STS

I accept that you don't believe me, how about some numbers. State or Territory/Murders per 1000(rank of 52)/Brady Campaign Gun Control Grade Washington DC/.354(1)/B (Guns banned since 1977.) Puerto Rico/.196(2)/Not Rated but compared to NY (B+) and NJ (A-) Louisiana/.099(3, Katrina?)/F Maryland/.099(4)/A- New Hampshire/.014(49)/D- Vermont/.013(50)/D- Iowa/.013(51)/C+ North Dakota/.011(52)/D What's Brady grading, gun control laws or the ability of unarmed, law abiding citizens to get murdered in the streets?

Since owning a handgun is limited to those at least 21 years of age the already low percentage of those who choose to carry would be restricted even further. Part of the required training to obtain a concealed weapons permit is learning how to identify threats that call for deadly force, it wouldn't be the Wild West with everyone strapping a gunbelt on and swaggering around campus starting duels, like you said, it's not like in the movies. In fact, even if guns were allowed on campus is unlikely that one would have been in a position to stop that particular threat. Something to think about, if you are a criminal or preparing to commit a crime, how good does a gun-free zone look? You're almost guaranteed to be unopposed. The thing many people who don't own guns or oppose private ownership don't realize is that they benefit from the deterrent provided by the ability of others to own guns. Would the threat of getting shot have deterred this nutbag, I'm guessing not, but then again he did file off serial numbers from guns he legally purchased (filled out NCIS form and submitted photo id) so who knows. As far as providing a false sense of security, I guess I don't see it that way, it's not like gun owners start leaving their doors unlocked and storing large sums of money near open windows. In fact, I would say that gun owners are one of the most responsible segments of society. Or maybe you're right and it's just a macho thing, right Hockeymom, Siouxmama and Sioux-cia?

You're right, I guess I used the "two to the chest one to the head" line more for dramatic effect than a prediction of accuracy. Though it should be noted that being a LEO doesn't inherently make you a better shot, I know quite a few people who spend far more time on the range than some LEO's. As far as worrying about too many people carrying guns, I wouldn't. Allowing concealed carry doesn't increase the number of criminals carrying guns, they're already packing illegally. All it does is give law abiding citizens the legal right to do the same. There's some good statistics on the crime rate for concealed carry license holders but I'm too lazy to find it right now. But the message was if you're in an elevator with 10 people, 9 of which legally carry a concealed weapon, keep your eyes on the tenth guy.

That loud whoosh you just heard was you completely missing the point. I guess the fact that you can't identify a worthless statistic probably shouldn't surprise me. Reporting the amount of GUN VIOLENCE after there aren't anymore guns is stupid, instead report the amount of violence after the guns are removed from the equation. I'm sure that the recent calls for bans on swords and kitchen knives has nothing to do with crime not vanishing with the guns in England. What's next blunt objects and things with pointy corners, I guess I should buy stock in Nerf. A gun is a tool, nothing more, it isn't evil or blood thirsty. "People who don't have guns don't kill people with guns." Brilliant, people who don't have guns beat people to death, stab them, drown them, strangle them, run them over with cars, poison them, fly planes into buildings, burn them, bury them alive, etc... And that's assuming the CRIMINALS obey the law and don't illegally procure guns. People were murdered long before the first firearm was ever manufactured and will be murdered long after guns are gone. A gun is a "great disrupter of the natural order" it allows a 5'5" 110lb woman to stop a would be rapist, a 85 year old grandmother to kill a 6'3" 275 pound home intruder. But you're right, people who don't have guns don't kill people with guns, of course the 5'5" young woman and the grandmother are raped or killed, or both. No doubt this thread was started in response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech, many will use the actions of that madman to push for oppressive gun control legislation but direct your attention to HB 1572 defeated in a Virginia House of Representative subcommittee. The bill would have allowed concealed carry on campus by those licensed by the state to do so. Imagine if Prof. Liviu Librescu, the holocaust survivor who was shot and killed while using his body to barricade a door while his students escaped, had been allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon to work. Instead of killing 32 people Cho Seung Hui may well have quickly received two to the chest and one to the head, saving many lives. I'll save you some time responding to the previous paragraph, just copy and paste this "But, but, but, if there were no guns then Cho Seung Hui couldn't have killed people with guns!!!" Correct, score one for DaveK, if there weren't any guns Seung Hui would have been a perfectly sane, productive member of society. Of course the rest of us know that instead he would have bought a box cutter and crashed a 747 into the engineering building, or bought a few gallons of gas and a Zippo and torched his dorm in the middle of the night, etc... Evil people will do evil things with whatever they have at hand, guns allow the rest of us to even the odds. Anyway, my back is getting sore trying to dig your head out of the sand, I'm done. Best wishes.

Don't be so negative, I heard tickets are half price for WSU fans, this way they don't have to pay for the two quarters that'll be played after they're down by 42 and on the way home. Sorry, let me dumb that down for you: ur team sux!!1!11!

I don't have a pic, but I found this quote on INCH tonight.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but in terms of hockey, does this policy apply to both WCHA and the NCAA playoffs, or just the NCAA playoffs?