Question:
I wonder, how many students would have been killed at that school in Minnesota if the UN-Armed guard had been armed??
Wonder how many vitims would still be alive if the sudent didn;t have access to guns?
Wonder how many vitims would still be alive if the sudent didn;t have access to guns?
Hard to say. He probably would have found another weapon to use, like oh, bow and arrow, pipe bomb, or maybe he would have just taken his grandfather's car and run down a couple of dozen people.
An interesting opinion.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/...al/11238463.htm
No amount of gun control will stop all violent crime
By Steve Chapman
Rain in Seattle is not news; the news is when rain fails to fall, as
it has been doing lately. Likewise, what is conspicuous about the
aftermath of the school shootings in Red Lake, Minn., this week was
what didn't occur - a torrent of calls for new gun-control
legislation.
The attack was the worst at a school since Columbine six years ago.
It came on the heels of some other publicized eruptions of gun
violence - including a rampage by a defendant at an Atlanta
courthouse and a mass shooting at a worship service in a Milwaukee
suburb. In the past, any of these might have spurred gun-control
advocates into a major push for action. But this time, not much has
happened, and not much is likely to.
Why not? One simple reason is that Congress and the White House are
both in the hands of Republicans, who generally aren't eager to
impose restrictions on firearms. But maybe the Republicans are in
power partly because of the new mood that has settled over the issue
of gun violence.
It's become clear over the years that most of these spectacular
episodes are so freakish that they are not amenable to regulatory
solutions. It's also become clear that any imaginable gun-control
laws are not likely to have much effect on crime in America.
Even the staunchest anti-gun organizations made only perfunctory
efforts to capitalize on the Minnesota shootings. The Brady Campaign
to Prevent Gun Violence used the opportunity to criticize Congress
for letting the federal "assault weapons" ban expire, mandating
immediate destruction of the records of gun sales, and considering a
bill to limit lawsuits against gun dealers.
But these had nothing to do with what happened in Red Lake. Records
of gun sales? The killer, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, wasn't old enough
to buy a gun legally in Minnesota. At least two of his guns were
stolen from his grandfather, a police officer whom he killed.
Assault weapons ban? His arsenal included no such weapons - only
a .22-caliber pistol, plus a police-issued .40-caliber handgun and
12-gauge shotgun. Limiting lawsuits against dealers? A bill that
hasn't been enacted couldn't have caused a mass shooting yet.
The Violence Policy Center charged that the problem lies
in "America's love affair with guns" and held up the example of
countries that, it says, have prevented mass shootings
through "severe restrictions on the availability of specific classes
of firearms, such as handguns and assault weapons." This statement
only confirmed the National Rifle Association's suspicion that gun-
control advocates are bent on banning entire categories of common
firearms - even though most owners use them in a responsible and law-
abiding manner.
But decrying America's love affair with guns is like decrying
America's love affair with football or movies. There are some 260
million firearms in private hands in this country. Any solution
requiring vast numbers of people to reject something they have long
valued is not a solution but a fantasy. It's also an admission that
no politically feasible options are likely to have any perceptible
effect on crime.
Support for gun control has been sliding in recent years. In 1990,
78 percent of Americans said they thought laws on firearm sales
should be stricter. By 2004, only 54 percent agreed. By a 2-to-1
margin, they oppose a general ban on private ownership of handguns -
as dreamed of by the Violence Policy Center. When Congress let
the "assault weapons" ban expire last year, there was no public
uproar.
Past experience with school shootings, horrific as they are, may
have also made people skeptical of overreaction. As it happens, this
sort of mayhem is rare and getting rarer. Last year's annual federal
report on school crime and safety notes that the number of kids
killed at school dropped from 33 in the 1998 to 1999 school year to
14 in 2001-2002. Other violent crimes against students at school
have also declined.
Commonsense security measures, such as limiting access to schools by
outsiders, may help. But eliminating such shootings entirely is
asking too much. Says Ronald Stephens, executive director of the
California-based National School Safety Center, "It's very difficult
to stop an incident like this unless you have an army standing at
the door."
Most Americans have probably figured that out, and while they may be
shocked and saddened by mass murder, they don't expect it to ever be
eradicated entirely. That sort of realism is no ally of gun control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Chapman (schapman@tribune.com) is a columnist for the Chicago
Tribune.
Answers:
Wonder how many vitims would still be alive if the sudent didn;t have access to guns?
Answers:
Wonder how many vitims would still be alive if the sudent didn;t have access to guns?
Hard to say. He probably would have found another weapon to use, like oh, bow and arrow, pipe bomb, or maybe he would have just taken his grandfather's car and run down a couple of dozen people.
Answers:
An interesting opinion.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/...al/11238463.htm
No amount of gun control will stop all violent crime
By Steve Chapman
Rain in Seattle is not news; the news is when rain fails to fall, as
it has been doing lately. Likewise, what is conspicuous about the
aftermath of the school shootings in Red Lake, Minn., this week was
what didn't occur - a torrent of calls for new gun-control
legislation.
The attack was the worst at a school since Columbine six years ago.
It came on the heels of some other publicized eruptions of gun
violence - including a rampage by a defendant at an Atlanta
courthouse and a mass shooting at a worship service in a Milwaukee
suburb. In the past, any of these might have spurred gun-control
advocates into a major push for action. But this time, not much has
happened, and not much is likely to.
Why not? One simple reason is that Congress and the White House are
both in the hands of Republicans, who generally aren't eager to
impose restrictions on firearms. But maybe the Republicans are in
power partly because of the new mood that has settled over the issue
of gun violence.
It's become clear over the years that most of these spectacular
episodes are so freakish that they are not amenable to regulatory
solutions. It's also become clear that any imaginable gun-control
laws are not likely to have much effect on crime in America.
Even the staunchest anti-gun organizations made only perfunctory
efforts to capitalize on the Minnesota shootings. The Brady Campaign
to Prevent Gun Violence used the opportunity to criticize Congress
for letting the federal "assault weapons" ban expire, mandating
immediate destruction of the records of gun sales, and considering a
bill to limit lawsuits against gun dealers.
But these had nothing to do with what happened in Red Lake. Records
of gun sales? The killer, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, wasn't old enough
to buy a gun legally in Minnesota. At least two of his guns were
stolen from his grandfather, a police officer whom he killed.
Assault weapons ban? His arsenal included no such weapons - only
a .22-caliber pistol, plus a police-issued .40-caliber handgun and
12-gauge shotgun. Limiting lawsuits against dealers? A bill that
hasn't been enacted couldn't have caused a mass shooting yet.
The Violence Policy Center charged that the problem lies
in "America's love affair with guns" and held up the example of
countries that, it says, have prevented mass shootings
through "severe restrictions on the availability of specific classes
of firearms, such as handguns and assault weapons." This statement
only confirmed the National Rifle Association's suspicion that gun-
control advocates are bent on banning entire categories of common
firearms - even though most owners use them in a responsible and law-
abiding manner.
But decrying America's love affair with guns is like decrying
America's love affair with football or movies. There are some 260
million firearms in private hands in this country. Any solution
requiring vast numbers of people to reject something they have long
valued is not a solution but a fantasy. It's also an admission that
no politically feasible options are likely to have any perceptible
effect on crime.
Support for gun control has been sliding in recent years. In 1990,
78 percent of Americans said they thought laws on firearm sales
should be stricter. By 2004, only 54 percent agreed. By a 2-to-1
margin, they oppose a general ban on private ownership of handguns -
as dreamed of by the Violence Policy Center. When Congress let
the "assault weapons" ban expire last year, there was no public
uproar.
Past experience with school shootings, horrific as they are, may
have also made people skeptical of overreaction. As it happens, this
sort of mayhem is rare and getting rarer. Last year's annual federal
report on school crime and safety notes that the number of kids
killed at school dropped from 33 in the 1998 to 1999 school year to
14 in 2001-2002. Other violent crimes against students at school
have also declined.
Commonsense security measures, such as limiting access to schools by
outsiders, may help. But eliminating such shootings entirely is
asking too much. Says Ronald Stephens, executive director of the
California-based National School Safety Center, "It's very difficult
to stop an incident like this unless you have an army standing at
the door."
Most Americans have probably figured that out, and while they may be
shocked and saddened by mass murder, they don't expect it to ever be
eradicated entirely. That sort of realism is no ally of gun control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Chapman (schapman@tribune.com) is a columnist for the Chicago
Tribune.
1 2