A Virginia Tech professor lays into the writers of National Review’s blog for their Monday morning quarterbacking: “You guys on The Corner have a choice to make. You can do some real research and enter a serious discussion, or you can toss off gratuitous insults at people who watched 32 of their colleagues die.”
You could say that the National Review do not have writers that have skill in the English language let alone the idea you should research before you publish something foolish.
You could say anything you want, WW, but National Review is, and has been acclaimed by keft and right alike to be, one of the best written magazines in America.
Why be foolish, simply because they have pissed off one reader?
They’ve pissed off lots of readers in the past
They certainly weren’t “pwned”. They were criticized. Not the first time, not the last.
No, Frank, the NR published a poorly thought-out and poorly articulated knee-jerk response to a public tragedy. And somebody with an actual connection to the events slapped them back into sanity (or at least tried).
It’s a damn shame you can’t distinguish between this and “pissing off one reader.”
To the extent that the National Review had any respect in the world as a magazine of principle, it has pissed it away by attaching its name to the hacks at National Review Online. The online component is really, really dumb.
You could say anything you want, WW, but National Review is, and has been acclaimed by keft and right alike to be, one of the best written magazines in America.
The ability to write well doesn’t necessarily mean that you have anything of importance–or in this case anything of basic human decency–to say.
Is your view that TNR is being criticized unfairly for their commentary?
Yeah, it’s not like there is anybody doing any Monday morning quarterbacking with with people calling for stricter gun control laws.
Oh wait…
Poor Frank, all he can do these days on just about any subject is go around saying “c’mon, it’s not as awful as you guys say it is!”
Wilbur: That may be because it is not as awful as you say it is.
Also, the National Review wasn’t the only place where they were of the opinion that the College mishandled the incident(s).
Why the Professor (and Oliver) chose the National Review as the magazine to criticize that opinion is beyond me. /sarcasm
So asking hard questions like ‘Why wasn’t this mentally deranged nut locked up?’ aren’t appropriate questions to ask?
It’s one thing to throw crap around like Oliver does just to assign blame. Another to ask hard questions in an effort to elicit information that could help society prevent something like this from occurring in the future.
Which is what it seemed like the Corner was doing.
BTW, I think it’s obvious to everyone that Va Tech doesn’t have the power to lock somebody up in a mental institution. That’s up to the Commomwealth of Virginia.
And I’d like to think everyone could come to the mutual conclusion that this guy should have been put in a mental institution a long time ago.
Frank, I don’t know what motivated the VT professor to write. He might have been a loyal reader and was shocked by their reaction. There is nothing in his commentary to suggest otherwise.
I personally find the kind of discussion in which they engage at the Corner to be extremely poorly researched and clumsy.
Take this morning’s article from John Derbyshire, for example, where he questions whether we have moved to a “European” culture where we wait “passively for the authorities to do something.” Before John opens his mouth and finds the appropriate critique of the left, he should actually inform himself of what actually happened and read about professors who gave their lives trying to protect students and students who jumped out of second story windows to avoid getting shot.
NRO has become a joke.
“Yeah, it’s not like there is anybody doing any Monday morning quarterbacking with with people calling for stricter gun control laws.”
And it certainly isn’t like anyone has done any Monday morning quarterbacking with with people calling for more conceal and carry laws.
Jeezus, what a moron you are.
Ah yes, National Review, famous for its insightful writing, such as that of of Jonah “Doughbob Loadpants” Goldberg, who is always capable of distilling any issue of import into a Simpsons or Battlestar Galactica reference, and who only has a job there because he won the vaginal lottery.
I am sure that right now National Review is making good use of its many wingnut interns to research anything and everything about the background of this professor, so that they can come up with the indignant followup article explaining that he is a member of an academic society which had a conference in a hotel one time where a brownish man with the name Ismail was a bellhop, and therefore this professor is obviously a shill for the great transnational jihadi conspiracy.
“Another to ask hard questions in an effort to elicit information that could help society prevent something like this from occurring in the future.”
Well, the obvious answer to that is for more people to carry guns.
“…where he questions whether we have moved to a ‘European’ culture where we wait ‘passively for the authorities to do something.’”
Gee, John should have first talked to Jay who can go on all day citing anecdote after anecdote of Americans fighting back and defedning themselves with firearms.
The right is a total joke. The just plug every event into whatever ideological bullshit they happen to be pushing that week even to the point of total incoherence.
We’re winning!
The right is a total joke. The just plug every event into whatever ideological bullshit they happen to be pushing that week even to the point of total incoherence.
Oh please. The left is out there calling for the repeal of the 2nd amendment in response to this tragedy and the right is a joke?
Frame, how do you function on a day to day level? You should probably call The Guinness Book of World Records. “Only Man Alive That Lives Daily With His Head Up His Ass.”
seems awfully hypocritical and of you jay. in that wild west mentality post you brought up ordinary armed citizens taking on whitman before anyone suggested stricter gun control as a viable solution.
“Oh please.”
Says Jay, overlooking that Glen Reynolds used his very first post on the Virginia Tech tragedy to decry the lack of conceal and carry laws in Virginia. And then in another thread on this blog we find pedro posting this:
As I posted elsewhere, do we need a clearer example of how fucked up the right wing? In pedro’s mind if Bush had been able to dismantle Social Security the Virginia Tech tragedy could have been prevented.
What a bunch of tools.
“… in that wild west mentality post you brought up ordinary armed citizens taking on whitman before anyone suggested stricter gun control as a viable solution.”
Exactly. Jay’s an ass.
Wilbur: That may be because it is not as awful as you say it is.
Then again, maybe it’s even worse, which would make you even wronger than usual.
Yeah, it’s not like there is anybody doing any Monday morning quarterbacking with with people calling for stricter gun control laws.
Jay, if any of us normal people had said something like this: “what’s wrong with those VT students? why were they sitting there in class like fish in a barrel when they could have been out lobbying for tougher gun control legislation!” then you might have a point.
See, there’s quite a bit of difference between a) calling for changes in public policy in response to a tragedy and
b) casting blame for the tragedy on the victims of said tragedy.
We were doing (a), NRO and other rightwingers were doing (b)
This is really a fairly simple distinction that most normal people can grasp instinctively. I’m sorry that you don’t have that capability.
I’d say it must make life hard for you to be so morally obtuse, but chances are you don’t even notice it in your day-to-day existence.
Ignorance is bliss. No brain no pain. The clueless really have no clue about how clueless they are.
Brif, that’s nonsense. Within hours of this tragedy striking, the chorus of “We need stricter gun control” was out in full force including this very blog.
My comments about Whitman were borne out of the notion that it’s just stupid to think professors or other students could possibly aid when some maniac decides to start shooting at people.
Our resident dolt Frameone even said that it flat out wouldn’t happen and when I provided him with evidence of times when it did in fact happen, he whines about it being “anecdotal” and then starts piling on the bullshit claiming I said the Va Tech tragedy would have been prevented if some students or professors were armed and I said no such thing.
And Jay, need we remind you of this brilliant
analysis from the right:
So here you have three right wing dipshits all using Virginia Tech to flog their pet issues: conceal and carry; the nanny state; higher education.
And let’s not forget all the idiots at LGF and
Debbie Schlussel who pounced on this tragedy to push more fear and hate of muslims by suggesting that this might have been a terrorist attack by a “paki” student or that it was a test operation for al-qaeda.
The list goes on of right wing buffoonery and lunacy.
“My comments about Whitman were borne out of …”
Blah blha blah. You used the tragedy to advocate for conceal and carry laws, plain and simple. And now, once again, you are backpeddling in typical fashion. Idiot.
See, there’s quite a bit of difference between a) calling for changes in public policy in response to a tragedy
Please. “Calling for changes in public policy” included blaming the tragedy on the NRA and all of the other “gun nuts” for what this creep did.
So climb down off the high horse.
You used the tragedy to advocate for conceal and carry laws, plain and simple. And now, once again, you are backpeddling in typical fashion. Idiot.
You’re stupid and you’re also a liar. Again:
You said in absolute terms that people who suggested that an armed professor or student at VA Tech might have prevented it or lessened it, deserves to be mocked. Because it wouldn’t happen.
That’s what you said stupid. Real life accounts of when it did happen proved that you were wrong and all you could do was shout “ANECDOTES!!” like a little twit.
Why don’t you for once admit you were wrong and be a man for crissakes instead of a little frigging mary.
“Yeah, it’s not like there is anybody doing any Monday morning quarterbacking with with people calling for stricter gun control laws.”
Jay, there’s a difference between a) calling for public policy changes in the wake of a tragedy and b) blaming victims of a tragedy for said tragedy.
We were doing a) the NRO and other rightwingers were doing b).
It’s actually a pretty simple distinction that most normal people would grasp immediately. I’m sorry you do not have that capacity.
I’m tempted to say that being so morally obtuse must make life difficult, but the clueless are often clueless about how clueless they are. Ignorance is bliss. No brain no pain.
Sorry about the double post – I thought it hadn’t gone through the first time.
But Jay, thanks for your response. It bears out what I said (twice) about the clueless being clueless about how clueless they are.
I can stop worrying about you, I’m sure your existence is quite blissful.
I can stop worrying about you
Thanks. I feel much better knowing you’re not worrying about me.
Oh and by the way Wilbur, Rich Lowry was not blaming the victims. He was questioning why the school couldn’t get this kid kicked out despite the fact that he had some serious issues.
I would try a little reading comprehension before calling others clueless.
My point was, and is, that was a great supply of “poorly thought-out and poorly articulated knee-jerk responses” “to a public tragedy”.
As witness, the caterwauling for gun control, when,in fact, pre – existing safeguards, had they been properly implemented, would have prevented the killer (I will no longer call him a “gunman”, until knife – wielding killers are called knifemen, and people who blow things up are called bombmen) from completing his mission.
Much speculation was proven wrong over the last few days, more than was proven right.
But Oliver draws attention to NRO, as he did with Derbyshire’s, because it comes from NRO, not because of its content.
You can argue all you want about whether or not Virginia Tech handled their perceived responsibilities well: Monday morning quarterbacking is to be expected, from left, right and center.
They certainly weren’t “pwned”. They were criticized.
Quote the professor:
That, fd, is getting pwned.
Jay,
The simple fact of the matter, again, is that you used the Virginia Tech tragedy to advocate for conceal and carry laws. Why you are suddenly so ashamed of your behavior now is beyond me. Me thinks it has something to do with your blatant hypocrisy.
You scorn those who used the tragedy as an opening to discuss gun control, indeed, you openly mock their position:
But you yourself engaged in just such quarterbacking when you posted this:
Nevermind for the moment that this is a utter horseshit, it’s a clear example of Monday morning quarterbacking as you are obviously implying that students with guns at Virginia Tech could have kept the killer doing more damage than he did. You claim that other anecdotes prove this claim. But, Jay, there are other examples of citizens with guns geting shot or wounded while attempting to stop crimes — off-duty cops, even — which suggest that advocating for armed citizens to defend themselves is just as liable to lead to more deaths than less.
But you are advocating this irresponsible position as a matter of public policy through caonceal and carry laws.
Ultimately, you are engaging in the same thing you decry the left of doing. But the right has gone even further, moving well beyond gun control as an issue to bring in everything from the “nanny state” to the “amorality” of higher education. When presented with examples of this bizarre ideologically driven exploitation, you, quite predictably, ignore it.
Hence: You’re a jackass.
Why do I get the feeling that Frank’sprinciple of not dwelling on specific incidents of rear-endery will suddenly disappear as soon as someone who could be identified as “Liberal” says something he doesn’t like?
Conceptual Guerilla pwnd the cons on this issue yesterday from another angle, and pwnd them HARD.
Dr. Squid: I owe you half an apology.
Ted Frank has made a connection between the Bath schoolhouse incident and Virginia Tech:
NG: Why do I get the feeling that you’re a horse’s rear end on two continents?
Go look for “s”, will you?
Maybe you are “s”, eh?
That, fd, is getting pwned.
If it is, then I’ll chalk it up to my lack of fluency in kidspeak.
Oh and by the way Wilbur, Rich Lowry was not blaming the victims. He was questioning why the school couldn’t get this kid kicked out despite the fact that he had some serious issues.
And the professor explained very well why that was an ignorant and offensive criticism of a school that had just suffered a great tragedy.
Logic: being impervious to it is one way to maintain one’s blissful ignorance.
Typical conversation between a normal person and a wingnut:
WN: The world is flat!
NP: No, it’s not. Here’s some evidence for the fact it is round…
WN: But I just told you — the world is flat!
NP: should I repeat the evidence that I just laid out for you? Do you dispute the validity of that evidence? Can you refute the conclusions I draw from it?
WN: Oh please. You don’t believe what I say but you expect me to listen to what you say. What a hypocrite!
NP: Jesus, you’re stupid.
WN: Trust a liberal to resort to personal insults. This proves the world is flat.
The simple fact of the matter, again, is that you used the Virginia Tech tragedy to advocate for conceal and carry laws.
You are such a liar. I challenge you right now to provide the words where that’s what I was advocating. Do it loser.
Nevermind for the moment that this is a utter horseshit
Not it is not utter horseshit, it is a freaking fact! You are such a feeble minded idiot.
it’s a clear example of Monday morning quarterbacking as you are obviously implying that students with guns at Virginia Tech could have kept the killer doing more damage than he did.
No, what I said was in response to people who said that a student or professor with a gun WOULD NOT have kept the killer from doing more damage. I didn’t offer this up out of the clear blue. Once again you’re lying.
But, Jay, there are other examples of citizens with guns geting shot or wounded while attempting to stop crimes — off-duty cops, even — which suggest that advocating for armed citizens to defend themselves is just as liable to lead to more deaths than less.
And I never said otherwise. Remember, you’re the one who said in absolute terms that people who suggested that an armed professor or student at VA Tech might have prevented it or lessened it, deserves to be mocked. Because it wouldn’t happen.
That’s what you said Frame. That. Is. What. You. Said.
But you are advocating this irresponsible position as a matter of public policy through caonceal and carry laws.
Another lie. I am not advocating anything. I merely pointed out that in contrast to your position that if a student or professor was armed they would not have prevented the shooting nor lessened the amount of deaths. It has happened and that’s something that you cannot get through your thick freaking skull.
When presented with examples of this bizarre ideologically driven exploitation, you, quite predictably, ignore it.
I chose ignore it because there’s no point in paying any attention to such drivel.
Besides, wouldn’t those examples just be anecdotes??
Dipshit.
“I challenge you right now to provide the words where that’s what I was advocating. Do it loser.”
Um jay, you began by bringing up the Whitman incident in the context of Virginia Tech. Are we to understand that when you wrote:
You were not suggesting that students with guns could have kept the killer from doing more damage than he did? And how, if this is the case, would the students be allowed to legally carry handguns into classrooms without conceal and carry laws? Are you denying any of the implications of what you wrote? Of course we all know what your weasily out is as you previously wrote:
Really? Just stating a fact? Just stating a fact to what end I wonder? If to no end, why state it?
You were not suggesting that students with guns could have kept the killer from doing more damage than he did?
Sure I was. Because it is true and others (including yourself) said it wasn’t true and that it (again) would not happen. It could happen and it has happened. Therefore, your position and those who agree with you are wrong. That’s not advocation. What I believe is the right policy or what you believe is the right policy is irrelevant. The only that matters are the facts when taking a position on something. All that matter is what has happened and the evidence shows that there have been times when armed citizens have prevented a perp from doing more damage or have defended themselves with the use of firearms. Whether I am an advocate for the policy doesn’t matter. To say that such a policy would not help is just wrong when one considers when it has worked before. It’s as simple as that.
You can dance around it all you want. The bottom line is, you and others made a claim. That claim was countered with evidence that refuted that claim. Hence, you and others were and are wrong.
Deal with it.
Really? Just stating a fact? Just stating a fact to what end I wonder? If to no end, why state it?
Simple. The facts were stated to refute your claim.
“Another lie. I am not advocating anything.”
Ah ah, there we are again. Jay is not advocating anything just stating facts for the fun of it.
Let me refresh your memory, Jay. I was responding to your Whitman example and here is what I wrote in its entirety:
So all I did was point out that a student with a gun is just as likely to still end up dead as to actually save lives. Indeed, that student might also have killed an innocent person in a case of mistaken identity or being a bad shot, especially in an environment where anyone might have had a gun. But when i pointed this out, did you respond reasonably, by agreeing that yes, that could happen? No you didn’t. Indeed you wrote:
That’s funny Jay, because i never suggested that every student or teacher had to be armed for them to end up dead while trying to stop a crime. So right off the bat you are attributing an argument to me I never made.
Tsk, tsk, there’s that hypocrisy showing again.
But beyond that, you may not be advocating that “every student should be armed” but how exactly do you keep guns from poliferating all over a neighborhood, a city, a campus if you allow everyone to carry concealed weapons? This especially when, in the wake of incidents like this, right winger go out of their way to mock and shame unarmed students for being afraid or for simply trying to surrvive?
Again, why should we not mock people who only present one side of thing as if it defines entirely the issue and then want to base public policy on their cherry picked “evidence” , especially when those people go on attack the victims of tragedy for not being courageous enough?
My only crime, apparently, was in pointing out that sometimes citizens with guns get killed or shot trying to prevent crimes. This simple statement triggered a flood of anecdotes and name calling from you. Go back and look at the thread, Jay.
“Because it is true and others (including yourself) said it wasn’t true and that it (again) would not happen.”
Um, please direclty quote where I said a student with a gun would never stop a criminal. “Do it loser.”
“All that matter is what has happened and the evidence shows that there have been times when armed citizens have prevented a perp from doing more damage or have defended themselves with the use of firearms.”
Jy, there is also ample anecdotal evidence that people with guns who try to stop crimes get killed and shot. That’s a fact too. Would you like to tell me why your anecdotes trump my anecdotes when it comes to establishing public policy?
“To say that such a policy would not help is just wrong when one considers when it has worked before. It’s as simple as that.”
But Jay, again, what about all the times when citizens with guns have ended up getting themselves killed for intervening to stop a crime? I even gave you a story for the NY Times about how the NYPD had to revise its off-duty policies because a string of armed cops were killed or shot trying to stop crimes while off-duty.
IN other words, by taking my own examples i could just as easily write with confidence: “To say that such a policy would help is just wrong when one considers when it hasn’t worked before. It’s as simple as that.”
See what I’m saying? No, of course, you don’t becsause you’re a fucking moron.
Um, please direclty quote where I said a student with a gun would never stop a criminal. “Do it loser.”
I already did. Several times. You said quite clearly that anybody who suggested that an armed professor or teacher could have prevented or lessened the damage this killer did “deserves to be mocked.”
Question: Why would they deserve to be mocked if there’s a chance they could prevented it or lessened the damage?
My only crime, apparently, was in pointing out that sometimes citizens with guns get killed or shot trying to prevent crimes. This simple statement triggered a flood of anecdotes and name calling from you. Go back and look at the thread, Jay.
No your crime was to state that anybody who said an armed professor or student might have prevented the killer or lessened the damage “deserves to be mocked.”
Again, why should we not mock people who only present one side of thing as if it defines entirely the issue
Actually, you said that anybody who said an armed professor or student might have prevented or lessened the damage “deserves to be mocked.”
Jy, there is also ample anecdotal evidence that people with guns who try to stop crimes get killed and shot. That’s a fact too.
Ok, and? Nobody is denying that. There are risks. There always are when it comes to firearms.
But again, this is not about me. It is about you saying that that anybody who said an armed professor or student might have prevented or lessened the damage “deserves to be mocked.”
So, here is the thing:
Q: Have citizens protected themselves or others in the past with firearms?
A: Yes
Q: Have citizens protected themselves and others with firearms in situations at schools?
A: Yes
Q: Could have an armed professor or student prevented or lessened the damage done by the killer at Va Tech?
A: Yes
So here is the question again Frame:
If an armed professor or student could have prevented or lessened the damage by the killer at Va Tech, why do the people suggesting it, in your words, “deserve to be mocked”?
IN other words, by taking my own examples i could just as easily write with confidence: “To say that such a policy would help is just wrong when one considers when it hasn’t worked before. It’s as simple as that.”
Uhhh…Your statement would be false because it HAS WORKED before.
Idiot.
“I already did. Several times.”
Um, no you didn’t. Quote it dude. Link to the comment. You know how to do that don’t you?
You are clearly misrepresenting what I said in utter hypocritical fashion. Here’s what you mist be referring to:
Suggesting that students with guns might get killed by the cops or other students with guns is a long way from suggesting that students with guns would never be able to save lives by killing a criminal.
So go ahead and plese provide the direct quote where I said that would never happen.
“Uhhh…Your statement would be false because it HAS WORKED before.”
Jesus chirst jay don’t you get it, do you? There are also examples where it hasn’t worked. A policy of conceal and carry is just as likely to lead to more innocent deaths as not, is it not?
Now causing more innocent deaths is not exactly a policy that works is it?
“If an armed professor or student could have prevented or lessened the damage by the killer at Va Tech, why do the people suggesting it, in your words, “deserve to be mocked”?”
Because, dipshit, it’s just as likely that an armed student or professor might have killed an innocent student, got themselves killed by the killer, or been killed by the cops or otherwise slowed the official police response as the cops wasted time trying to figure out who OUT OF UNIFORM was or was not the killer.
Why do I say it’s “just as likely”? Because forever anecdote you can come up with in which someone killed a criminal, I could come with another story in which a citizen with a gun was killed by a criminalor killed an innocent bystander while attempting to stop a crime. Or are you suggesting that these never happen?
Because of all these reasons it is ridiculous to use the Virginia Tech incident as fodder for pushing conceal and carry laws, which you are in fact doing.
Jesus chirst jay don’t you get it, do you? There are also examples where it hasn’t worked.
How many times are you going to repeat yourself? Nobody is denying this so stop saying as though somebody was.
A policy of conceal and carry is just as likely to lead to more innocent deaths as not, is it not?
The evidence doesn’t show that. Look at the number of states that now have “shall issue” concealed carry laws on the books. If you’re so certain of your position, then support it with evidence, not your opinion. Look at this map. Look at the number of states in the last 20 years that went from “may issue” to “shall issue.”
Now causing more innocent deaths is not exactly a policy that works is it?
Back it up with the evidence. If you can show that more innocent lives have been lost as more and more states have enacted concealed carry laws, then I’ll reverse my position. The fact is, I won’t have to because you cannot prove it.
Jay, what you are essentially saying is that it’s worth taking all the risks involved of allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons if there is the potential that they might save their life or the lives of others.
But how could it be worth the risk if for every life saved, a life is lost? Where’s the benefit to sociey then?
Of course you can’t give anyone actual numbers, just more and more stories, carefully cherry pikced by gun advocates for precisely the purpose of creating a false impression of what the risks really are.
So if you think it’s worth the risk, don’t you have to first be able to accurately measure the risk if you’re going to enact this risk taking into public policy? Of course I’ve already asked you this and you demurred by suggesting that I was the one who had to come up with the numbers. But Jay, I’mnot the one advocating we “take the risk” of passing conceal and carry laws. You are.
“Back it up with the evidence.”
Jay, there is no connection between the numebr of right to carry states now and the argument that you are making which is that conceal and carry laws save lives because they allow citizens to protect themselves.
Because, dipshit, it’s just as likely that an armed student or professor might have killed an innocent student
How is it just as likely? What evidence do you have to support that assertion?
If you’re so positive that it is “just as likely” then why can’t you support the assertion with verifiable evidence?
Because of all these reasons it is ridiculous to use the Virginia Tech incident as fodder for pushing conceal and carry laws, which you are in fact doing.
Whatever. Prove that concealed carry laws have made the average citizen less safe or has resulted in more innocents being killed.
Nice dodge though.
“Prove that concealed carry laws have made the average citizen less safe or has resulted in more innocents being killed.”
Dude, that’s just it. You can’t prove that they’ve made the average citizen more safe or that they’ve actually saved any more lives. You don’t have any numbers, just anecdotes.
But how could it be worth the risk if for every life saved, a life is lost? Where’s the benefit to sociey then?
Again, what evidence do you have to support this? Since 1987 when Florida enacted its concealed carry law, over 20 other states have followed suit. If there was such a situation wherein so many innocents were being killed, don’t you think we would have heard about it by now?
But Jay, I’mnot the one advocating we “take the risk” of passing conceal and carry laws. You are.
We have 20 years of that risk being taken Frame. If all that carnage was going to take place as you suggest, it would be easy to locate that data.
Dude, that’s just it. You can’t prove that they’ve made the average citizen more safe or that they’ve actually saved any more lives.
Again, 20 years of states enacting “shall issue” concealed carry laws. Obviously the rewards have outweighed the risks.
If the would-be Rambos you claim are gunning down innocents in ill-fated attempts to thwart crimes, you would have a host of statistics to back up your claims.
“Obviously the rewards have outweighed the risks.”
You know just saying that doesn’t make it so. Do I need to point out that if so many lives have been saved by armed citiznes you’d have actual real numbers too?
Frame, has violent crime increased or decreased over the last 20 years?
We don’t allow these kids to legally drink because society feels that the are not responsible enough, and you want to let them walk around with concealed, presumably loaded, firearms?
As tragic as what happened at VT was, by all accounts the campus and surrounding community were quiet and largely peaceful over the last 100+ years. So let’s arm this small, insulated community of barely-post-adolescents just in case another massacre happens within the next 100 years.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and nobody will pull out a weapon when drunk, pissed off at a cheating boyfriend, or depressed over a failing grade.
Maybe the total number of suicides, accidental deaths, and homicides over the next 100 years or so will be less than 33, so we can justify those deaths when the next Rambo wannabe is stopped in his tracks by a history professor with an AK-47 stashed under his desk.
“Frame, has violent crime increased or decreased over the last 20 years?”
And what exactly would conceal and carry laws have to do with it? Crime has dropped in states that don’t have such laws as well.
I’m not sure if I have the usage right, since I have passed adolescence, and not up on all the nuances of chat room jargon, but can we now say that Sen. Reid has been PWN’d?
The gun laws in this country are ridiculous. I dont know why each gone is not traceable via a computer database that lists every single gun. You could even have a GPS or RFID device on every one.