Another Contradiction of the Left

...trying to make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own guns while at the same time advocating for porous open borders whereby criminal organizations can smuggle guns into the country from Mexico. 

Guns and Goldilocks

The left wants to ban so-called AR-15 "military style assault weapons" (to use the arbitrary PC term designed to scare fellow hoplophobes).  Here is mine.

I pose the following dilemma for the left:

1. Either so-called assault weapons in the hands of many citizens would have the desired effect of making the government seriously think twice about tyranny or not. 
2. If it would, then the legality of so-called assault weapons is justified for putting a check on tyranny.
3. If it would not, then there is no justification for banning so-called assault weapons (without also banning many other guns.)
4. So either way the legality of so-called assault weapons is justified.

What the left needs is that these so-called assault weapons are just right.  They are too lethal for self-defense but not lethal enough in the hands of many law abiding citizens to thwart tyrannical aggression.  But if they are military style assault weapons, they sure sound like they'd have the desired effect of (e.g.) checking the FBI from going door to door and confiscating everyone's guns.  No doubt the U.S. military could obliterate all citizens with its massive military might, but no government set on being tyrannical over its citizens would do so.

Ban on Alcohol

Alcohol is responsible for c.105,000 deaths in the U.S. each year (CDC). In about 1/2 of homicides, alcohol is a serious causal factor. I conclude that only the government should be permitted to have alcohol. Or, at best, that all purchasers of alcohol regularly have a universal background check for alcoholism and traffic violations involving alcohol, that only small amounts of alcohol can be purchased at any one time, that the content of alcohol in each distribution be <4%, that alcohol manufacturers can be sued if their alcohol is used in a traffic fatality regardless of the quality of its production....or, again, more simply that there should be no alcohol (except in the hands of the government).

'It is called wine,' said O'Brien with a faint smile. 'You will have read about it in books, no doubt. Not much of it gets to the Outer Party, I am afraid.' (Orwell, 1984)

Kids Should Have Guns

...if they're like this kid.  Nice job, Chris! 

Chris Gaither was home alone “petting the dogs” on Wednesday morning when he heard a noise upstairs.

The 11-year-old boy from Talladega, Ala., told NBC affiliate WVTM-TV that he was scared, so he grabbed a knife and steadied himself.  Chris said that a man appeared on the stairwell, but when confronted, he ran back up upstairs. When the man reappeared moments later, the boy told WVTM-TV, the individual was holding a gun.

“When he was coming down the stairs, that’s when he told me he was going to kill me, f-you and all that,” Chris said.

Instead of running, Chris told the station, he upgraded his weaponry, picking up a 9mm handgun that was in the home.

Read the rest.

Preston Sprinkle on Good Guys With Guns

The last time I wrote a critique of Preston Sprinkle's pacifist argument was a couple years ago, regarding his book on the issue.  Now Preston is taking on gun ownership and gun control, so perhaps it's time to dust off the old critical canon and fire off a blog post or two.

The latest is an exchange with Doug Wilson (I know nothing about Mr. Wilson other than what is posted in the exchange).  I think Sprinkle is on more solid ground than Wilson with respect to some of the Biblical passages discussed, e.g., the sword passage in the Bible described here, though I think Sprinkle ultimately has an unseemly dispensationalist view on killing and violence when dealing with the Old Testament.  At any rate, I don't have much to say about that post on Bible passages other than this. As with science, so with Biblical exegesis: theory is underdetermined by data.  What that means in science is that there is always more than one possible explanation for the data.  Determining the best explanation cannot be done solely by looking at the data.  The same is true with Scriptures.  Doctrine cannot simply be read off of Scripture.  Rather one has to take all of one's available evidence including evidence for how one ought to interpret Scripture.  Sprinkle does this in practice, in fact, appealing to law enforcement officers and FBI statistics elsewhere to make his case.  Yet he hasn't engaged in many philosophical critiques of pacifism.

I do have a few things to say on this post on good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns which goes beyond the Biblical data.  It's short, so the interested reader should read the whole thing first.  Commentary below the fold.

Crazy U.S. Gun Culture

"I'm an Evangelical Preacher. You can't be pro-life and pro-gun."

Read the whole thing if you think I'm being unfair in my comments below the fold.  It's short, thankfully, since it's mostly bad.  If this were a paper in class I'd give it a D for having no thesis and poor argumentation.  A difference between right and left will shine forth from this piece.  In spite of how badly this Evangelical Preacher argues, the left will praise him because he means well and it feels good.

In the United States, evangelicals are among the biggest supporters of gun rights. They are the major religious group least likely to support stricter laws. Evangelical Larry Pratt, who directs Gun Owners of America, even argues that all Christians should be armed.
For most of my adult life, I agreed. I believed that we had a God-given right to defend ourselves. I also believed that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, and that anyone should be able to obtain a gun.

A Gun Proposal I Can Get Behind!

Think of how many lives this would save!

Guns: NY Times Calls for...SOMETHING!

Front page editorial here.

Noteworthy quotations:

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

This of course, is silly.  The guns are designed to fire for all sorts of purposes just like any other gun.  And why shouldn't citizens but sufficiently well-armed if the cops are?  The NY Times doesn't say.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true....They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. 

HA! It doesn't matter if taking away arms from law abiding citizens will do any good!  We have to do something!  Hoplophobia alive and well in New York!  All one can do is laugh.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Chilling.

Brian Doherty has the takedown here.  Excerpt:

The move the Times proposes with such ceremony and passion is so purely symbolic, so driven by a superstitious desire to placate fate by acting as if it is doing something to stop grotesque acts of terror like in San Bernardino, and so motivated by a desire to sock it to a huge proportion of their fellow citizens over a contentious and heated political and constitutional issue, and is being offered with such emphasis (first front page editorial in nearly a century) that one could imagine the Times is only proposing such a move as a stalking horse for seeing if the government can get away with successfully banning and confiscating a class of weapon, by starting with one with such a tenuous connection with public safety on a national level.
It is likely that there is literally no other political crusade on which the Times could call for so much expense and turmoil for such a small benefit—again, except for the benefit of showing Americans who believe that they have an inherent right to own weapons of self-defense if used in a peaceful fashion, as the staggeringly overwhelmingly vast majority of them are, that the Times and those in government they speak for have the power and will to give it to them, good and hard.

In other NY Times related propaganda news, does the Times think its readership is this stupid?  I guess so.  No mention at all that the "bill" to eliminate terror was not actually a bill but an amendment attached to yet another bill to defund Obamacare, neither of which had a prayer of becoming law.

Sword-Wielding Man Robs Dairy Queen

Here.

Strong man with sword neutralized by weaker man with gun here:

Obama on Gun Control and Charleston

Like clockwork, after an inexplicable shooting every so many years Democrats are out in force calling for gun restrictions. As Obama and Clinton operative Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

Now I have heard it said ad nauseam on the left that certain conservatives are crazy for ever thinking that Obama or other Democrats would ban all guns.  But is it that crazy?  Is it crazy to think that if he had the means to do so that he would abolish the Second Amendment or confiscate all guns?  Is it unreasonable to think that a progressive would steer us more towards being like hallowed Europe?

Consider this article from The Atlantic where Obama says (in light of the recent tragedy)

“...once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun."

Hillary Clinton has said similar things.  But neither of them offer specifics about exactly what laws they have in mind to keep the bad guys from getting and using guns.  So let us ask: short of  removing all guns from the hands of citizens, what law would have prevented the murder of these nine victims?  Can we get a little help from progressives on this issue?

Obama to Ban AR-15 5.56 mm Ammo With Executive Action

Here and here.

But now [The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use...Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

Well, uh, that is sort of the point.  The Second Amendment wasn't put in place to make sure that hunters can still have guns for hunting--no 18th Century fool would have thought otherwise.  It was put in place because the Founders put the brakes on governments' tyranny and complete monopoly on the use of force.  The well regulated militia ain't the National Guard.

Defending the Oppressed: Grandfather Saves Granddaughter From Rape

This is the sort of story that happens all the time that you also NEVER hear about in the mainstream media.  It goes hand-in-hand with this dismantling of Adam Gopnik's STUPID rant about gun-control at the New Yorker.

The granddad (who is not named in any news report) is a hero.  And he got his stolen Cadillac back to boot!

The last line below is priceless.

ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IN NORTH CAROLINA

Via Robert Stacy McCain, an inspiring story from North Carolina:

A Lumberton man traded gunfire with three men who forced their way into his home, robbed the family, tried to rape his granddaughter and stole his car Monday, Robeson County authorities said.

One of the men, identified as Jamie Faison, 20, was shot and found dead in the stolen Cadillac parked at his home on the 600 block of Singletary Church Road, Sheriff Kenneth Sealey said in a news release.

The two other men turned up at area hospitals with gunshot wounds. … The homeowner, Kenneth Byrd, 67, was shot multiple times, the release said. …

The family told them that a man came to the door and said he was having problems with his vehicle and needed water.

Here are the three criminals. I’m not sure which of the three rang the doorbell, and of course no one would ever recommend profiling of any sort, but if any of these guys came to your door, you should probably keep it locked:

Two men wearing black clothing, ski masks and gloves forced their way into the home and demanded money, Sealey said. All three of the men had guns.

The Byrds were pushed to the back of their home and instructed to open a safe.

When the men tried to rape the couple’s granddaughter, Byrd grabbed a gun and exchanged shots with the assailants, Sealey said.

The grandfather was shot multiple times, but prevailed. Hats off to him. I am pretty sure the granddaughter is thankful that he had a gun in the house and knew how to use it.

McCain adds this priceless observation:

Feminists had no comment, as these would-be rapists were not members of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.

Tactical Walls

*UPDATE*
Janet Mackie asks, "hiding your guns in...are you/they serious?"

Yes, apparently tactical walls is a company that makes tactical wall items for storing weapons. And, really, if you believe in a right to the self-defense of one's home as well as keeping weapons locked up from children, it's kind of a neat idea (with a GREAT advertising pitch to boot).  Moreover, it's a way to impress your friends who don't suffer from hoplophobia.


One of the liberal memes is to say that people without government sanctioned training should not bear arms in a "tactical situation."  What is a "tactical situation"?  Well, answering that is tricky (and a liberal secret).   The paradigm example of a "tactical situation" is where some  untrained crazy is firing off rounds at people he doesn't know.  In such cases where said nut bag is selectively capping citizens A, B, and C, the liberal idea is that the citizen who could stop the murderer should wait until the government law enforcement officers arrive--because, again, it is a "tactical situation."  In short: untrained civilians should NOT respond to untrained murderers.

Well, for those non-pacifist types who just cannot wait for a "tactical situation" to be resolved by their own tax funded officers arriving 5 minutes into a "tactical situation," there is now this option.  Homebuilders and homeowners take note:

Amy: "That's awesome! You totally need to get one of these.  The boys wouldn't get into it but you could get to it quickly."

Malea: "We need to get one of those....for maybe books."

Elliot Rodger was a Product of America's Knife Culture

This is a call for a conversation about America's knife culture, a conversation which doesn't take place primarily because of special interest groups such as Gerber Legendary Blades, Marble Arms and the like.

Elliot Rodger was a legend in his own mind, and he made knives a part of that legend. His case doesn't merely brook a conversation about knife regulations and whether we make it too easy to own a knife. His case should force us to confront America's knife culture, and to ask whether we make it too desirable to own a knife.

Mind you, knife fondlers and their largely unarmed pseudo-intellectual ilk would prefer if that conversation simply didn't happen. The National Review began its post-Rodgers knife editorial by blasting "the classic" boilerplate of knife-control advocates, only to end the piece with boilerplate of its own: "It is at this point something of a cliché, but it should perhaps be offered anyway: If someone is determined to kill a substantial number of people, he will almost certainly manage to do so." Rodger also shot some unfortunate souls and attacked more with his car, see. Why pick on knives?

Yes, it is something of a cliché.  True, there are not 130,000 Americans stabbed each year as in the United Kingdom, but knives are second only to handguns as the leading cause of murder.  And if you don’t think knives kill people, just try stabbing yourself in the heart with a knife!  Moreover, in some cases, high capacity knives have been used to stab 22 people in a matter of minutes. 

We know that slogans masquerading as plain speech are mere rhetoric because, on a moment's inspection, they reveal themselves to be absurd. "The best answer to a bad guy with a knife is a good guy with a knife" reveals itself to be a lie on a single inspection: the best answer is to not let the bad guy have a knife. "Knives don't kill people, people do." No: obviously, people with knives kill more people than people without them. Why not ban guns or cars, which can be instruments of death, too? Because these things were designed to help people do things other than kill people—like shooting bunny-killing-coyotes from the sunroof of your SUV. "Knife control" means controlling those things whose first purpose is to help people kill other people.

Knives are fun. They are useful. They are, like all tools, limited in their utility. But unlike most tools, they are virtually unlimited in their capacity for destruction.

It is true in a strict sense that knives make men equal (and even women).  They make the deranged, the paranoid, the excitable, the racist, and the brute equal in strength and righteousness to the sane, the cautious, the paranoid, the open-minded, and the meek.

One thing that is clear about Elliot Rodger is that for all his racism, his privilege, his misogyny, his acting out, his awfulness and his sickness, he never doubted that he was right and just. In idiosyncratic language, he averred again and again that attractive people were "horrifyingly" "cocksure" "pricks," "foul" "beasts" that he deserved to best in love and in life. He felt impotent to do that until he armed himself.

Sometimes a tool is just a tool. But sometimes it is much more. We are a society that makes much of our knives as more than mere tools, as instruments of power. Elliot Rodger's knives provided a tragically clichéd beginning to his cliché social problems. But sometimes—not every time, but too often by far, in schools, on streets, in restaurants and playgrounds—when you're the one holding the knives, every cliché you utter sounds profound, every action you take seems good, and every problem is somebody else's.  In the case of Rodger, 3 stabbings with an assault weapon led to 3 shootings. Less knives, less crime.

HT: Adam Weinstein 

Gun Culture or Liberal Culture and the Recent Shooting

I just watched the 6 minute YouTube video of Elliot Rodger's statement leading up to his murderous rampage, and I read parts of his manifesto.  One thing that is clear is that Rodger had become thoroughly evil.  I'm sure we're about to hear another deluge of babble about our gun culture, so this is timely:

The Problem: Gun Culture or Liberal Culture?

This is a repost, slightly redacted, from 2012 to help stem the tsunami of folderol sure to wash over us from the orifices of the mindless gun-grabbing Left in the wake of the Isla Vista rampage.

................

Without wanting to deny that there is a 'gun culture' in the USA, especially in the so-called red states, I would insist that the real problem is our liberal culture.  Here are four characteristics of liberal culture that contribute to violence of all kinds, including gun violence.

1. Liberals tend to have a casual attitude toward crime. 

This is well-documented by Theodore Dalrymple.  Here is a list of his articles. No Contrition, No Penalty is a short read.  See also my Crime and Punishment category.

It is interesting to note that Connecticut, the state in which the Newtown massacre occurred, has recently repealedthe death penalty, and this after the unspeakably brutal Hayes-Komisarjevsky home invasion in the same state.

One of the strongest voices against repealing the death penalty has been Dr. William Petit Jr., the lone survivor of a 2007 Cheshire home invasion that resulted in the murders of his wife and two daughters.

The wife was raped and strangled, one of the daughters was molested and both girls were left tied to their beds as the house was set on fire.

The two men convicted of the crime, Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, are currently on death row.

Anyone who cannot appreciate that a crime like this  deserves the death penalty is morally obtuse.  But not only are liberals morally obtuse, they are contemptibly stupid in failing to understand that one of the main reasons people buy guns is to protect themselves from the criminal element, the criminal element that liberals coddle.  If liberals were serious about wanting to reduce the numbers of guns in civilian hands, they would insist on swift and sure punishment in accordance with the self-evident moral principle, "The punishment must fit the crime,"  which is of course not to be confused with lex talionis, "an eye for an eye."  Many guns are purchased not for hunting or sport shooting but for protection against criminals.  Keeping and bearing arms carries with it a grave responsibility and many if not most gun owners would rather not be so burdened.  Gun ownership among women is on the upswing, and it is a safe bet that they don't want guns to shoot Bambi.

2. Liberals tend to undermine morality with their opposition to religion. 

Many of us internalized the ethical norms that guide our lives via our childhood religious training. We were taught the Ten Commandments, for example. We were not just taught about them, we were taught them.  We learned them by heart, and we took them to heart. This early training, far from being the child abuse that A. C. Grayling and other militant atheists think it is, had a very positive effect on us in forming our consciences and making  us the basically decent human beings we are. I am not saying that moral formation is possible only within a religion; I am saying that some religions do an excellent job of transmitting and inculcating life-guiding and life-enhancing ethical standards, that moral formation outside of a religion is unlikely for the average person, and that it is nearly impossible if children are simply handed over to the pernicious influences of secular society as these influences are transmitted through television, Internet, video games, and other media.  Anyone with moral sense can see that the mass media have become an open sewer in which every manner of cultural polluter is not only tolerated but promoted.  Those of use who were properly educated way back when can dip into this cesspool without too much moral damage.  But to deliver our children over to it is the real child abuse, pace the benighted Professor Grayling.

The shysters of the ACLU, to take one particularly egregious bunch of destructive leftists, seek to remove every vestige of our Judeo-Christian ethical traditiion from the public square.  I can't begin to catalog all of their antics.  But recently there was the  Mojave cross  incident. It is absurd  that there has been any fight at all over it.  The ACLU,  whose radical lawyers  brought the original law suit, deserve contempt   and resolute opposition.  Of course, I wholeheartedly endorse the initial clause of the First Amendment, to wit, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." But it is hate-America leftist extremism on stilts to think that the presence of  that very old memorial cross on a hill  in the middle of nowhere does anything to establish Christianity as the state religion.  I consider anyone who  believes that to be intellectually obtuse and morally repellent.  One has to be highly unbalanced in his thinking to torture such extremist nonsense out of the First Amendment, while missing the plain sense of the Second Amendment, one that even SCOTUS eventually got right, namely, the the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, not a collective, right.

And then there was the business of the tiny cross on the city seal of Los Angeles, a symbol that the ACLU agitated to have removed.   I could continue with the examples, and you hope I won't.

 3. Liberals tend to have low standards, glorify the worthless, and fail to present exemplary human types.

Our contemporary media dreckmeisters apparently think that the purpose of art is to degrade sensibility, impede critical thinking, glorify scumbags, and rub our noses ever deeper into sex and violence. It seems obvious that the liberal fetishization of freedom of expression without constraint or sense of responsibility is part of the problem. But I can't let a certain sort of libertarian or economic conservative off the hook. Their lust for profit is also involved.

What is it that characterizes contemporary media dreck? Among other things, the incessant presentation of  defective human beings as if there are more of them than there are, and as if there is nothing at all wrong with their way of life. Deviant behavior is presented as if it is mainstream and acceptable, if not desirable. And then lame justifications are provided for the presentation: 'this is what life is like now; we are simply telling it like it is.' It doesn't occur to the dreckmeisters that art might have an ennobling function.

The tendency of liberals and leftists is to think that any presentation of choice-worthy goals or admirable
styles of life could only be hypocritical preaching.  And to libs and lefties, nothing is worse than hypocrisy.  Indeed, a good indicator of whether someone belongs to this class of the terminally benighted is whether the person obsesses over hypocrisy and thinks it the very worst thing in the world.  See my category Hypocrisy for elaboration of this theme.

4. Liberals tend to deny or downplay free will, individual responsibility, and the reality of evil.

This is connected with point 2 above, leftist hostility to religion.  Key to our Judeo-Christian tradition is the belief that man is made in the image and likeness of God.  This image is that mysterious power in us called free will.  The secular extremist assault on religion is at the same time an assault on this mysterious power, through which evil comes into the world.

This is a large topic.  Suffice it to say for now that one clear indication of this denial is the bizarre liberal displacement of responsibility for crime onto inaminate objects, guns, as if the weapon, not the wielder, is the source of the evil for which the weapon can be only the instrument.

Brian Leiter's Stupid Remarks on Nazis and the NRA

I really am not trying to turn this blog into a single issue site, but I just keep coming across idiotic statements which have to do with guns (and one of the tasks of philosophy is to point out such idiocy, so people won't embarrass themselves in the future).

This from Brian Leiter, who hosts the leading philosophy gossip website on the internet:

It's a good public relations gimmick, and hopefully effective, but the reality is that it is civilization vs. the NRA, adults vs. the NRA, everyone who isn't a Nazi or sociopath vs. the NRA, etc.  Readers outside the U.S., I know, find this all mystifying (how can a fringe group representing about 1.5% of the US population hold the rest of the country hostage to insanely irresponsible rules regulating guns?) and let me add it is mystifying to those of us in the United States.

Nazis or sociopaths?  Really?  My bet is that Leiter has lived in a liberal bubble for most of his life and has never had a conservative friend.  What better explanation is there for this lunatic remark?  Does he even know any conservatives in his ivory tower?  Man, this guy is thick! (How can someone who does expository history of philosophy so well be so out of touch with reality?)

Leiter asks, how can a "fringe group representing about 1.5% of the U.S. population hold the rest of the country hostage?"  Well, I shall explain:

 The NRA (that 1.5%) is made up of roughly 4 MILLION members.  1.5% of 319,000,000 = 4,785,000, so 4 MILLION is actually being conservatively low.   Of COURSE it has power, but that's because it's backed by 4 MILLLLLLLLION members.  1.5% looks like a small chunk, but what other organizations are THAT BIG??  That's at least as many members as the National [Left-Wing] Education Association!  And many NEA members are practically FORCED by the union into membership, whereas the NRA is strictly voluntary.

And that doesn't even include the 40-50% of American households THAT HAVE GUNS!  I'm not an NRA member.  I never have been.  (I do know plenty, and none, I promise, is a Nazi or sociopath).  But I darn sure support the NRA over the two biggest supporters of Democrats, trial lawyers and the NEA.  That "fringe group" made up of 4 million members represents a whole lot more people than 4 million.  Leiter would do himself well to take some time off from reading Nietzsche and do a bit of metaphysics and logic.  A group can represent more than its constituent members.

This is simple logic and simple math.  It shouldn't be that hard.  You can't "Big Tobacco-Big Corporate-Big Sugar-Big Fat-Big Soda" the NRA.  It's big all right--big with a small "b". But that's because of all the little members--little members who the communist Leiter would LOVE to render defenseless.  (If you don't know much about Leiter--like many liberal "elites"--he would take great joy in seeing the country that has afforded him his ridiculous salary in his ivory tower destroyed.)

"Assault Weapons" and New York's Idiotic SAFE Act

In keeping with this blog's recent unrepentant, "right-wing-crazy," defense of a right to reasonable self-defense, I point the gentle reader to this hilarious takedown of a letter to the editor in the NY Times written by Leah Gunn Barrett, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.  Her letter is about the NY SAFE (sic) Act banning citizen defense weapons (which sometimes go by the made up liberal term, "Assault Weapons.")  The takedown is written by the pseudonymous "'Puter" who is presumably reluctant to make himself known to the Thought Police.

Anytime I hear a liberal start talking about guns I prepare myself for what is likely going to be a lecture from someone who doesn't know anything about guns, except that they are scary, and who thinks deep down (or, better, feels deep down) that they should only be in the possession of trained professionals (i.e., the government).  Ms. Gunn Barrett's letter is no exception to this expectation.

If you don't think this footnote is hilarious, or if it offends your delicate PC sensibilities, please DO NOT click on the link above:

  ** Or is it simply Ms. Barrett? Or Ms. Gunn? ‘Puter never knows with these hairy-legged, anti-choice, bigoted city dwellers. Take your husband’s name, keep your own name, ‘Puter doesn’t care. But in the name of sanity, pick one name. What’s going to happen when your only child Wilberforce Gunn Barrett marries Lesbiana Barrett Browning? Are the wedding announcements going to read “Join us in a zero carbon footprint, Gaia-centered joining ceremony for the future Barrett Browning Gunn Barrett ( or is it the Gunn Barrett Barrett Brownings)”? 

When May I Shoot a Student?

When  you lack arguments use satire:
When May I Shoot a Student?

This piece from the apparent hoplophobe, Greg Hampikian, is a reaction to Idaho's bill removing the restriction banning guns on college campuses.  That's because the only good data suggests removing such bans does indeed make places safer: see for instance More Guns Less Crime (but even if the data isn't conclusive either way, there's no good reason for a government (with guns) to restrict freedom of the people).

About the only thing close to an argument in this piece is the following (interpreting this as irony):

In terms of the campus murder rate — zero at present — I think that we can all agree that guns don’t kill people, people with guns do. Which is why encouraging guns on campus makes so much sense. Bad guys go where there are no guns, so by adding guns to campus more bad guys will spend their year abroad in London. Britain has incredibly restrictive laws — their cops don’t even have guns! — and gun deaths there are a tiny fraction of what they are in America. It’s a perfect place for bad guys.

The problem with comparing the U.S. with Britain is that (a) the demographics and cultures are radically different and (b) there are way fewer guns in Britain because (c) they don't have anything like the 2nd Amendment.

The suggestion is that places with hard core gun control are safer.  But the evidence is the opposite.  Among other things concealed carry laws are correlated with lowering the rate of violence against women (which makes sense since women are typically physically weaker than men).  Gun-control also ups the likelihood of hot burglaries.  So, ladies, if you want an armed thief breaking into your house at 2 a.m. while you're home, move to England.