The right to own firearms in light of the Virgina Tech tragedy

[Universe Prince]

I had to wait a while to address this because I want to try to do this calmly, and not be insulting to those who are going to try twist what happened at Virgina Tech into an argument against gun ownership and/or for gun control. That is harder than you might believe. I am a nice guy, of course, but I find arguments that infringing on people's rights is somehow socially responsible is something that to me increasingly seems, well, highly questionable, to put it politely.

For whatever reason, in our society any time someone dies or is wounded by a bullet, the cry is almost immediate that the problem is the existence of the firearm. No one argues that the problem in, say, hit-and-run accidents is the existence of the automobile. Instead we blame the driver, and usually rightfully so. But, you say, firearms are made to kill and cars are not. Au contraire, firearms are not made to kill. Firearms are made to expel bullets at high velocity. A firearm, like a car or a hammer or a knife or a sharp stick, is only a tool. And like those other items, it can be used to kill, but that is not a necessary function.

But wait, you say, the main point of a firearm's function is to kill. Is it? A tool has as its function the use to which the user applies it. But, you say, the history of guns and their development is undeniable and firearms are made for killing. Okay, let's set aside the objections and say, for the sake of argument, that firearms are made for killing. What is required for a firearm to be used to kill? A person has to use the weapon. A person has to physically hold the weapon and decide to use it for the purpose of killing. So where does the blame lay, with the gun or with the person? With the person, of course. Firearms are not animate objects. They do not act on their own. They are, as I said, merely tools.

So to lay the blame for the Virgina Tech tragedy on the existence of guns is not a reasonable position. Okay, you say, but surly the incident shows that something should be done to keep firearms away from people, that we need laws controlling access to such weapons. No, I do not believe that it does. I believe it shows that we have done far too much to separate people from weapons and from the importance of self-defense. Indeed, the very notion that the tragedy at Virgina Tech should indicate that we need to ensure people are not able to defend themselves, i.e. limit and/or control gun ownership, is contrary to all common sense.

But surely, you say, taking guns away from people will cut down on violent behavior. Will it? Or will it merely prompt people to find other weapons to use? Look at Great Britain. They have banned guns (British folks looking to compete in Olympic shooting competitions have to leave the country to train) and pretty much most forms of self-defense. (Apparently someone thought Monty Python was serious when it had characters in a movie scream "Run away! Run away!") And what is the result? Higher crime and now Britain is looking into knife control laws. Not that long ago, as I recall, there was a suggestion put forth that Britain legislate the design of kitchen knives to eliminate pointy kitchen knives from being used as weapons. Or look at Kenya, which has laws that prohibit most people from owning guns. Kenya's rabid actions of enforcement have resulted in thousands of people being killed, tortured and forced from their homes. All with the approval of the U.N., naturally. Or we can look closer to home. Our own national capitol, Washington D.C., had a firearm ban for couple of decades or more, and at the same time one of the worst crime rates in the country. Clearly, taking away the ability of people to defend themselves with firearms if they so choose does not result in reduced crime rates, less violence, or a safer populace. There are, however, studies that suggest places where there is little to no restriction on firearm ownership and concealed carry laws exist, crime rates are generally lower across the board, including murders and homicides.

So, in light of what happened at Virginia Tech, can I and do I support the protection of the right of people to own and carry firearms? Yes, and emphatically so.

Now then, a few things have been said here recently that I would like to address.

The constitutional protection for firearms, what there is of it, is nonetheless a fluid, not a rigid, concept, allowing the superseding principle of "reason" to largely trump any cries for unrestricted access, and the like.

First, no, the constitutional protection for the right to own firearms is not fluid. The Second Amendment is clear and concise in stating "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is not an ambiguous statement open to "fluid" interpretations. That such interpretations have been applied does not make correct either the interpretations or the legal application of them. Second, the notion that the concept is "fluid" and "allowing the superseding principle of 'reason' to largely trump any cries for unrestricted access" assumes that there is something unreasonable about the direct and clear meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is not, however, anything unreasonable about it. It is eminently reasonable, and to make it unreasonable requires the application of unnecessary terms like "fluid".

The claim that gun control cedes "freedom" is a cockamammy notion and dumb in the Age of Bush II, but especially when analyzed under the "rationality standard" implicit in all our law-making and jurisprudence.

On the contrary, it is a perfectly valid notion. One may argue that such a surrender of liberty is or is not necessary in our society, but that does not make the notion any less true, even when analyzed under the vague and subjective "rationality standard" implicit in most supercilious chiding about the matter.

[Firearm ownership] is a right that must be earned and should be severely regulated.

No. It is a right that the Constitution assumes belongs to every citizen, not that it must be earned. This is why the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon that right.

There is more to which I could respond, but that might approach a more ad hominem direction, and such is not my intention. This is about the ideas and trying to contribute more than an emotional reaction.

[Universe Prince]

Excerpted from "The Gun Ban and the Gunman" by Jacob Sullum:

Last year Virginia legislators considered a bill that would have overridden policies at public universities that prohibit students and faculty members with concealed handgun permits from bringing their weapons onto campus. After the bill died in committee, The Roanoke Times reported, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker welcomed its defeat, saying, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus." Maybe Hincker was right. But as Monday's horrifying mass murder at Virginia Tech vividly demonstrated, there is a difference between feeling safe and being safe. The university's gun ban not only did nothing to protect people at the school; it left them defenseless as a cold-blooded gunman methodically killed 32 of them over the course of two and a half hours.

   [...]

"We can't have an armed guard in front of every classroom every day of the year," Virginia Tech campus police chief Wendell Flinchum said after the shootings. Given the reality that police cannot be everywhere, it is unconscionable to disarm people who want to defend themselves.

Whole column at Reason Online.

[Amianthus]

"We can't have an armed guard in front of every classroom every day of the year," Virginia Tech campus police chief Wendell Flinchum said after the shootings. Given the reality that police cannot be everywhere, it is unconscionable to disarm people who want to defend themselves.

Indeed, I would argue that banning students and teachers from carrying their own firearms if they have the state issued permit, and not putting armed guards throughout the campus 24 hours a day, makes the school complicit in the deaths of the students that were killed.

[sirs]

Nets Blame Virginia's 'Lax' Gun Laws,
Press Bush on Gun Control

     Without any regard to how school shootings in recent years have occurred in states and nations with stricter gun laws, including one last year at a college in Quebec, Canada, ABC and CBS on Tuesday night focused stories and questions on Virginia's "lax" gun laws. "How the gunman purchased the murder weapon," ABC anchor Charles Gibson teased an upcoming story, "Virginia's controversial gun laws: How lax are they? Brian Ross investigates." Ross confirmed that "Virginia's gun laws, indeed, are regarded by law enforcement officials as among the most lax in the country." Ross relayed how "for gun control advocates, the ease with which Cho [Seung-Hui] was able to legally get his Glock and a box of ammunition reveals the problems with Virginia's gun laws." Over undercover footage recorded by the New York City Police Department, Ross explained how it shows "it's possible to buy a handgun at a Virginia gun store with no waiting period and only what is called an instant background check." Though Ross aired a condemnatory soundbite from NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, he failed to note that Virginia has a lot fewer gun crimes per capita than does New York City.

     As if the media have nothing to do with "igniting" a debate on guns (ABCNews.com on Monday posted: "Do you think this incident is a reason to pass stricter gun control legislation?" See: www.mediaresearch.org ), Gibson asked President Bush: "After Columbine, there was ignited a national debate on guns. Do you think this is going to rekindle the national debate?" Over on CBS, Katie Couric, also on scene in Blacksburg, pressed Bush: "As you well know, after events like this, discussions about gun control inevitably follow. Is it too easy, in your view, for unstable people to purchase guns in this country?" Leading into an earlier story from Armen Keteyian, Couric cited "the question I asked the President about gun control. It's something many people are thinking about after the tragedy here at Virginia Tech, especially considering the gunman needed only two IDs and a credit card to buy the weapons and ammunition he used."

     CBSNews.com headlined the online version of Keteyian's story, "Virginia Tech Killer Used Easy-To-Get Guns; CBS News: Shooter Used Pistol, Handgun In State With No Registration, Gun-Waiting Period." See: www.cbsnews.com

     Showcasing the same undercover video as Ross, on NBC's Dateline Chris Hansen interjected how "gun sales in Virginia have been more than a sticking point with gun control advocates," citing how "many guns bought in Virginia end up on New York streets" -- a contention which would have more relevance if Cho had gone to New York City to unleash his murder spree.
     During the 5pm EDT hour of CNN's The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer asked Bill Schneider: "Is the Virginia Tech tragedy, Bill, likely to put the issue of gun control on the political agenda once again?" Schneider rejected the premise: "I wouldn't bet on it," going on to explain how politicians want to avoid the topic.

     NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams limited his gun control coverage to one vague question to President Bush ("What do we do about these guns?") and a later story on foreign reaction which included overseas denunciations of America's "gun culture."

     All three broadcast networks delivered hour-long newscasts Tuesday night which originated from Blacksburg, Virginia and all three anchors conducted brief interviews with President and Mrs. Bush who attended the 2pm EDT convocation. But Washington, DC's CBS affiliate only carried the first half hour of the CBS Evening News, so I got Couric's question to Bush from the CBSNews.com posting of the interview.

     The agenda-fueled ABC story on the April 17 World News:

     Charles Gibson: "The massacre here at Virginia Tech is throwing a new spotlight on Virginia's gun laws. When he was Virginia's Governor, Douglas Wilder said it was so easy to buy firearms in his state that Virginia had the unenviable reputation as the gun-running capital of America. Fourteen years later, Seung-Hui Cho had little trouble buying the guns used in yesterday's rampage. Our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, joins us."

     Brian Ross: "Charlie, Virginia's gun laws, indeed, are regarded by law enforcement officials as among the most lax in the country. The Roanoke firearms store where Seung-Hui Cho bought his murder weapon has a history of selling guns involved in murders. It is the fifth time a gun sold in this store has been used in a homicide, according to gun shop owner John Markell. But he says there was nothing about Cho's manner that raised suspicions. The sale was carried out in just 10 or 15 minutes."
     John Markell, owner of Roanoke Firearms: "There were no red flags kicked up in any way. He got a clean bill of health from the state police. There was just no reason for me not to have sold him the gun."
     Ross: "Virginia officials say the kind of pistol used in the Virginia Tech shooting, a Glock 9 millimeter handgun, is among the most popular because it is lightweight and easily reloaded."
     Nolan Avery, LAX Fire Range Inc: "It's a very simple design. Very easy to use."
     Ross: "For gun control advocates, the ease with which Cho was able to legally get his Glock and a box of ammunition reveals the problems with Virginia's gun laws."
     Josh Horowitz, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: "Virginia is, 'let's sell it to somebody and let's not find out anything about them.' And I think in this case that may have led to a tragedy."
     Ross: "As this undercover footage shows, it's possible to buy a handgun at a Virginia gun store with no waiting period and only what is called an instant background check. This footage was recorded by an undercover team sent to Virginia by the New York City Police Department, which says Virginia is the top source for illegal guns used in crimes committed in New York. The undercover team only had to produce two IDs and fill out a few forms in order to walk out of the store with a handgun."
     Ray Kelly, New York City Police Commissioner: "It is, quite frankly, an easy state in which to buy a weapon. The philosophy is that it appears to be an entitlement to own a handgun."
     Ross: "But many in Virginia like it that way. And, in fact, some think there should be more guns on campuses. Gun advocates actually brought a lawsuit last year when Virginia Tech and other schools made their campuses weapons-free. Now, some say that if students had been armed, they could have stopped the shootings sooner."
     John Velleco, Gun Owners of America: "It's tragic to mandatorily disarm the citizenry and create these gun-free zones which are, in a sense, you know, give these deranged madmen easy targets."
     Ross: "Until he walked on the campus with his weapons, everything about Cho's gun purchases was legal under current U.S. and Virginia laws."

     Showcasing the same undercover video as Ross, on NBC's Dateline aired at 8pm EDT and re-run at 10pm EDT on MSNBC, Chris Hansen interjected a political policy point into a piece on how Cho Seung-Hui obtained the weapons, reported how "gun sales in Virginia have been more than a sticking point with gun control advocates."

     A transcript of the gun control portion of Hansen's April 17 story: "Gun sales in Virginia have been more than a sticking point with gun control advocates, not to mention New York City. NBC News analyst Michael Sheehan oversaw counter-terrorism for the New York City Police Department and says many guns bought in Virginia end up on New York streets."
     Michael Sheehan: "It's very easy to buy a handgun with basically simple identification and you have enough money and you're going to walk out with a handgun and ammunition."
     Hansen over the same undercover video shown by ABC's Ross: "This video, shot in Virginia by investigators sent by the New York Mayor's office, shows just how easy it may have been for Cho to buy a gun."
     Hansen: "The investigators used a Virginia resident to purchase a gun that was clearly meant for someone else. That's a violation of the law. And in just a few minutes, the investigators walked out with a gun. In the Virginia Tech case, Cho purchased that 9 millimeter legally and earlier in February he bought a .22 caliber handgun at this local Blacksburg pawnshop. Now he was armed to the hilt...."


Article

[Brassmask]

They are, as I said, merely tools.

I agree.  They are tools.  Tools designed to make killing living things easier.

A hammer is a tool that is designed to make nails go into wood.  Yes, hammers can be used to bash in peoples' heads but that is not their intended use. 

Guns are specifically made for killing people or animals.  Yes, they are used to shoot targets but that is just playing at killing people or animals in the same way that javelin throwing is a sport and the real used for a javelin is to kill animals or people.

The leap from banning guns to banning anything that might be used to kill someone is common among people who think that there is nothing that anyone shouldn't be able to own.  The common reversal for that argument is that we ban people from owning atom bombs.  Sure, an atom bomb can kill millions but two guns just killed 33 people.  It's a matter of degrees.  Is it ok to have guns in homes to kill people who might attack or invade but then draw the line at who may have an atom bomb?  Not if you're an objectivist/libertarian type.

See you're holding to a dogma of property rights but your common sense kicks in when people want to have atom bombs.  Suppose Bill Gates and George Soros and Rupert Murdoch all decided that they had to have protection from whole nations (let's just say Iran, for kicks) and they wanted to go pick up a couple of A-bombs just in case those wacky Iranians go all jihady, wouldn't that be their god-given right?

The real problem with guns is that they are small, concealable, and too convenient for immediate use.  The way to resolve this issue is to mitigate these attributes.  Every gun should be sold in a locked case that is not easy to open or has some kind of time delayed lock.  That way when a person is angry or drunk and thinks that killing Bubba is a good idea right now, they might have to think about it for a minute.  It would also hinder children from getting hold of a gun. 

Guns should be registered to owners at sale.  Cars are registered.  Everyone knows who owns what house.  Drugs must be prescribed and records kept of that.  Guns should be no different.  A person who owns a gun should have to produce proper identification and the serial number of their gun when buying ammunition.  That serial number must be verified in a national database before the sale can be completed.

All gun buyers should have to produce a gun owners license before purchasing a gun.  That license should only be awarded to those who have completed an in-depth gun ownership class that includes direction on proper storage and risk.

To borrow from Chris Rock, ammunition should have an exorbitant price.  Not $5000 a bullet as he suggests but maybe somewhere around $20 a round.  Bullets are cheap and so the use of them is not really an economic issue.  Give the use of one round some financial gravity and people will think twice about playing with their gun for the heck of it ergo accidental shootings will go down.

If guns weighed as much as a concrete block, people would be less inclined to carry them around but that's not going to be a feasible solution.

The self-defense argument FOR guns is sort of ridiculous.  This is anecdotal and not evidence but let me tell you about a couple of things.  My grandparents' bought a house in a neighborhood in the '50's here in Memphis.  That neighborhood went way down over the years and before she had to move into a home, my grandmother was there by herself one night and she was broken in on.  The man who broke in had a gun and my grandmother was about to open the draw where she had my grandfather's pistol.

The man matter-of-factly told her that he wasn't there to hurt nobody and as long as she didn't pull no guns or nothin', he'd just leave with the tv.  She didn't.  He did as he said he would and nobody got shot.

Now, in no way am I saying that anyone who breaks into a house is going to be as polite as this guy was.  That is one of the few things that I have ever even attached the ridiculous word 'miracle' to and it is not the norm, of course.  The reason I mention it is because suppose my grandmother HAD gotten to the drawer before he saw her and had gotten to pistol.  I suspect due to her frailty, she wouldn't have been that good a shot.  In fact, I would guess that she hadn't even shot a gun in 50 to 60 years.  If she had missed and not killed him, he would have definitely killed her.

Property is not worth dying for or killing for.  Fighting someone who is trying to kill you and/or your family IS worth it and that is one of the two reasons that I have ever considered buying a gun.   (The other was my fear of the aftermath of a total collapse of society brought on by the policies of GW Bush and his cult but that passed.)  Ironically, to protect my family is also the reason I DON'T want a gun in the house.  I went into the kitchen one day to see what my kid was doing when he was being too quiet and he had a stool by the counter and was stretching and straining to get to the knife holder.  That was when he had just turned two.  Imagine him as 12 and curious about the box on the top shelf of my closet.  No sir, not me.

Banning guns is never going to happen in violence-addicted, imperialistic America though I think it should.  (If they won't ban guns, they should at least legalize pot.  I'd people be mellow than drunk and have guns.)  What can happen though is we can regulate the hell out of guns and make them more difficult to own and use.

[Amianthus]

Guns are specifically made for killing people or animals.  Yes, they are used to shoot targets but that is just playing at killing people or animals in the same way that javelin throwing is a sport and the real used for a javelin is to kill animals or people.

They are also used for self defense.

And a time lock on a case, as you suggested, makes them useful only for the "bad guys". A person cannot use them for self defense anymore.

"Please, Mr. Home Invader, wait 5 minutes before shooting me and my family while the timer counts down on my lock box."

Of course, Mr. Home Invader thought this out long enough in advance to open his box.

Many of your other suggestions are just as silly. For example - recording the serial numbers on ammunition purchases. I have multiple firearms that all shoot the same ammunition - who is to say that I don't buy the ammunition for one firearm and use it in another? Like, one that was purchased illegally and used in the commission of a crime?

[Plane]

[Banning guns is never going to happen in violence-addicted, imperialistic America though I think it should.  (If they won't ban guns, they should at least legalize pot.  I'd people be mellow than drunk and have guns.)  What can happen though is we can regulate the hell out of guns and make them more difficult to own and use.

I have mine.

Ten times the membership of the NRA already have theirs , includeing almost every criminal.


A gun can remain useable more than a century .

If you make it hard to buy you make it valuable , and there would be a new reason to smuggle stuff across the border.


A harsh regulation would not keep me from haveing a gun , it would only keep Brassmask from getting one.

[Amianthus]

The self-defense argument FOR guns is sort of ridiculous.  This is anecdotal and not evidence but let me tell you about a couple of things.  My grandparents' bought a house in a neighborhood in the '50's here in Memphis.  That neighborhood went way down over the years and before she had to move into a home, my grandmother was there by herself one night and she was broken in on.  The man who broke in had a gun and my grandmother was about to open the draw where she had my grandfather's pistol.

The man matter-of-factly told her that he wasn't there to hurt nobody and as long as she didn't pull no guns or nothin', he'd just leave with the tv.  She didn't.  He did as he said he would and nobody got shot.

For every piece of anecdotal evidence of this sort you bring up, I can bring up multiple ones on the other side. I know of at least two incidents in the last couple of years where 70+ year old grannies pulled guns and held the armed perps at gun point until police arrived. One in Georgia and one in Florida. I can dig up as many similar incidents to this as you'd like.

[_JS]

To be honest, I find it shameful that the gun control and NRA lobbies are making this into a political issue. Thirty-three human beings are dead and twenty-nine injured, most young and one their way to learning more about an academic field and life in general. Yet, we have to hear the same old tired arguments that are typically taken to the extreme by both sides over some bullshit.

Go ahead and call me self-righteous and whatever other terms you find necessary to criticize this messenger, but there is much more profound in Blacksburg (a campus I've actually been to) than stupid squabbles over petty partisan politics.

I'll be saying prayers for the deceased and those that survived.

[sirs]

The self-defense argument FOR guns is sort of ridiculous.  This is anecdotal and not evidence but let me tell you about a couple of things.....

For every piece of anecdotal evidence of this sort you bring up, I can bring up multiple ones on the other side.

Ditto, and many of those stories are of familes & friends that could have prevented the death of a loved one(s), had they only had access to their firearm, but because of whatever laws/restrictions were on the books, were unable to.   I do recall reading about a prosecuter who was just about to put away this serial rapist for a long time.  For whatever reason, the rapist was still out on bail, and on the evening of the sentencing, the rapist came to the prosecuter's house and family (wife & 2 children).  He got in the house with HIS ILLEGALLY aquired gun, with the intent of killing the entire family.  Somehow the Prosecutor was able to access his gun from upstairs (thankfully no time lock), and a gun battle ensued that killed the rapist, but also mortally wounded the prosecuter.   He sacrified himself to save his family.  Under Brass's world view of goun ownership, the entire prosecuter's family would have been murdered, and the rapist would probably be still at large, having fled the region.    

[Brassmask]

For every piece of anecdotal evidence of this sort you bring up, I can bring up multiple ones on the other side. I know of at least two incidents in the last couple of years where 70+ year old grannies pulled guns and held the armed perps at gun point until police arrived. One in Georgia and one in Florida. I can dig up as many similar incidents to this as you'd like.

Hence, my calling it anecdotal and evidence of little more than my personal experience.

an·ec·dot·al (ăn'ĭk-dōt'l) pronunciation
adj.

   1. also an·ec·dot·ic (-dŏt'ĭk) or an·ec·dot·i·cal (-ĭ-kəl) Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
   2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: “There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems” (C. Claiborne Ray).

http://www.answers.com/topic/anecdotal

[sirs]

To be honest, I find it shameful that the gun control and NRA lobbies are making this into a political issue.

Js, with all due respect, the "NRA lobbies" are simply responding to the typical gun control lobby's attemt to take this tragedy and use it to fuel their agenda.  In no way have they been an instigator in this.  Or perhaps you can show us some headline that demonstrates such.

[_JS]

Js, with all due respect, the "NRA lobbies" are simply responding to the typical gun control lobby's attemt to take this tragedy and use it to fuel their agenda.  In no way have they been an instigator in this.  Or perhaps you can show us some headline that demonstrates such.

They perpetuate it and live for this kind of moment as much as the gun control lobbies. Saying "they started it" is rather juvenile. One side claims that the ease of purchasing a handgun is to blame and the other claims that an armed student body would have prevented it. I honestly don't think it matters who instigated anything. They both feed off of tragedy and that is disconcerting.

[Brassmask]

They are also used for self defense.

Yeah, by killing attackers who are more than likely carrying a gun during the attack.  A gun's purpose is to kill a living thing.  Self-defense and attack are simply context for the ending of a living thing.

And a time lock on a case, as you suggested, makes them useful only for the "bad guys". A person cannot use them for self defense anymore.

"Please, Mr. Home Invader, wait 5 minutes before shooting me and my family while the timer counts down on my lock box."

Of course, Mr. Home Invader thought this out long enough in advance to open his box.

So?  When someone is killed by someone else wielding a hammer, who is to blame the person who didn't have a hammer on them or the person who wielded the hammer?  The point of a time locked box is to prevent spur of the moment murders.  Maybe we should spend some time preventing people from wanting to use a gun during a home invasion?  How about we spend some thought on making home invasion less of a desperate necessity?  Then you could have all the guns you want.

Many of your other suggestions are just as silly. For example - recording the serial numbers on ammunition purchases. I have multiple firearms that all shoot the same ammunition - who is to say that I don't buy the ammunition for one firearm and use it in another? Like, one that was purchased illegally and used in the commission of a crime?

That serial number would be tied to you for life.  It would be incumbent on you to prevent its theft and use in a crime.  You want personal responsibility all the time, well, we would make buying a gun a lifetime commitment.  If you want to sell the gun then you have to transfer the title and the title on all the ammunition.  If you have multiple guns that use the same ammunition then you'd better make sure you present all the serial numbers at the time of ammunition purchase because if the ammunition or the gun is tracked back to you in the event of its use in a crime, you're liable.

[Amianthus]

They perpetuate it and live for this kind of moment as much as the gun control lobbies. Saying "they started it" is rather juvenile. One side claims that the ease of purchasing a handgun is to blame and the other claims that an armed student body would have prevented it. I honestly don't think it matters who instigated anything. They both feed off of tragedy and that is disconcerting.

Guess it would be better if the pro-choice crowd just shut up when the pro-life crowd started pushing anti-abortion laws, huh? Hold the higher moral ground and all?

Think that would work?