The main reason the laws have not been voided, is the steep cost of the litigation. Technically all the weapon (guns and knife) laws are in violation of the 2nd amendment. Fear, ignorance, cooked statistics, and misunderstanding of the wording of the 2nd amendment, have been and are the driving force which gives the politicizations the green light to get the laws passed.

Just watch the fireworks if any restrictive law was passed affecting the 1st amendment.

CEC is right, “There is no free lunch when it comes to liberty.” and too may want to be safe by passing “safety” laws. All it does is removes the deterrent preventing criminals for committing the crime.

Some people are put off by this and argue that some unstable people with get them. I think this happens already and isn’t likely to be improved by these rules. It will however reduce the chance that I or other law abiding citizens won’t be armed when they show up.

I’m not sure why there is such heated resistance to weapon ownership. I can kill someone with a pencil (but the range is very limited). Is the fear that people will behave worse if more reasonable people are armed? Is it that people will become less reasonable if they are armed? I lived in VT a long time and didn’t see any of this. Is the fear that some people will be irresponsible and the damage from this will be worse than what we have now (including the deterrent effect on criminals now more uncertain if their victims are armed)?

Drug legalization fears seem to be similar. There is no free lunch when it comes to liberty. Every time there is some public tragedy there is a visceral urge to make some restriction too prevent something like it. One has to think things all the way through.

What are the effects of these restrictions? Young people given less responsibility learn less responsibility. Are we so arrogant now that we think we can know what everyone else should and shouldn’t do? Part of being in a liberal society is putting up with some things you don’t like. We permit people to be drunks, swingers, and selfish capitalists so that we can also enjoy our wine and beer, choose our lovers and own path to marriage and seek our own prosperity.

So you honestly can’t see I answered both your questions right there in plan text? Maybe you got distracted by all the ranting and raving. Unfortunately you were not distracted at all by my subtle attempt at comedic hyperbole; I was trying to interject a bit of levity into what has become an increasingly less interesting conversation.

Any way, let me really simplify it for you:

I reconcile my stand because I am willing to accept major freedoms with minor limitations. Sorry the paragraph on reason and moderation was bloated and hard to follow.

To be honest, I don’t know how to spell out my use of “self-selected” any more plainly. The whole point of using that term is to say the group selects themselves. In other words, I don’t judge who gets to carry. That is the issuing agency’s responsibility, not mine. They either issue or deny a permit to anyone* who asks for one. *That would be the self-selecting part. And you’ll note I’m still not in it. I’m not evading, it’s got nothing to do with me, which is what I was pointing out. If guns are allowed on campus, I have no control over the people who chose of their own interest to carry a gun on campus. That is what makes so many people uncomfortable about allowing guns on campus.

So I hope that helps you understand I was not evading your questions. I made the mistake of trying to add some depth so you’d have a better idea of my thought process. Turns out that didn’t work so well. I’ll take responsibility for that.

Finally, as soon as you can prove to me in this forum that you are not really a Nigerian Prince who has a winning lottery ticket to which I am entitle to half I will figure out a way to prove to you that I am in fact a person who owns guns and also supports limitations on where I can carry them. By the way, be careful how you collapse the right to own a gun (preserved in the second amendment) and the right to carry one any and everywhere. They are not one and the same. That is, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

And I have to say I am very impressed with how strongly you are fighting for a “right” that does not even extend to you. Well done.

“Violent crime lower following law permitting legalized carry of firearms on mass transit.”

A reasonable application of logic draws from that statement 1.) More guns in the general population will result in a proportionally more irresponsilbe parent nad proportional more “children that will get into things’ 2.) that places where guns are not available have lower incidents of gun-caused accidental and premeditated deaths.”

Tell me why I should be surprised at your statement. Passing laws to protect one’s self, against our stupid actions. It doesn’t work, it just gives the control freaks another lever to take more freedoms away. Being in a free, has responsibilities, and there will always be persons which refuse and will be unresponsable, and that is not a reason to pass laws banning guns – try banning cars and motor cycles from anyone under 30, as traffic accidents kill to many young adults, and that kills more people than guns.

I’ll tell you what you gain from misrepresenting yourself. You gain credibility that is unjustified. “Look at me everybody. I’m a professor with multiple firearms and a CCW but I still support reasonable restrictions on my constitutional rights.” Gullible readers will then think, “Wow. Letting someone restrict my legal right to carry a gun is reasonable.”

Calm down Paul. I’m not going to ask you to “shoot it out on a tumble-weed strewn street.” Geez. I thought you said you were reasonable. By the way, I never ask you to prove anything but your overreaction to my comments has made me more confident that I was correct. You are not “threatening my worldview” but you are evading my questions.

After all of your ranting and raving, you never got around to answering my question about reconciling your ownership of eight firearms yet feeling that there are too many guns in society. According to Washington Ceasefire, an anti-gun website, there are an estimated 270 million firearms in the US. That is less than one firearm per citizen. You own eight and still believe that there are too many guns in society. Please explain. Sounds elitist.

Paul, you are putting words in my mouth. I never argued for “absolute gun rights.” Unless by that you mean the freedom to exercise our constitutional rights. The trouble with the term “reasonable restrictions” is that it is a subjective standard. Also, the push for more “reasonable restrictions” never stops. At first, we agree to give up a few of our “unreasonable rights” and we’re left with some smaller percentage of those original rights. Next, we give up a few more and it just keeps on going. That technique of changing public policy is called incrementalism.

I did not ask for the definition of “self-selected.” I asked what you meant by that and who you think should be allowed to carry a weapon on campus. Again, you evaded my question.

What, really, do I stand to gain from misrepresenting who I am? Is your view, your positions so threatened by what I say that you have to attack my credibility? Unfortunately, that does not reflect well on your position, or your ability to accept that others have a valid, or even different perspective from your own. Not a good place to start for anyone associated with protecting liberty, democracy and personal freedoms.

But let’s come back to me, since you deem fit to suggest I am not what I say I am. Yes, the anonymity of the internet provides lots of cover. Including for you to call me a liar because how can I prove you wrong? List my handguns? List their serial numbers? Scan my permit and post it? Offer to meet you in the tumble-weed strewn street and shoot it out to prove who is right by test of arms? Be honest, there is nothing you would accept – ‘you pulled those models from the web’, ‘you made up the serials’, ‘the permit is PhotoShop-ed’. You’re absolutely right, the internet does allow us to create fantasy. Ironically, it’s just that in this case it allows you to fantasize that I can not be who I say I am because I do not fit with your black and white perspective on who gun owners are and who professors are. And the internet makes it impossible for me to prove otherwise. So we have to dispense with “proof” and come back to ideas.

And so why is the idea impossible for you to accept that I am a professor (of biology) who owns fire arms (3 pistols and 5 rifles), has a CCP (NY), believes guns are too prevalent in our society (my opinion), and believes in the right of private gun ownership (ditto)? What is it about that mix that is so threatening to your world view? The world is not black and white, despite the efforts of so many to pretend otherwise. Most of life requires we deal in shades of gray. It’s called moderation.

And that would be the “reasonable minded” part you asked about. I consider it reasonable because I accept gun ownership and restrictions on that right, like not being permitted to carry it on my campus; that’s a moderate perspective. For comparison, you are arguing for the absolute (as in 100%) gun rights, including the right to carry guns wherever you want- that is an extreme view (100% of anything is the extreme end of the scale if you are following me), and in short hand that makes you a gun-rights extremist. And by suggesting I can not be what I say I am, you are saying everyone is either with you, or against you: an opposing extremist who wants o% gun rights.

Personally, I’m not much for extremism, not in my religion, my politics, and not in my world view. That’s not to say I don’t recognize extremism, and understand why people embrace it, it’s just not for me, I find it pretty unproductive.

At some point Doug you are going to have to accept the vast majority of US citizens are moderates. And frankly, and that is a good thing for you because we moderates will buffer you from the other extremists, those who want to ban gun rights entirely. And I’m not saying you need to stop being an extremist, I have no problem with that, just don’t call me liar because I’m not.

And to answer your other question, “self-selected” generally means those who select themselves, in reference to what I wrote I meant those who decide they want to carry a gun on campus if permitted, literally and legally. What I was getting at was even if legal not all campus citizens would choose to carry, just a self-selected group would. I was trying to avoid the generalizations.

I’m glad that you feel you are a reasonable person but I’m sure that most people feel that way about themselves.

The unfortunate thing about internet anonymity is that anyone can join this site and claim to be anything. You probably are a professor at a major state university but I seriously doubt that you own a single gun and have a CCW permit. You don’t think like a gun owner. You think like a liberal elitist. You own multiple handguns but believe that fewer guns should be allowed in society?!?!? Why don’t you start with your own personal collection? How do you reconcile something so hypocritical?

You didn’t fully explain what you meant by “self-selected individuals” carrying weapons on campus. Please fill us in. Who do you believe should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon? Only campus police? Only faculty and staff? Only CCW permit holders? Or no one? I really want to know.

I am truly amazed that a group of intelligent people are so willing to have their constitutional rights restricted. Allowing CCW permit holders to carry a weapon on campus MIGHT decrease safety but it might also increase safety. If there is a decrease in safety, I’m sure it would be miniscule but that is the unfortunate side effect of exercising constitutional rights. Nothing is free. If we really wanted to save lives, why aren’t we asking Congress to outlaw mega-powerful engines in automobiles that allow the drivers to travel at three times the legal interstate speed limit? Why don’t we outlaw backyard pools? No one NEEDS their own pool. We could save children’s lives.

Gordon writes “fact as you know, children just get into things. The fact is there are unresponsible parents and the fact the other countries the average citizen can’t get ANY type of fire arm.”

A reasonable application of logic draws from that statement 1.) More guns in the general population will result in a proportionally more irresponsilbe parent nad proportional more “children that will get into things’ 2.) that places where guns are not available have lower incidents of gun-caused accidental and premeditated deaths.

Thank you Gordon, you’re right, we should have fewer guns in our society.

But to the case at hand, and let me say again, I am a gun owner with mutliple hand guns nad firearms: we are NOT discussing here the limitation of the right to gun ownership in the US. We ARE discussing the reasonable limitation of where that right can be extended. And as a conceal and carry permit possessing professor of reasonable mind at a major state institution I do not believe allowing all slef-selected indivudlas to carry on campus is wise, or will increase the level of security on campus. I beleive it will decrease safety on campus.

The murder rate where in the US. The places in the US with the highest murder rates, are the places where it’s still illegal for a law abiding citizen to carry a firearm on his/her person.
I also question the accuracy of your statement. The UK has several times now revised it’s crime reporting mechanisms, and reduced the ways in which it counts to prevent it’s crime figures from spiraling upward. Note that they are not actually reducing crime, they are just not counting it.

I would also like to point out that Murder rates are more closely associated with non-homologous populations associating than with presence or absence of firearms.

I stand by the data set included criminal action which should not be included -

Dave Morris Says: “Also, do you really believe there’s no connection between the tough gun control laws in other developed countries and their generally low murder rates compared to the U.S.? Even in the U.K., which you sort of cite as evidence, the murder rate is about a third as high as ours. Elsewhere, it’s even lower. And nowhere but the U.S. do guns account for such a high proportion of murders.”

Guns had not a thing to do with the murders. A gun is a tool. As the murder rate it’s mostly criminals killing criminals as the current US court system just “courts will STILL slap them on the wrists” as Frank said.

Dave Morris Says: “And here’s an interesting item for you. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the firearms-related death rate for children in the U.S. is 12 times higher than the other 25 OECD countries COMBINED. I’d love to hear your reasons for denying that one.”

Dave, fact as you know, children just get into things. The fact is there are unresponsible parents and the fact the other countries the average citizen can’t get ANY type of fire arm just makes that statement comparing apples to oranges. Also the gang violence kills many children (criminals fighting over drugs).

Criminals KNOW that the courts will STILL slap them on the wrists, fine them, give them probation, etc. If the punishment was as swift as in other countries, maybe gun crime, as well as other types, would not be as prevalent. The US already has gun laws, so it’s not the laws. Bottom line is that in other countries the system works faster so the punishment is given out faster.

Also, do you really believe there’s no connection between the tough gun control laws in other developed countries and their generally low murder rates compared to the U.S.? Even in the U.K., which you sort of cite as evidence, the murder rate is about a third as high as ours. Elsewhere, it’s even lower. And nowhere but the U.S. do guns account for such a high proportion of murders.

And here’s an interesting item for you. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the firearms-related death rate for children in the U.S. is 12 times higher than the other 25 OECD countries COMBINED. I’d love to hear your reasons for denying that one.

An acquaintance of mine, a nice, gentle artist, died because a policeman had a gun and decided to use it. He was working in his studio late one night, with the door open, and someone who saw the open door called the police to report a possible burglary in progress. The policeman came to the door, saw the guy standing facing in the opposite direction talking to someone, and promptly shot and killed him. He was actually alone, talking on the phone to his parents, when this occurred. He had apparently just taken out some trash then rushed back in without shutting his door when he heard his phone ringing.

That comment is absurd. If you were in a classroom with a gunman, do you actually believe that you would be safer without a gun of your own? Sure, a few students might die before someone returned fire but the alternative is that everyone dies because no one can return fire. Obviously, it would only take a few seconds to kill four people that are sitting together at one table. 25-35 students spread out around a room would take considerably longer.

In the news this morning there was an article about a student who attempted to shoot his math instructor at a community college. He wasn’t successful because his gun jammed. I’m betting that that school doesn’t permit firearms on campus but that didn’t stop him.

Antisocial personality disorders (“sociopaths”), maniacs, paranoids, substance abusers, delusionals, etc. exist; lots of them. If you doubt this, God bless your ignorance; you’ve led a sheltered life. As it is, arguments for unrestricted carry and conceal strike me as ridiculously uninformed and panglossian. In my opinion, current laws and criteria are too loose and allow too many truly dangerous people to purchase firearms. How to screen out the nut-jobs, where to draw the lines — that’s a whole ‘nother discussion. I just think some medical and psychiatric discussion has to inform these debates. Blind trust in the benefit of allowing lots of people to run around with guns is not reasonable because a lot of people aren’t as reasonable as one might hope.

I stand by the fact the data set used in the study is flawed and the data was not released for review if I remember correctly.

Dave, funny that you said “Funny nobody has mentioned a couple of the most obvious facts about guns in the U.S. Our murder rate is way, way above that of any other developed nation. And just about every one of them has tough limits on handgun ownership.” As before 1900 in England there was not any gun control, and after the government controlled ownership of firearms currently the English have a very high gun crime rate.

And the High US murder rate, at least 90% is criminally related (drug traffic) and there is so much money involved it’s not going to change due the Mexican drug Cartels being so violent and fighting each other for control, just look at Mexico!

The other problem is the criminals are not removed – capitol punishment – except US, England and some other country’s the convicted are executed.

Gordon, the King County study is a bit old by now, but the data still hold up, and the study remains widely cited. Curiously, nobody seems to have gone back and done a follow-up correcting what the pro-gun folks say were the flaws in the original.

G Wright, good point about cops with guns. In fact, they do kill non-criminals alarmingly often — especially themselves. Suicide rates among U.S. police are 2 to 3 times higher than for non-police. Cops are twice as likely to kill themselves than to be killed in the line of duty.

Funny nobody has mentioned a couple of the most obvious facts about guns in the U.S. Our murder rate is way, way above that of any other developed nation. And just about every one of them has tough limits on handgun ownership.

Doug_F: You invite me into discussions that could (have) taken centuries. Tempting…, but no. You seem to be more of a literalist than is my wont for a debate. I have never, ever said anything about taking guns away from citizens (in re: population in general, rifles, and citizens who meet state requirements for a CCP. I simply said, or rather my basic premise is that, regardless of CCP status, weapons should not be allowed in certain venues, I include colleges and universities in them. I don’t believe that there is a Constitutional argument against this premise, as it has been practiced by the states for over 200 years. But then I am not up entirely with the conservative constitutional revisionists.

Mr. Wright:

Indeed people have killed each other with their bare hands, however, it was never my intention to argue otherwise. I simply said that other methods (I used the word tools, which is what might have confused you) tended to require multiple (i.e. somewhat prolonged and therefore interruptible) efforts.

The issue with the hand gun is that it is a concealable weapon with extreme lethality; extreme to the point of not being subject to intervention – either physical, or cognitive, viz. the circumstances in which someone is shot and killed as the result of an hypnogogic experience on the part of a shooter.

There is no mystery in this, indeed it is the reason people buy handguns: witness the comments of Doug_F above. And the simple fact is that, regardless of my support for the idea that a person be able to defend themselves, the idea of Mr. F’s 85 year old Grandmother bringing her H/K 9mm to her university class scares the bejesus out of me.

However, let’s assume you are right and all of us pro-gun writers are wrong. What is your solution to the problem? Are you proposing banning all guns? Do you think that will work? Didn’t we try that with alcohol and aren’t we currently trying it with some drugs?

“In a fight, guns DO kill people, where other tools are less likely to do so without repeated efforts.” That’s what I like about them Norman. Guns are great equilizers. My 85lbs grandmother can protect herself from anyone when she has a gun. If she only has a baseball bat at her disposal, she’s not likely to be successful unless one of the other little old ladies from her Sunday school class is trying to take her down. In my family, we’re all law abiding citizens. We will only shoot someone if we’re afraid for our lives. If I have proven myself to be a trustworthy citizen, why shouldn’t I be allowed to have a firearm?

Dave Morris, the above study above is based on faulty data. By this study my grown children should of been kill by the firearms I own. It is a fact the criminals don’t care, and the data set of the above study, did not remove the criminals from the data set because the resulting change in the results.

G.Wright I agree with you “Guns don’t kill people. People do.”

From all the anti-gun Statics that have been published, there should be a marked decease in population of the USA from gun violence. Also We should personal know of 4 or 5 victims of Gun violence. Myself I don’t know any victims and the last time I looked the population of USA is still increasing so the studies must be faulty.

Also from hearing and reading all the statements you would thing that the “GUN” all be it self get up and shoot you. The only reason for gun control is for control of the citizens, the NAZI’s did it, the Communist do it.

I cannot believe you are rolling out that tired old canard. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a situation where one person has killed another by poking him with his finger. Humans use tools and what is at issue is the lethality of this particular one. In a fight, guns DO kill people, where other tools are less likely to do so without repeated efforts.

You remind me of the man who gets lost in the woods because he refuses to believe his compass.

You wrote that Gary Kleck is a pro gun advocate that has been discredited and whose research has not been taken seriously, blah blah blah. Please cite some sources.

The below information was copied from the website: Gun Cite at http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Gary Kleck’s voluntary disclosure statement that appears in Targeting Guns: “The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.”

You were right about one thing. He is pro-gun but he only became pro-gun after he looked at the facts.

Cherry picking out of context?!?! I don’t think so. Please point out where I have misread the readers of these posts. I bet you haven’t even read the articles. Also, I noticed that your data is old and most of it was written by the same author (Kellerman). You know you have a weak case but you won’t admit it.

I’m proud that all of my children (2 daughters and a son) are excellent marksman and safe gun handlers. Don’t worry about them or yourself. While you are running away, we’ll protect you.

Dave Morris: I understood him. Seemed like English to me but I am a scientist.

Band Aid: I’ve got nothing but chuckles for that response. I didn’t make any assumptions about your political party association but it does sound like the boilerplate liberal attitudes I’ve heard for a long time. Frustrating for me because mostly I identify with the Democratic party and when these arguments against their opinions come up they are met with deflection (e.g. “Don’t you dare make assumptions about me” or “You don’t speak well enough for me to understand”). Checked the sentence construction and it seems OK. I work in math and the hard sciences and constructing properly qualified statements is difficult. Humanities people can often slide by on style and emotion but at the sake of accuracy. Not sure if that is your area or not.

Want to try it again, this time in English?

After I posted last night, I regretted my sarcasm so please don’t mistake what I’m about to write because it is a serious question. Please explain how you plan to protect yourself and your unarmed students against an armed bad guy in your class? You can’t. Do you plan to run out of the door? Throw a desk at the shooter? Just because the bad guy is crazy, it doesn’t mean that he or she is stupid. Reports on these past massacres have shown that the shooters plan their actions extensively. They chain doors and carry lots of ammo. Your only hope, at that point, is that there is a good guy in the class who has chosen to disregard the rules and carry a firearm in his/her back pack.

You also wrote, “Let everyone else have the right to a gun free campus.” All of these campus shootings took place on a “gun free campus.” Don’t you see the flaw in your logic? Do you also want the campus and local police to carry only pepper spray and a night stick when they come to rescue you? I don’t mean for that to sound sarcastic but I don’t know any other way to ask it.

In your second post, you admitted that you have had lots of disturbed students in your classes who have expressed a desire to hurt someone. If one of those students chose to bring a gun to class and carry out his/her desire, you don’t think having a gun of your own would be helpful? Hmmmm. I’m pretty sure most people would disagree with you on this point. Did any of the recent student shooters stop because someone talked them out of continuing? No. They were stopped by another gun.

I’m guessing that you were raised in a gun free home and have probably never even handled a firearm. A gun is just like any other tool. A screwdriver can be used to fix a machine or it can be used to stab someone to death. You should ask a friend who owns a gun to take you to the range and help you learn to use a firearm safely. I bet you’ll have fun and discover that a gun can also be put to a positive use. Hoping that they will all just go away isn’t realistic.

If I were teaching in a class and someone displayed a gun in a threatening manner, I would do whatever I had to to protect my students. I wouldn’t hide behind a girl (I’m not even sure why you would suggest that I would. I’m a female.). I also wouldn’t hide behind a desk. What purpose would that serve? Guns shoot through desks. Mostly, I find this argument to be another BAND AID to cover a larger problem. In the thirteen years I have been teaching college students, I have never, for protection or for ill intent, had someone bring a gun to class or admit to having one on campus. I have however had countless students with untreated psychiatric illnesses write about or speak about the desire to hurt or kill other students and teachers. These are clear moments when psychiatric intervention would be helpful. Carrying a gun to class would not. Most (if not all) universities do not have adequate processes for identifying and helping students who have had or about to have a psychotic break that leads to violence towards others or self. Most universities do not even have an adequate of process for identifying and treating students with depression, the most common mental health issue globally. To me, the problem is not about gun laws. The problem is we don’t have adequate services for students and for teachers in what is a stressful environment during stressful years.

TO CE: You state, “Why not start YOUR own campus and make no one have guns? Why should the onus be on other people who want their constitutional and historical rights? As a lifetime Democrat I can say that the problem with liberals when it comes to crime and guns is that you all do not understand the people you are talking about. I would be a lot happier if I could wish they not be there and some fantasy policy would fix it all. Get to know some of the people who care not for your rules, carry guns and will use them. If you survive the trial and get some clean undies afterwards you will be more sober about it. I don’t choose this policy because I like it. I choose it because I know from experience.”

You don’t know my political affiliation so don’t make broad, sweeping generalizations. I’m NON-PARTISAN, not a liberal, not a Democrat, not an Independent. Also, if you constructed your sentences more clearly, I might be able to respond to your views better. In fact, I have no idea what you are talking about, except that you are assuming I do not know the policies, laws, or practices of gun laws. This is false, I do understand them, I just don’t agree with them.