Large decals have been placed on the doors of every building to warn students of six years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $3,000 if a firearm is brought onto school premises. The decal also states that those who have the appropriate concealed handgun license are not excluded from those penalties.
Large decals. And "these are viewed as helpful and useful changes"?
By who? The ignorant? The stupid? Or just college administrators?
Does anyone seriously believe a large decal will stop this?
"Feeling safer" indeed.
Good grief.
[Via SayUncle]
For posterity, I mention again the Israeli student who bravely came to defense of his schoolmates, prematurely ending a mass murder.
ReplyDeleteAt school.
With his gun.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961703.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3516039,00.html
The students are just going to haveto "man-up", and tell the administrators to stuff their "Gun-Free Zone" up their collective derriere, and carry anyway. Otherwise, it will comtinue to be "carnage as usual".
ReplyDeleteThank goodness that I have an appropriate "concealed carry license" because of the simple fact I was born human.
ReplyDeleteMarkie Marxist sez: "That's great! It's good to have friends in high places, and we Marxists run academia. The decals should have the appropriate chilling effect on CCW holders, as well as damping down any public criticism about the administration not taking action, while actually doing nothing to deter our Marxist/warrior/hero/criminal/suicidal mass murderers. That's exactly what we need to increase the national body count that drives our gun ban agenda. It's like fishing - everything is set up, so now all we have to do is sit back and wait for another 'Cho fish' to come along - they always do! Ha! Ha! We own this country!"
ReplyDeleteThis just ticks me off...
ReplyDeleteThis "decal" will intimidate those who might be more likely to peaceably disobey the suicidal "gun-free" policies.
As I said on another forum during the crucifixion of Buddy Walker, those who disobey these anti-gun regs could very well be saving lives.
This will just get more people killed. /duh
C.H.
"Yes, you have the right to bear your arms, no, you do not have the right to take things designed to kill people into places of higher thought and learning which should be a sanctuary for students. It should not be a battlefield, but a campus," Barnett said. "Police should be there to quickly respond and protect the innocent."
ReplyDeleteDear Mr? Barnett,
That doesn't work. It's been proven to not be a deterant. The police WILL NOT be there in time to protect you.
If you truly had any "higher thoughts," you would get a gun to protect your wussy little ass! The stickers should be put over your mouths and eyes!
You can safely bet your ass that if those shootings took place in administrators' offices, the exclusion to CCW prohibition would apply there.
ReplyDeleteAs for "higher thought"when will we see this fantasy become reality?
The dumbest people I know go to, work at or teach in college.
The entire "gun control" issue is predicated upon a single character trait: Cowardice.
ReplyDeleteAs I have posted before, we pre-stage lifesaving equipment in all sorts of places, even though the vast majority of us are not "trained personnel," and we are expected to be able to use it under stress at a moment's notice.
-Fire alarms.
-Fire extinguishers, hoses, respirators, and other fire suppression systems and equipment.
-Automatic external defibrillators.
-First Aid kits.
-CPR kits.
It is only ingrained, profound, personal cowardice that prompts gun-control advocates to disdain the pre-staging of life-saving equipment that will prevent or stop the insane from committing massacres in gun-free, criminal empowerment zones.
Good point, cbar.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the same intent of total disarmament is behind the gun-free urban zones, as well.
Hey, give them some credit. Their first two choices were this and this.
ReplyDeleteThey were also going to put these on the administrators doors.
"Police should be there to quickly respond and protect the innocent."
ReplyDeleteBeyond common sense, anyone who has read the report on what happened at Virginia Tech will see that:
The first two victims in West AJ were killed at about 7:15am. The killer got back to his own dorm at 7:17am, and the first 911 call was at 7:20am. The killer was already gone before anyone even called the police. No matter how quickly the police responded, they would not have been able to protect those two victims.
The first 911 call for the shootings at Norris Hall was made at 9:41am. This call went to the Blacksburg Police, not the Virginia Tech Police. This call was transferred to the VTPD at 9:42am. The first officers arrived at Norris Hall at 9:45am, a 3 minute response time. By this time, at least 9 students were killed.
For those who are not in emergency services, or not familiar with the VT campus, 3 minutes* is incredibly fast. This "3 minutes" included the time it took for the dispatcher to answer the call, understand what was happening and where, and give that information to the officers, and for the officers to travel from wherever they were to Norris Hall. The police simply CANNOT get there fast enough, unless they are already there.
*Dispatch times are recorded by minute, not second. This means that if a call is received at 9:42:59, it is recorded as 9:42. If an officer arrives at 9:45:01, it is recorded as 9:45. Because of this, the actual response time could have been as little as 2 minutes and 1 second, (effectively 2 minutes) or as much as 3 minutes and 59 seconds (effectively 4 minutes).
gaviota's point is well taken.
ReplyDeleteIn the NYT Blog comments, Joedy wrote: The question is not just protection, although horrendous, the frequency of mass shootings is not enough to warrant the daily danger of guns on a college campus."
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to understand exactly what is meant by "the daily danger of guns on a college campus."
Perhaps someone can direct me to an instance where a gun has performed any act of its own accord. Or is it "armed, law abiding citizens on campus" which is the potential problem?
Seems like we have already tried victim disarmament zones. In fact, the VA Tech campus already posted the campus as a gun free zone.
Joedy continues: “Police response was faulted, not school policy which is designed to prevent such occurrences.”
So – is law enforcement to blame for drunken drivers, drugs in schools, etc? Joedy admits to the “availability of drugs” at the campus. How can that be? And why complain after the fact about who is to blame? The simple fact is, by Joedy's own admission, there are already illegal drugs available at the campus. They are simply used by lawbreakers.
The issue is whether law-abiding citizens can intercede if a law-breaker is murdering people.
If one chooses to be a Victim By Choice, (“VBC”), than so be it. But simply because some people choose to drink too much and abuse drugs doesn’t mean that responsible armed citizens will choose to behave that way.
What I find inscrutable is someone – anyone – believes that “school policy” - in this case, a policy of disarmament of everyone at the school – had the potential to keep the professors and students “safe.”
I also find it incredible that there is a mindset that the government or any managing body can keep someone safe by simply proscribing an act. Where is the evidence? There is much evidence to the contrary.
The people who truly believe simple proscriptions work are all potential VCBs.
A sign, statute or administrative rule can no more keep someone safe than do speed limit signs prevent speeders.
It’s already been tried your way, Joedy. It didn’t work. Would you have larger signs affixed to the grounds, and give that a try? If it doesn’t work again, there is little point in assigning blame to police, who, in fact, have no legal obligation whatsoever to protect any individual citizen or student. But the administrators do have that duty. Or they at least have a duty not to prevent people from the best self-defense available.
We have been warned about “blood flowing in the streets” over traffic disagreements, etc, if concealed carry laws were enacted. Of course that never happened.
The bottom line is: Some people believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that good people carrying guns will turn into violent criminals, while criminals will abide by proscriptions against carrying guns. Funny turn of “logic,” eh?
Ned
Why not add a comment there and educate Joedy?
ReplyDeleteLarge decals? I've got your large decals right here, you idiots. {fume}
ReplyDelete(Well, they're stickers, but close enough...)
All of this is Creative Commons licensed - if you want to use it to further the cause, feel free!
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gun-free-zone-bloody.svg
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gun-free-zone-bloody_thumb.png
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gun-free-zone-bloody.png
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/no-guns-allowed-bloody_thumb.png
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/no-guns-allowed-bloody.png
"Yes, you have the right to bear your arms, no, you do not have the right to take things designed to kill people into places of higher thought and learning which should be a sanctuary for students. It should not be a battlefield, but a campus," Barnett said.
ReplyDeleteI guess Cho didn't get the memo.
Ned wrote -
ReplyDeleteI already did, David.
It finally showed up this morning.
One problem with idiotic statements by folks like Joedy is that it takes paragraphs to properly rebut.
I figured if I did it correctly it had little chance of getting posted - but at least they finally posted what I wrote above.