They Never Learn - By Robert A. Levy (Va Tech Article)

[NineseveN]

Robert A Levy is the attorney responsible for the current fight against the DC Gun Ban, he absolutely rocks (and he's not eve a gunny, he's just a constitutional freedom fanatic, which I can definitely relate to).


http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11342

They Never Learn
By Robert A. Levy
Senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute
April 25, 2007
<http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11342>


"What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons
that cause such wasteful carnage." So said the New York Times in its
predictable but wrongheaded editorial the day after the horrific events
at Virginia Tech. Anti-gun advocates, however noble their motives, help
create the environment in which horrors like Virginia Tech occur.

Possession and use of guns on the Tech campus violated state-imposed
restrictions. But crazed fanatics, undeterred by laws against murder,
will not be dissuaded by laws against guns. More such laws will
accomplish nothing. Indeed, liberalized laws might have enabled
responsible, armed citizens on campus to defend the hapless victims. It
took two hours for the killer methodically to massacre 32 people and
injure another 15. Why did nobody intervene sooner to stop the killer?

For one possible explanation, consider this report from a Roanoke Times
article: A bill, introduced on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense
League, would have given properly licensed public college students and
employees the right to carry handguns on campus. The bill died on
January 30, 2006 in the Virginia General Assembly. Virginia Tech
spokesman Larry Hincker was pleased with the outcome. "I'm sure the
university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions
because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe
on our campus." Tell that to the ill-fated victims of April 16 and their
families.

The article goes on to relate that most universities in Virginia require
students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with
police or campus security on entering campus. The proposed legislation
would have eliminated that requirement for anyone who possessed a valid
concealed handgun permit. Ironically, Tech's governing board had
approved in June 2005 a violence prevention policy reiterating the
school's ban on students, employees, or visitors -- even those properly
licensed -- from bringing handguns onto campus.

At the Virginia Tech press conference after the slaughter of 32
defenseless people, the university's president cautioned that it
wouldn't be possible to have police guard every classroom and dorm. What
he omitted was this cold, hard fact: By making the university a "gun
free zone," his administration and the state legislature had fostered a
climate in which ubiquitous police would be necessary. Without a means
to protect themselves, Virginia Tech students, faculty, and other
employees were more likely to be victimized by the only people on campus
who had readily available guns: killers and lunatics.

Meanwhile, the New York Times, the Brady Center, and the rest of the
usual suspects continue their clamor for more gun regulations --
apparently oblivious to the destructive effects of their own proposals.
The evidence is clear: more guns in the hands of responsible owners
yield lower rates of violent crime. Gun control does not work. It just
prevents weaker people from defending themselves against stronger predators.

Here are the numbers, as summarized by legal scholar Don B. Kates: Over
the 30-year period from 1974 to 2003, guns in circulation doubled, but
murder rates declined by a third. On a state-by-state basis, a 1 percent
increase in gun ownership correlates with a 4.1 percent lower rate of
violent crime. Each year, approximately 460,000 gun crimes are committed
in the United States. But guns are also used to ward off gun criminals.
Estimates of defensive gun use range from 1.3 million to 2.5 million
times per year -- and usually the weapons are merely brandished, not
fired. That means defensive uses occur about 3-to-5 times as often as
violent gun crimes. Just as important, armed victims who resist gun
criminals get injured less frequently than unarmed victims who submit.
In more than 8 out of 10 cases where the victim pulls a gun, the
criminal turns and flees, even if he's armed. "So much for the
quasi-religious faith that more guns mean more murder."

Finally, two federal government agencies recently examined gun control
laws and found no statistically significant evidence to support their
effectiveness. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253
journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80
gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single
gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or
accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and
ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods,
registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero
tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on
gun violence.

When will the gun controllers learn?

[MichaelB]

Best thing I have read all day.
I keep trying to explain that exact case to people I know who are less enthusiastic then I am about guns and civil liberties. I will print this out for them.

[God's Country]

Here's a quote from our weekly edition printed today:

....The smoke had not cleared from the massacre at Virginia Tech before the media was screaming for more gun control. What is conveniently ignored is that if the Virginia legislature had not been so brainwashed by the control freaks, there could have been a student, a teacher, or any private citizen with a personel protection piece, that could have countered the action of the shooter. But the school is "gun free" meaning that guns are not allowed on campus and probably not within a specified distance from it. Here is where gun control breaks down.

According to the reports, the shooter was not in violation of any gun ownership law. The first law he broke was when he brought his weapon on campus. If there was any reasonable method of controlling this crime, it wasn't in evidence. How could it be? It is easy enough to pass laws, but if they are not enforcable what good are they? This question brings us down to the premise that the only way to enforce such gun rules is to conficate every gun of every kind in the whole country. In order to get such control every household would have to be invaded and searched with or without a warrant, and even if such gun control came about where would the eventual power lie? Where it has always been-in the hands of the people with guns. This is the basis of our Constitution......

How hard is this to get?
Oh yeah I keep forgetting if we can just get criminals to obey the laws we could throw our guns away.

[SGTUSArmy]

God's Country. actually that is probably one of the best articles in defense of gun ownership. The wording is not the best, but the way it is interpreted (IMHO) is rocking!

[God's Country]

Originally Posted by SGTUSArmy

God's Country. actually that is probably one of the best articles in defense of gun ownership. The wording is not the best, but the way it is interpreted (IMHO) is rocking!

Well this is a regular weekly column written by one of our locals. He usually discusses fishing and hunting, but politics as they relate are often on the plate.
I'm not sure of his age, but I would guess 70 or so. He not a journalist per say, just a regular guy who has been around long enough to see it all. I always enjoy reading his column.

It's great living in conservative country