UCLA Anti-Gun Rant

MostlyGenius points us to an anti-gun rant at the Daily Bruin out of UCLA. I'm gonna take a run at it.

Apologies and caution needed, not shameless promotion

The story could not have been more disgusting if it had been fabricated. One year ago, a student killed 32 people and himself in a campus rampage. In a twisted sort of highlight ceremony, a man visited that campus last Thursday and spoke to the merit of concealed weapons.

The same man, that is, who sold a .22 to the student now known simply as Cho, who used that weapon in a part of his murderous foray through Virginia Tech’s campus. The same man who sold two 9-mm magazines and a holster that aided Steven Kazmierczak in killing five people and himself at Northern Illinois University just two months ago.

Ok, and how exactly is this disgusting? I guess stepping up and addressing real issues disgusts you. Issues like personal accountability, not blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a person, things like that.

In light of the continued, horrific history of on-campus violence, gun control must be tightened, not loosened. Campuses and surrounding areas should be rid of, not flooded with, weaponry of all forms.

So, Sparky, how much tighter than "prohibited" do you want? That's where the law was then and is now in most places, like, say, UCLA.

The outrage that should meet online gun dealer Eric Thompson’s visit to Virginia Tech is not merely a visceral reaction to a headline. It should stem from the great disrespect his visit marks against the families and friends of those slain by weapons that were once in Thompson’s hands.

I thought the only outrage caused at VT was by these guys. You know, the uninvited ones. As for disrespect, I lay that on you. You are the ones invoking their names to push your anti-gun agenda. You, who was no way involved with any of it. Eric Thompson went there out of belief in his convictions and a genuine desire to help prevent another such tragedy. You, on the other hand, just want to provide the next whack-job with a target rich environment.

More below the fold

Though cries of “Free speech!” are sure to rally behind such blatantly offensive events, free speech need not come at such a cost of insult and disrespect.

Wrong again. The very idea of free speech revolves around the fact that it sometimes does insult and disrespect. That's why it's protected. You should take a course....

Concealed guns are meant to allow one the ability to kill based on a constitutional amendment that fulfills a now historically archaic role in American (and global) society, and they serve no purpose on college campuses.

Here you fail to distinguish between lawful carry and unlawful carry. You see, when someone carries lawfully, their intent is not to kill, it is to survive an attack from someone unlawfully carrying. You claim the Second Amendment is archaic, but you fail to explain why. You also, for some odd reason, seem to think the Second Amendment applies globally. It does not. Please refer to the "take a course" comment above.

While critics of police responses are justified in their frustration, it is naive to believe that a body of concealed weapon carriers on campuses will constitute a responsible, controlled, trained security force. Given the remarkably small percentage of students who will ever be exposed to a school shooting, the likelihood of such a trained student being in the same room is next to null.

I actually agree with the first sentence, although I'm sure it's for different reasons. You see, concealed weapon carriers are not security guards, they are carrying for self protection. If you're getting shot at the next building over, they will not come running to save the day. That second sentence may be factually accurate when you figure the odds, but the odds right now are null. Any improvement in them means a better chance of survival.

The Times quoted an aerospace engineering student at the University of Arizona as saying, “If word gets out students are arming themselves, criminals will be, like, ‘Maybe we should back off.’”

This is certainly flawed reasoning, which depends on an ideal image of students as part of an elite armed militia that would be capable of picking out a “criminal” from innocent students in the chaotic environment that characterizes any mass shooting spree.

Again, you are operating under the false premise that these concealed carry permit holders are going to respond like a security force. They are not. They would only respond to a threat to themselves, which would be easy to do.

Nice try, but this is just another anti-gun screed. Long on hype, short on facts.