Lakshmi Jagganathan: Protecting yourself, endangering others

Dec 1, 2007 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: OregonLive.com

“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

Comments
1 - 2 of 2 Comments Last updated Dec 2, 2007
alan

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Jackson County Discussions

Search the Jackson County Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Fast-Growing Independent Party of Oregon Opens ... Jul 7 Real Indepedent 1
Jackson County, Oregon, Approves GMO Ban May '14 Oregonbythesea 1
Judge says flashing headlights is free speech Apr '14 Tony Waters 1
White City principal sits front and center (Nov '13) Nov '13 Joseph 1
Medford man dies in rollover accident on Old St... (Jun '13) Jun '13 jjboy 2
Will Oregon Protect Monsanto? (May '13) May '13 Maui 1
2nd player in county drug ring sentenced (Sep '12) Sep '12 Smudge 1
•••
•••