LJWorld.com weblogs Heard on the Hill

KU instructor goes on O'Reilly to advocate for concealed weapons


[Brian Russell][1], an adjunct professor in the School of Business, is tired of the types of violence witnessed at Northern Illinois University and he told the [O'Reilly Factor][2] that he'd like to do something about it.[According to a transcript of his appearance,][3] Russell has a concealed carry permit in Kansas and he wants to be able to bring his gun into the classroom. Current state law prohbits anyone, except law enforcement, from bringing a gun onto state property, including college campuses."But if I were able to carry on campus, I think that I, like you said, I could have neutralized the guy. I might not have been able to prevent anyone from getting hurt or killed, but I think that I could have stopped this guy cold before he had a chance to get off nearly as many shots as he did and with as many people as he did and kill as many people as he did," Russell said to O'Reilly about the Northern Illinois shooting where five people were killed.Russell was opposed on the O'Reilly show by Marc Hill, a professor at Temple University. [1]: http://www.business.ku.edu/facultyProfiles-V0ZIG [2]: http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/ [3]: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331095,00.html


Bill Lee 10 years, 2 months ago

More guns in more places is not the solution.

beatrice 10 years, 2 months ago

Just another example of a conservative professor running off at the mouth again. Or should I say, "shooting" off his mouth again.

These conservatives in the university system are destroying America, with their support of honoring "legacy" progams that allow people into the schools because of the qualities of their ancestors (read "color of their skin") rather than for those who deserve it. We need to get these conservatives out of in front of our students before they destroy their minds, and our country!

An adjunct professor -- isn't that kind of like a substitute professor? What, couldn't O'Reilly find any graduate teaching assistants for his show? That O'Reilly sure knows how to o'really scrape the bottom of the o'barrel for guests.

And yes, all of the above is meant as sarcasm. I am all for people having the right to voice an opinion, even when I don't agree.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 10 years, 2 months ago

Yeah, that guy won't be back.

This is the deal about guns: A few of them is a bad thing. Either we ALL get them, or NO ONE gets them. If we all packed heat, no one would act up, because the beat down would be extreme; but since that'll never be, I think we need to reduce the number of guns on the street. Except for me, of course. Ya'll are crazy... but I'm OK.

moderate1 10 years, 2 months ago

More guns in more places is not the solution, but guns in the right hands can protect lives like the church shootings in colorado that was stopped by an armed woman in plain clothes. But who gets the right to carry a concealed weapon, or shoud we increase security everywhere, or just hope that it wont happen again?

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 2 months ago

hmmm... for you people claiming that Russell is going to lose his job over this, will you admit to being idiots when it doesn't happen? I'll admit to being an idiot if it does happen...

drake 10 years, 2 months ago

She was a volunteer security guard and a private citizen, scene.

drake 10 years, 2 months ago

"Many people are expressing relief that a volunteer security guard used her own gun to stop a man on a shooting spree Sunday. "She probably saved over 100 lives," the Brady Boyd, the pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, said on Monday. The female guard, a church member dressed in plain clothes, killed the gunman after he opened fire at the mega-church."

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 2 months ago

I got that beat. I got that beat. I'll admit to being an idiot either way!~) Damn these cold meds...and Mary Ellen Moffat...

jonas 10 years, 2 months ago

Hey, I took a psych class from him as an undergrad, good to see his career is still moving along.

I disagreed with a lot of his social viewpoints, but it would be a mistake to classify him as thoughtless.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 10 years, 2 months ago

Ok, concealed weapons are usually pistols. If you are a good shot in a stressful situation, you could possibly have killed this guy, but if you didn't kill him, he would get madder and maybe not kill himself any faster. Also, I doubt (since he wanted to die anyway) he was thinking "Maybe I shouldn't do this. Someone might be carrying a gun and kill me." Maybe you could deter a mugger, but not a suicidal nut job.

kujeeper 10 years, 2 months ago

I wish a responsible person could carry. I would've when I was in school there.

drake 10 years, 2 months ago

"drake, volunteer or not, she was part of the security detail and was "on the job". She didn't just happen to bring her gun to service and then lo and behold, save the day." scenebooster

No she didn't just "happen to bring her gun"- she chose to just as I do when I carry. We CCH holders are not just irresponsible gun nuts as you elitists gun grabbers like to believe.

Brady Boyd, pastor of the church, said "There are 15 to 20 security people at the church. All are volunteers but the only ones armed are those who are licensed to carry weapons."

The security guards are members of the church who are screened and not "mercenaries that we hire to walk around our campus to provide security," Boyd said.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 2 months ago

75x55 okay... I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't, or anyone else, for that matter... wasn't already, and ongoing an idiot... I meant strictly idiotic about "this"...

jumpin_catfish 10 years, 2 months ago

Self defense is a human right not dependence on the state for protection. I have a right to protect myself period. Concealed carry is just alright with me.

beatrice 10 years, 2 months ago

scene, she wasn't a mercenary for hire, she was a mercenary for volunteer. Geez, can't you see the obvious difference! Get your facts straight, man!

Personally, I would think it okay to allow people to conceal and carry anywhere they went, as long as mandatory training was required for ALL legal gun owners. I mentioned this quite recently on another post, but people went a little goofy over this idea, so I'm not expecting a compromise on the issue any time soon. Once again, it is all or nothing for too many on both sides.

Ever notice how congressmen and women who support the most liberal of gun laws work in buildings that have metal detectors at the entrance to their workplace? Why aren't they out protesting the metal detectors?

drake 10 years, 2 months ago

I'm not worked up.
You are trying to make it sound like the only reason that she was there was to shoot this guy when got there. She was merely a member of the congregation that they allowed to carry her weapon just like the other 15-20 members that had been screened and authorized to carry there. Why are you so adamant that she was "on the job"? What agenda are you pushing?

drake 10 years, 2 months ago

And the pastor at the chuch said

The security guards are members of the church who are screened and not "mercenaries that we hire to walk around our campus to provide security," Boyd said.

Your agenda is showing, scene. gotta go now.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 2 months ago

Finally, someone's making some real sense. Go prof!

Who knows if more guns is the solution, but we've tried No Gun Zones and that SURE isn't working.

Those of you who think the Illinois shooter wouldn't have been deterred by bodily harm...you're wrong. These people are not deterred by bodily harm because they kill themselves, usually, but they are deterred by not being able to finish their act in their own time.

At the risk of not being able to leave a legacy, the shooters will always gravitate to the No Gun Zoos for some ducks-in-a-barrel shooting rather than the tiger pen.

gogoplata 10 years, 2 months ago

CCW should be allowed on a college campus. An adult should have the ability to protect themself from danger. It is clear that "gun free" zones do not make anyone safer. It should be clear to anyone who studies history that prohibition does not work. It didn't work with alcohol, it hasn't worked with drugs, and it hasn't worked with guns. If someone has the will to get a gun and use it for criminal purposes, chances are that they will be succesfull. I have my CCW permit and I know that it is costly. You have to demonstrate the ability to shoot straight and it requires sacrifice of time and money. The overwhelming majority of the people who are willing to abide by the law and sacrifice the time and money to aquire the CCW permit can be trusted to carry responsibly.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 2 months ago

Most people against legal concealed carry on campus's are just against it, they don't offer alternatives.

EXks 10 years, 2 months ago

Ok, fine..the guy wants to carry a concealed weapon, I suppose Bill-O won't have a problem or feel uncomfortable if the professor carries a concealed weapon on Bill-O's tv show??

Jim Phillips 10 years, 2 months ago

Most of you are missing the point about your security guard in your arguments. First of all, she was a former police officer and had a concealed carry permit (Associated Press, 12/11/2007) Secondly, why did the Church hire her as an armed security officer? Obviously, someone felt there was a need to have armed security inside the Church. I speculate there were redundant state laws that would not allow the ordinary CCH holder to carry a weapon inside a Church. I offer that speculation because that is one of the Kansas CCH rules. OK, so the Church hired her, either paid or as a volunteer (why does it matter?) to be in Church in case something happens. It did and she dealt with it. Kudos to her! Once again, the sheep dog protected the sheep from the wolf! This phrase may be getting redundant, but so is the issue.

Bottom line, if you don't like guns, that's fine. I support your right to make that choice. Don't condem me for making mine.

Just remember, Ted Kennedy once had, and perhaps still has, a licensed .38 Special in his possession. He claimed he needed it for self-defense. Senator Kennedy also threw one giant tantrum when his personal security agent was arrested several years ago for carrying two machineguns and a hand gun in Washington, DC. He demanded that his personal body guard be released and the weapons returned to him (they were- and in a part of the country where firearms had been banned). Why is it only the elite has a need for protection? The answer is obvious, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it , Mary Jo! (look that one up)

dinglesmith 10 years, 2 months ago

Oh please. This guy claiming he and his gun could have saved the day on national TV is no different than the folks who call sports radio shows to explain how they would have won the big game last night when the coach couldn't. Handling a situation like this requires much more than a concealed weapon. If guns don't kill people, people kill people then it should follow that guns don't save people, people save people. What happened at NIU was a horrible thing that was next to impossible to predict and equally hard to prevent.

My comment has nothing to do with second amendment rights or gun ownership. If you want to carry a weapon, you're perfectly free to do so within the law. I'm simply claiming that someone fantasizing about how they could have saved the day in such an extreme situation is delusional and not a particularly good argument for (or against) gun ownership.

andrew55 10 years, 2 months ago

No one can stop a lunatic hell-bent on murder. The same Constitution that permitted this sick person to purchase weapons works for any law-abiding, responsible Citizen. I carry...legally...it is better than VISA or MC.

LawrenceLover88 10 years, 2 months ago

By Adam Gopnik, in the New Yorker... The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing when we weretold that it was wrong to ask why. As the police cleared the bodies from the Virginia Tech engineering building, the cell phones rang, in the eccentric varieties of ring tones, as parents kept trying to see if their children were O.K. To imagine the feelings of the police as they carried the bodies and heard the ringing is heartrending; to imagine the feelings of the parents who were calling-dread, desperate hope for a sudden answer and the bliss of reassurance, dawning grief-is unbearable. But the parents, and the rest of us, were told that it was not the right moment to ask how the shooting had happened-specifically, why an obviously disturbed student, with a history of mental illness, was able to buy guns whose essential purpose is to kill people-and why it happens over and over again in America. At a press conference, Virginia's governor, Tim Kaine, said, "People who want to . . . make it their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them. . . . At this point, what it's about is comforting family members . . . and helping this community heal. And so to those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say take that elsewhere."

If the facts weren't so horrible, there might be something touching in the Governor's deeply American belief that "healing" can take place magically, without the intervening practice called "treating." The logic is unusual but striking: the aftermath of a terrorist attack is the wrong time to talk about security, the aftermath of a death from lung cancer is the wrong time to talk about smoking and the tobacco industry, and the aftermath of a car crash is the wrong time to talk about seat belts. People talked about the shooting, of course, but much of the conversation was devoted to musings on the treatment of mental illness in universities, the problem of "narcissism," violence in the media and in popular culture, copycat killings, the alienation of immigrant students, and the question of Evil.

Some people, however-especially people outside America-were eager to talk about it in another way, and even to embark on a little crusade. The whole world saw that the United States has more gun violence than other countries because we have more guns and are willing to sell them to madmen who want to kill people. Every nation has violent loners, and they tend to have remarkably similar profiles from one country and culture to the next. And every country has known the horror of having a lunatic get his hands on a gun and kill innocent people. But on a recent list of the fourteen worst mass shootings in Western democracies since the nineteen-sixties the United States claimed seven, and, just as important, no other country on the list has had a repeat performance as severe as the first.

LawrenceLover88 10 years, 2 months ago

PART TWO In Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, a gunman killed sixteen children and a teacher at their school. Afterward, the British gun laws, already restrictive, were tightened-it's now against the law for any private citizen in the United Kingdom to own the kinds of guns that Cho Seung-Hui used at Virginia Tech-and nothing like Dunblane has occurred there since. In Quebec, after a school shooting took the lives of fourteen women in 1989, the survivors helped begin a gun-control movement that resulted in legislation bringing stronger, though far from sufficient, gun laws to Canada. (There have been a couple of subsequent shooting sprees, but on a smaller scale, and with far fewer dead.) In the Paris suburb of Nanterre, in 2002, a man killed eight people at a municipal meeting. Gun control became a key issue in the Presidential election that year, and there has been no repeat incident.

So there is no American particularity about loners, disenfranchised immigrants, narcissism, alienated youth, complex moral agency, or Evil. There is an American particularity about guns. The arc is apparent. Forty years ago, a man killed fourteen people on a college campus in Austin, Texas; this year, a man killed thirty-two in Blacksburg, Virginia. Not enough was done between those two massacres to make weapons of mass killing harder to obtain. In fact, while campus killings continued-Columbine being the most notorious, the shooting in the one-room Amish schoolhouse among the most recent-weapons have got more lethal, and, in states like Virginia, where the N.R.A. is powerful, no harder to buy.

LawrenceLover88 10 years, 2 months ago

part three - keep reading

Reducing the number of guns available to crazy people will neither relieve them of their insanity nor stop them from killing. Making it more difficult to buy guns that kill people is, however, a rational way to reduce the number of people killed by guns. Nations with tight gun laws have, on the whole, less gun violence; countries with somewhat restrictive gun laws have some gun violence; countries with essentially no gun laws have a lot of gun violence. (If you work hard, you can find a statistical exception hiding in a corner, but exceptions are just that. Some people who smoke their whole lives don't get lung cancer, while some people who never smoke do; still, the best way not to get lung cancer is not to smoke.)

It's true that in renewing the expired ban on assault weapons we can't guarantee that someone won't shoot people with a semi-automatic pistol, and that by controlling semi-automatic pistols we can't reduce the chances of someone killing people with a rifle. But the point of lawmaking is not to act as precisely as possible, in order to punish the latest crime; it is to act as comprehensively as possible, in order to prevent the next one. Semi-automatic Glocks and Walthers, Cho's weapons, are for killing people. They are not made for hunting, and it's not easy to protect yourself with them. (If having a loaded semi-automatic on hand kept you safe, cops would not be shot as often as they are.)

Rural America is hunting country, and hunters need rifles and shotguns-with proper licensing, we'll live with the risk. There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun. At some point, that simple truth will register. Until it does, phones will ring for dead children, and parents will be told not to ask why.

LawrenceLover88 10 years, 2 months ago


Here's that link.

Man's a genius. We could use a few more of those in our own town.

This KU professor going on O'Reilly is horrifying. To think there are people all over the world who now think this is how people in Kansas -- and Lawrence in particular -- feel about gun-control... how horrifying.

Whether we like it or not, he was representing our community today. Eek.

JSpizias 10 years, 2 months ago

Below is information about justifiable homicides by police and civilians. It is clear that handguns are effective. Note also that in the case of Castle Rock vs Gonzales the US Supreme Court in a case decided in 2005 reaffirmed the long standing principle of law that the police have no responsible for the safety of any individual, that they have only a general obligation to preserve order. That is why an increasing number of citizens have chosen to act in their self defense. Moroever, other data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics have shown that citizens who defend themselves with a firearm are only about half as likely to be injured as those who use other means or who make no defense.


Bureau of Justice Statistics-Justifiable homicides by private civilians year total all firearms handgun 1997 280 238 197 1998 196 170 150 1999 192 158 137 2000 164 138 123 2001 215 176 136

Justifiable Homicides-Law enforcement 1997 366 363 315 1998 369 367 322 1999 308 305 274 2000 309 308 274 2001 370 368 311

Jim Phillips 10 years, 2 months ago


So, you claim countries with strick gun laws have a lower rate of violent crimes. Well, i can't dispute that. Maybe it's because those countries actually punish criminals instead of holding their little hands and telling them what they did is not their fault; that they are victims of their environments. Punisment was intended to be more than a time out.

So, LawrenceLover88, how then, do you explain the fact that states in the US of A that have strict gun control laws have an exceedingly higher crime rate (i.e; Washington, DC, also known as the murder capitol of the world, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York City) than states with little or lax gun laws? I'm really intersted to see how you cover that one.

Back in the late 1980s, two college professors (Wright and Rossi) set out to prove the effectiveness of gun control. They interviewed 1,800 felons convicted of violent crimes. What they learned was that the criminals were almost unanimously in favor of gun control. They felt much safer. The lessons learned were that: 1. The criminals are not afraid of the police because the police had rules that had to be followed. Armed victims defending themselves were not held to the same rules.
2. Criminals did not concern themselves with gun control laws because they were criminals anyway. They didn't care if they broke the law (duh)! 3. Gun control laws create a society of victims who cannot fend for themselves against armed criminals. 4. If criminal couldn't get handguns, they would get rifles or shotguns and saw the barrels off. Now, in case you didn't know, long guns are by far more lethal than handguns, and, sawing the barrels off of rifles and shotguns is a federal crime (See point #2).

The results of their study proved just how ineffective gun laws were.

Finally, apparently some folks in the Far East wanted to commit mass murders a few years ago. For some reason, they did not use firearms. They used Sarin gas, which I believe, was illegal for them to own. And let's not forget the terrorists (with weapons they were not allowed to own) in Russia who slaughtered kids in a grade school.

Maybe I, as a CCH holde,r might not be able to stop a situation like we have seen in the country lately, but I like my chances a whole lot better knowing that I have a chance. Or maybe i should just learn to reason with him as he pulls the trigger.

gogoplata 10 years, 2 months ago

Handguns are a great tool for personal protection. There are good reasons why an individual would want to own one.

The are efficient, durable, reliable, concealable, transportable, lightweight, and they make a little old lady someone not to be messed with.

A better name for gun control is victim disarmament.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 2 months ago

And just what would a police background check have shown when he was buying those weapons?

Jim Phillips 10 years, 2 months ago


I'll answer my own question for you. Absolutely nothing because the gun dealer would have checked the individual through NCIC just as the police would have done. Apparently, there were no red flags raised.

DaScotsman 10 years, 2 months ago

The FBI did a study years ago, trying to determine why criminals were robbing banks. Imagine their surprise when it turned out that the criminals knew where the money was... I believe the "Gun-Free Zones" have had an unintended effect.

I am no expert. I think it's patently obvious that individuals who do something like this are disturbed/psychotic/just plain messed up. But (it appears) that even disturbed/psychotic/just plain messed up people know that the best place to create carnage is where they are going to be unarmed...

It's the Law of Unintended Consequences at work. We ban weapons from a particular locale to make a place safer, and instead we actually make it more dangerous...

bondmen 10 years, 2 months ago

Since guns will always be with us, guns in the right hands and in the right place is the solution to the maniacal suicide killer. Another way to say this is 1 maniac with guns + 32 students with guns = less dead students and 1 dead mad killer!

It's time to take the responsibility to protect yourself seriously. This does not include turning your life over to the death wish of a suicide killer or to local and state authorities not in a position to help.

Don't let fear rule your life - it can run and ruin it. Be bold, take hold of your future, it is in your hands.

moderate1 10 years, 2 months ago

People sometimes forget that the police aren't always gonna save you, Like after hurricane katrina New Orleans went crazy with gangs roving the lawless streets the military was eventually called in, also the two brothers in wichita that broke into a house with two couples living there, raped the girls in front of thier boyfriends and then shot them all execution style. For these reasons I'm a happy gun owner.

moderate1 10 years, 2 months ago

I do agree about who gets guns if that means making making med. records public. We can't have people with bi-polar mania runnin around packing heat, if you have a stable backround no mental illness or felonies you should be able to protect your own home, or have a cc permit.

secfed 10 years, 2 months ago

These fellas seeking fame by having a shooting spree at helpless students on campuses are cowards. As such they will shy away from a well trained and armed faculty. The only nice thing about shooting is it can go both ways. Security guards can only be in so many places at once. Get the word out that these cowards are walking into an ambush and your campus shooting days are over.

itiswhatitis 10 years, 2 months ago

I will support your right to carry your legally concealed wepon almost anywhere, as long as...You are held CRIMINALLY liabel for any mistakes resulting in injury or property damage. If you feel that you have what it takes to carry around the kind of tool that has so little margin for error, then by all means, go for it. But the first time someone draws and fires on someone else who was reaching for a cell phone, you better be there demanding that they go to prison, and not get probation because 1) they were suffering the post traumatic stress of being robbed 2 years ago

2) the unarmed person "looked scary"

3) the unarmed person yelled, screamed, cursed, etc.

4) the temporary insanity of road rage, or little league rage, or my boss is an a-hole rage

I realize a concealed gun is not the only way to kill. However, it is the one over which your fellow citizens have the least amount of protection from should ther be even a slight error in your judgement or your aim. We see the mistakes that police sometimes make even with all their training. If you think accidents won't happen, you are a fool. All I'm saying is if you feel more secure with a gun, it is your right. It is also your responsibility to pay for your mistakes. If you demand your right to carry, I demand that you be held fully accountable.

And if I had to guess, I would say that the fear of some temporary situation ending up in a shooting is what most of those against guns are afraid of. Sometimes the balance between your rights and my fear is a delicate one. Getting a license to carry does not mean that you have the judgment required in a given situation to act properly. We have all seen people including ourselves, lose it from time to time. So the idea of reletively untrained, minimally screened folks hanging around our families is a scary one. No one is really afraid that you in a rational frame of mind will shoot someone. It's that other guy, who is pissed off, or scared or whatever. And as you demand your right to carry, you shoud be afraid of him to.

secfed 10 years, 2 months ago

Let's see, shiver under a desk or in a closet while you and 20-30 innocents are slaughtered or defend yourselves and risk some collateral damage........Not much of a decision

itiswhatitis 10 years, 2 months ago


The problem is NOT the "collateral damage" during a situation like a campus shooting. I'm talking about the everyday situations where you could make a MISTAKE!!! Is it so difficult for you to consider that if you are carrying a gun that you might draw it or even fire it after you have made a mistake about the threat to your safety?

secfed 10 years, 2 months ago

I would be held accountable for my performance with my weapon in my and your self defense if we were caught in such a dyer situation. The question is will you accept resposiblitlity for denying dead victims the weaponry they needed to save their lives.

Satirical 10 years, 2 months ago


Statistics (Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150 (1995)) show that many violent crimes and deaths are prevented by those who carrying guns. If you didn't allow guns, you might save some lives, but you would also end other lives. Who are you to decide who lives and dies?

Even if you argue on the aggregate more lives will be saved in a cost/benefit analysis, you are still interfering with a fundamental right in the U.S. Constitution, the right of the PEOPLE to carry arms (see second amendment). Should such a fundamental right be changed on a simple cost/benefit analysis? If so, may all fundamental rights such as speech, and voting be entirely wiped out by such an analysis?

Satirical 10 years, 2 months ago

All concealed carry laws do is allow LEGAL citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. Criminals break the law regardless, and therefore this law does not affect them. Concealed carry laws protect non-criminals from criminals, they do not aid criminals.

yourworstnightmare 10 years, 2 months ago

I would be in favor of arming professors. In fact, I think minorities, intellectuals, liberals and the left need to get over this fear of firearms and arm themselves.

In fascist/totalitarian coups throughout history, who has always been the first with their backs to the wall?

The intellectuals and minorities. Purge the universities first.

"The future is unwritten. Know your rights." -The Clash.

itiswhatitis 10 years, 2 months ago

If you choose to carry a wepon, it does not just magically appear when a real threat is present. It is with you all the time. As I said, I am support your right to carry. However don't you have any concerns at all about who walking around with a concealed wepon? You seem to be looking at this through the lens of one situation. Have you ever been to a little league game? I used to ref games whin I was in college. You have no concerns about these folks bringing guns to the games? As the ref, it felt sometimes as though dad thought the only thing standing between his son and the baseball hall of fame was me.

If you tell me that you have no concerns about people carrying guns I guess I believe you, but I have to say that you have more confidence Joe six-pack's self control thatn I do.

Satirical 10 years, 2 months ago


I have lots of concerns in life. Eating healthy, safe drivers, Mandarin Orangutans, etc... I also have a concern to protect myself and family from (1) criminals with guns, tyrannical governments, foreign invaders and (2) idiots with guns. I could choose erasing (2) as a concern, but then I would be left with (1) as a concern. Life is full of tough choices.

Crossfire 10 years, 2 months ago

Idiot Bill. Surrounded by Idiots. Interviewing Idiots.

Satirical 10 years, 2 months ago

Max1: (1) I never said I owned any gun, let alone one the shoots peas

(2) "You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than you can with just a kind word" - Al Capone. While I agree that it would be difficult to overthrow a tyrannical American government given its sophisticated weaponry, the possibility and threat is something that any would-be despot would have to consider. Remember it only took 1 gun to kill Lincoln and JFK (conspiracy theorists are idiots), respectively.

(3) Even if you don't believe millions of small caliber weapons are enough to overthrow the U.S. Government, should it ever be necessary, self-defense alone is a sufficient justification.

itiswhatitis 10 years, 2 months ago


I agree with you. life is all about chouces.

Here is something to consider. Let's say, in order to protect my family, I want ot carry a concealed wepon. We are not talking about a gun in my home, but a concealed wepon. Being a logical person, I should calculate the odds of being with my family at a time when I might need a gun. to protect thm from a criminal attack. Let's say for sake of discussion it's one in a thousand. Ok, I might say, that's worth it. So now I get my gun & my family is safer.

This is my concern. Let's say my kids are in high school. They have plenty of activity without me around. And because so many people now have the right to carry, the odds of them being in a situation wherer some other dad is pissed at a coach or a ref or the guy driving next to him, and that dad has a gun is now let's say one in 500. and because they spend more time away from home, the odds of me protecting them with my concealed wepon is down to one in 5ooo.

I know there is no way my number are accurate, but do you at least see my point? In the end, I have not made my kids safer. But what I have done is increased my sense of contol over my situation. And as we all know form auto and airplane accident statistics - control does not equal saftey.

I am not trying to convince anyone not to carry. All I am saying is concern is valid and warrented

posting without checking spelling - sorry for errors

Satirical 10 years, 2 months ago


I never said concern is not valid or warranted. I pointed out that other concerns must also be taken into account when deciding if in the aggregate we as a nation are safer w/o allowing legal citizens to carry weapons, since criminals will already be doing so.

Each individual should decide for themselves whether they want to own a gun and whether they want to carry it concealed. However, if you are advocating for not allowing concealed weapons, than I fail to see how me being allowed to carry a concealed vs. non-concealed weapon has any impact on your totally erroneous probabilities. My child is in the same amount of danger either way.

To be honest I am not sure if you are advocating against allowing any citizen the right to carry, or you are just advocating against gun ownership in general. If it is the latter, than I agree everyone should calculate the probability of doing harm to someone unintentionally against the probability of preventing harm to oneself. If you just wanted people to be aware they may not be in a position to help those they intend to goes without saying. This is true whether you own a gun or not.

Let me give you another scenario and let me know what this person's concern should be. A single woman lives in the inner city and has been robbed by knife point several times and was recently gang-rapped walking home from school one day. Would getting a gun just be an illusory safety measure? She she be concerned with protecting herself?

Should you deny her the right to protect herself so that others may live with more piece of mind? Do you decide who lives and dies?

itiswhatitis 10 years, 2 months ago


First of all, when I did not intend to compare concealed wepons to non concealed. I meant to compare concealed to simply having wepons in your home. Second, I am certainly not against wepons in the home. Third, I am not advocating for or against the right to carry. What I wa trying to say was that if everyone who is legally eligable to carry, decides to carry, there will be a decrease in crime, however, there could very well be an even greater increase in accidental shootings, road rage shootings, little league game shootings, etc, Simply carrying a gun will not give average Joe or Jane wisdom, judgement, and patience. In many cases, it will heighten the feeling of "I don't have to take that crap from you" and situations that might have ended in a shouting match will be resolved with a gun.

Idon't question YOUR right to carry. In fact I'm sure you are a very reasonable and intelligent guy. You would never lse your cool without justification, and any response to aggression would be measured and appropraiate. Like I said, I'm worried about that other guy. The only problem is, I've got my gun to & I'm not sure I can tell you from him. So, just ot be safe.........

jsut kidding.

About your scenario, she shoould obviously be packin.

Satirical 10 years, 2 months ago


In my scenario she is too poor to move. Also, any other attempt change the scenario question from, carry or not carry, will result in a similarly invented fact.

I agree that more people carrying concealed weapons might lead to more accidents and more innocent people dying. I do not make a contrary contention. What I contend is, allowing more people to carry will also decrease the number of victims and allow people like my hypothetical female to protect themselves. Some become more safe, others might become less safe. But again, who are you to decide who can't make themselves safer. Are you willing to give yourself the idea of marginal safety (even though real criminals will still carry concealed weapons) knowing you are preventing "real" people in similar situation as my hypothetical female from actually defending herself?

itiswhatitis 10 years, 2 months ago


I guess I must not be as good at communicating as I thought I was. I understand the law. What I am saying is simply this: The more people who carry, the more inccidents and accidents you will have. regardless of what is written. All you have to do is look at peoples behavior on the road. When folks get pissed, they tend to forget about the specific penalties for thier acitons. They want to "show that some'bitch a thing or two" There are also cases when people get scared, or nervous etc.

In fact, it is YOU who should be agreing with ME!! You should support harsh criminal penalties for any lapse in judgement involving a concealed handgun. Carrying a gun is serious business. And only those willing to face serious consequences should do so.

I have seen cases where after a mistake was made, all the person had was excuses. "I was afraid" ," I was so mad, I was temporarily insane"

So, how about it, do you support me??

itiswhatitis 10 years, 2 months ago


LOL I meant she should be packin heat, as in carrying a gun!!!!!!

itiswhatitis 10 years, 2 months ago

I guess 'packin heat' is a bit of an outdated expression!! Too many late night James Cagney movies as kid i guess

secfed 10 years, 2 months ago

I'll wager the survivors of NIU wearing shotgun pellets right now would take issue with your view of wether they should have had a weapon or not.

Satirical 10 years, 2 months ago


I agree with you on several points. I also think that moderate and reasonable regulations on guns and gun ownership should be allowed. However, I disagree with your belief that carrying a concealed handgun would have no effect when it comes to shooting rampages.

While I don't think arming EVERYONE is the answer, I do think it should be allowed on campus. You suggest that a "private citizen with minimal firearm training" would not be able to stop a psychopath, however most psychopaths also have minimal firearm training. Example: Someone is in class and hears shots being fired, leave class, pulls out his gun, finds the shooter, and shoots him. The possibility of this happen may not be great, but so is the possibility of a shooting on campus. I think a psychopath will be less likely to target a university which allows CCH, given this possibility. Alternatively, this problem could be ameliorated by requiring more training for individuals who wish to carry a concealed weapon on campus.

You state that "the tendency for guns to enable these (rampages) situation far outweigh the likelihood of a gun actually stopping the rampage." This is incorrect b/c psychopaths will carry a concealed gun whether there is a law allowing it or not.

You also state that "a long list of killing rampages couldn't have happened w/o a handgun." This is also incorrect. Just because each rampager used a gun doesn't mean that if guns were unavailable he wouldn't have found alternative methods. This person could have used a sawed off larger gun, or some type of explosive or chemical devise.

Lastly, you state "the list of rampages stopped by the presence of an armed private citizen is far shorter", however the problem with your invented statistics, even if they were true, is that there is no way to know how many people someone is willing and planning to kill once they are dead or stopped. The first person who they tried to kill could pull out a weapon and stop it before it ever started, and your statistics wouldn't be able to show this. Also, please see my original post at 2:53 today for real statistics that show how violence is stopped by the use of guns, often just by showing the weapon.

beatrice 10 years, 2 months ago

It sure would give a whole new meaning to "Pop" Quiz.

Remember, Guns don't kill people ... Oh, wait. Yes they do.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 2 months ago

"Yes, "no red flags" were raised, when Kazmierczak bought guns on two separate occasions, despite his record of mental disorder, which means the screening process needs to be more thorough. I guess you're saying the screening process should be scrapped altogether, just as it is at gun shows. I'm sure Kazmierczak isn't the only mentally deranged glOck Owner who has slipped past the screening process." max1

First of all, the screening is not scrapped at gun shows. Please check your facts before posting. Second, do I favor scrapping the process? in a word, yes. You have already pointed out how poorly it works. Why continue with something that doesn't work?

beatrice 10 years, 2 months ago

Guardian, think of it more like Thomas Edison's attempt at creating a workable light bulb. If at first you don't suceed, you don't just give up, you keep going and keep tweeking the system until it does work. I really don't believe you honestly think the screening process should be scrapped, thus allowing any deranged individual or ex-con to purchase a gun with the ease of purchasing a pack of gum. Parts of the system work, and where it falls short then that area needs to be adjusted, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

And yes, I like to post the occassional joke because I am not a big fan of guns, but I also appreciate the recent and honest responses from many on this topic. It has been educational. And I like #5 on your gun safety list from the other day.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 2 months ago


Actually, i really do support the scrapping of the system for the simple reasons that it is flawed and useless. There are obvious exceptions, but the trught of the matter is that most, and I repeat, MOST, weapons used in te commisiion of crimes are stolen, borrowed, or purchased from someone selling cheap guns out of the trucnk of a car---again probably stolen. The system we have now is not perfect and never will be because it operates with imperfect common denominator---people.

What truly amazes me is that people are very quick to demand restrictions and hoop jumping on the gun issue when you stand a better chance of getting killed in a car wreck than by a firearm. On any given Friday or Saturday night, according to NHTSA figures, 1 out of every 3 drivers on the road is drunk. Yet no one raises an issue with that.

itiswhatitis 10 years, 2 months ago


How will you know when you will need it??

itiswhatitis 10 years, 2 months ago


If you feel that all of the things you mentioned are as effective as a gun is in killing someone, , why do you need a gun? Your logic cannot support the weight of your argument.

andrew55 10 years, 1 month ago

All of this talk is going no where fast. Man is evil. Born that way. Lives that way (unless he/she decided to live by a set of societal mores deemed "civil." And dies that way. Man has tried science, education and technology all of which has failed. There will be no peace on this orb. Killing, injustice, hatred will continue until the Prince of Peace Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God returns and established His Kingdom.

jonas 10 years, 1 month ago

"secfed (Anonymous) says:

I'll wager the survivors of NIU wearing shotgun pellets right now would take issue with your view of wether they should have had a weapon or not."

I'll wager a number of them would have issue with the belief that the guy who shot at them was allowed to have a gun. Perhaps it would just be foolish to base opinions off of the people most directly affected, as they are going to be, practically by definition, the most biased.

Calliope877 10 years, 1 month ago

The biggest problem I have with allowing everyone on campus to carry a gun is that it will include crazy people as well. Crazy people don't seem to have a problem bringing a gun onto campus anyway, but why make it worse by making it legal?

kidmystic 10 years, 1 month ago

"The National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, uh, people do." But I think, I think the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that."

-Eddie Izzard

beatrice 10 years, 1 month ago

Guardian, There are a lot of people driving automobiles illegally, sometimes while drunk, other times after the right to drive has been revoked, and some driving around without ever even applying for a license. Do you think we should scrap auto licenses then too?

Mackadoo 10 years, 1 month ago

Russell says, "But if I were able to carry on campus, I think that I, like you said, I could have neutralized the guy."

Brian, get real. You are too busy telling your students how good you look and how smart you are to notice anyone else but yourself. It must be hard to be you, though, as anyone who has taken one of your classes knows you are torn between your Republican dogma that prohibits two gay people from marrying each other and your intense love for Bill O'Reilly.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 1 month ago


No, I don't. The reason being, as I have stated before, driving is a priviledge, not a right. Gun ownership is a right, not a priviledge. Priviedges can be taken away, rights cannot. But I do advocate very harsh punishment for violating traffic laws as you describe. I also advocate very harsh punisment for the criminal use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 1 month ago

Pogo, I couldn't agree more. One of the things I talk about in my CCH classes is proper mindset. I tell my students that unless they are psychologically prepared to pluck and assilant's eyeball out of its socket if your life depends on it, don't do anything. It might sound a little harsh, but if you arn't prepared to go that far if you have to, your half-hearted efforts to defend yourself will get you killed.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 1 month ago

Oh, "glorious" Pogo... Do you have I'm a big bada$$ with "my suspicion is" syndrome?

My suspicion is the you're the one with the faulty assumptions in your Thunderwear but, of course, our suspicions don't count for jack.

Don't get me wrong, you bring up a good point with regard to being prepared. It's our own fault if we are not.

beatrice 10 years, 1 month ago

Guardian, very good point on the right to own being a right, while driving is a priviledge. It really isn't appropriate to compare one with the other. Good call.

So allow me to try another tact: Voting is a right, yet we register voters and place requirements on voters, such as requiring voters to show identification at the polls. We make voters sign a roster, showing they have taken part in their right. We even know what party one is likely to vote based on the party with which people are registered. These actions, however, do not take away the people's right to vote, they help the system operate effectively. Putting checks and balances on a right does not necessarily negate that right - think of free speech, but not being allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Wouldn't making requirements for gun ownership, such as mandatory training or even registration, be similar?

Jim Phillips 10 years, 1 month ago

Beatrice, As I recall, the reason for the law requiring identification at the polls was based on a common practice (by both parties) years ago of stuffing ballot boxes with votes that were signed by dead people. The law merely forced people who came to vote prove they were still living. ;-) I understand the basis of your argument, but diagree with the concept.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.