Lakshmi Jagganathan: Protecting yours...

Lakshmi Jagganathan: Protecting yourself, endangering others

There are 2 comments on the OregonLive.com story from Dec 1, 2007, titled Lakshmi Jagganathan: Protecting yourself, endangering others. In it, OregonLive.com reports that:

“Second, my ex-husband is approved as a substitute teacher in my district, making it possible for him to be called to work in the same school where I've been working or at my daughter's school.”

The recent deadly shooting rampage by a teenage killer in Finland has invited international criticism of the country's liberal gun laws. via OregonLive.com

Join the discussion below, or Read more at OregonLive.com.

alan

Houston, TX

#1 Dec 1, 2007
first off, my LIFE is NOT I REPEAT NOT A MOVIE!!! AND MY LIFE IS NOT YOURS OR ANYONE ELSES TO CONTROL AND ESPECIALLY NOT ANY GOVERNMENT!!! IF THE SCHOOL TEACHER HAS A CONCEALEMENT PERMIT, SHE PROBABLY SHOOTS BETTER THAN HALF THE POLICE OFFICERS WHERE SHE LIVES.(I DO NOT MEAN TO BELITTLE THE POLICE)2 MILLION TIMES OR MORE A YEAR A CIVILIAN STOPS A CRIME WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT!!!!

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#2 Dec 2, 2007
From the article:
"After the Virginia Tech killings, the gun lobby pointed out that armed school personnel would have stopped the killer. Gun safety advocates, on the other hand, felt that a background check of a seriously mentally ill killer would have prevented the tragedy in the first place."

Something many gun-control advocates tend to overlook and many gun rights advocates fail to make explicitly clear:
Very rarely are places where people are allowed to carry firearms attacked. In nearly all cases, the location of the attack is a gun-free (read defense-free) zone. While, yes, it's true that legally armed staff/students would most likely have stopped Cho's rampage well before 32 people died, that theory assumes that Cho's rampage would have been attempted in the first place. If people were allowed to arm themselves, and if that fact was commonly known among the students, thus letting Cho know his intended victims could very well have been armed, it is highly likely Cho would not have attempted his rampage at all. The fact that he did NOT want to run into armed opposition during his rampage is made apparent by the fact that he chained the doors shut.
Gun control advocates like to claim that had guns been banned, or had Cho been unable to obtain a firearm through legal channels, that the mass-shooting never would have occured. However, one can always obtain a firearm if one is willing to break the law to do so. A person who intends to commit a mass murder is the type to disregard laws. The best bet to prevent such occurences from being attempted is to allow the law-abiding to carry firearms. Even then, on the odd chance that such a thing IS attempted anyway, the would-be killer can still be stopped by the intended-victims.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Oregon's criminalization of rainwater collectio... (Jan '17) Jan '17 Mom 1
News Woman allegedly kicked cop in groin at Emigrant... (Oct '16) Oct '16 Ozzie 27 1
Jackson County Criminal Mugshots and Arrests Re... (Oct '16) Oct '16 Daniel 2
News Cause of Mr. Thom's fire doesn't surface quickly (Jul '08) Jan '16 Kent 9
News Excavators demolish dam to boost salmon migration (Aug '15) Aug '15 PJofGrantsPass 1
News Medford man dies in rollover accident on Old St... (Jun '13) Aug '14 klh 3
News Fast-Growing Independent Party of Oregon Opens ... (Jul '14) Jul '14 Real Indepedent 1
More from around the web