Just ask the College Republicans: the solution isn’t better screening. It’s no screening, plus mandatory uzis, fully loaded, for everyone over the age of three.

Anonymous (October 10, 2007 @ 2:20am)wrote: “Just ask the College Republicans: the solution isn’t better screening. It’s no screening, plus mandatory uzis, fully loaded, for everyone over the age of three.”

What a thoughtless, uninformed, uneducated and off-topic comment. This has nothing to do with party alignment. And while I am no fan of either political party, at least most chapters of the College Republicans are in favor of allowing students to carry concealed so that they are able to defend themselves - as opposed to those who think we should all give up our right to self-defense and the most powerful tool that can be used for self-defense.

As for the article itself, it is heartfelt and thoughtful but thoroughly misinformed. Background checks would not have prevented this incident in any way. People need to face the fact that some folks just snap. There is NO guarantee that someone will not go off the deep end simply because they passed a psych check.

In point of fact such cases are virtually negligible compared with the number of law-abiding firearms owners - a fact that most people tend to forget when a story such as this one hits the headlines.

Trying to predict who might have a mental breakdown is impossible, and enacting legislation that restricts one’s Second Amendment rights on such premises is ridiculous, unconstitutional and goes down a very slippery legal slope.

Why don’t we just ban murder? Oh wait…the individual in question ignored that ban. What in the world makes you think criminals would follow firearms laws when by definition they don’t follow laws?

You may not like firearms, but don’t ever presume to take away others’ rights to keep and bear them based on the amorphous reason of “He/she MIGHT have a mental breakdown.”

How, exactly, would stopping sales of private property between individuals have prevented an off-duty Sheriff’s deputy from committing murder with the weapons issued to him from his department?

I’m not even going to go into how ridiculous the concept of “requiring” background checks for sales between private individuals is.

I’ll just leave you with this thought to ponder: Do you know how many guns I have? If I sold one to another private citizen today, would you know about it? How would you stop me from doing so…especially if I’m a criminal and have no compunction about ignoring any laws you may get passed.

Are you willing to endure a police state in order to ensure that your proposed mandates are followed?

Unintended consequences are a bummer.

Sailorcurt http://sailorcurt.blogspot.com

“The answer to this problem seems clear: require background checks for all vendors of firearms to lessen the number of illegal sales and prevent potentially deadly consequences.”

Clearly, the writer is ignorant of the topic being addressed. Vendors of firearms already go through vigorous background checks. And law enforcement screening is even more thorough.

Lunatics exist in life. They sometimes lose it and kill innocent people — with a gun, with a bat, with a car or knife, whatever. Had one of the victims been armed, they could have stopped the attack and saved lives. But they were unarmed, defenseless victims and easy prey for a nutcase.

So this guy has been an officer for several months, how would a 3 day waiting period have stopped him from doing what he did.

No background check in the world will predict anything.

According to the Wisconsin Constitution, "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." If it is your right, there is no reason to have to ask permission from the state, & a license is the goverment giving permission. Suppose you had to apply for a license, & wait for 3 days to see if your opinion could be printed?

Perhaps a background check should have been run on the Sheriff’s Dept & the Crandon Police Dept, before they were allowed to let him carry a gun, Perhaps the goverment should run a background check on writers before they are allow to write? Gun Gun does indeed work! Just ask the generals in Myanmar!(Bruma)

A part time cop murdered these folks. He went through vigorous background checks, mental health testing, and training (all cops do).

So to prevent these tragedies you propose background checks and mental health screening? Um, did you notice the perpetrator passed exactly those?

The problem then is people. Not more laws, not more prohibitions from constitutionally protected arms. Murder is already illegal, and that didn’t prevent this tragedy.

The answer is in allowing people to defend themselves. Humans have murdered each other for millennia, and will continue to, no matter how many well-intentioned but utterly useless laws you push.

If you continue to advocate the disarmmament of citizens you are not only being ineffective, you’re becoming an accomplice to their murders.

How would more background checks have stopped the Crandon shootings?

The problem w/ requiring universal background checks is the anti-gun organizations want the checks to go through licensed FFL dealers while at the same time promoting measures to sue these same dealers out of business.

Would you accept Non-FFL access to the background check system (NICS) which is currently prevented under the Brady Law?

When I was a sophmore in college (about 35 years ago) I was a LOT smarter than this writer - at least I knew a LOT more about guns and gun laws.

But, it is possible she may mature one day and learn that doing some research before writing an article is usually a good idea. At least it was in the days when I went to school.

I don’t get your point. We should be screening better, we should be screening cops better, or the cops who screen themselves should screen themselves better?

Sara should stick to English, because her logic and reasoning aren’t up to this task. Other than checking for prior felonies during a “store” sale, the only practical solution is to remove the barriers for citizens to protect themselves and their families, in and out of their homes.

Whomever submitted the comment “… mandatory uzis, fully loaded, for everyone over the age of three…” is throwing bombs and should perhaps keep their irrational and irrelevant commentary to themselves.

BigDogInMO

I’m sure that Mr. Peterson passed his background check to receive a firearm. In addition, he was fully licensed to carry said firearm. Would you require that everyone who possessed a firearm to undergo extensive psycho-analysis in order to acquire a firearm? Background checks can only stop those who have prior records of violent offenses from attaining firearms. Those individuals who have prior records often go through the black market to purchase their weapons, which markets are traditionally not the collectors you speak of. In the case at hand, more rigorous background checking would not have prevented the tragedy in Crandon. You make a very weak argument connecting the sale of illegal firearms to a crime of passion in Crandon by a legally licensed individual. I do not condone those acts of Mr. Peterson, but honestly you have no basis for your argument for more explicit gun control measures.

“Attaining a gun license in Wisconsin is as simple as signing a few forms and enduring a waiting period if necessary.” Getting a gun is as simple as stealing one, or five thugs ambushing a single police officer and taking his gun. Repeat five times, no forms needed.

“Who are we letting own guns,and what is being done to stop these shootings from reoccurring in the future?” We are making it harder and harder for trained, law-abiding citizens to get guns for their constitutionally guaranteed right to them for “…security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose” while at the same time doing nothing that prevents the unlawful acquisition of them. Can there ever be a law that PREVENTS a gun theft, or an officer being robbed of his state issued arm? Laws convict. people prevent. No law has more teeth than an honorable citizen in the right place at the right time, properly trained and properly equipped.

You can tell I am ALL for the 2nd amendment- yet I too am against guns in the hands of convicted felons, the mentally delusional, and those with an ego more suited for the WWE. But prevention cannot legislated, that responsibility falls strictly upon the citizenry of the country. A responsibility that has been all but dropped except for a dedicated few, who are finding it more and more difficult.

Using the tragedy in Crandon as proof that we need more gun control is probably the most obvious straw man argument I’ve seen in a Badger Herald opinion column in a very long time.

Are you kidding? The guy was a deputy. And not just a deputy, he was a part-time city cop. Do you think that even though he passed the screening process to become a cop for two different jurisdictions, he wouldn’t have passed the screening process to buy a gun? Are you serious?

So basically, this is just a cheap exploitation of tragedy to make an unrelated argument. Good job. If you wanted to write a column about gun control why didn’t you just do it without leading with something that has nothing to do with your argument?

1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn’t know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes “children” up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

1. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

1. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

1. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t.

True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

1. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.”

1. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

http://www.cato.org/pubdisplay.php?pubid=4706

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121979.html

He might not have got off 30 shots if one of his targets could have shot back.

Sorry to tell you your wrong Sarah but you are. How are you going to possibly make every person in this country do that?? CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY LAWS!! Private transactions are unenforceable. I too have engaged in such things and you do not see the police knocking on my door, why?? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. I have a better solution. How about allowing citizens to bear arms? Remember these words, and armed society is a polite society. These have been proven true in states that have only federal laws. Do not take my word for it, do your own research. And yes I am a college student too but I have done my homework on reality.

That would make me feel so much safer, knowing that my classmates might be concealed-carrying in the same classroom or library. Especially in a place like this with such an alcohol culture.

I have the perfect solution to ending all gun violence…ever.

First of all, all humans would be required to be implanted with tracking devices which not only track but also record all thoughts and emotions of said human. This solution would then be able to predict if someone was going to go off the edge and brutally gun down people in his communitity. Therefore if someone would managed to slip through the 3 day waiting period, they would be caught by the super sophisticated government tracking sysytem.

Sorry Sara but your article reaks like something which was not researched in any shape, form, or matter. Yes I want the dangerous to be prevented from carrying, but please come up with a logical way to go about this. Maybe I would suggeset arming the citizens who are RESPONSIBLE enough to carry and who could defend themselves if their life was threatened. Using some deputy who had a screw loose because someone called him, “…worthless” just doesn’t cut it.

Those darn gun loving founders, huh?

“First of all, all humans would be required to be implanted with tracking devices which not only track but also record all thoughts and emotions of said human.”

You been reading the Neanderthal Parallax books by Robert J. Sawyer?

Dear Sarah -

So, to prevent sworn, certified law-enforcement officers from going “postal” and murdering a bunch of unarmed citizens, you propose that citizens go through more stringent background checks. I guess that would be to make it more difficult for the Wisconsin hoi polloi to obtain guns with which to defend themselves against police officers that are intent on “thinning the herd.”

Wow. Your essay doesn’t do much to endorse your alleged level of education.

I suggest that, as an English major, you grab a dictionary or thesaurus and look up the term “non sequitur.”

How's this as a comparison: "A drunken police officer, Officer X, mowed down a group of pedestrians, killing six and critically injuring one. In order to stop this madness, I propose that the government make it more difficult for the average citizen to obtain a driver's license. Information has not yet been released as to whether Officer X was driving his privately-owned car or if he was driving his police cruiser when he ran over and killed these pedestrians."

Sounds like an idiotic argument, doesn't it. Perhaps when you become a junior, you won't resort to publishing arguments that are a complete sophistry.

Until then, I suggest you also look up the word "anthropomorphize." If you subscribe evil to an object, simply change the subject object, and see if your argument still holds up.

You may also want to obtain some sort of peer review before submitting an article for publication in the future. At this point you just come off as being, well, just silly.

Your logic was matched by the maroon who thinks someone is actually advocating giving Uzis to three-year olds. BTW — if someone is actually giving away Uzis, will someone please post contact information? Thanks.

“That would make me feel so much safer, knowing that my classmates might be concealed-carrying in the same classroom or library. Especially in a place like this with such an alcohol culture.”

1. Feeling more or less safe does not necessarily make one so in fact.

2. You wouldn’t feel safer knowing that there are qualified, licensed and vetted individuals…members of the single most law abiding subset of American Society…who have the capability and proper tools to defend themselves…and you…were a madman like the off-duty cop in question to enter your library or classroom and start shooting? (sorry for the uber-run-on sentence)

3. I can’t speak for your state, but in most places its illegal to carry a firearm while consuming, or under the influence of alcohol.

4. Do you really believe that there is never anyone armed around you? The odds are that you are around armed people on a regular basis…they are just criminals so you don’t know they’re armed. In other words, your feelings of safety have nothing to do with being around armed people…they have to do with KNOWING you are around armed people…even if those people have proven themselves to be trustworthy and law abiding citizens. Please, for your own sake; seek help. Irrational fears can be treated with the proper care.

Oops. “Subscribe” should have been “ascribe.”

Because everyone else is doing such an excellent job on the gun issue, I will just keep to pointing out that an english student shouldn’t have made this ‘concerning’ mistake, “More concerning, however, is that there are easy ways”. Get an editor.

That would make me feel so much safer, knowing that my classmates might be concealed-carrying in the same classroom or library. Especially in a place like this with such an alcohol culture.

Guess what chuckie, some of them probably already are. Certainly anyone who thinks being armed is more important than some silly school policy. Since when did the rules ever stop anyone from doing what they wanted. You know, kinda like those rolled joints you have stashed away in your travel kit. What gun bans accomplish is to see to it that the only ones with guns are the cops and the criminals. Thank God the cops are armed, because we all know that when seconds count the cops are only minutes away.

If you have ever owned a gun, which I do (3 handguns, 1 AR15) you know a gun owner is one of the most responsible persons around. They’d never knowly sell to a felon or any sketchy person. Most want a copy of you ID as well when selling.

PS im 21…