Wise Words From Uncle Ted

Gun-free zones get people killed
Ted Nugent
December 10, 2007 12:00 PM

Here we go again. Someone tell me why, with nearly 3,000 articles written worldwide within 48 hours following the tragic slaughter at the Omaha, Neb. Westroads Mall last week, not a single article mentioned the most important fact of all -- that there were "no guns allowed" in the mall?

What helped cause the tragedy is the liberal dream known as "gun-free zones." Guns also weren't allowed at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University, Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, and every other location where the wanton slaughter of unarmed, helpless victims is a virtual guarantee.

It is truly anti-American and downright bizarro that private property and business owners can deny (that is, "infringe" on) this "inalienable" right bestowed upon free men by our Creator.

Consider what happened last year at a Salt Lake City mall. An armed off-duty cop properly defied that mall's "gun-free" policy and thwarted a mass shooting that was about to unfold.

How dense must someone be to hide from this information? Denial runs deep in a growing population of "we the sheeple." For shame.

When did a nation of rugged individuals turn into helpless whiners, crying and running in fear from danger and evil?

When did we abandon our natural instinct to counterpunch and attack evil, overpowering it and neutralizing it into submission?

When were we forced to dial 9-1-1, wasting precious, decisive time, instead of doing the right thing and stopping bad guys ourselves? When did we trade in independence for dependency? It's pathetic.

Every day in this country, according to the Department of Justice and other studies, armed, law-abiding citizens stop dangerous, violent confrontations from escalating into death and tragedy simply by having a gun handy to provide real "equality" on the mean streets of America.

Dedicated cops will tell you that they can't possibly be there to protect us. By the time the police show up, many innocents will likely perish at the hands of evil while good people hang around hoping and praying.

I would highly recommend that we finally learn from all these senseless tragedies. Get real. Get rid of politicians who support gun-free slaughter zones. Get rid of gun-free zones. Get a gun, learn to use it and do the right thing.

Bad guys should be shot dead, not Christmas shoppers.

Ted Nugent, the Motor City Madman, is a rock singer, hunter and board member of the National Rifle Association. Please mail letters to The Detroit News, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226, or fax them to (313) 222-6417 or e-mail them to letters@detnews.com.

Gun Free Zones Strike Again

Apparently the gremlin today didn't care about the mall's posted "no weapons" policy. Maybe they should have made the sign bigger?

-
Mall Massacre: At Least Nine Dead

An afternoon of holiday shopping was shattered by gunfire at Westroads Mall Wednesday afternoon. Authorities say Robert Hawkins, armed with a rifle, killed nine people and injured five others, two critically, before shooting himself to death.

Creighton University Medical Center confirms two fatalities there; one man and one woman. Another person is in critical condition.

Three victims were taken to the Nebraska Medical Center, one in critical condition with a chest wound. One person has an arm wound and the third was being treated for cuts to the face.

Shortly after 4 p.m. Omaha Police Sergeant Teresa Negron said that 14 people were shot; nine had died, including the gunman and five were injured.

Names of those involved were not initially released.

Police don't believe that anyone other than the gunman who killed himself was involved.

Omaha Police Sergeant Teresa Negron said, "As far as we know, there is no other shooter inside the mall."

Police recovered a rifle believed to have been used by the killer.

Channel 6 News has confirmed that 19-year-old Robert Hawkins left a suicide note Wednesday afternoon stating, "I'm going out in style."

The woman who owns the Bellevue home where Hawkins was living says Hawkins had just lost his job.

The mall was locked down as the initial shooting report came out but several people got out of the building shortly after the gunfire and many others followed later.

Law enforcement officers converged on the scene. The police helicopter circled overhead. Members of the Emergency Response Unit were on the scene with guns drawn.

Mickey Vickory, an employee of Von Maur, said she heard shots at about 1:50 p.m. and someone shouted that someone had a gun.

"It was 10 or 12 shots," she said. "We were praying. Every last one of us was praying."

She and her co-workers and customers went into a back closet behind the wrapping room to hide, then came out about a half hour later when police shouted to come out with their hands up.

As they came out and were being taken by police to another part of the mall for safety, they saw the victims.

"We saw the bodies and we saw the blood," she said.

Teresa, an employee of JC Penney, says she got on a two-way radio and said, "If anyone can hear me, there's a man in the mall with a gun and he's shooting people."

Another witness told us she heard approximately 12 gunshots. Other witnesses told us they heard at least that many.

"Connie", a Westroads shopper we spoke with on the phone, tells us she heard the shots on the third floor of the mall. She said she hid and waited until the gunfire stopped and then crawled out of the building.

Two people were taken into custody near a bus stop but it was not clear if those men were connected to the shootings.

A witness tells us that the shooter pointed a gun over a third-floor railing in the mall and opened fire. That witness says one person was shot in the head.

Two busloads on witness were gathered together as authorities tried to figure out what happened.

Eric, the father of a woman who is a security guard at the mall, got word around 3 p.m. that his daughter was not injured in the incident. She has been on the job for about a year and told her parents she saw one of the victims get shot.

"She called my wife. She was pretty upset," Eric told us.

Witness Chuck Wright says, "I heard this bang, bang, bang. And immediately I just froze."

He says, "As I backed off, I heard bang, bang, again."

Wright says he heard a total of 12 to 15 shots fired.

"It was just panic. Nobody knew what was going on," Wright said.

Wright told us the shootings appeared to be random.

Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey and Police Chief Thomas Warren were both out of town at the time of the shootings. Both are returning to the city.

Senator Ben Nelson issued a statement Wednesday evening saying, "Today the city of Omaha and the state of Nebraska have endured a terrible tragedy. Though some of our neighbors have suffered devastating losses today, I know that they can count on the support of the Omaha community at this time. Diane and I send our thoughts and prayers out to the families and friends of the victims of today's terrible violence."

The shootings happened about an hour after President Bush left town.

On Wednesday evening the White House released the following statement:

"The President is deeply saddened by the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska earlier today. His thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families this evening. Having just visited with so many members of the community in Omaha today, the President is confident that they will pull together to comfort one another as they deal with this terrible tragedy."

No Living Person Left Behind

I haven't had time to Fisk their new 54 page treatise on "Guns Bad, Victims Good!" called "No Gun Left Behind", but I do have some comments on the website that accompanies it.

Some salient quotes:

"Armed students? Armed teachers? That is the response of the gun lobby to the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech. Let's give everyone a gun and start the crossfire. The gun lobby is pushing legislation modeled after a law in Utah that prohibits colleges and universities from barring possession or use of firearms on campus. As a result of the law, 18-year-old kids could carry handguns to class, and kids even younger than 18 could possess AK-47 assault rifles with high-capacity magazines on campus. The gun lobby also wants to arm K-12 teachers."

Okay, let's tone down the rhetoric here. As it stands currently, there is no crossfire. Teachers and students cannot defend themselves. They're DYING instead!

Yes, let's talk about Utah. How many mass shootings have taken place in a Utah school? Come on, I'm waiting... Times up!

I seriously doubt anyone at the NRA is suggesting that kids younger than 18 carry AK-47's to school. But even if they were, there was a time in this country when school kids did take their guns to school, put them in a locker, and then took them home with them after school was done. Tell me how many school shootings happened back then. I'll give you the answer, none.

I can think of a lot worse things than arming K-12 teachers. Like my kids dying because their teacher wasn't able to protect them.

Take a lesson from the Israeli's. After terrorists began targeting their schools, they armed their teachers and armed guards patrolled the perimeter. The terrorists soon learned that schools were no longer an easy target. And that is all a "Gun-Free Zone" is anyway, a target rich environment.

Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke, et, al. Pull your collective heads out of your butts and smell the coffee!

"Obviously, arming students and teachers is a bad idea.

Here are a few reasons why it would be insane to introduce guns into colleges and schools. The college age years — 18-24 — are the peak years for engaging in gun crimes, abusing drugs and alcohol, attempting suicide, and having other mental health problems. A binge-drinking, drug-using student is dangerous enough; let's not give him or her a gun."

Obvious to whom? But yet at the same time Sarah, you're perfectly fine with heavily arming the same age group to go fight, kill and die for this country. Given your logic, a large portion of the armed forces should be disarmed and given pepper spray and keys to defend themselves with against the terrorists.

Positioned right next to this argument is a disgusting cartoon which includes, Lee Harvey Oswald, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Seung-Hui Cho taking turns reciting parts of the second amendment. I will not post it on my blog on principal, but you can view it here. Any respect I may have had for these idiots evaporated on the spot. Sarah, which of the other rights should we make fun of and denigrate? How about free speech? How about freedom of the press? To peacefully assemble? How about the right against illegal search and seizure? You people disgust me!

"Do We Really Want Guns in K-12 Classrooms?

Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20% of the time.

Arming teachers would likely make them the first targets in an attack, and could encourage attackers to increase their firepower or wear body armor.

More than 2,000 K-12 students are expelled each year for carrying guns to school. Do we really want armed teachers confronting them? What if a teacher shoots a student?"

Now they trot out the "Police officers are the only ones trained enough to handle a firearm safely and accurately" myth. Police officers are less likely to hit what they aim at simply because most of them only have to qualify once a year, with a limited number of rounds. The gun for them is just a part of the job and they take no interest in honing their skills further. Therefore, it is no surprise they can't hit what they aim at. I personally asked an officer in my town what kind of gun he had and all he knew was that it was a Glock (stamped on the side of the gun) and that the bullets were the kind that expanded and wouldn't pass through, hitting other people. From the small clues he awkwardly gave me, I deduced that it was a Glock in .45 ACP with hollowpoint bullets. I'm not trying to run down cops, merely demonstrating that holding them up as the paragon for weapons handling is goofy at best. I belong to a shooting range, and among the people I see there, 95% of them are very good with a handgun. The simple reason is, they practice. They practice many more times a year than most cops do.

Seriously, aren't teachers usually the first targets of an attack anyway? They're bigger and older and more able to resist than their children. This is a strawman and that's all I'm going to comment.

Well, what if a teacher shoots a student? What if a wack-job storms into the school with a 9mm and a .22lr pistol and kills 32 people? Is one better than the other? Are the victims more righteous if they can't or won't fight back? Would a teacher be better off confronting the attacker or cowering in fear beneath their desk?

As soon as I have the time and a large supply of antiacid, I'll peruse their little booklet and post the results.

Anyway, I've got some kids to feed...

Which is it Wayne?

Mr. LaPierre. Do you, or do you not support a CCW permit holder's right to carry a concealed weapon at their school; for theirs, and others protection?

Reference this quote from May 1st, 1999:

"First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes.Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted."

This quote, btw, is quoted verbatim on page 11 of the Brady Campaign's new propaganda "No Gun Left Behind."

Contrast that to this quote from May 11th, 2007:

"I agree that we need to look at steps the government can take to protect our kids, but let's be honest here. I mean, my gosh, Mr. Gonzales agrees there's no guarantee of complete security.

If that's the case (and we all know it is), then why shouldn't we also be having a discussion about trained adults legally carrying concealed firearms for their own protection and the protection of others? Texas Governor Rick Perry's willing to have that discussion. Why isn't the nation's attorney general?"

Recently I wrote a letter to the NRA voicing my concern with Wayne's previously stated policy:

"I am disturbed by Wayne LaPierre's support of "Gun-Free Zones" (http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6043).

As recent events at Virginia Tech demonstrate, "Gun-Free Zones" are an oxymoron at best, and a killer at worst. Criminals don't obey the law, period. Wayne should renounce his support of "Gun-Free Zones" and embrace the rights of students and teachers to be lawfully armed, or consider resigning his post. In addition, it is profoundly disturbing to me that he and the NRA are betraying their principals and the members by negotiating with the other side to further restrict our second amendment rights. I am speaking of the NICS enhancement bill.

Every time you compromise with evil, evil wins and you lose. Soon there will be nothing left of our rights and evil (Sarah Brady, et al.) will have won."

What I got back from the NRA was political doublespeak and avoidance:

"Hello and thank you for contacting NRA-ILA in regards to the Gun-Free Zones issues.

Let's always remember first and foremost that it is those deranged individuals who have committed horrific crimes with guns at schools that are themselves responsible for their acts. Clearly it is already illegal to bring a gun to school and use it to take the lives of others. In committing these criminal acts, numerous federal, state, and local existing laws are broken. You can't make such heinous behavior any more illegal than it already is.

Of course, in the aftermath of such tragedies, Americans ask "why" and seek solutions to prevent future tragedies from occurring. If we are truly to find solutions to preventing school shootings, a wide range of remedies must be on the table for consideration, including whether or not there should be a lawful, armed presence on our nation's campuses. However, at the top of the discussion list, should be trying to figure out what has gone so wrong in these instances that an individual(s) feels the need to take the lives of young students in what should be a safe environment. One thing that is certain, however, is that passing additional gun control laws should not be part of the discussion, as again, you can't make what these criminals do with guns at schools any more illegal than it already is.

Suzanne N. Anglewicz
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
703-267-11741-800-392-8683 (VOTE)
sanglewicz@nrahq.org"

Suzzane, I don't really care why psychotic killers feel compelled to kill. I DO care about my ability to defend my life, and the lives of my loved ones. This includes malls, schools, churches...anywhere I might be, without fear of being labeled a criminal for exercising my 2nd amendment rights, and defending my right to life and liberty.

So now I am left with too very contradictory statements from Mr. LaPierre. Which is it sir, which one is your real position?

Wayne, you should take a hint from Tom Gresham who has come out very strongly in favor of abolishing (so called) Gun-Free Zones, which have done nothing to stop mass shootings, and only see the law abiding disarmed and defenseless.

I should point out that I am a member of The NRA, but on this topic (and some others) I don't agree with them. It would be nice to get a consistent answer from them too.

I'd write them again, but I don't have any faith that I'd get a real answer back this time either.

Why would anyone want to carry a gun inside a church?

Several Christian churches these days seek to restrict CCW inside their walls. After all, churches are places of sanctuary, and of peace and devotion. Why would anyone want or need to carry a concealed weapon inside a church?

I can come up with at least two reasons off the top of my head. Search the internet and I bet you'll find several more.

Sex Attack Inside Church Captured On Videotape
May 17, 2007 11:38 am US/Mountain

"(CBS) NEW YORK CITY - It's supposed to be a sanctuary, but instead a New York church became perhaps the most unexpected place for a sex attack.

Middletown, N.Y. police are looking for a man who sexually assaulted a woman inside a local church -- in an act that was captured on surveillance video.

The attack happened just after midnight on Wednesday. The victim, a female volunteer at St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Middletown, was volunteering during perpetual adoration when the church is kept open for paying respect over the Eucharist."

...clicky...

Church Fire Was Set to Kill, Police Say
SALEM, Ore., Oct. 28, 2006

"(AP) A man accused of sloshing fuel on pews and parishioners during a church service and starting fires intended to kill everyone in the building, investigators say.

Kam Shing Chan is charged with attempted aggravated murder, attempted assault, arson and reckless burning. A judge denied bail Friday, saying Chan would be a danger to the community.

Witnesses said Chan burst into the Peoples Church on Wednesday ranting about "the blood," sloshed fuel around and started fires. Two women were burned when their clothing caught fire. Members of the congregation caught him."

...clicky...

Even Jesus advocated armed self-defense. When preparing his disciples to go into the world and spread the gospel, he specifically instructed them to buy a short sword for defense against wild animals and robbers.

"Luke 22:36 (New International Version)

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Any questions?

OMG! Nobody panic now!

The War on Guns: Prosecute This Criminal Now!:

"Prosecute This Criminal Now!

The man was walking with a beagle along Flint Hill Road in Bedford County, carrying a bag of dog food and an unloaded .22-caliber rifle, when he stopped and sat in a ditch near school property, authorities said Monday.

If they determine he set one foot on school property, I know at least one guy who wants to see him prosecuted to the full extent of the law:

[W]e believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

Isn't that right, Wayne?"

Convicted School (murderer) Shooter Loves Gun Control

(Yeah, I wonder why... -Yuri)

Fifteen years ago, Wayne Lo went on a killing spree at his Massachusetts campus. Here's his take on Virginia Tech.

By Samantha Henig
Newsweek
Updated: 2:00 p.m. PT May 2, 2007
May 2, 2007 - Before Virginia Tech, before Columbine, there was Simon’s Rock.

Late on the evening of Dec. 14, 1992, Wayne Lo, an 18-year-old student at Simon’s Rock College of Bard in Great Barrington, Mass., approached a security-guard shack on the campus and began shooting, as he says now, “at anything that moved.” Lo fired at least nine rounds during the following 20 minutes, killing another student and a Spanish professor and wounding four others.

A gifted violinist who had moved with his family from Taiwan to Billings, Mont., at age 12, Lo had bought his weapon, an SKS carbine rifle, that very afternoon at a sporting-goods store in nearby Pittsfield, Mass. His Montana driver’s license was the only documentation the purchase required. The cab driver who took him to the store would later describe Lo to the press as “a real gentleman.” That same morning he had received a package containing 200 rounds of ammunition, purchased the previous day from a mail-order company using his mother’s credit card.

Shortly after the shooting, Lo surrendered to police. When he appeared in court the next day, he was wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with the words SICK OF IT ALL, the name of a rock band he liked. His lawyer would later use an insanity defense, but Lo never testified and has subsequently said he doesn’t believe he was insane. On Feb. 4, 1994, Lo was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

This week, almost 15 years since that murderous night and two weeks after an even bloodier morning at Virginia Tech, Lo met with NEWSWEEK’s Samantha Henig in a conference room at MCI-Norfolk, the Massachusetts medium-security prison. Wearing a black T shirt tucked into the elastic waistband of his gray pants, Lo looked more like a young professional on casual Friday than a campus killer. He spoke candidly about his murderous tear at Simon’s Rock and shared his insights into the Virginia Tech shooting, which he said he had been following closely so that he could be ready with his opinion “if anybody wants to listen.” Yet his tone was oddly similar to that of most people when confronted by the tragedy—bewilderment at how such a thing could happen.

NEWSWEEK: What was your reaction when you heard about the Virginia Tech shooting?
Wayne Lo: When they said it was a perpetrator who was Asian, that really shocked me. The stereotype is that Asians don’t do these things. The Secret Service came and interviewed me for a report on school shooters that they put out in 2002, and even they said Asians don’t really do this.

Did you relate to Seung-Hui Cho because you’re both Asian?
At first I thought it was just a coincidence, but as more details came out, there were just too many eerie similarities to me. He was an immigrant, like myself. The events leading up to the shooting, the warning signs he gave out really reminded me of what happened at Simon’s Rock. They said he had mental-health issues. I don’t really think I had mental-health issues, but I did give out those warning signs. He harassed women, and I also had an incident where I was accused of stalking a female classmate. He went and purchased a gun at a store 40 minutes out of town; so did I. He wrote papers that got people’s attention; I did that, too.

What was the paper that you wrote?
It was for my sophomore English class. The assignment was to come up with a 10-step program for anything, so being the smart ass that I am, I wrote a paper on how to eliminate AIDS, and at the end it was calling for the extermination of all people with AIDS—you know, tongue-in-cheek satire. But that’s not how the class interpreted it.

Do you think that Cho’s writings should have been more of a red flag than they were?
It’s ludicrous that they didn’t stop this guy with all the warning signs. I mean, come on, I did this 15 years ago. I was one of the first school shooters. The question is, how don’t we learn from it? They’ve done studies; they know the typical warning signs now. How could they not see this coming?

What should be done when teachers or parents spot these warning signs?
Drastic measures should be taken. You should kick the kid out of school.

But did either of you really do anything that warranted kicking you out?
No. I certainly didn’t. But for him, in 2007, with all these precedents, there should be different standards.

Do you believe that stricter gun control would help prevent such tragedies?
The people who do these things are people who don’t want contact. They wouldn’t be capable of going out there and stabbing people to death. But there’s such a disconnect when you’re using a gun. You don’t even feel like you’re killing anybody. The fact that I was able to buy a rifle in 15 minutes, that’s absurd. I was 18. I couldn’t have rented a car to drive home from school, yet I could purchase a rifle.

You were from Montana, and a member of the NRA. Had guns and hunting been a part of your life?
That night was the first time I fired a gun. Why should a person who has never touched a gun be able to buy one and the first time he fires it, be able to kill people? You wouldn’t be able to drive a car without a license.

What sort of gun control do you propose, then?
Ideally, guns should be eliminated, but I know that won’t happen. There should be stricter checks. Obviously a waiting period would be great. Personally, I only had five days left of school before winter break: school got out on Friday, and I did that on a Monday. If I had a two-week waiting period for the gun, I wouldn’t have done it.

You’ve talked about "warning signs." One of the common ones is social isolation. Is that something you experienced?
Most people at Simon’s Rock choose to leave high school because they felt isolated there. [Simon’s Rock College is designed for gifted students who want to pursue a college degree without having completed high school.] So the outcasts basically become the majority. For me, it wasn’t that I felt isolated at high school—I just wanted to get away from my parents. I was basically your typical normal kid. I wasn’t an outcast in high school. I was the kind of kid who made them feel isolated.

So did that make you an outsider there?
They didn’t like me. I felt defensive toward them, like, "If you don’t like me then I don’t like you." But I did have a close group of friends at Simon’s Rock.

You also mentioned relating to Cho because you are both immigrants.
The issue of mental health and stuff like that is not talked about in the Asian community, even within families. It puts a lot of pressure on you as a young person. As it builds up and builds up and builds up, [Cho] acted out just like I did. Asians tend to be passive aggressive: we don’t get in fights, so it doesn’t come out in little bits; it all comes out in one big act.

...clicky...

Pro-Gun cartoons!

What the Gun Banners REALLY want!

The disarming of America
-by Dan Simpson

LAST week's tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America's finest - intelligent young people with futures ahead of them - once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.

The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear last week is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.

When people talk about doing something about guns in America, it often comes down to this: "How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there."

Because I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue, I will stick with the "how." And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I'm a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take his gun from his cold, dead hands, let me share my experience of guns.

As a child I played cowboys and Indians with cap guns. I had a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun. My father had in his bedside table drawer an old pistol which I examined surreptitiously from time to time. When assigned to the American embassy in Beirut during the war in Lebanon, I sometimes carried a .357 Magnum, which I could fire accurately. I also learned to handle and fire a variety of weapons while I was there, including Uzis and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

I don't have any problem with hunting, although blowing away animals with high-powered weapons seems a pointless, no-contest affair to me. I suppose I would enjoy the fellowship of the experience with other friends who are hunters.

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

It would have to be the case that the term "hunting weapon" did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.

All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."

The "gun lobby" would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws and the actions to implement them. They might succeed in doing so, although the new approach would undoubtedly prompt new, vigorous debate on the subject. In any case, some jurisdictions would undoubtedly take the opportunity of the chronic slowness of the courts to begin implementing the new approach.

America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.

There could conceivably also be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating various of their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue.

That is my idea of how it could be done. The desire to do so on the part of the American people is another question altogether, but one clearly raised again by the Blacksburg tragedy.

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Click here to read David Codrea's (The War on Guns) take on this.

CCW & Gun-Free Zones

-by Yuri

The facts are that CCW permit holders are among the most law abiding citizens in our nation. For example, in Florida, with perhaps the most liberal CCW permit laws anywhere, only .02% of CCW permit holders were involved in a crime. When you add into this the fact that their crime rates fell to 4% below the national average from a high of 36% above, it is clear that CCW permit holders are not the problem. In addition, in every state where shall issue permit laws have been enacted, incidents of mass murder have gone down.
When I look at the facts in the Virginia Tech Massacre, I too am struck with the inevitable conclusion that, if only one of his potential victims had been armed, he could have been stopped. If only the teachers had been armed, he could have been stopped.

For example reference the Appalachian School of Law shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting) where two students with legally owned firearms subdued the suspect before he could take anymore lives. In addition, lawfully armed citizens prevent a crime to themselves or others an estimated 2.5 Million times a year. This hardly indicates a need to increase the over 20,000+ gun control laws already on the books with another piece of useless "feel good" legislation. None of the estimated 80+ Million law abiding gun owners killed anyone that horrible day, nor did they commit an act of mass murder.

Gun-free Zones do nothing to stop homicidal criminals bent on mass murder. All they do is provide a fertile hunting ground with no means for the victims to fight back.

Gun-free zones should be scrapped as the failure they have proven to be. Law abiding CCW permit holders should be allowed to carry in schools and the teachers should be allowed to arm themselves, just like airline pilots. In Utah, it is legal for CCW permit holders to carry a concealed weapon into schools. There has never been an incidence of mass murder perpetrated in a Utah school, least of all by a CCW permit holder. Israeli teachers are armed, and now so are the teachers Thailand in response to terroristic attacks. Why then aren't our teachers similarly prepared? It's time we pulled our collective heads out of the sand.

I have one child in 1st grade and another to start kindergarten later this year. I would feel a whole lot better knowing that my childs teachers were equipped to protect my childs life with something other than pleading with the maniac to "please spare their lives".

Fred Thompson on "Gun-Free Zones"

Signs of Intelligence?

By Fred Thompson

One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke, and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

NOW IS TIME FOR DEEP REFLECTION, NOT DANCING IN BLOOD

--from the SAF

BELLEVUE, WA - Today, as the nation is mourning Monday's horrible loss at Virginia Tech, this should be a time of deep reflection and offering our prayers for the victims and their heartbroken families.

Sadly, noted Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, some groups and individuals are using this terrible crime to further their own political cause: the continued erosion of
firearm civil rights and the abolition of firearm ownership in the United States.

"Almost from the moment the first news broke about this monstrous crime," Gottlieb said, "we at SAF have been forced to respond to staccato attacks from gun control organizations whose goal is to
destroy the Second Amendment. Perhaps we should be astonished, but in fact, we are once again simply disappointed in the morbid exploitation of this event. We are grateful, however, that the media
has given us an opportunity to respond to these attacks. There was a time in the past when that did not happen.

"These groups, that so quickly have tried to politicize Virginia Tech's sorrow and loss, have a well-documented history of shamelessly dancing in the blood of crime victims to advance their agenda," he continued. "Such deplorable behavior should not be forgotten by the American public. Eighty million law-abiding gun owners in this country did not go to Virginia Tech or some other college campus yesterday to unleash carnage. They have harmed no one, and their civil rights should not be erased in response.

"Today, we should all stand together as Americans with broken hearts," Gottlieb added. "Today, we are all Virginia Tech students and alumni. Today, we are all diminished by this great loss.

"There will be plenty of time in the days and weeks ahead to analyze what happened, to try and make some sense of such a senseless act, and to examine what may have gone wrong and learn from it," Gottlieb stated. "For now, let us direct our emotions toward where they will do the most good. Let us offer our prayers and support to the families of the victims, and to the thousands of students whose lives will be forever changed by this despicable, cowardly act."

Here Come The Gun Banners

--by Tom Gresham, host of Gun Talk

"April 16, 2007, just might be a turning point in the battle to restore gun rights to Americans. The tragedy at Virginia Tech today, with more than 30 people being killed in a premeditated murder spree, will be the fulcrum upon which the anti-gun rights forces leverage their efforts to restrict (destroy, if possible) your right to not only own guns, but to protect yourself and your family.

Quite simply, this is the mass shooting the anti-self defense forces have been waiting for, as we will see over the coming days and weeks. The papers are already drawn up; the proposed restrictions were penned long ago; they have merely been waiting for this moment.

Lost in the coming cacophony will be the utter failure of the "perfect" gun law -- a total gun ban. You see, on that university campus, no one is allowed to have a gun for self protection in dorms or classrooms. It is the latest in a long string of murderous failures of "gun free" zones, or as they are better called, "victim-rich environments."

According to the school's "Campus and Workplace Violence Prevention Policy":

"The university's employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third party attending a sporting, entertainment, or educational event, or visiting an academic or administrative office building or residence hall, are further prohibited from carrying, maintaining, or storing a firearm or weapon on any university facility, even if the owner has a valid permit, when it is not required by the individual's job, or in accordance with the relevant University Student Life Policies.

Any such individual who is reported or discovered to possess a firearm or weapon on university property will be asked to remove it immediately. Failure to comply may result in a student judicial referral and/or arrest, or an employee disciplinary action and/or arrest."
(Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Policy 5616, Campus and Workplace Violence Prevention Policy, http://www.policies.vt.edu/5616.pdf)

A similar situation to the one that happened at Virginia Tech occurred on January 16th, 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia. A disgruntled former student began a similar shooting spree. The difference in this case was that the attack was stopped by three individuals, two of whom were legally armed with handguns. Unfortunately, the attack was not stopped until three people had been killed and three more wounded. Why did it take so long to stop the attack? The good guys had to retrieve their guns from their parked cars before they could confront the gunman. ALS was a gun-free zone, you know.

Barely more than a year ago House Bill 1572 couldn't even make it out of committee in the Virginia General Assembly. The bill would have made it legal for students and staff at Virginia universities to have guns for their own protection. Today's shooter did not wait for such a law, and took advantage of the government-mandated victim-state.

When House Bill 1572 was defeated, state newspapers reported: "Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. '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.'"

Once again, the desire to "feel safe" prompts decisions which actually make people less safe.

What does it mean to America's gun owners? It certainly sounds the battle cry for those who enacted, then lost, the ability to ban full-capacity magazines for defensive firearms. Expect a quick call for limiting magazine capacity--and thus, the ability to fully protect yourself and your family. There may well be calls for the banning of all autoloading (semi-automatic) firearms, even though those have been in use for more than 100 years.

Fortunately, the political landscape is much different than it was when the Brady Bill and the Clinton Gun Ban were passed in the early 1990s. Those acts helped pull together a fragmented firearms industry which, until then, had kept out of politics, leaving that to the NRA. The firearms industry now understands the threat, as do individual gun owners who use guns for recreation, but especially for self-protection. Passage of the so-called "assault weapon" ban resulted in the Republican Party taking control of Congress, according to President Bill Clinton. The gun issue is largely credited with keeping a Republican in the White House since then. Elected officials of all stripes know that any proposal to infringe on gun rights is a third rail, capable of cutting short almost any political career.

Certainly, some closet gun banners will be emboldened by this tragedy and will come forward, counting on a groundswell of public outrage to carry the day for repressive gun control laws, much as it did in England and Australia after those countries experienced similar shootings. The disturbing fact that the violent crime rate skyrocketed in both countries following the confiscation of guns from honest people will not quell the zeal of those who dream of a country where the criminals are free to prey on the defenseless.

They long for the day when they can bring the failed experiment of "gun free" zones to every town, neighborhood, and home in America.

Until Monday, April 16, it was thought that gun control would be an issue politicians would try to duck over the next 18 months. That may have changed. What has not changed, though, is the awareness of the American public that they need firearms for personal protection. The vivid images of helpless people during Hurricane Katrina being victimized by thugs, with no police to help, crystallized the understanding that each of us is responsible for our own safety,. Today, we all know we can certainly take advantage of help from official sources, but we also are clear that we should never give up our ability to help ourselves.

Today's shootings are terrible. Our hearts go out to the victims and their families. We don't want to inject politics into this, but to ignore this is to pretend the sun doesn't rise each day. The assault on our rights surely will come.

Whether we gun owners get swept away by a tsunami of gun restrictions, or swim to the top with logic and organized persuasion depends, I think, on the intensity and the quality of our reaction. One thing is for sure. This is the fight which will determine the future of gun rights, the firearms industry, our ability to protect our families, and the strength of our Constitutional protections."

Gould Hall Tragedy

Restraining Orders Work!

...actually, they don't, unless they're made out of Kevlar. Reference this sad story. Apparently the psycho ex-boyfriend made some threats on her life and so she moved, changed her phone number and got a restraining order. She even went so far as to email a photograph of the psycho-ex to the other people in the building. What she should have done is got a gun and learned how to use it. I should also point out that the Victim worked in a "Gun Free Zone", i.e., a "Victim Rich Zone". It's like posting a sign inviting every psychopath and sociopath to come and kill with impunity because no one will be able to resist them. Let me make one thing clear. In my opinion, it would have been better for the victim to lose her job for being armed, than to keep it and become a statistic.

What struck me as particularly ironic, was the following sentence:

"Wittmier said he didn't believe campus police were aware of the restraining order against Rowan. He also said Rowan likely did not have permission to carry a handgun on campus."

First of all, when it came to protecting her life, the restraining order was about as useful as the "Gun Free Zone". Second, whether or not the psycho-ex had permission to carry a handgun on campus is immaterial. Criminals by definition do not obey the law.

According to the news story, there were numerous clues about what was going to happen. Looking back it was an inevitability, so why did no one do anything to prevent it? Why did no one give the victim the protection she needed so desperately? It is a fact the Police cannot protect you and are under no obligation to. Their job is to come after the fact and draw an outline around your corpse and collect evidence. In a life or death situation, the only one who can protect you, is you.

We'll never know if she attempted to reason with him. We'll never know if she tried to use Karate or Kung-Fu. We'll never know if she attempted to kick him in the groin or gouge out his eyes with her keys... One thing we do know is that she was unarmed in a gun free zone when her attacker struck. A gun may not have saved her life, but it certainly would have "leveled the playing field" with the criminal.

I have two young daughters, and when they grow up, if they are in a similar situation, I will make sure that they are safe. They will be armed and know how to shoot. They will be able to protect themselves!

This tragedy could have been prevented. The victim could have been found standing over the corpse of her psycho-ex with a smoking gun, instead of on the floor in a pool of blood.

We need to change the law in this state to allow law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds. We need to allow the potential victims out there their Second Amendment right to carry a gun for protection. Until we do this, there will be more restraining orders and more dead victims. How many more dead victims do we need?

-Yuri