows that the victims will be unable to fight back.

Let's say that only 1% of the teachers decide they want to carry. That works, too, because the gunman doesn't know that. As far as he knows, they could all be armed.

Also, there is no reason why I should have to disarm myself to go see my son at school for lunch, or an after school activity, or just to pick him up.

Comment by Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 9:04 am
@Kristen: "According to this, the guns have to stay in the car in SC."

That is the way it is in Virginia, too. I didn't read the article you linked to, but in Virginia they must stay in the car, stay concealed, and the person must also stay in the car.

So, for example, if I had a gun under my seat in my car, I can pull up to the school to pick up/drop off my child. However, if I get out of the car (leaving the gun in the car, under the seat) I have committed a felony.

I disagree with that and believe that you should be able to get out of the car and leave it. Suppose I pulled up to drop my son off and the teacher was standing there and asked me to come inside and speak with her for a moment. I should be able to park the car and do that.

Comment by Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 9:06 am
@Sandi: "Excuse me, Jack. I know you love your gun statistics and your guns but where exactly do you get the idea that I (or any one else) thinks we might need "to carry a gun to defend yourself from a CHP holder"."

Laws are being passed to allow CHP holders to carry in more places. Will suggested that you guys (as we, CHP holders, are already carrying a gun) would need to strap on your own guns like the wild west. You agreed with him.

@Will: "I still think we all should strap on a side arm just like in the old west days. Vigilante justice and the whole routine."

@Sandi: "Will, I think that yes, we will eventually have to."

As these laws that are being passed to not affect whether criminals are carrying guns or not, only law-abiding CHP holders, then I am not sure that I understand your logic.

Comment by Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 9:09 am
@Will: "They weren't allowed when I was in school (and granted, that was 40+ years ago) and I can't see the reasoning for it today."

Had you been a student at any of these schools, you might feel a little bit differently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Notable_school_attacks

Comment by Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 9:13 am
@Sandi: "Patrick, do not mistake my answer to mean that I do not know that there are people who are in fear for their life and may have good reason to carry a gun."

Patrick,

What Sandi is trying to say is that if someone overtly threatens your life, MAYBE you should be allowed to defend yourself.

However, if you are the victim of a crime without any warning whatsoever, then you had no reason to need to defend yourself and therefore should not have a gun.

Being that crimes are not random, and the victims know several days ahead of time that they will be raped, murdered, carjacked, have their homes invaded, etc. then they should have plenty of time to prepare once they know the threat is verifiable.

Comment by Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 9:18 am
@Sandi: "If I am wrong and the need is real, then we should all do it and be done with the debate."

It should be up to the individual, as it is now.

Some of us feel the need to carry vision insurance, others do not. Some of us feel the need to carry dental insurance, others do not. I may possibly have a larger life insurance policy than you, maybe not. I have AAA, maybe you don't. But it's not because I know my tire is going to blow on the interstate today.. but it might.

Some people have their basements stocked with supplies for the apocalypse... I don't, but I wish they would tell me if they know something I don't.

My point is, that just because someone is allowed to do something, and feels like doing it, doesn't mean that we all have to.

Comment by Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 9:24 am
I don't feel the problem isn't enough guns.
I think it's too many.

Comment by Kristen — June 6, 2009 @ 11:40 am
@Kristen: "What are the standards for getting a concealed carry permit. Does anyone do a backround check or get a psych history?"

Psych history, no. However, there are questions on the forms to purchase a gun, etc, for that type of thing.

As far as the CHP goes... You complete a form and take it to the clerk of court for the city or county where you reside. My first permit was in Roanoke City, and then I moved to the county only a couple of weeks after I got it.. so I renewed in Roanoke County.

You'll turn in the form and a criminal background check will be performed by, I believe, the FBI. Once that has been completed, a judge will sign a document indicating that you have been granted or denied your permit.

I believe if you are denied you can appeal it in court.

They have 45 days to complete the process. If after 45 days it has not been completed, they are obligated to give you a temporary permit. The cost to you is not to exceed $50, and I believe every jurisdiction charges the entire amount. In fact, Roanoke City charged me $52, which is a violation of the law, but I didn't feel like complaining about it. They said it was a "copy fee", but the $50 is supposed to cover all of their costs.

My renewal didn't take nearly the entire time. About ten days.

You also have to submit documentation indicating that you have had training. Any NRA approved course will work, as well as discharge papers from active duty military. For a renewal, your previous permit is proof that you have had training.

All of the information on the permits, including the application, can be found here: http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_ResidentConcealed.shtm

Comment by Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
@Rob Miles: "The problem is, it's darned hard to tell who's who."

Thankfully, it's not your responsibility to tell who is who.

Comment by Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Jack,

We should just shoot them all and let God sort them out?

Comment by Ed H — June 6, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
What Jack is trying to say (since we get to interpret for each other) is that he and he alone is correct on this issue and evidence, common sense, belief in a law abiding community and having enough respect for my fellow citizens to believe that we are as safe at the mall, the movies, work or school in the valley as in your own home is a naive and childish belief that I am not entitled to without retribution from the guy who knows it all.

I understand that there are people who believe that they should be able to carry a gun anywhere anytime for no reason other than 'they want to'. I do not think that is the kind of society we want nor the kind of society we have. If it is the reality, then please, let's fire the police departments and save all that money and let us all be on our own again. As many have said, they are not there when needed and they are not there for our protection. We did it before and we can do it again. If citizens are armed, they can make the arrests, stop the crime, and save the day and the taxpayers will be saving money too. If it really is "every man for himself" then let's say so and get on with it.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 6, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
ok Jack thanks for the info.

Comment by Kristen — June 6, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Sandi, maybe I'm reading your words wrong but it seems like you're taking an awfully extreme black or white view of this issue. It really stands out because that's really not like you.

I waver back and forth on whether I want to get a CHP; I know I'm qualified, and I always shot expert when I was in the military on both rifles and handguns. Whether I ever do it or not (the biggest thing is the expense of buying a handgun and whatever rig I would need for carrying it), I'm glad that it is a right that people have.

I understand your concerns, and I share them, about people possibly having weapons in a public place. But as Jack points out, whether qualified people are allowed to carry concealed weapons or not (or even unconcealed weapons) will have no impact on criminal minded people who will carry them regardless. Knowing that anywhere I go there is potentially some psycho with a gun who might open fire (unlikely, but not as unlikely as we would like to believe), I take some comfort in the knowledge that some responsible, licensed person there might be able to protect me and my family (as well as everyone else.)

I'm not naive enough to think all permit holders are expert marksmen who will remain calm enough under pressure to handle the situation. I can't even say for certain that I would be (though I think I have a pretty good foundation for it). And I don't for a minute believe that CHP holders should replace the police force (nor do I think Jack believes that) or that it's "every one for themselves". But the police can't be everywhere, and evidence and common sense tells us that we aren't always safe even in our own homes, much less anywhere we go in public.

I also believe that malls, schools, theaters, etc. have the right to ban guns being brought into their places of business if they choose. But they darned sure better have some plan to handle a situation if it comes up, and be able to take a shooter out, as unlikely as that occurrence might be here in the Roanoke Valley.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 6, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
@Sandi: "let's fire the police departments and save all that money and let us all be on our own again."

Let's. According to the Supreme Court on multiple occasions, the police are not responsible for your safety. You are responsible for your own safety. They provide a service to the community, not to you. Refer to Warren v. District of Columbia.

How many lives did the police save at Columbine? Virginia Tech? I could go on and on. And the beautiful part about those two incidents? The police where THERE! They were on the scene and saved just as many lives as they would have at the donut shop.

"If citizens are armed, they can make the arrests, stop the crime, and save the day and the taxpayers will be saving money too."

I'm armed. I don't make arrests. Not my job.

"he and he alone is correct on this issue and evidence, common sense, belief in a law abiding community and having enough respect for my fellow citizens to believe that we are as safe at the mall, the movies, work or school in the valley as in your own home is a naive and childish belief that I am not entitled to without retribution from the guy who knows it all."

You are welcome to believe that, Sandi. I just shouldn't have to. If you feel that you are as safe at Valley View Mall as you are at home, that is fantastic. Thankfully they have big strong minimum-wage paid security guards at Valley View Mall who would put their life on the line for you if you became the victim of a crime. Fortunately, that wouldn't happen, though, because you would have found out about it a week in advance and avoided the mall anyways.

Of course, Valley View Mall is a self-imposed weapon-free zone. So I'm sure you do feel safe there. Oh, wait, my bad. Their rule is not enforceable as implemented. Shhh.. don't tell them, though.

Comment by Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
When just about anybody can get a gun legally, the only thing you can do about them committing a crime is to wait until they do and then arrest them. Fat lot of good that does their victims.

If carrying a gun is itself illegal, they can be arrested for that and prevented from shooting anybody.

Comment by Ed H — June 6, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
@Ed H: "If carrying a gun is itself illegal, they can be arrested for that and prevented from shooting anybody."

It was illegal for those two Columbine kids to possess guns. Why did the police not arrest them before they committed the crime that morning?

Comment by Jack — June 6, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
The warm and fuzzy news clip of the good Muslim from Pakistan convenience store owner having the robber on his knees facing Mecca at gunpoint then giving him some bread and milk for his family might have turned out differently if the store owner had not had the AK 47 under the counter

Comment by wayne p. — June 6, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Maybe I am too creeped out about armed citizens Rob. You might have a point, it's just that I know or have run up on so many nut jobs and ignorant cracker type people who could easily qualify for a CHP and yet should never be allowed anywhere near a gun. The guy who promised "God would deal with me" might well come and find me with a perfectly legally owned gun, and I am sorry but you are just as dead from a legally owned gun as an illegally owned gun if you are shot. Some of the people I have heard from on here seem exceptionally angry and judgmental and adding a gun to that scares me. I respect the right to own and carry a gun like I respect the right to free speech, but both can and do go to far. Maybe this is simply my problem, Lord knows I have plenty of those. I know CHP people feel they are special and safe, I just do not trust that they are. Seems to me they think all Liberals are whacked, all news is biased, all politicians are crooked and all gun owners are good and I just can't reconcile that judgment. If carrying guns helps people feel better about life, who am I to say they should not.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 6, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Ed H. and Sandi: I understand your concerns, I really do. But unless you can make all firearms disappear overnight, you'll never convince me that it's safer to have a society in which criminals WILL have guns, and the average, upstanding citizen cannot. I'm not saying that CHPs are fraught with potential problems, I just see those problems as being the lesser of two evils.

Even if you can make all firearms magically disappear, that doesn't really solve the overall problem. You just make it a matter of who has the biggest stick (and you might get a chuckle out of that if you watched a recent South Park episode.)

Comment by Rob Miles — June 7, 2009 @ 9:08 am
Sandi,

"Seems to me they think all Liberals are whacked, all news is biased, all politicians are crooked and all gun owners are good and I just can't reconcile that judgment."

You got three out of four right!

Comment by Patrick — June 7, 2009 @ 9:32 am
I wouldnt say all gun owners are good but I would say we have the right to bear arms...now as far as the other 3 items, you are correctomundo !! lol

Comment by pammala — June 7, 2009 @ 10:07 am
We have the "right" to stand around smashing ourselves on our heads with hammers too. If the only way to rationalize doing something clearly not in our best interests is to parrotlike repeat "we have the right, we have the right"....that seems like a red flag.

Comment by Kristen — June 7, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Kristen, how is the right to protect myself and my family not in my best interest?

Comment by Patrick — June 7, 2009 @ 11:27 am
"We have the "right" to stand around smashing ourselves on our heads with hammers too. If the only way to rationalize doing something clearly not in our best interests is to parrotlike repeat "we have the right, we have the right"....that seems like a red flag."

You absolutely have the right to bash yourself in the head with a hammer. If you want to, go for it. However, your rights end when you start bashing someone else with your hammer.

The same thing applies to guns, I guess. I have a right to carry one to defend myself. And, if you'd like, I'd defend you, too, if the need arose and I was around. My rights end, though, when I shoot someone else with my gun, provided it is not justified. However, in certain situations bashing someone in the head with a hammer would be justified, too.

Maybe by the logic of some we should ban hammers, too.

In the slightly modified words of Sandi... Some of the people I have heard from on here seem exceptionally angry and judgmental and adding a hammer to that scares me.

Comment by Jack — June 7, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Kristin: you're exactly right with your last comment (#70). In regards to gun ownership, however, "we have the right" is not the only way to rationalize it, and "clearly not in our best interests" has yet to be established.

I'm not sure you have the "right" to smash yourself in the head with a hammer, either. You'll most likely be arrested for being being a danger to yourself and possibly to others. Unless you're in downtown Roanoke and claim it's art; then I kinda doubt the cops would want to confront you these days.

Comment by Rob Miles — June 7, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Patrick it's all about controlling the populace

first nationalize private sector...getting there
nationalize healthcare...trying to get there

(you got em by the _ if you control their health)

gun control is just a beginning for controlling people

Comment by pammala — June 7, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Rob...that was funny. I actually started to reference our downtown art episode in an earlier post, and self-edited so as not to open up that can of worms all over again!

Patrick...I would wonder why you feel so threatened? I had a boss once that told me that people don't get what they want....they get what they expect. If you don't consider the world to be such a menacing place, it just might not be. I don't consider that Utopian. There are many many far more likely threats to yourself and your family that you can protect against with things like smoke alarms, CO alarms, and good handwashing and hygiene practices. Why not concentrate on them?

I'm assured by 2nd amendment people that an armed populace is necessary to protect against an over-reaching government. Once upon a time, when the people and the government basically had the same weaponry available, that might have made sense.

Nowadays...the government has access to arms and delivery methods that the people and their little handguns can't hope to match. If Big Brother decides to come rolling through your village in their Bradleys and fly their air cavalry overhead, the average citizen and their Glock or whatever have exactly zero chance of posing any real resistance. The push to make guns more and more prevalent in society no long bears any resemblance to the original intent of the founders.

Comment by Kristen — June 7, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Well said Kristen. We are constantly insulted for not following the founding fathers when Liberals suggest or support anything that is not hewn from a literal reading, funny how that works.

Yeah pammala, as usual your analysis that someone is out to get you is spot on, I can't wait to be the ruling class, any day now, I know it.

Patrick, you have every right to protect yourself and your family from the sky falling, an alien abduction, the terrorist at the mall, the murderer on Campbell Avenue, or the jack booted thugs the Obamanator is sending any moment. I object to concealed carry, not carry. In the time it takes you to retrieve from your "concealed", you might be dead, or innocent people might get caught in an escalated crossfire. Many robberies with a gun do not actually involve anyone getting shot, but pull a gun and panic ensues and shots ring out. If you are strapped and showing it, THAT is a deterrent!

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 7, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
"There are many many far more likely threats to yourself and your family that you can protect against with things like smoke alarms, CO alarms, and good handwashing and hygiene practices. Why not concentrate on them?"

I concentrate on those. I have all of those alarms in my home and wash my hands regularly. Are you saying that I should concentrate on those threats and just forget about the others?

Why is it not okay to do everything I can to keep myself and my family safe? Why are you saying that I should only concentrate on doing certain things to keep safe and just forget about the others... the ones that you don't agree with me doing.

"I'm assured by 2nd amendment people that an armed populace is necessary to protect against an over-reaching government."

First, I acknowledge that I wouldn't stand a chance if the military came into my neighborhood and tried to take over. I probably wouldn't even put up a fight. However, who says that "little handguns" are all I have? And, if they are so "little" then why such a big fuss about them? It seems that in one breath you are saying how I couldn't stand a chance with my "little handguns" and then in another breath you are saying that they are too dangerous for us to have.

Second, it's not "2nd amendment people" telling you that.. it is the second amendment itself.

Comment by Jack — June 7, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
Sandi, as usual, you trivialize the concerns of anyone who doesn't think like you.

I don't worry about the sky falling, an alien abduction, a terrorist at the mall (despite gun-free zones being prime targets for lunatics), nor the murderer on Cambell Avenue.

As far as the jack-booted thugs from Obama...the jury is still out on that one. Time will tell.

Anyway, failing to prepare and protect your loved ones is a failure for any responsible citizen.

If you count on the police and common decency of the populace to protect you, you are a fool.

Comment by Patrick — June 7, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Well as long as I am a fool, I suppose trivializing the concerns of others is just par for my course. You have proven in post after post, my exact point. Some people do not have the good judgment and perspective any society would want in the armed populace. Anyway, feeling that the only way you can prepare and protect your loved ones is at the end of a gun is a simplistic anti-cultural movement I cannot respect.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 7, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Jack, sad to say, the biggest problem with gun owners it that they constitute a population that absolutely refuses to take responsiblity for themselves.

You feel like you should have the right to leave your car on school grounds with a loaded weapon in it while you do...whatever. What happens if (far from impossible) some kid busts into your car/you leave it unlocked/whatever and your gun is stolen? For that matter...what happens if your prized guns get stolen any other time? Are you willing to take responsiblity for that happens to that gun?

If gun owners were obligated to be responsible for the acts their guns commit - sort of the way parents are responsible legally and financially for the activities of their children - I might have a different opinion. All we hear about is how guns are "accidentally" found by kids in a home, or their friends, or some neighbor...and someone gets shot.."accidentally".

In my opinion, there are no gun accidents. There are criminally negligent gun owners who insist on their "right" to arm themselves to the teeth, then take zero responsiblity for what happens to their precious weapons after that. I could wallpaper this post with links depicting "accidental" shootings in which children end up dead, and if you ask for them I'll be more than happy to provide them. A brief googling should suffice for anyone.

Comment by Kristen — June 7, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
@Sandi: "I object to concealed carry, not carry. In the time it takes you to retrieve from your "concealed", you might be dead, or innocent people might get caught in an escalated crossfire."

I am quite surprised to hear that, Sandi. Most people who object to carry one way rather than another, including my wife (who has a CHP) and my mother, object to open carry, but not concealed carry.

Also, it doesn't take me any longer to draw my weapon from concealed carry than it does from open carry, though I can't speak for how others carry concealed.

I typically carry mine under an outer shirt in a holster that is outside my waist band.

If my shirt is tucked, it will typically be tucked outside of a different holster. The holster I typically use when carrying with a tucked in shirt is designed so the holster can be clipped to my belt, but the gun is carried inside the waistband. It allows room for the shirt to be tucked in between where it clips to the belt and where the actual holster is. All you can see is a small black hook going around the belt.

@Sandi: "If you are strapped and showing it, THAT is a deterrent!"

I tend to agree with that statement, as do many others. However, some argue the opposite. If you are open carrying, and the criminal has not yet pulled his weapon, you may be his first target as you are his biggest threat.

My feeling is that he would just leave and go somewhere else where he doesn't know for certain that someone is armed.

If I were a criminal and I went to rob the 7-11 and saw someone carrying a gun.. I'd rather just leave and go up the street to the next 7-11 than risk my life in a gun fight with someone who most likely is more skilled with his weapon than I am.

Oddly enough, it was the CDC that conducted a study and interviewed prisoners who had been convicted of violent crimes and found out that they predominantly cared for their own safety above all else. They were not generally afraid of the law or the police. It is easy to tell if a police officer is in the 7-11. Also, when confronted with a threat, the police officer has very specific guidelines that he must follow and the criminals typically know that.

What they are truly scared of, more than anything else, is another citizen at the milk cooler who may be armed and be a threat to that criminal's life as he is robbing the clerk.

@Patrick: "Anyway, failing to prepare and protect your loved ones is a failure for any responsible citizen. If you count on the police and common decency of the populace to protect you, you are a fool."

The thing is, Patrick, Sandi (or anyone else who thinks like she does) feels that they are protecting their loved ones by disarming you. The problem with that line of thought, though, is that you are not the one she needs to be protected from.

Sandi, I'd like to ask you this question. If a law was passed outlawing all gun ownership by private citizens, would you then agree that the police should also give up their guns since they will not need to protect themselves from people with guns anymore?

Since nobody else will have a gun, their batons and possibly a knife and taser should be more than enough for them when it comes to defending themselves, correct? Okay, maybe some pepper spray, too.

If you do still feel that they should be allowed to carry a gun in that scenario, could you please explain why they would feel the need to shoot an unarmed person? After all, that is the only reason they would be carrying. Nobody else is allowed to have a gun. Therefore anyone that they should would be unarmed.

Also, why do you feel that they are entitled to more personal protection than the rest of us? We all put our pants on the same way every day. What is it about Officer Joe that places a higher value on his life than your own, Sandi? By saying that he should be allowed to carry a gun for personal protection and not you indicates that you feel his life is more valuable than your own. Is that true?

I certainly believe that the police should be able to carry guns to protect themselves. However, I also feel that I should be able to as well. I appreciate what they do for the community, but I certainly don't think that their lives are any more important than mine or the lives of my wife or children.

By saying that one person is allowed to defend themselves and another is not is exactly that.

You claim that straight people allowing to marry the person they love and gay people not being allowed to is discrimination. Is this any different? Not really. In one case you claim the discrimination is based on a person's sexual orientation. In this case, it is based on the career path the individual has chosen.

You're saying that because I work in IT, my life is worth less than a person who chose Criminal Justice. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Based on this line of reasoning, one would believe that you would actually be opposed to same sex marriage.

Comment by Jack — June 7, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
@Sandi: "Anyway, feeling that the only way you can prepare and protect your loved ones is at the end of a gun is a simplistic anti-cultural movement I cannot respect."

Someone mentioned smoke detectors earlier. Do you feel that smoke detectors are the only way to protect your family? Surely not. However, you still have them. Because there is a chance that THAT might be the tool you need in a certain situation.

Same thing with a gun. It's NOT the only way to protect your family. But, depending on the situation, it may be the tool you need.

I also have smoke detectors. My wife and I have mobile phones. We have car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, health insurance, AAA, spare tires, a first aid kit, batteries, a hammer (thanks for the idea, Kristen), bicycle helmets, door locks, hand sanitizer, and a gun.

See, the gun isn't the only way to protect ourselves. It's just one way.

Comment by Jack — June 7, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
@Kristen: "Jack, sad to say, the biggest problem with gun owners it that they constitute a population that absolutely refuses to take responsiblity for themselves."

Completely opposite, actually. We constitute a population that doesn't expect the police to take responsibility for us. Or, when our lives are in danger, anyone else for that matter.

@Kristen: "You feel like you should have the right to leave your car on school grounds with a loaded weapon in it while you do...whatever. What happens if (far from impossible) some kid busts into your car/you leave it unlocked/whatever and your gun is stolen?"

That wouldn't happen if I had the gun with me. It's certainly not me who wants to leave it in the car. Unfortunately, I don't have a choice.

Same thing when I am dining out. If I don't carry it openly, I have to leave it in the car where it could be stolen.

If you think we should be allowed to carry more responsibly, please contact your state legislator and urge them to repeal the different bans that REQUIRE us to leave a gun in a car.

@Sandi: "Are you willing to take responsiblity for that happens to that gun?"

I would not be responsible. I was following the letter of the law. It was only stolen because the law prevented me from doing anything about it. Whoever stole it broke the law--wherever that happened. That is the problem with your liberal thinking. You would feel that I am responsible for that person now having a gun, when I was not the one who committed a felony.. he did. Your thinking is that he wouldn't be responsible, I would. Wrong... any way you look at it.

@Kristen: "If gun owners were obligated to be responsible for the acts their guns commit - sort of the way parents are responsible legally and financially for the activities of their children - I might have a different opinion."

I would agree with you, but only if I were allowed to carry my gun with me and be responsible for it. If the law is going to require that I leave my gun completely unattended, then that same law cannot make me responsible for what happens with it.

You said "the acts their guns commit." That is another problem with liberal thinking. You seem to think that guns have a mind of their own. The person who pulled the trigger is the person who is responsible for what happens with that gun.

@Kristen: "All we hear about is how guns are "accidentally" found by kids in a home, or their friends, or some neighbor...and someone gets shot."

And typically in those situations the parents ARE at fault. The gun didn't walk into the child's room and shoot itself.

I lock mine up. For the one that I don't have room for in a safe, it has a trigger lock on it. The only harm my children could do with it is bash someone over the head with it. Granted, that would hurt... but probably not more than the hammer you mentioned earlier, which is not locked up in any way.

There are such things as accidental shootings, but not what most people typically refer to as an accidental shooting. You could have a defective primer or something in a round of ammunition that could cause the shot to go off and that could be chalked up to an act of God. Nobody could have known.

However, accidents like that could happen to anyone. You could have brakes in your car that go bad just like that and over the cliff you go.

You're right, though. People should be responsible... and should be held accountable when they are not. However, in this country people are innocent until proven guilty and you cannot hold them responsible for something they have not yet done.

Comment by Jack — June 7, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Kristen..."they constitute a population that absolutely refuses to take responsiblity for themselves" perfectly describes those on welfare and those bending over and accepting more government into their lives every day.

Comment by Patrick — June 8, 2009 @ 1:15 am
Seriously, are you guys just frustrated play writes? All these scenarios that you have worked out and thought about might just be for naught, you do know that, right? Not really wishing to indulge you, because as we can all see, supporting the 2nd Amendment, supporting your right to have and bear arms is not enough. Either I support your right to carry as you wish, where you wish or I am fair game. Well, I am not going to play any longer because it is a waste of time and energy for us all. You want to feel you win, OK you win. Only you don't because I do not trust you one iota more than I trust any other total stranger on the street. If I do not feel safe somewhere, I do not go there. If you want to live your life that way, that is your choice.

I have never advocated that police officers were one scintilla better or more important than anyone else (and that is documented, drag me over the coals proven). I do not believe an off duty officer should be armed any more than I believe you should be unless it is open carry.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 8, 2009 @ 8:05 am
@Sandi: "All these scenarios that you have worked out and thought about might just be for naught, you do know that, right?"

Yes, I hope they are. Just like the smoke detectors and auto insurance. I hope I have them and never need them.

@Sandi: "Only you don't because I do not trust you one iota more than I trust any other total stranger on the street."

So you do trust on-duty officers to carry guns wherever they want? Are they not strangers? You know them all personally?

Why would you trust me more for carrying openly than concealed? Do you think I would be less likely to shoot at you because my gun is not concealed? I really don't understand your line of thinking.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 8:43 am
No offense Patrick but the welfare analogy has no relevance to this thread.

Comment by Kristen — June 8, 2009 @ 8:50 am
I realized long ago that you and many others not only do not understand my line of thinking you are openly disgusted by it. A law enforcement officer is a target and a symbol while performing his/her duty. They are trained to expect trouble when they arrive at a crime scene. Since we are seldom called to such an event, there is a difference and I am sorry you do not see the distinction. It is not solely a matter of trust. It is not solely a matter of thinking any person with a gun will or even wants to shoot me (although with some on here, I would not feel so sure). It is a matter of what kind of society I want to live in. If people are walking around armed, I want to know it and to avoid any crossfire. I am going into such a scenario (since you like them) blind, I realize this, but knowing a player is better than knowing none. You may well trust your gun and your training to keep you and your family safe, I am under no such illusion. I am saying that IF I am in a situation with a gunman with mass murder on his brain I will not feel any better if one of the people in his site is armed. If you do, good for you. I cannot and will not live my life that way. If we are walking around armed and "prepared" or "in fear" depending on your perspective, the bad guys have already won IMHO.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 8, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Sure it does, Kristen. You don't like gun owners and claim that they "they constitute a population that absolutely refuses to take responsiblity for themselves".

I don't like welfare leeches and those who are willing to accept more government in their lives, and can use the same words as you...they constitute a population that absolutely refuses to take responsiblity for themselves.

Comment by Patrick — June 8, 2009 @ 9:30 am
Kristen,

When you said "they constitute a population that absolutely refuses to take responsiblity for themselves" you opened this conversation up to include welfare. You didn't specifically indicate that gun owners refuse to take responsibility for their safety, you said "for themselves" in general.

I'm sorry, but you opened up that line of conversation.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 9:34 am
@Sandi: "A law enforcement officer is a target and a symbol while performing his/her duty."

Okay... let me make sure I understand this correctly. You do not know the officer, and therefore don't trust him, as he is a perfect stranger. He has no credible threat against his life, he is carrying the gun just in case.

That is okay with you.

@Sandi: "If people are walking around armed, I want to know it and to avoid any crossfire"

If I walked into McDonald's where you are eating, and I had a gun on my side, would you leave? How would you be caught in the crossfire of a holstered gun?

If there is "crossfire", then the gun is not holstered. Therefore, whether it was earlier concealed or not makes no difference.

@Sandi: "If we are walking around armed and "prepared" or "in fear" depending on your perspective, the bad guys have already won IMHO."

Do you lock your doors at night? Why? Are you trying to keep someone out? If you are locking your doors, is that not being prepared? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being prepared for a situation.

Whether you realize it or not, you prepare for situations you may not encounter all the time. As I mentioned yesterday, spare tire, smoke detectors, credit card in your wallet that you might not use today, cell phone, etc.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Sandi, it's not a matter of winning or losing, it's a matter of my right to protect myself and my family being taken away.

I have absolutely ZERO desire to use my weapon if I find myself in a threatening situation. My first priority is to remove myself and my family from the situation. Failing that, my weapon becomes my fallback.

And as far as whipping out my gun to defend all those present? Ain't gonna happen. I'll use my weapon to get me out of the situation...you're on your own.

Comment by Patrick — June 8, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Ok Jack and Patrick I should have been more clear..."No responsiblity as far as their guns security and safety is concerned".

And I have no remote interest in being "protected" by anyone else's gun...my interest lays solely in being protected FROM it.

Comment by Kristen — June 8, 2009 @ 10:59 am
Kristen, "No responsiblity as far as their guns security and safety is concerned" is still an inaccurate generalization of gun owners. Every gun owner I know takes every precaution to lock up and prevent unauthorized use of their weapons.

You want safer streets? Start pressuring your representatives to enforce the existing gun laws instead of creating new ones.

Comment by Patrick — June 8, 2009 @ 11:10 am
@Kristen: "And I have no remote interest in being "protected" by anyone else's gun...my interest lays solely in being protected FROM it."

As far as mine goes... and I can probably speak for Patrick, too.. you're safe from our guns.

And regarding safety and security of my gun. I am 100% responsible for its safety as long as I am the one in possession of it. I cannot be responsible for it should it fall into another person's hands.

I do the best I can to prevent that from happening... unfortunately, though, as I mentioned yesterday, the law does not always allow me to keep it secure.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Thank you Patrick.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 8, 2009 @ 11:20 am
Sandi, you say that you do not feel safe around armed citizens, but considering the number of CHP holders in this state...in the Roanoke area in fact, you probably encounter at least one person carrying concealed everytime you go to the grocery store, walk down the street, or go anywhere that concealed carry is legal. You are around armed citizens all the time. If your life is ever in danger, it will be because you encounter a criminal with a gun, not a law abiding citizen with a gun.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Given some events that have happened recently with people I know, we will be arming ourselves in our home as quickly as we can. It may be a while before I would pursue a CHP, but we will have a firearm or 2 in the home. In addition, we're also taking hand-to-hand training with a friend in the event we can't get to a firearm, should we ever find ourselves in a position of needing to defend ourselves.

Comment by Other John — June 8, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Jack...

In reference to your post #52...

There's a lot bigger problem here than just the allowance of guns in school. Parents have lost control of their kids and kids have been taught through a variety of media that the only way to demonstrate their "toughness" is through armed violence and vigilante justice.

So our answer? Let's have more guns on school campuses? The logic and reasoning behind that totally escapes me. We had better start re-vamping the behavior issue mighty damn fast. This particular solution is very much like going to the doctor and telling him that you have a pain in your foot and he prescribes staying off your foot without even examining the foot.

Stupid stupid stupid!

Comment by Will — June 8, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
I don't believe that I said that at all, VT Hokie. If I do not know who is carrying, whether friend, foe, fiend or vigilante, how can I feel unsafe with them carrying. I realized long ago from the volume of pro-gun and pro-concealed carry on this site that I have and am already going where they go and it has seriously curtailed where I go and how I feel about the people I encounter when I do. As I say, do what you want. If you feel carrying a gun makes you safer, makes criminals less likely to mess with you (even though they also have no way of knowing), makes you feel "protected" or capable of defending your own (if not others), fine, go for it. Just do not pretend that such a feeling or need means anything less than the bad guys have won, is all I'm saying.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 8, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Will: "They weren't allowed when I was in school (and granted, that was 40+ years ago) and I can't see the reasoning for it today."

Guns did used to be allowed in school. Back then, the boys would go hunting in the morning before school, and then arrive at school hunting rifle in hand. They would either just keep the gun in their locker all day, or they would let the lady in the office hold it for them and they would pick it up at the end of the school day. Funny, not one accidental shooting, much less a massacre, on school grounds.

The reasoning for making it legal again is it is a crime deterrent. Back in the day, only a completely insane person with a death wish would have entered a school and starting a shooting rampage knowing that their intended victims also had weapons. And if such a person did so, the rampage would have been ended quickly. I'm not saying in such a scenario that no innocent lives would be lost, as the gunman would have the element of surprise in the beginning, but the death toll would be a lot less than it would be if everyone inside was unarmed and defenseless.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Will "There's a lot bigger problem here than just the allowance of guns in school. Parents have lost control of their kids and kids have been taught through a variety of media that the only way to demonstrate their "toughness" is through armed violence and vigilante justice."

No one is suggesting arming underage students. The school staff would be the ones allowed to carry. It would be their responsibility, as it is for any parent and gun owner, to make sure their weapons are under their control at all times.

Other parents losing control of their kids is not something I have control over, unfortunately. And a kid who feels the answer to their problem is "armed violence" will bring a gun to school regardless of whether it is allowed (I am pretty sure guns were not allowed at Columbine). I would feel better knowing that if such a situation arose at my daughter's school that someone inside the building had the ability to protect her.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Will,

Nobody is suggesting that children carry guns to school. In fact, even in Utah, if a teacher carries a gun to school it must remain concealed. If it is not concealed, they have committed a felony.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
@Sandi: "I have and am already going where they go and it has seriously curtailed where I go and how I feel about the people I encounter when I do"

Where have you stopped going for fear of being near someone with a gun?

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Sandi, I guess what I was responding to was your earlier comment "Maybe I am too creeped out about armed citizens ". You are right, the criminals don't know if I personally am carrying concealed either, but what they do know is if a business has "no firearms" posted on the door, it's an easy target for them because they know there won't be anyone (law abiding that is) inside carrying.

I just want to say, I respect your not wanting to carry a gun (I'm sorry if I came across any other way), and I think I have understood from your posts that you don't think it should be against the law for me to carry my gun. As long as we are both free to make those choices for ourselves, that is all I care about.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
VT Hokie,

Sandi doesn't have a problem with you carrying, as far as I can tell. Her problem seems to be that you are allowed to carry concealed.

For some reason she is under the impression that she has a right to know whether or not you are carrying a gun, which she does not.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Seriously Jack? If you are afraid to go to the mall or the movies unarmed, why would I not be? Yes, after all the talk about how put upon you are (colloquial you, not just you) if you cannot take a gun in to the Go-Mart, School Grounds, Mall, Movies, Grocery Store, etc., why the heck should I feel safe there unarmed? Obviously you people know something I do not so I am capitulating. I will not yet go armed, so I will judiciously decide where I go. Ergo, bad guys are still winning. You cannot argue that guns are necessary without arguing that guns are necessary.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 8, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Jack, she has a right to know if you have a concealed carry permit. She need only stop by the local clerk of courts to find out who in the community has one. Well who except for a narrow list of exceptions such as law enforcement.

Comment by C. Trejbal — June 8, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Would a sign at a business stating No Firearms trump a legal carry permit? It seems the business would be making their own laws.

Comment by Blue John — June 8, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Hokie 24, what I meant by "creeped out" was that if so many people freaking believe that there is so much to fear that they need to be armed to go to the mall, the movies, etc. how is a defenseless and gullible slug like me expected to be anything more than a victim. I am not really afraid that some gun toting fool will jump out of the bushes or the women's panties and want to shoot me, but maybe you armed folks know something I do not and that creeps me out. If that is fear, then yes I am afraid of people with guns, especially now that I know they literally are everywhere. I might seek comfort in the CHP people as being the good guys but the judgment and tolerance shown here and the admission of as much by Patrick assures me that I am not safer for it.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 8, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
No, the "No Firearms" sign does not trump the legal carry permit, although it is disrespectful of the property owner's wishes to carry in their place of business when they have asked you not too. If they discover you have a firearm on their property (as long as it is indeed private property) they can ask you to leave...if you refuse, however, the only thing you can be charged with is trespassing.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
@Christian: "Jack, she has a right to know if you have a concealed carry permit. She need only stop by the local clerk of courts to find out who in the community has one. Well who except for a narrow list of exceptions such as law enforcement."

You're right. She can do that. She should be happy, then.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Sure, anyone can find out if I have a permit to carry a gun concealed, but whether I have my gun on me at any given moment is a different matter. I think that is what Jack is referring to.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
@Blue John: "Would a sign at a business stating No Firearms trump a legal carry permit? It seems the business would be making their own laws."

Yes, it would. Provided that the notification is posted "conspicuously" at all entrances that patrons use. You can't just place it at one entrance and not the others and expect it to be enforceable.

But yes, generally, that is the case. Certain places cannot ban firearms, though, but they are owned by the government. State/local government buildings (police departments, county administration building, state capital, etc). Also they cannot be banned in places like public parks.

Regardless of whether a private business has signs, though, they can always ask you to leave if they want to, and you have to, or face trespassing charges.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
"Jack, she has a right to know if you have a concealed carry permit. She need only stop by the local clerk of courts to find out who in the community has one. Well who except for a narrow list of exceptions such as law enforcement."

Hey, Christian, why not make it easy for her and publish the list?

Oh, wait...

Comment by Patrick — June 8, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
"and the admission of as much by Patrick assures me that I am not safer for it."

Patrick is smart. He is not afforded the protections for defending you that, say, the police are. Though they are also not obligated to protect you.

And Sandi.. don't feel that I carry a gun to the movies because I feel unsafe. That is not the case. I feel as safe as I do anywhere. It's just a tool that I have with me should a situation arise where I am required to use it.

I don't leave the house every day feeling that I am going to have a flat tire, but that doesn't mean I don't carry the spare with me.

I think the idea of concealed carry is an excellent deterrent to crime. Whether you carry or not doesn't really matter. A criminal doesn't know that you are not carrying. But, you wouldn't have the same deterring effect if you didn't allow people (who are law-abiding and qualified) to carry.

Unlike Patrick, whose choice I certainly respect, I would attempt to protect your life if the situation came up. I don't believe your life is any less valuable than my own. We've had that conversation before.

In fact, I think the chances of a situation coming up where I had an opportunity to save someone elses life is more likely than my own. That isn't why I carry, but I wouldn't just sit there and watch someone get killed if there was a chance I could do something to help.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
@VT Hokie: "Sure, anyone can find out if I have a permit to carry a gun concealed, but whether I have my gun on me at any given moment is a different matter. I think that is what Jack is referring to."

Thanks... that's what I meant.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
Sandi, what creeps ME out is stories of women getting raped in the parking lot at Valley View Mall, people getting mugged at ATMs, girls getting assaulted in dressing rooms, a man going on a shooting rampage in a nursing home of all places. I know the odds are pretty good that I won't ever have to use my gun in self defense, but I also know these things do happen. I don't go around perpetually scared, in fact I would say that days go by where these sorts of incidents don't cross my mind once, but I also don't think about trees falling on my house or my home catching on fire on a regular basis either...yet I would not consider being without homeowners insurance. I consider my concealed weapon a sort of insurance.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
Jack: "Yes, it would. Provided that the notification is posted "conspicuously" at all entrances that patrons use. You can't just place it at one entrance and not the others and expect it to be enforceable."

This is more accurate than my answer, thank you. You are required to comply with a "No Firearms" posting...however if you disobey you are committing a trespassing violation, not any kind of gun violation.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
@VT Hokie: "This is more accurate than my answer, thank you. You are required to comply with a "No Firearms" posting...however if you disobey you are committing a trespassing violation, not any kind of gun violation."

That is correct. However, I'd rather not be guilty of a trespassing violation. Honestly, I'll just shop/eat elsewhere. I have been asked to leave and have done just that.

TGI Friday's was the only place I've ever been asked to leave. Carrying openly (as required by law). Food had just landed on the table when the manager walked over and asked me to take my gun out and leave it in the car.

I wonder how Kristen would feel if I had done that. Knowing that the manager just announced to everyone around us that a gun was about to be taken outside and left unattended in a car. NICE!

I politely told him "No thanks, we'll just eat elsewhere." So we went up to Red Robin.

Nobody got to eat that yummy Jack Daniels Flat Iron steak... but, nobody paid for it, either. So I guess that's not too bad.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Jack I agree with you, I would neither attempt to take my gun into a posted business, nor refuse to leave if asked. I don't open carry, as I don't currently have an appropriate holster, but my husband does, he has only been asked to leave one place (which was not posted), which he did promptly...after getting the manager's name and number so as to be able to notify him that if there was indeed a no firearms policy it needed to be posted to be enforceable.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
I bet the cook was sweating bullets hoping he cooked that steak all the way through (pun intended.)

Given the fact that some people call 911 when a restaurant runs out of sweet tea or chicken nuggets, its not beyond the realm of possibility these days that a customer who's not quite right in the head might go after a chef for an extraordinarily bad meal. Of course I am not pointing you out, Jack, as one of those people, but the cook has no way of knowing you're not some mentally incapacitated nutjob.... and know all too well that its pretty easy for the mentally ill to gain access to firearms.

Comment by scott — June 8, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
If the cook was afraid that Jack might be "some mentally incapacitated nutjob" he probably should have been just as worried about the steak knife that Jack was provided with as he was the gun Jack was carrying, legally, on his hip.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
True, but its a lot easier to duck a steak knife than it is to dodge a speeding bullet, unless of course you are Clark Kent.

Comment by scott — June 8, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Hey, I just realized something. This issue (for some of you) gives you a real good idea of how frustrating it is to be a Liberal. You KNOW with all your might, heart and soul that you are correct on this issue and yet some people seem to treat you like a pariah for that certitude and you are just flabbergasted. You just don't get why anyone thinks differently or that you should not feel the way you do. You KNOW you are right and you KNOW they are wrong. The way you feel about your guns is exactly the way I feel about my politics. LOL Welcome to my world!

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 8, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
I expect anybody who tried to stab a cook would find themselves outknived.

Comment by Ed H — June 8, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Scott,

I don't know. Let's play your hypothetical situation out. I'll be the cook... thinking in my head "There is a guy with a gun, he could be some lunatic nutjob ready to go off the deep end at the least little bit of trouble or inconvenience. I've just let him sit there for a half hour waiting for his food... now it is placed in front of him. I think I'm going to ask him to leave now."

If you really think he's some kind of nut who's willing to shoot anyone, would you really ask him to leave after he's been sitting there waiting for his food? Get real.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
I also figure a policeman could shoot the cook if his steak is cooked wrong, too. Probably a good thing police officers aren't allowed in restaurants, either.

Nevermind, they do. Police officers are special and they never commit crimes.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
@Sandi "You KNOW with all your might, heart and soul that you are correct on this issue and yet some people seem to treat you like a pariah for that certitude and you are just flabbergasted. You just don't get why anyone thinks differently or that you should not feel the way you do. You KNOW you are right and you KNOW they are wrong."

Honestly Sandi, I figure this is the way everyone feels about their politics At least we still live in a country where we can agree or disagree freely, in forums such as this. Hurray first amendment!!

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
"True, but its a lot easier to duck a steak knife than it is to dodge a speeding bullet, unless of course you are Clark Kent."

Tell that to the girl at VT who was decapitated.

"If you really think he's some kind of nut who's willing to shoot anyone, would you really ask him to leave after he's been sitting there waiting for his food?"

True that

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
"Nevermind, they do. Police officers are special and they never commit crimes."

Not only that, but now RETIRED police officers can carry concealed in restaurants, which is something we cannot legally do. But that's ok because they are more trustworthy than the rest of us.

Comment by VT Hokie — June 8, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
@VT Hokie: "Not only that, but now RETIRED police officers can carry concealed in restaurants, which is something we cannot legally do. But that's ok because they are more trustworthy than the rest of us."

Trustworthy enough, in fact, to drink while they are carrying. Something that would NOT have been allowed for the rest of us had the restaurant ban repeal passed.

Not that I would care to drink while carrying anyways. I don't drink if I am carrying. But that is beside the point. It is just another illustration of how Tim Kaine feels that we are less important than his minions.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Sandi, I'm married to a Liberal, so I know EXACTLY how frustrating it can be.

Jeeze...it must be hell in your head at times.

Comment by Patrick — June 8, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
By the way, that last line was said in jest...

Comment by Patrick — June 8, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
VT Hokie and Jack...

So the CHP holders can not carry a loaded weapon into a school...they can only carry it in a locked automobile.

Now let me see if I have this correct: The person intent on killing everyone enters the school building. He's holding hostages or killing people at will. The person(s) that have CHP's are going to ask the perpetrator to wait until they go running outside to grab their weapon from their car and then get back into the building to stop the shooting?

Is this for real logic that's being used as an excuse to be able to carry loaded weapons onto school property?

Comment by Will — June 8, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
LOL, that was funny Patrick. I guess you already have your comeuppance. One of you must be really good at compromise. Or one of you is constantly in the doghouse is my guess. (teasing, I promise) FTR, it is never hell in my head, but yes there is often hell for my heart.

I do not know who said they felt police officers were better or safer or more trustworthy with anything, much less guns, but it was not me. I acknowledge that they have and are allowed to have weapons in the line of duty and FWIW, THAT scares me. What keeps us safe is the decency of our fellow man not the police or all the guns in the world. Sometimes you run up on someone without that decency, but planning for the occasion seems to be an acknowledgment of our society's failure IMHO.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 8, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
I have to tell you that I'm a female teacher. I hate guns. I think that, if it were legal, I might carry in school. How about that??? Though I've never been threatened or even treated unpleasantly, I have heard threats made to other teachers. I've seen PARENTS get into fist fights in the parking lot and worried that they might pull a gun or knife with dozens of children in their midst. I've worried about how I would protect my little boys and girls if someone entered our building with the intent to kill. I've watched the required videos and practiced the various lockdowns, that I don't think would be real helpful. I would not hesitate to take the bullet for them, but that wouldn't stop the next bullet. I couldn't shoot a stinking squirrel, but I could shoot a person trying to hurt my children. I never dreamed I would consider firing a gun, owning a gun, or - Good Heavens - carrying a gun, but yep, I think I would.

Comment by John C — June 8, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Well John C, the female teacher, I hope you get a lot more education and "gun time" under your belt before you go strapped into that good night. I have absolutely no compunction about being able to kill another human being. In fact I have had the feeling I could and would do it with my bare hands. I just hate the idea that this is what our society has come to. I guess I need to concede it has, but that hurts on a level that I cannot even express. Thanks for the perspective.

Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 8, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Sandi..."One of you must be really good at compromise. Or one of you is constantly in the doghouse is my guess."

Sadly, it's usually me in both cases!

Someday I'll figure out how that works. LOL!

Comment by Patrick — June 8, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
@Will: "they can only carry it in a locked automobile."

Nobody said that. They can carry a CONCEALED handgun onto school property as long as they have a CHP (obviously) and remain INSIDE the vehicle with the gun. The gun can be on their person or under the seat, in the glovebox, wherever. The only stipulations are that it be concealed and the licensed person be inside the vehicle with it.

There is nothing about whether or not the vehicle is locked or unlocked, where the vehicle is, or who else is in it.

"The person(s) that have CHP's are going to ask the perpetrator to wait until they go running outside to grab their weapon from their car and then get back into the building to stop the shooting?"

If they aren't in the vehicle with the gun, they are committing a felony.

That is not the logic for carrying at school the way it is now, no. The logic is that if I am carrying my gun today, and I get a call from my son's school that he is sick and I need to pick him up, I should not have to drive out of my way to go home, secure the gun, then drive to his school to pick him up.

The way the law is now allows me to drive to his school, with my gun, and pick him up, provided I don't need to get out of the car.

I guess that is the SC law, too, I haven't read the details.

There is no advantage there when it comes to stopping any type of crime inside the school or protecting anyone at the school.

Utah's law, on the other hand, allows for carry INSIDE the school by ANYONE who has a CHP, including school staff and faculty and parents. This would allow for a situation where you may be able to defend yourself or someone else should a school shooting take place.

I'm not sure what percentage of faculty/staff in Utah actually carry, but the law so far has worked. There have been no school shootings in Utah in the years since they have passed that law. I won't argue that it can't be coincidence, though.

The idea is that nobody knows who is carrying a gun, which is hopefully a deterrent. Even if none of the staff at a particular school chose to carry, nobody would know that.

If they do carry and it is not concealed, they are breaking the law. It MUST remain concealed.

Sandi,

You feel that being prepared for a situation is an acknowledgment of failure.

@Sandi: "Sometimes you run up on someone without that decency, but planning for the occasion seems to be an acknowledgment of our society's failure IMHO."

Does that only apply to individuals? Or do you feel that the fact that our country has an armed military constantly training for combat is also a failure of our country?

Do you feel that our government keeping a strategic oil supply is a failure?

Do you feel that the CDC stockpiling antivenin or specific vaccines is a failure?

Planning for a situation is in no way a failure on anyone's part.

John C,

Thanks for offering your viewpoint. I've never met a female named John, either, by the way.

My mother is an elementary school teacher. I know what their lock down procedures are at her school and I must admit, they are ridiculous. Closing your classroom door (provided you have one) and hiding under the desks is not the way to stop a mass shooting.

If a teacher wants to have a gun and just sit there and only act in self defense of herself or her students as a last resort, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO.

Being required to give up your right to personal security just because you work at a school (where we all know violent crimes occur) is just plain stupid.

Thanks again, John C.

Comment by Jack — June 8, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Jack...

On the broadest point of discussion, does it even remotely occur to you how utterly disgusting it is that we even have to have a discussion about teachers/students/administrators/et al being able to carry weapons to school?

When did we loose sight of the notion of being able to educate without having to be able to "protect" ourselves in schools. When and why did we choose to loose control?

I find the whole situation disgusting that we've allowed what is supposed to be a civilized society deteriorate to this level. We've advanced nothing if this is what education has come to.

And what's even more depressing, I hear nothing about regaining the control other than being able to carry guns to school. Now I can understand the explosion of home schooling.

Comment by Will — June 9, 2009 @ 10:34 am
Will, I agree with that entire post 100%. I can't imagine what has happened to this country when people try to sanely advocate for elementary school teachers walking the halls armed. It's pathetic.

The level of gun violence in this country is, to make a bad pun, criminal. The answer is fewer guns, not more guns.

Comment by Kristen — June 9, 2009 @ 11:04 am
@Will: "does it even remotely occur to you how utterly disgusting it is that we even have to have a discussion about teachers/students/administrators/et al being able to carry weapons to school?"

No. I don't find it disgusting at all. Maybe if I thought that a teacher was going to shoot a bunch of kids, sure. But thank God another teacher may have the ability to stop it.

That being said, if a teacher wanted to kill a bunch of students, a law preventing them from carrying a gun at school won't stop them.

"When did we loose sight of the notion of being able to educate without having to be able to "protect" ourselves in schools."

If Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were still alive, I'd suggest you ask them. I'm not sure how to answer your question.

"We've advanced nothing if this is what education has come to."

It has nothing to do with education. It has to do with people feeling that for some reason an educational institution is somehow inherently safer to the point where a need to defend yourself is moot.

"I hear nothing about regaining the control other than being able to carry guns to school."

Then you haven't been listening. There are other suggestions. Many of which have already been passed as law and implemented. Not the least of which is to make it illegal to carry guns in schools. This law prevents school shootings. Just ask Anthony Powell, Latina Williams, Cornelius Cheers, Brandon McInerney, Steven Kazmierczak, Jamar Siler, Kawin Brockton, Kelsey Perry, Mario Tony, Brandon Wade, Teah Wimberly...

These are the names of a few of the people who have been involved in school shootings in the last year and a half alone... and it's not even all of them. These are the names of a few school shooters you probably haven't even heard of!

When it comes to "what happened to bring us to this point"... you're asking the wrong person. I'm just offering a suggesting of how I think things can be made better.

Keep in mind that all of these people broke the law bringing guns to these shootings, so we can't really argue that the law works.

Comment by Jack — June 9, 2009 @ 11:27 am
@Kristen: "The level of gun violence in this country is, to make a bad pun, criminal. The answer is fewer guns, not more guns."

Nobody wants more gun violence.

Let's work with small numbers here. Joe the drug dealer and Kristen are standing together in a building. Both have a gun. We'll assume Kristen has never committed a crime and mentally healthy.

So what you are advocating, Kristen, to make things better, is to take your gun away, leaving only one.. in the hands of Joe the drug dealer. Right?

It sounds to me that that is what you are suggesting. You haven't offered any suggestions as to how to remove the gun from Joe the drug dealer. We already have a law in place that makes it illegal for him to have a gun.

Comment by Jack — June 9, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Jack I'm actually not scared of Joe the drug dealer. You assume I am because you seem to be.

What scares me is that, in the supposed "greatest nation ever in the history of the universe", there are people who seriously think our teachers of all people need to walk around the schools carrying. It's sad and frightening.

I have no idea who these people are the schools hire. I'm not sure the school system always knows who they are. I wouldn't trust them to make decisions about spanking my kids, and I sure as heck don't trust them to be around children armed. If teachers find the classroom so terrifying, they might consider another line of work. I've never known an actual teacher agitating for the right to carry a gun.

Comment by Kristen — June 9, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Jack...

If the only solution to the problem of violence in the school place is to allow people to carry concealed weapons in the classrooms, then we have a mighty pathetic bunch of people trying to solve the problem.

Your response to my question about how disgusting it is "No. I don't find it disgusting at all." is even more unbelievable.

To another point in my post, you replied "When it comes to "what happened to bring us to this point"... you're asking the wrong person. I'm just offering a suggesting of how I think things can be made better."

If you're not the right person to ask what gets us to the point of needing to bring guns to school in order to provide a safe environment within which to educate children, then who is? We are all responsible and should be held accountable.

The notion of "its not my problem, but here's my solution" simply is a lousy cop-out to finding the root cause of the problems and then correcting them.

Comment by Will — June 9, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
@Kristen: "Jack I'm actually not scared of Joe the drug dealer. You assume I am because you seem to be."

Thanks for clearing that up. You don't mind criminals having guns, because you are not scared of them. You do, however, for some reason, have a problem with me having a gun.

I'm actually starting to get offended at this point when you claim that I, as a citizen who has never been convicted of a crime, should not be allowed to have/carry a gun. However, the criminal, who you claim to not be afraid of or have a problem with, doesn't seem to matter to you.

@Kristen: "and I sure as heck don't trust them to be around children armed."

Do you trust your children around me while I am armed? Do you take them to the mall? The park? Chuck E. Cheese? If you don't trust your children to be around me while I am carrying a gun, or anyone else for that matter, you should probably start avoiding these places where you take your children.

Comment by Jack — June 9, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
@Kristen: "If teachers find the classroom so terrifying, they might consider another line of work."

Five faculty members at Virginia Tech were killed during the Cho killing spree. I'm sure in the moments leading up to their death they were extremely terrified.

If you could say something to them now, would it be along the lines of "you should probably find another job, then"?

Comment by Jack — June 9, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
@Will: "If the only solution to the problem of violence in the school place is to allow people to carry concealed weapons in the classrooms, then we have a mighty pathetic bunch of people trying to solve the problem."

Could you offer your solution? I don't believe we have heard it yet.

@Will: "If you're not the right person to ask what gets us to the point of needing to bring guns to school in order to provide a safe environment within which to educate children, then who is?"

I'd say the people who brought us to this point. It certainly wasn't me. I just agree that we are at that point.

If you have a different or better solution, I'm all for it. If it stops mass murders in schools, then we don't need to be able to carry in schools. Then, if your solution could be expanded upon in such a way that it prevents violent crimes outside of school as well, we wouldn't need guns anywhere.

I'm just waiting to hear about this fantastic solution that nobody seems to offer up other than "less guns".

I'll tell you what. Kristen, for example, isn't saying "no guns", she's saying "less guns." I think that is reasonable. But my problem is why is it that MINE have to be the ones to go. Why do the criminals get to keep theirs when I cannot?

Probably because Kristen isn't afraid of the criminals. She is afraid of me. I am the one she KNOWS has a gun. She isn't afraid of the criminal until she is his victim. She is afraid of ME just because.

@Will: "The notion of "its not my problem, but here's my solution" simply is a lousy cop-out to finding the root cause of the problems and then correcting them."

Nowhere did I say it is not my problem... it's all of our problem. I'm not the cause of it, though. I don't think I'm even part of the problem.

I'm not the one who killed all of those people at Virginia Tech. And you know what, Columbine before that. I didn't kill the people in Dearborn in April, the three in February last year in Baton Rouge, and the six in Illinois the same month. The eight people killed at the High School in Minnesota in 2005... that wasn't me, either.

I'm just the one here offering a solution. Your solution, along with Kristen and Sandi, is to make sure the people who committed these crimes still have their guns while the victims do not.

When someone starts shooting at you, you cannot hold up a copy of the Constitution and show them where their having a gun is a crime and expect them to stop. Their bullets will go right through it... I know that sounds corny and stupid, but it is the truth. You can't bring a pen and paper to a gun fight.

This is no different then telling the Soviet Union or China, or Japan, or anyone for that matter, that we will disable our military forces if they disable theirs first. It doesn't work that way.

Comment by Jack — June 9, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Jack...

Simple question: Who or what is responsible for bringing our society to the point where it is necessary to bring guns to school in order to supposedly have a safe environment in which to educate children?

If we don't know the cause of the problem, applying a band-aid approach (and the guns to school approach is indeed a mighty big band-aid) isn't going to solve the problem just like capital punishment doesn't prevent murders (in school or other places).

You brought up the Columbine event...what brought those two young people to the point that their only opportunity for resolution of their problems/issues was to bring weapons to school and kill teachers and students? Isn't that an even more pressing question?

Comment by Will — June 9, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
@Will: "Who or what is responsible for bringing our society to the point where it is necessary to bring guns to school in order to supposedly have a safe environment in which to educate children?"

Who? The people who walk into schools and start shooting people, that's who.

You're trying to blame victims. Just like Kristen the other day wanting ME to take responsibility for what happens if my gun is stolen. Wanting to blame me for that rather than the *criminal* who stole it.

It's the typical Liberal stance, though, so I'm not surprised to be hearing it.

I've seen armed guards at banks before. Could you tell me who is responsible for bringing our society to the point where it is necessary to bring guns to banks in order to supposedly have a safe environment in which to make financial transactions?

@Will: "You brought up the Columbine event...what brought those two young people to the point that their only opportunity for resolution of their problems/issues was to bring weapons to school and kill teachers and students? Isn't that an even more pressing question?"

I don't know. It could have been events that led up to it, they could have just flipped out. I do not know. But, yes, those things should be investigated and we should work on finding solutions there as well.

In the meantime, I'm going to be prepared to defend myself should I need to.

Comment by Jack — June 9, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Will,

Let me ask you this. I certainly acknowledge that you want to find the underlying reason why these things happen. I do, too. I'm not a violent person, but I am certainly a realist.

When you catch a cold, do you treat it, or do you just let it go unchecked in hopes that one day there will be a cure?

A cure would be awesome. And I'm sure we will understand it all better one day and find one. In the meantime, though, I suggest you treat the symptoms.

If you found that your home was being eaten up by termites, would you call an exterminator, or just insist that someone find something to be done to the termite population in general to keep them from eating wood?

I think it would be awesome if scientists could develop something that would make wood unattractive to termites. Maybe they will one day. However, in the meantime, if my home is being eaten up by termites, I'm going to kill them.

I'm not saying that being able to be armed is the perfect solution to everything. In my opinion, it's not the perfect solution to anything. But short of finding the perfect solution, it will do for me.

I am not going to arm myself with a gun and then say that it doesn't matter about finding a way to make things better in the first place, it does matter. I want my two children to be safe wherever they go, including school. If I can find a way to prevent violent acts from happening around them, I would much rather do that. I'd choose to be proactive over reactive any day.

I hope the day will come one day where we do not have to worry about such things. But short of the government programming our brains differently and turning us all into sheep, I don't see that happening. But, I will keep hoping.

Comment by Jack — June 9, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
Jack...

I'm glad to read your last post. I just wish people would put more energy into finding a way to make things better in the first place.

I don't know that it would require the government programming our brains. I think what it really will take are parents being totally and completely responsible for their children from day one...teaching them to have respect for themselves and others...that actions have consequences, some good and some bad and some very very bad.

I singled out parents...but in fact it's all people having respect for themselves and others.

Suffice it to say I am a realist as well. I'm neither afraid to nor will I shrink away from defending myself if forced to. I'm very familiar with weapons having been brought up with them and owning quite a few to this day.

I would, though, like to see the same amount of (if not more) energy spent on finding the underlying reasons for such behavior and treating that rather than just treating the symptom.

Comment by Will — June 9, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
I've got an idea, Will.. let's combine our efforts.

Conservatives will work on treating the symptoms while the liberals work on treating the cause.

Thanks for the nice reply.

Comment by Jack — June 9, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Ahhh...I liked the last two civil posts and, Will, I do agree with you that parents need to be responsible for their children, teaching them to have respect for themselves and others...that actions have consequences, some good and some bad and some very, very bad. I agree. I agree. I agree. However, there are just some bad seeds that come from parents who always do their best. Additionally, at sixteen and seventeen years old, it's harder than you think to keep your child under control if they're determined to take the bit in their teeth. Should those parents be held responsible? Also, Lord Have Mercy, look at what's on TV, the movies, and Heaven Forbid, the radio! The majority of that stuff is just immoral! Our children are becoming (and some have become) desensitized! Oops. I'm getting off the subject just trying to think about what has brought our society to the point that I think I may someday be willing to strap on a gun and wear it into my classroom.

Comment by John C — June 9, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
John C...

Thanks for the reply and Jack...thanks very much for yours. It's just not a liberal or conservative problem...it's all our problem to work to find solutions.

The sad part about it is that our generation and perhaps the generation younger than ours (speaking of mine since I'm 53) has seen fit to profiteer off of the things we seemingly have decided to allow on TV, Radio, Movies, Computer and Video Games that should make us all cringe.

As for the 16 and 17 year olds who are determined to take control...I had two parents, who one or the other, could control and did control me. I was taught at an early age to have a healty dose of respect for both Mom and Dad and just a tiny bit of fear for how they could make my life miserable if I screwed up. I recall loosing my driver's licence for 6 months for speeding. It was humiliating to have to ride the bus to school when my peers were driving. Needless to say, I didn't speed again.

Alas...the times in which we live. I'm glad that I personally don't have to confront the same issues that parents must and should confront today. I'm not sure I'm made of the same stuff my parents were. It's truly amazing, the older I get, the smarter my parents become and they've been gone now for 26 and 9 years respectively.

Comment by Will — June 9, 2009 @ 10:50 pm