A Voice of Reason from Indiana University of Pennsylvania

[Statkowski]

From IUP's The Penn today:

http://media.www.thepenn.org/media/s...-2871645.shtml

[diputs]

Overall it's a good article but he supports 1 handgun a month

[JustinM]

Very good article.

[KeithPA]

Very good article from a Non gun-onwer.

Most likely why he supports 1 gun a month.

[RandomTask]

Originally Posted by diputs

Overall it's a good article but he supports 1 handgun a month

I posted this comment to them, but I'm not sure if it stuck:

I appreciate Ben's perspective from a non-gun owner and his rational pro-gun sentiment. I just have two points:

1. We currently have an instant background check system.

2. The one handgun-per-month proposal does nothing to enhance public safety. What it would do, if converted to law, is impede the efforts of gun collectors and investors. Believe it or not, investment-grade guns are a hot commodity. These guns can double or triple their value in just a few years. If there were a one-handgun-per-month rule, a person would be disqualified from taking advantage in an opportunity for a special firearm (collector value or investment value) just because he made a purchase already for that month. Most people who buy large quantities of firearms tend to only regularly fire a few of them, while the rest remain as "safe queens," locked in storage only to be brought out for occasional cleaning and display. They are appreciated by the owners for their collector value, potential profit and/or their engineering and design features. One example from my personal experience involves the HK P7 line of pistols. There are rare variants, desired serial numbers and production dates, etc., that make this pistol collectible, in spite of its being a modern firearm.
These guns are so collectible that when listed for an attractive price, they will sell in as little as three minutes. Why should I be shut out from a deal just because I already purchased my "quota" within the last 30 days?

[Statkowski]

Despite its flaws (mandatory training; one handgun a month), it's still a refreshing piece. Not unlike a fire extinguisher, better to have a handgun and never need to use it than to need one and not have one.

On a separate note, on its lonesome, I don't know if a one-gun-a-month law would stand since it would be in direct conflict with personal property rights (we're talking state level, not illegally usurped federal level).

[Justin]

i posted a comment to that article last night, and it still hasnt shown up? i could only guess that an editor/moderator for comments is anti-gun and wouldnt allow a well thought out response in support of the article.

[avizpls]

Being an IUP student, I would like to point out the following.

This means that the only people carrying firearms on a college campus are those who do not care about the law and, potentially, are set on harming others.

Incorrect. There is a second class of people carrying guns on campus. Those who will not let a RULE (as opposed to a law) stop them from defending themselves against an attack, regardless of its scale.

Other than that, and the previously mentioned one-a-month lunacy, I agree completely. I intend on meeting with Ben, and discussing the possibility of raising the issue on campus.