Reason and Logic Lacking in Anti-gunners' Remarks
There is a letter to the editor in our local paper today from a young woman who is protesting the University's refusal to recognize a Students for Concealed Carry group on campus. Her letter is excellent, and her points are valid. As usual, the mass hysteria from the liberals is reflected in the comments section online.
I followed the comments for a while, then posted my own comment. At present, my challenge has remained unheeded.
The newspaper does not keep their links alive for a long period of time, so I've copied her letter below and my thus-far two comments.
The lead statement in Robbie Evans' news story Tuesday, "Faculty and student organizations at the University of Louisiana at Monroe do not want concealed weapons on campus," mistakenly gives readers the impression that everybody on campus is against House Bill 27.
However, the comments section of the online version of the story paints a very different picture. Unfortunately, students on campus are not being allowed to hear alternate opinions on this issue from existing ULM students who disagree with these resolutions.
Why not? Because the university administration will not allow a student group to form that is in support of HB 27.
My name is Cassey Bennett and I am the president of the ULM Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, or SCCC.
Excuse me, I said "ULM" mistakenly. Our application to become a recognized student organization, having been approved by the assistant dean of student life and leadership, has yet to be approved by the vice president for Student Life and Leadership, despite meeting all of the requirements set out in the ULM Student Policy Manual (www.ulm.edu/studentpolicy).
That the administration disagrees with our group's mission seems to be the only reason for the denial of recognized status and there is no appeal from this decision. This is a violation of my and other students' First Amendment rights, regardless of what anybody believes about the Second Amendment.
As a result, our group is not allowed to post any fliers on campus, hold any meetings on campus or spread our group's message or even recruit new members from ULM.
What is our mission? We want to call people's attention to HB 27 and engage in scholarly debate with other members of the university community, educate our fellow students about their rights, and make our elected officials in Baton Rouge aware of our interests. Why the ULM administration would deny us this opportunity, while allowing all other 142 recognized student groups who meet the policy requirements to do whatever their missions are, is beyond me.
LSU and McNeese State University allowed a group to form on their campuses, along with lots of other colleges, many of which also do not allow concealed weapons on campus.
At least these schools recognize the First Amendment rights of their students.
Why won't ULM?
Clearly, they have their opinions and we have ours. It is currently illegal to carry a weapon on this campus, concealed or in plain view. We know this and nobody in our group has any plans to violate this law.
But to not even be allowed to become a recognized student organization and attempt to change the law solely because the administration disagrees with us? Are they implying that they agree with the mission of every other student organization?
Surely on a college campus, people who disagree should feel free to express their opinions through reasoned debate. In fact, we would love the opportunity to debate the administration, faculty, and other students about H.B. 27 and our reasons why we believe it would be a good law. After all, it is impossible to get a good education when students are only being presented one half of the story.
Cassey Bennett, a senior toxicology major, leads the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus at ULM.
Ms Green's first comment, at around 8:00 am this morning:
I invite someone to give instances where unlicensed criminals have used a weapon to harm or kill innocents on school campuses, in churches, and in the general public. You won't be able to list them all here in the 2000 characters maximum posting.
I now invite someone to give instances where law-abiding citizens with a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon have used that weapon to harm or kill innocents on school campuses, in churches, and in the general public. I'll wait...
Still waiting...
Ms. Green's follow up comment, a little before 1:00 pm today:
Almost 5 hours later...
Still waiting...
I have a feeling it's going to be a long wait.
thoughts from Ms.Green @ Saturday, March 28, 2009
14 Comments:
Ms.Green, Your definitely going to get tired of waiting. The stats are heavily loaded on your side. They'll just ignore the question and hide under their ignorance. Herm
Excellent point Ms. Green. It is simple & irrefutable. If only our elected officials would use common sense. But alas........
God Bless.
Just checked a little while ago and still no reponse. It seems that forum has been shut down and the mouths have been shut as well.
Wish it was that easy all the time.
Guns make killing a lot easier. That's the biggest issue I have with guns. No matter how many guns we carry around, there would be always gun related deaths as long we continue to flood the society with easy access to guns.
V,
I understand your concern. However, the problem with killings is not the weapon.
There will always be crime and murder as long there are human beings in the world. It has nothing to do with weapons.
My challenge to the readers at the local newspaper is a challenge to all.
I invite anyone to give instances where unlicensed criminals have used a weapon to harm or kill innocents on school campuses, in churches, and in the general public. The list will never end.
I now invite someone to give instances where law-abiding citizens with a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon have used that weapon to harm or kill innocents on school campuses, in churches, and in the general public. I'll wait...
Still waiting...
Green,
You can extend the arguement to many other fields/areas. You will see the same results - Law-abiding people tend to comit crimes in a much lower rate than anti-social/criminal elements.
Question is - Would these anti-social elements have easy access to deadly guns if we had better gun controls in place? Who is responsible for our streets flooded with guns?
Imagine someone trying to kill people with a stick or a knife. Now - imagine the same person with a gun in his hand. It's the same person/motivation - but the task is made really simple!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Imagine someone trying to kill people with a stick or a knife. Now - imagine the same person with a gun in his hand. It's the same person/motivation - but the task is made really simple!!
Imagine an innocent bystander trying to fight off an attacker who has a gun, a knife, or a stick. The innocent bystander is at an extreme disadvantage.
Now imagine an innocent bystander who has a weapon comparable to or greater than the attacker - the task of fighting off the attacker is made really simple!!!
:)
Well, does it mean that you want to put a gun in every person's hand? Includig kids?
If the attcker doesn't have easy access to gun, he would think twice before attacking with a knife/stick or hands. If they had no access to guns, we wouldn't have had so many incidents where a single guy walking around killing a number of people without any effort, right? :)
Moe over, as per your arguement, our society should be much safer because of all those millions of guns floating in our society. Is it the case? :)
Well, does it mean that you want to put a gun in every person's hand? Includig kids?
No. But I demand the Constitutional right to have a gun in my hand whenever I deem it necessary. I've never said I want to put guns in the hands of kids. If you are referring to 21 year old college students, I don't consider them kids. There are "kids" (as you call them) in our armed services at that age and younger, carrying automatic weapons.
In my state, a person has to be 21 years old, pass a full background check and fingerprinting, and pass a gun safety course and shooting skills test before he or she is allowed to have a concealed carry permit.
"Moe over, as per your arguement, our society should be much safer because of all those millions of guns floating in our society. Is it the case? :)"
The safety of society is an entirely different issue than an individual's safety. I carry a gun because I am a responsible citizen and have a duty to protect not only myself, but my loved ones. And if a punk criminal bursts into a building in which I am standing and starts mowing down everybody in sight, I choose not to lay down and play dead. I choose to defend myself and the innocent people in the path of the punk instead of jumping out windows like many of the employees did at the nursing home recently when a psycho went in and starting killing old people in their wheel chairs.
I've mentioned many reasons why I defend the right to own and carry weapons, but the most important reason is to allow the people the ability to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Even if I didn't hunt, or enjoying shooting as a sport, I would still support gun rights for that reason alone.
"V" said: "Well does that mean that you want to put a gun in every persons hands?, including kids?".
Your question has no merit in this discussion. Kids get their hands on guns the same way they get their hands on alcohol, drugs, poisons, the keys to the family car, etc. They get them because of carelessness on the part of careless people. This has absolutely nothing to do with sensible people who want the right to own and carry a firearm for security and personal protection. People who obtain "Personal Carry Permits are required to undergo background checks and safety training. Anyone with a felony on their record are not going to acquire a permit period. People with felony convictions are not going to be able to purchase or legally even own a firearm. "Anti-Criminal elements" you referred to don't buy guns. They steal them. They steal them or purchase them through black market enterprises that many times originate outside our nation. Mostly south of the boarder. The myriad of gun laws, both federal and states, deal primarily with law abiding citizens. Restrictive gun laws do absolutely nothing in removing guns from criminals, terrorists, or lunatics. THEY JUST DISARM THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENRY.
It is absolutely insane to believe that making it illegal to own guns will take guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and lunatics. This nation will never be gun free or violence free. On the contrary, evil and lunacy is on the rise. Guns do not produce, promote or elevate evil and lunacy. It develops in the darkness of the heart.
What Guns do though for law abiding citizens is provide a balance of protection and a logical defense or deterrent for those who otherwise might find themselves in an indefensible position or situation. That is just a plain logical defensive mindset to protect yourself and family and loved ones. Just like buying Auto or Home Insurance. Its protection period. An armed citizen is still and will continue to be a decisive factor to deal with those who mean us harm or injury. God Bless, Herm
@ Herm: My question on kids is for showing how everybody can't be protected all the time.
@ Ms.Green: You can carry guns. But, it doesn't mean you are safe since guns re deadly weapons.Take a look at the recent shootouts and death of police officers. If these guys can fall victims, I don't see how we can be so confident. Note - I am not against right to own gun. I honestly tihnk that this society has gone too far in flooing America with too many guns. Now, we are paying for it sadly.
"Take a look at the recent shootouts and death of police officers. If these guys can fall victims, I don't see how we can be so confident."
You are right in that carrying a gun does not assure me that I will be able to protect myself in any and all situations. However, it gives me much more of a chance of survival than laying down and playing dead. There will always be psychos out there who have a death wish of their own and don't care if they die along with their victims. However, being trained to respond in a way that will increase my chances of survival makes more sense to me than going around in fear, knowing that if I'm attacked, I have no chance at all.
Green,
Your logic just doesn't add up after seeing all the recent shootouts. If a fully armed, well-trained Police officer can fall victim to this madness, I don't think you/me stand a chance.
When I have an assault rifle, your hand gun stands no chance.
Well, it might give us a comfort level for you to carry a gun in your bag/pocket.
As I said, I am not against 'right to own a gun'. But, the madness of guns, fuelled by politicial agenda and gun lobby has gone beyond control. It needs to be regulated. Thee are too many guns in the market and there seems to be absolutely no control/monitoring over who buys/sells guns these days.
Post a Comment
<< Home