|
|
|
| Wed, Dec. 02 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
We need sensible laws, not more guns
Allowing college students to pack heat is no way to save lives
Date published: 6/10/2007
FT. WAYNE, Ind.--I have First, what we are doing as a nation is not working. We should all agree on that, and then we can have an open, expansive, and honest conversation about what needs to be done. Second, gun violence prevention advocates are not the ones who should decide whether we should have more guns in classrooms, and neither are gun rights activists. Who we should ask are law enforcement professionals. Having said that, here's what I believe: As a former mayor, I am familiar with police activities and how police officers are trained. And one of the lessons they are taught is how extraordinarily risky it is to fire a gun at a suspect in a crowded environment. It is a terrible idea. Therefore, I don't support it as part of the answer to making our classrooms safer. If you went to college, think back to that busy lecture hall with 40, or 60, or even 90 people in it. Think of your position anywhere in that room, and think of an adversary's position, and think about how difficult it would be to successfully fire at that individual without endangering one of the other people in the room. It's practically futile. We all wish James Bond or John Wayne had been in the room when Seung-Hui Cho opened fire. But real life doesn't work that way. Real life is very complicated, and in a gunfight in a crowded place there are far more possibilities of a bad outcome than a good one. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Brendan McKown. He's a concealed weapon permit holder in Tacoma, Wash. When a sick 20-year-old opened fire in the Tacoma Mall in November 2006 with an AK-47, McKown was there, and he was armed. But he didn't fire. He told the press later that he made a conscious decision not to draw his gun because he was afraid it would lead to more victims--not fewer victims.
Date published: 6/10/2007
Yes we Are Ashamed...
(posted by
Daddy
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
..which is why you are now a "previous" Republican mayor and a "former" president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors..
You're still on the Brady bandwagon.. but hopefully someone will correct that soon....
guns
(posted by
henry
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
more laws are not needed, enforce the laws thar are already on the bookcs. more cops on the streets,stop the plea bargaining.If you have a small town were right to carry is ok and another small town were you can not have a wepon, which town are you going to attasct even the town with C,C. has no guns.
its his job
(posted by
cassandra&sarasdaddy
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
and hes well compensated most important for a lawyer
ever notice guys like cho off themselves when they get resistance? first time another gun shows up its over
yeah right
(posted by
suzuki4wheeler
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
more gun laws that mean nothing come on.Ask law inforcement noway they cannot protect me.An armed person could have stoped V.T. shootings less would have died even thou the number might still be high maybe 1 live would have been saved.I you cant pull your gun in self defense like the man in the oklahoma mall then you should not be a person who carrys.
Sounds so -- reasonable
(posted by
AtackDuck
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
Helmke forgot the first rule of gun control advocacy: "Gun control and logic are mutually exclusive. You must use emotionalism when arguing your point." Helmke says more guns in a crowd will result in more mayhem, then tells how the opposite happened at the mall. (It was not an AK47.) He cannot show where the magazine ban resulted in any effect, good or bad. Gun ID technology? 15 seconds to thwart it. Revolvers don't leave spent shells. It's just a registration scheme. Useless.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
