NIU shooting, Gun free zones enables massacres

Please keep all comments and debates civil, no vulgarities, ECT...


I am of the opinion, that banning people with concealed carry permits at schools, churches and other locations encourages/enables criminals to commit their heinous crimes/massacres in gun free zones where they're less likely to be contested/resisted by law-abiding citizens.

I've never heard of a massacre at a gun range.

Some say only government law officers should be armed.

Let me refresh your memory.

It was a sheriff's deputy that went on a shooting rampage in Wisconsin and murdered six at a pizza party.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21181488

Right now our government is incrementally giving away our rights and sovereignty right under our noses, people are starting to protest, if we didn't have the right to bear arms, the government would be more likely to make a sudden ridiculous agreement to surrender our sovereignty such as a environmental or trade treaty. At least since we are armed, it is slowing down the socialization and the loss of sovereignty so there is more chance that we can recover and revert to a more constitutional country that our forefathers intended.

I think that it is well demonstrated that concealed carry can be beneficial. There was a recent church shooting that there was a female security guard that was armed in plain clothes, that shot and stopped the criminal before he massacred more. He saved a lot of taxpayer money by committing suicide after the security guard took him out.

Security guard who stopped shooter credits God
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/co...ings/index.html

Terrorism is not an acceptable form of protest.

The children today are not taught moral responsibility and discipline as well as they used to. The godless, politically correct, don't spank your children, Dr. Spock, hippie generation, has destroyed our moral compass and intellectual process.

I consider gun ownership a right, however I feel if a person doesn't have the moral or intellectual capacity that individual shouldn't be allowed to have one. It's not a right that is granted unconditionally. It's not just a right, it's a responsibility that has to be taken seriously and morally.

There always will be some shootings, however I think that's better than risking losing our rights by suspending guns that might result in much larger massacres like history has shown us. Nazi Germany. Or even currently in North Korea, where they apparently have concentration camps and very frequent political executions.

The Americans need to be less delusional and toughen up. Pain suffering and death is a part of life. Since September 11, people should realize that we were essentially in a plastic bubble that ruptured. There always has been terrorism, they're probably always will be terrorism; people need to face that reality. The best we can do is try to manage the terrorism as well as possible. Limit the frequency and intensity of terrorist attacks.

Extreme actions (such as banning firearms) are often counterproductive. Take the US alcohol prohibition, alcohol consumption, other drug activity and other illicit activity actually increased on the onset of alcohol prohibition.

I think the media and people should be careful about how they talk about such events, I don't think they should be giving overwhelming attention, and I really despise media that sanitizes or glamorizes these types of events. I think they should demonize the shooter. Call him evil. They shouldn't give a bunch of whiny excuses, analysis that seems to excuse or justify this evil act of terrorism. There isn't any justification or excuse to excuse this type of violence.

We shouldn't be all politically correct and try to sympathize and love the shooter. I hate the shooter. I think it's OK to hate evil. This individual murdered people, and wrecked many people's lives, the survivors will have to live with the mental scars. Families have lost loved ones. Another reason I hate this shooter is because his selfish psychopathic criminal behavior will be used as an excuse to try to push tougher gun laws.

"When the government fears the people there is liberty.
When people fear the government there is tyranny."

Thomas Jefferson

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Glenn
• Beck
• NIU
• Northern
• Illinois
• University
• Steven
• Kazmierczak

[yakyakyak69]

Our single worst threat to life and liberty is NOT criminals...

It's lawyers and Politicians!

[Schemefighter]

@yakyakyak69

Are not most lawyers and politicians criminals?

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson.

[Inmango]

Gun-free zones are the highest-risk places on the planet. they are places that criminals TARGET and PREFER to go to. Note, the number 1 supporters of gun control are criminals who got shot while they were trying to rob someone.

That's odd. criminals supporting gun control... oh yeah, so they can take away your defenses, rape your daughter, take your money, kill you, and all that jazz without worry of dying. how nice of them to put their safety over law-abiding citizens. gun control is great....

[mattxr2i]

Common sense would say the best countermeasure against a bad guy with a gun is a GOOD guy with a gun. Be it an armed citizen or security/police forces. If there is a "gun free zone" it should be patrolled by armed security. point blank. Otherwise it cannot be a properly enforced zone.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: I didn't take the phrase the wrong way, you were dishonest by changing the phrase in a way that changes the context. You were taking what I said the wrong way by retranslating reinterpreting it thereby misrepresenting what I said and meant.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: But you are still being dishonest. You change the words around and you change the context so that it can have several different meanings, whereas the way I stated that it was very accurate and specific. When you reworded the phrase, you changed the meaning and away it would and can be interpreted. "If" is not saying it should be done. I don't know if you're deliberately being dishonest or if it's because of your lack of understanding or sanity.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy "but if there were no such rule"

You have never heard of the US Constitution right to bear arms?

I feel if they impede your constitutional right to bear arms that they should be legally (liability) and morally responsible for your protection.

[RedPandaBoy]

The mentality of what you're saying is that with the gun rule, they take away your safety... but if there were no such rule...You should be safe with a gun.. and if there's a gun shooting, you can't blame the schools for that?

I think the point would be these places should be safe with or without the gun rule. I'm personally against having guns in class, but i honestly believe it's up to the school, the students, the teachers, and the parents. It can go either way.. as a group they decide.

[RedPandaBoy]

I simply don't appreciate you asserting I'm dishonest. You already stated that "if" there were gun free zones.. they should be controlled and have checks.. So there's nothing 'different' in supporting checks and security for free zones. You're just not wild about there being gun free zone.

There's nothing dishonest about what I said, you just took a very simple phrase the wrong way.

[Schemefighter]

RedPandaBoy: If I was to ask you if you wanted to be hit in the face and you said no, and if I press the issue and asked if he would prefer to be hit in the face or in the leg and you responded in the leg. So if I went around and telling people that you wanted to be hit in the leg, wouldn't that be misrepresenting what you said because it's only telling part of the story?