Fred Thompson on Va Tech shooting
http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=389928&SPID=15663
April 19, 2007
Signs of Intelligence?
One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.
Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.
The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.
Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.
In recent years, however, armed Americans -- not on-duty police officers -- have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.
So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.
The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.
Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.
When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.
Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses -- and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.
Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.
posted by Fred Dalton Thompson on 4/19/2007 6:31:28 PM
April 19, 2007
Signs of Intelligence?
One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.
Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.
The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.
Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.
In recent years, however, armed Americans -- not on-duty police officers -- have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.
So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.
The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.
Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.
When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.
Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses -- and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.
Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.
posted by Fred Dalton Thompson on 4/19/2007 6:31:28 PM
0
-
Well said, Fred!
I hope this guy throws his hat into the ring. Anybody who is that thoughtful and reasonable might make a good President.0 -
Mutually Assured Destruction worked during the Cold War, I think it can work here. We must recruit all law-abiding citizens to get their concealed carry permit. If some wacko or criminal goes off the deep end, then their fate will be sealed before it can be carried out to the extent it was at VT. 0 -
Momentum seems to be building.....
I hope this snowball keeps on rolling.
On a side note: I scored a nice victory today in my ongoing debate w/ one of my liberal professors. After what happened at Va Tech, he said he is open to the idea of CCW permit holders carrying on campus.....0 -
Rack Ops, they say a conservative is just a liberal who has been mugged. 0 -
What do you know? Logic and common sense at its best. Thanks for the post, PC800. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
Well said, Fred!
I hope this guy throws his hat into the ring. Anybody who is that thoughtful and reasonable might make a good President.
Me, too, Allen, me too. Fred's comments will make for a great email.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
Momentum seems to be building.....
I hope this snowball keeps on rolling.
On a side note: I scored a nice victory today in my ongoing debate w/ one of my liberal professors. After what happened at Va Tech, he said he is open to the idea of CCW permit holders carrying on campus.....
Good for you! Thats what it takes, all of us attempting to educate the folks that are misguided.
Fred has my vote if he chooses to run for President.0 -
I like Fred. 0 -
Man,I've been watching this guy and he would make a good president. Wouldn't it be nice... 0 -
"Gun free zone" means the same thing as a sign stating "gun free house".
A open invitation to armed intruders with no worries about being shot.
Easy pickings for the bad guys.0 -
quote:Me, too, Allen, me too. Fred's comments will make for a great email
Sheep...Y'all are going to have to have your own conviction some day...keep workin' at it...0 -
Do you all really believe that Fred is a qualified Presidential candidate ??
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Rack Ops, they say a conservative is just a liberal who has been mugged.
by reality.0 -
he is a good actor 0 -
Doug - Lets see... over 40, born in US, still citizen... still breathing.
Yup, valid candidate.
Now does he have a chance, or the proper views, etc? Who knows... maybe a "back to Common Sense" movement will start?
Personally, I think that below City level (aka the HOA) and above county level (state, region, fed, international) anyone who wants to be in office probably shouldn't be allowed to be in office.0 -
Qualified to be president...well...lets see now. He's American, check. He speaks English, check. He's republican, check. He likes guns, check. He's an actor, check.God man, how can he lose?? HE'S AN ACTOR. What the fiddle do you want? A singer? 0 -
+
D.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Do you all really believe that Fred is a qualified Presidential candidate ??
Doug
He's spent more time in the Congress than Mrs. Clinton and Mr. O'Bama.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Do you all really believe that Fred is a qualified Presidential candidate ??
Doug
Why would you think he wasn't ?
THOMPSON, Fred Dalton, a Senator from Tennessee; born in Sheffield, Ala., on August 19, 1942; attended the public schools in Lawrenceburg, Tenn.; graduated from Memphis State University 1964; received J.D. degree from Vanderbilt University 1967; admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1967 and commenced the practice of law; assistant U.S. attorney 1969-1972; minority counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities ("Watergate Committee") 1973-1974; special counsel to Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander 1980; special counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1980-1981; special counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee 1982; member, Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission 1985-1987; actor; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in the November 8, 1994, special election to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of Albert Gore, Jr.; took the oath of office on December 2, 1994; reelected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003; not a candidate for reelection in 2002; chair, Committee on Governmental Affairs (One Hundred Fifth and One Hundred Sixth Congresses; One Hundred Seventh Congress [January 20, 2001-June 6, 2001]); resumed acting career.0 -
In spite of my own jokes, I believe he'd be a good one, and if I get the opportunity, I'll vote for him. 0 -
I'd vote for Fred in a heartbeat! Dave 0 -
[;)] +1 0 -
quote:Originally posted by iwannausername
Doug - Lets see... over 40, born in US, still citizen... still breathing.
Yup, valid candidate.
Now does he have a chance, or the proper views, etc? Who knows... maybe a "back to Common Sense" movement will start?
Personally, I think that below City level (aka the HOA) and above county level (state, region, fed, international) anyone who wants to be in office probably shouldn't be allowed to be in office.
you only have to be 35 to be president, not 400 -
I don't know Thompson's overall political views, but I like his essay on the second amendment.
How do you qualify to be president? Reagan is revered by the majority on this forum [myself not included]. What made him qualified to be president? Death Valley Days?
Whatever it was that qualified George Bush, obviously the bar needs to be raised.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Do you all really believe that Fred is a qualified Presidential candidate ??
Doug
If Hillary, Kerry, and Gore are President material I think Fred is a top candidate.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Do you all really believe that Fred is a qualified Presidential candidate ??
Doug
If Hillary, Kerry, and Gore are President material I think Fred is a top candidate.[;)]
Fred Thompson would be the kind of President that would support a national concealed weapon permit. He'll get my vote if he runs.0 -
quote:Originally posted by peon
Mutually Assured Destruction worked during the Cold War, I think it can work here. We must recruit all law-abiding citizens to get their concealed carry permit. If some wacko or criminal goes off the deep end, then their fate will be sealed before it can be carried out to the extent it was at VT.
Don't want a CCW permit (not yet). I can carry openly here, and Colorado doesn't have gun registration. I don't want to voluntarily register my guns with the gubmint.
But, I applaud and encourage anyone who does.0 -
Quote by spanielsells "Don't want a CCW permit (not yet). I can carry openly here, and Colorado doesn't have gun registration. I don't want to voluntarily register my guns with the gubmint".
I have a C.C.P. here in Maine my guns are not registered.Why would you?0 -
quote:Originally posted by ATF
Quote by spanielsells "Don't want a CCW permit (not yet). I can carry openly here, and Colorado doesn't have gun registration. I don't want to voluntarily register my guns with the gubmint".
I have a C.C.P. here in Maine my guns are not registered.Why would you?
I may be mistaken, but if I'm applying for a CCW I'm telling the government that I have guns. If/When a ban comes, guess who gets approached first?0 -
What a L of a guy, shame there arent more like him! 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
30 comments