In my local paper tonight there is a column from Roger Hernandez, a syndicated columnist at NJ Institute of Technology. He's with King Features Syndicate, [email protected].
The column is titled "GUNS ON CAMPUS WOULD MEAN MORE KILLINGS". See if you can find it online as my paper didn't carry it online.
This guy is certain that stricter gun laws in Virginia would have prevented the recent event. (I hate kicking dead horses as this event has been debated ad nausem, but this guy irked me.) This columnist also explained that potential gun buyers should sign a waiver to allow the police to do an extensive background check and mental health history. (As they do in New Jersey, he says.)
He claims that the law of the land was Cho's accomplice.
He goes on to say that some past legislation to allow college students to carry (that failed) was "so ludicrous you almost wonder if it is a parody by anti-gun people trying to make pro-gun people sound foolish." And he suggests that profs could shoot a student on a whim or a student could shoot a prof for bad grades.
I guess what irks me is that this guy, like other anti's, deny the sense and rationale of a pro gun society. They scream for stricter gun laws but they never answer the question regarding their opinion as to how those laws will affect the criminals, who, by their very nature, IGNORE ALL THE LAWS.
Anti's like this columnist strike me as narrow-minded and intentionally blinded. How annoying. But then, if I sound like I'm angry about it all I might have to succumb to a mental health history and that would show up on future police background checks. Grr.
The column is titled "GUNS ON CAMPUS WOULD MEAN MORE KILLINGS". See if you can find it online as my paper didn't carry it online.
This guy is certain that stricter gun laws in Virginia would have prevented the recent event. (I hate kicking dead horses as this event has been debated ad nausem, but this guy irked me.) This columnist also explained that potential gun buyers should sign a waiver to allow the police to do an extensive background check and mental health history. (As they do in New Jersey, he says.)
He claims that the law of the land was Cho's accomplice.
He goes on to say that some past legislation to allow college students to carry (that failed) was "so ludicrous you almost wonder if it is a parody by anti-gun people trying to make pro-gun people sound foolish." And he suggests that profs could shoot a student on a whim or a student could shoot a prof for bad grades.
I guess what irks me is that this guy, like other anti's, deny the sense and rationale of a pro gun society. They scream for stricter gun laws but they never answer the question regarding their opinion as to how those laws will affect the criminals, who, by their very nature, IGNORE ALL THE LAWS.
Anti's like this columnist strike me as narrow-minded and intentionally blinded. How annoying. But then, if I sound like I'm angry about it all I might have to succumb to a mental health history and that would show up on future police background checks. Grr.