Gun Control: Where are Optometrists on National Issues?

If gun control can be so easily obviated by intentional acts of others, then why isn't the father on the hook for "letting" the perpetrator steal the gun? Was the gun secured? Shouldn't the owner of the weapon be on the hook? We seem to want to get all of those who may contribute to a crime to suffer. Or is it mainly along racial or ethnic lines that we apply the concept of contributory liability by the felony murder legal principle? (Source, click here)

Bold above is my emphasis. Well, why the hell not? You'd feel differently if the person killed was your relative.

Crimes are prosecuted based on who is arrested, tired, and convicted.

I don't care what color their skin is, and its sad anyone still thinks about the race of anyone, be it a criminal, teacher, presidential candidate, or pastor.

Criminals are found guilty in a court of law. They have far better protections here in the US than in most countries around the world.

Not beheaded after a show trial, or shot in the back of the head at the police station / gulag.
 
Bold above is my emphasis. Well, why the hell not? You'd feel differently if the person killed was your relative.

If you believe in this theory, then why shouldn't the "parents" of Mr Robert Hawkins be held accountable? If Mr Hawkins was 17 years old, they could have been.

Likewise, if someone was living in your house and was dealing drugs, the owner of the house would be just as liable for the drug dealing as the drug dealer themselves.

Specific to the gun issue, if the gun owner failed to secure sufficiently the gun and Mr, Robert Hawkins was able to steal the gun, then should not the full weight of the law be brought against the "parents" of Mr. Hawkins?

If it isn't, then is there a racial basis associated with this issue? That because Mr Robert Hawkins' "parents' were white, that the district attorney doesn't want to apply the felony murder theory? Or is it much easier to convict Mr Hawkins' parents if they were non-white.

You see, the application of the rule of law is capricious and arbitrary at best and is the reason why I think the racial composition of the prison population is so out of proportion to the general population. It is standard practice, I think, to apply the law inequitably and unequally depending upon the color of one's skin or of one's religious beliefs.

I'm just illustrating the relative hypocrisy of the our criminal justice system.
 
Stephen,

Granted that story is that story, but let's get back to the culpability of parents or guardians or hosts who "contribute" or " who have available" weapons of homicide or felonies. Let's stay with the focus of this direction.

What do you think of the culpability Mr Hawkins' "parents"?
 
Back to the topic... More mayhem in "The land of the free and the home of the brave"

Our politicians and presidential candidates of both parties are silent on this issue that is a national embarrassment. Shame on them!

Here is another group killing...

"2 Fatal Shootings at Colorado Religious Sites

By ROBERT D. McFADDEN

Shootings at an evangelical missionary training center northwest of Denver and a megachurch 70 miles away left three people and a gunman dead and several wounded"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/us/10shooting.html?th&emc=th
 
Richard, your the one who keeps bringing race into the equation. Problem is, you have blinders on, and it skews your ability to be rational.

As far as a parents culpability the answer is simple. If there is a law written saying a parent is culpable for the actions of their children then prosecute them.

It's a legal theory Stephen and is applied daily by courts for felony crimes. There doesn't need to be a law for t his. It just needs to be applied equally and across the board. Then maybe gun owners will take more responsibility for their ownership and propagate the availability of guns for violence.
 
If someone borrows my car, gets drunk, and kills someone am I liable?

If a minor steals cigarettes or alcohol out of my house, am I liable?

If a family members friend partakes in illegal drug activity in my house, am I liable?

Caveat: The example above infer I had no idea these activites were going on.

Liberals love to blame everyone but the criminal. It's the pinko way, you can't help it.:p Your momas and daddies have always taught you it's someone elses fault. Personal responsibility is a subject that never came up as a child.

Stephen,

As a matter of fact of the 3 examples above, the "parent" or "guardian" is liabile, either civilly or criminally.
 
Stephen,

As a matter of fact of the 3 examples above, the "parent" or "guardian" is liabile, either civilly or criminally.

Yes, in most cases they are but in the case of the Omaha mall shooter, I believe he was 20. I don't think any parent could be held liable for his actions unless they KNEW he was mentally ill and had a reasonable idea that he would do something like that and they actually gave him the gun.
 
Yes, in most cases they are but in the case of the Omaha mall shooter, I believe he was 20. I don't think any parent could be held liable for his actions unless they KNEW he was mentally ill and had a reasonable idea that he would do something like that and they actually gave him the gun.

Right now, if you had a guest in your house and that guest was selling drugs, you would be liable. You could even lose your home.

If the owner of the house knew that the guest was mentally ill, it then behooves the owner of the house to ensure that all weapons are highly secured. No less then they should be liable. Why not.

The question of prior knowledge may be Texas State Law, but Federal Law presumes you should know the procliviity of a guest.
As a matter of fact, Stephen, if your computer at the office was not HIPAA compliant, and it was accessed for its patient social security numbers, you could be held civilly liable.
 
Last edited:
What is amazing to me...

An important subject like gun control has only 10 ODs out of 7000+ interested enough to voice an opinion. Is it any wonder the gun lobby controls the agenda?
:eek:
 
An important subject like gun control has only 10 ODs out of 7000+ interested enough to voice an opinion. Is it any wonder the gun lobby controls the agenda?
:eek:

10 out of 7000 - who's right? Is it the 10, or the 6990?
And of the 10, who among us slips the relative safety of an OD chat site to speak out nationally?

Not I.

We the silent majority acknowledge the carnage but do not react. We mute our feelings to a level of societal numbness least anyone detect our anxiety, shallow breath, furtive glances, avoidance and withdrawal into the lurking silence. There's safety in silence.

We the quiet suffer from apathy and desensitization. We hunger to speak out, but relent - beaten back by perceived inability to have our thoughts lead to positive change, or worse; ridicule.

There is no cure. We can only watch while the problem continues to grow. We watch immeasurable human suffering. We witness societal destruction, while we avoid at any cost being a target.

It's all to much; the gun lobby, the music industry, motion pictures, gangster rap, romanticizing Columbine, sufficating debt, police lawlessness, disenfranchised youth, bullying, disfunctional homes, broken values, lackluster schools, drugs, war, a greed-driven health system, bigotry-based sectarian faiths, and lying corrupt government at every level.

We are aware that some people are shooting other people in places like schools and shopping malls but choose to silently observe. We have learned somewhere in our lives to withdraw, be wary, share little...maintain a calm facade. We are quiet.

Don't chastise us. We see the bottomless despair of human debris and we know that pent-up anger and anonymity is explosive. We are not ignorant.

What we are is prudent. If you don't acknowledge the beast, it may not see you and if it does not see you, it will kill someone else.

Anyway, you can't believe everything you read in the newspapers.


</IMG>
 
Brilliant Mike!

Thank you.
 
Has it escaped anyone's notice that the church shootings in Colorado would have been far, far worse, if nobody armed had been there to oppose the shooter?

I doubt the shooter would have worried about having a legally registered / controlled gun.

While any gun violence is clearly too much, disarming the lawful and leaving them defenseless before a homicidal shooter can't be the best answer.

For your consideration:

[FONT=arial, verdana, universe, helvetica]Media Bias Against Guns[/FONT]
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/gunlie.html

A quick excerpt:

[SIZE=-1]A Case Study in Bias
[/SIZE] But much more than a bias toward bad news and drama goes into the media's selective reporting on gun usage. Why, for instance, does the torrential coverage of public shooting sprees fail to acknowledge when such attacks are aborted by citizens with guns? In January 2002, a shooting left three dead at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. The event made international headlines and produced more calls for gun control. Yet one critical fact was missing from virtually all the news coverage: The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars.

The fast responses of Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges undoubtedly saved many lives. Mikael was outside the law school returning from lunch when Peter Odighizuwa started shooting. Tracy was in a classroom waiting for class to start. When the shots rang out, chaos erupted. Mikael and Tracy were prepared to do something more constructive: Both immediately ran to their cars and got their guns, then approached the shooter from different sides. Thus confronted, the attacker threw his gun down.

Isn't it remarkable that out of 218 unique news stories (from a LexisNexis search) in the week after the event, just four mentioned that the students who stopped the shooter had guns? Here is a typical description of the event from the Washington Post: "Three students pounced on the gunman and held him until help arrived." New York's Newsday noted only that the attacker was "restrained by students". Many stories mentioned the law-enforcement or military backgrounds of these student heroes, but virtually all of the media, in discussing how the killer was stopped, failed to mention the students' guns.

A week and a half after the assault, I appeared on a radio program in Los Angeles along with Tracy Bridges, one of the Appalachian Law School heroes. Tracy related how he had carefully described to over 50 reporters what had happened, explaining how he had to point his gun at the attacker and yell at him to drop his gun. Yet the media had consistently reported that the incident had ended by the students "tackling" the killer. Tracy specifically mentioned that he had spent a considerable amount of time talking face-to-face with reporter Maria Glod of the Washington Post. He seemed stunned that this conversation had not resulted in a more accurate rendition of what had occurred.



---------------



Unless and until the media is willing to honestly report how guns are being used, the average American is likely to to be basing for his / her opinion on very slanted coverage.
 
Has it escaped anyone's notice that the church shootings in Colorado would have been far, far worse, if nobody armed had been there to oppose the shooter?...

Dr Martin,

I'm not disputing gun ownership. I am disputing the lack of responsibility that gun owners are displaying. I often think that some gun owners have little regard for the safety of others in their own house.

I am not disputing the use or ownership of guns by recognized role players in security as in the case of this young woman in the CO church.

But as I said, I think if you own a gun, you should bear significant responsiibility to ensure that it doesn't get into the wrong hands. It's like a bank who has your funds or credit cards. You would be angry at a bank if it wasn't able to keep your funds safe and you would want a bank to absolve you of your losses should the bank make a mistake about your money. Ergo, at least the gun owner should have civil liability of a significant degree to ensure or forego carelessenss or ambivalence to appropriate storage of guns.
 
Dr Martin,

I'm not disputing gun ownership. I am disputing the lack of responsibility that gun owners are displaying. I often think that some gun owners have little regard for the safety of others in their own house.

I am not disputing the use or ownership of guns by recognized role players in security as in the case of this young woman in the CO church.

But as I said, I think if you own a gun, you should bear significant responsiibility to ensure that it doesn't get into the wrong hands. It's like a bank who has your funds or credit cards. You would be angry at a bank if it wasn't able to keep your funds safe and you would want a bank to absolve you of your losses should the bank make a mistake about your money. Ergo, at least the gun owner should have civil liability of a significant degree to ensure or forego carelessenss or ambivalence to appropriate storage of guns.

I don't disagree with you on this Richard. Responsible gun ownership is important. The NRA teaches many classes in gun ownership, and while many don't care for them, they are at the forefront in advocating and teaching responsible gun ownership.

My post was directed at those who propose removing all guns from all gun owners and thinking it will solve the problem.

That and exposing how the media goes out of its way to slant its coverage.
 
At last agreement from both sides of this issue...

An Editorial in the 1/8/08 edition of the New York Times...

"Progress on Guns

Published: January 8, 2008

It took too many years and too many deaths to persuade Congress to act, but President Bush is expected to sign into law today a measure that will make it harder for people with a history of dangerous mental illness to purchase firearms. That is good news, but there is more work to be done.

The new law — the product of a rare partnership between gun control advocates and the National Rifle Association — addresses a glaring problem. Millions of criminal and mental health records are missing from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System used to screen gun purchasers and block sales to people who are disqualified by law from buying guns. The bill provides new financial incentives for states and localities to improve their spotty record-keeping and to share all pertinent information with the federal data system.

This important step forward owes much to the efforts of two New York Democrats: Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Carolyn McCarthy. They first tried to pass the measure in 2002, after a gunman, whose mental history should have blocked his purchase of a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle, walked into a Long Island church and gunned down a priest and a parishioner.

That tragic crime was not enough to prod Congress to act, but last year’s massacre at Virginia Tech was. The fact that the Virginia Tech shooter was allowed to buy semiautomatic pistols and high-capacity ammunition magazines, even though a court had found him to be dangerously mentally ill, sparked public outrage. It also put pressure on the N.R.A. to work with gun control proponents on legislation to plug the big gap in the background check system that helped pave the way for the deadly attack.

Having taken this much-needed step, the gun lobby should now join with gun control advocates to close another dangerous loophole: the one that permits nonlicensed dealers to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting any background check whatsoever. There is no principled reason gun show sales should be exempt, and the loophole poses a serious threat to public safety.

The N.R.A has so far successfully beaten back legislation to end the gun show loophole. It should not take another horrific attack by a mad gunman to change anyone’s mind. This time the N.R.A., Congress and President Bush should do the right thing — before more lives are needlessly lost."

 
An Editorial in the 1/8/08 edition of the New York Times...

"Progress on Guns

Published: January 8, 2008

It took too many years and too many deaths to persuade Congress to act, but President Bush is expected to sign into law today a measure that will make it harder for people with a history of dangerous mental illness to purchase firearms. That is good news, but there is more work to be done.

The new law — the product of a rare partnership between gun control advocates and the National Rifle Association — addresses a glaring problem. Millions of criminal and mental health records are missing from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System used to screen gun purchasers and block sales to people who are disqualified by law from buying guns. The bill provides new financial incentives for states and localities to improve their spotty record-keeping and to share all pertinent information with the federal data system.


In theory, I am not against preventing those deemed mentally ill from purchasing or owning firearms. Unfortunately, I am afraid of this bill as my understanding is that vets who are now, or have ever been, being treated fr ny number of conditions, including PTSD, may be unable t exercise one of the rights they fight for.
This important step forward owes much to the efforts of two New York Democrats: Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Carolyn McCarthy. They first tried to pass the measure in 2002, after a gunman, whose mental history should have blocked his purchase of a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle, walked into a Long Island church and gunned down a priest and a parishioner.

That tragic crime was not enough to prod Congress to act, but last year’s massacre at Virginia Tech was. The fact that the Virginia Tech shooter was allowed to buy semiautomatic pistols and high-capacity ammunition magazines, even though a court had found him to be dangerously mentally ill, sparked public outrage. It also put pressure on the N.R.A. to work with gun control proponents on legislation to plug the big gap in the background check system that helped pave the way for the deadly attack.

The problem was the shooter, not the guns. Where are the blood baths at gun shows? I need to return all of my guns, they must be defective as not one person has been killed by them yet.
Having taken this much-needed step, the gun lobby should now join with gun control advocates to close another dangerous loophole: the one that permits nonlicensed dealers to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting any background check whatsoever. There is no principled reason gun show sales should be exempt, and the loophole poses a serious threat to public safety.

It is a transfer of privae party from one individual to another. It isn't a loophole, and it doesn't just occur at gunshows. All private citizens must still follow state and federal laws, and are prohibited from selling across state lines without an FFL, or to prohibited individuals (e.g. Felons). Another attempt to limit the private citizens of the US, and proof that it is about control, not about guns. Even if legislation 'closing' the non-existent loophole were to pass, it will have ZERO impact on crime, just like every other 'control' measure.

The N.R.A has so far successfully beaten back legislation to end the gun show loophole. It should not take another horrific attack by a mad gunman to change anyone’s mind. This time the N.R.A., Congress and President Bush should do the right thing — before more lives are needlessly lost."

[/quote]

Just another piece of biased, irrational drivel that the NY Times loves to pass on as educated.
 
The killing continues...

Not a single presidential candidate has the courage to discuss sane gun control as part of their agenda. Another example of a disturbed individual having easy access to firearms in a report in the 2/8/08 edition of the New York Times...

"Gunman Kills 5 People at City Council Meeting

By MONICA DAVEY

Published: February 8, 2008

Five people were fatally shot and two others wounded on Thursday evening by a man who opened fire as a City Council meeting began in Kirkwood, Mo., a generally placid suburb of St. Louis, the authorities there said. The gunman was shot to death by police.

The violence began about 7 p.m., when the man approached a Kirkwood police officer in a parking lot near the police station and shot and killed the officer, a spokeswoman for the St. Louis County police, Tracy Panus, said late Thursday.

Moments later, the man appeared inside City Hall, a short walk from the Police Department, shot and killed another police officer and then fatally shot three city officials who were inside the council meeting, officials said. Two others at the meeting were also shot and wounded, one critically, Ms. Panus said.

“We have what we believe to be our suspect,” she said. “We do feel like we have everyone accounted for.”

Witnesses told of chaotic scene in Kirkwood, a middle class community of about 27,000 people with a main street lined with shops and restaurants and many grand homes. As officers from departments from suburbs throughout the region swarmed into Kirkwood, many residents expressed disbelief and anger that such a thing could happen in there.

The authorities would not identify the dead late Thursday.

According to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which had a correspondent at the meeting, the Pledge of Allegiance had just been recited and Mayor Mike Swoboda was starting the meeting when the gunman rushed inside the council chambers and opened fire with at least one weapon. Mr. Swoboda was injured.

Some witnesses said they had heard at least 15 gunshots, maybe more. About 30 people were believed to be at the meeting. Some tried to fight off the gunman by throwing chairs

The authorities did not identify the gunman, but The Post-Dispatch reporter and other witnesses identified him as Charles Lee Thornton, an independent contractor known as Cookie. Mr. Thornton was said to have often come to council meetings and to have had repeated disagreements with Kirkwood officials.

“He came from the back of the room,” Janet McNichols, the correspondent, told The Post-Dispatch. “He kept saying something about, ‘Shoot the mayor,’ and he just walked around shooting anybody he could.”

On the newspaper’s Web site, Ms. McNichols said she had looked up to see a police officer shot in the head, then saw the gunman shooting at a public works official. “After that, I was on my stomach under the chairs,” she said. “I laid on my stomach waiting to get shot. Oh, God, it was a horror.”

Kirkwood was in the news just about a year ago when a local pizza cook, Michael Devlin, was accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting two boys and holding them captive in his garden-style apartment.

In late January, a federal judge tossed out at a lawsuit Mr. Thornton had filed against Kirkwood and its officials. He contended that they had violated his free speech rights by prohibiting him from speaking out at meetings.

In an interview with a local television station, Mr. Thornton’s mother said that Kirkwood officials had kept after her son, “giving him tickets for everything they could.”

She said she never suspected that her son would be violent but described the events as “an act of God, just like a storm or a tornado.”

Mr. Thornton’s sister-in-law, Doreen Thornton, said he had had a 17-year-old daughter and said she could not understand what had happened.

“Cookie never got mad,” Ms. Thornton said. “He was a people person. Cookie was known through his church to be a No. 1 kind of man.”

Mr. Thornton turned 50 in December, Ms. Thornton said, and there was a surprise party. “He was shocked,” she said, “That’s the last time I saw him in person.”

The Rev. Robert Osborne, the chaplain for the Kirkwood police department, told television reporters that the shooting of the first police officer, a 20-year veteran, in the parking lot was random, a matter of happenstance.

“This doesn’t happen in Kirkwood,” Mr. Osborne said.

Susan Saulny contributed reporting."
 
Oh no... you see, it is prohibited to carry a firearm into government meetings and proceedings. He must have just forgotten to read the sign when he went in there.

On the newspaper’s Web site, Ms. McNichols said she had looked up to see a police officer shot in the head, then saw the gunman shooting at a public works official. “After that, I was on my stomach under the chairs,” she said. “I laid on my stomach waiting to get shot. Oh, God, it was a horror.”

Good thing she would have been able to have a firearm of her own to protect her from this madman... oh wait, even if she had passed training, been certified by the local sherrif's office, and paid her fees and dues, and submited to a background check, she STILL would have been laying on her stomach, waiting to be killed because of asinine carry restrictions that only affect law abiding people. Signs don't stop criminals.

He was killed by responding officers, which is great that the whacko got what he desereved, but bad because citizens were once again put into a position where they counted on law enforcement to protect them, and unfortunately, thelaw only comes after the fact... because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
 
Last edited:
LINK

The above links to stories where people use firearms to for self defense, that you almost never hear of in the mainstream media.... wonder why?
 
jfmartinod says "I think its sad. I've never been so angry with anyone I'd want them dead. "

Apparently Dr. Martin has never been in a meeting with two divorce lawyers. LOL
 
Guns are not the problem

If the lunatic had hacked the entire city council to death using a machete, would there be anyone demanding additional restrictions on the distribution, sale and use of machetes by otherwise law-abiding citizens? I think we all know the answer to that question now don't we?

Mysterious, is it not, that seemingly the most frequent venues for such carnage remains where the law permits no concealed handguns. (Post offices, government run schools, and public meetings.)

I am pleased the police did their duty. Society now is not burdened with the ugly prospect of a lengthy trial where we would have had a nauseating degree of psycho-babble from learned professionals hell-bent on "understanding his pain" and making sure the citizenry empathized with the pitiful creature who would harm so many innocent people....blah, blah, blah.

I say keep Swimmin' Ted, Billary and Hussein O out of my gun closet! More guns in the hands of the law-abiding would do a lot more good than assurances of grandstanding politicians who will not and do not enforce the myriad of gun laws already on the books!:mad:
 
More Gun Violence!

It is simply outrageous that we have a web site with over 7500 members and only two apologists for easy access to automatic weapons by malcontents, were interested enough to even comment. Is it any wonder, although the majority of Americans want stricter gun control, politicians refuse to act? Where are the voices of angry ODs who feel this is unacceptable?

This is the newest obscenity as reported in the 2/15/08 edition of the New York Times...

Gunman Slays 5 at N. Illinois University

By SUSAN SAULNY and MONICA DAVEY

Published: February 15, 2008
DeKALB, Ill. — With minutes left in a class in ocean sciences at Northern Illinois University on Thursday afternoon, a tall skinny man dressed all in black stepped out from behind a curtain on the stage of the lecture hall, said nothing, and opened fire with a shotgun, the authorities and witnesses said.


The man shot again and again, witnesses said, perhaps 20 times or more. Students in the large lecture hall, stunned and screaming, dropped to the floor. They crouched behind anything they could find, even an overhead projector. They scattered, the blood of victims spattering, some said, on those who escaped injury.

Five people, all of them students, were killed, John G. Peters, the president of Northern Illinois University, said at a news conference late Thursday evening. Sixteen others were wounded, two of them critically, Mr. Peters said. Hospital officials said several of the students had been shot in the head.

The gunman, whom the authorities did not identify, also died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, Mr. Peters said. The gunman, he said, had been a graduate student in sociology at the university in 2007, but was no longer enrolled here. Records suggested that the man, who had more recently attended a different state school, had no previous police contact, the authorities said.

Police officers from the campus, which sits in a snow-covered community 65 miles due west of Chicago, said three weapons had been found with the man’s body: two handguns, including a Glock, and the shotgun. The man’s body was found on the lecture hall stage, the police said. He had ammunition left over.

Kevin McEnery, 19, one of the public university’s more than 25,000 students, was seated in the third row of the class when the man stormed in and “just came out and started shooting.” Mr. McEnery dived for the floor, he said, and began crawling as far as he could from the gunman, trying to get near an exit. He found himself huddled beside a female student he did not know.

“I just thought if he gets up there, this is it — I’m about to die,” Mr. McEnery remembered thinking. “Because I knew if he shot long enough he would find us.”

When the gunman first burst in, Mr. McEnery said, the classroom turned loud and chaotic with some students shouting, “He has a gun!” and “Call 911!”

Then came an eerie silence, but for the bullets.

“Once he settled in and started shooting people, pretty much everyone was quiet,” he said.

In the moments after the shooting, university officials put into action a detailed security plan created for just such an incident, Mr. Peters said. Many universities and colleges around the country designed elaborate lock-down and notification plans in the days and weeks after a student at Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, killed 32 people in the worst shooting rampage in modern American history.

“This is a tragedy,” Mr. Peters said. “But from all indications we did everything we could when we found out.”

Shots rang out inside Cole Hall shortly after 3 p.m., Mr. Peters said. The campus police arrived within two minutes, the police said. At 3:07 p.m., the campus was ordered into a lockdown, Mr. Peters said. At 3:20 p.m., he said, the university posted an alert on its Web site, through its e-mail system and through another campus alarm system: “There has been a report of a possible gunman on campus. Get to a safe area and take precautions until given the all clear. Avoid the King Commons and all buildings in that vicinity.”

By 4 p.m., Mr. Peters said, the police had determined that there had been only one gunman, now dead, and issued another message to students at 4:14 p.m.: “Campus police report that the immediate danger has passed. The gunman is no longer a threat.”

The class in Cole Hall had been an introductory offering, and most of the 162 students registered for the course were probably freshmen or sophomores, said Jonathan Berg, chairman of the department of geology and environmental geosciences.

The authorities here canceled classes for the rest of the evening and Friday. Counselors had been called in, they said, and counseling was already being offered in every residence hall by Thursday evening, they said.

Leaders at the school said the events in Virginia a year ago had shaken many but also led to a focus on security and the possibility of such an incident.

Since Virginia Tech, people have had time to think about how to respond to these things, so it’s fresh on everybody’s mind,” said Mr. Berg. “And they’re trying to do everything they’ve been talking about for the last few months.”


Students here heard of threats at the school late last year, a fact that left some wondering whether there might be some connection to what had happened on Thursday.

Last December, university officials canceled classes for a day during final exams after someone scrawled threats in a dormitory bathroom, including a reference to the Virginia Tech massacre and a racial slur. The police here said Thursday they had no reason to suspect a connection.

Northern Illinois University, chartered in 1895, draws 91 percent of its students from inside the state of Illinois.

In Springfield, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich declared a state of emergency after the shootings, offering state relief for expenses and the state emergency management agency to help.

Outside the dormitories on Thursday evening, it looked like the last day of school. Students streamed out of dorms carrying backpacks and luggage. A caravan of parents made its way onto campus to meet them, and many waited for their children in idling cars.

Just off campus, along the school’s Greek Row, fraternity brothers were gathering at Pi Kappa Alpha to mourn. One of the dead, they said, was a 19-year-old sophomore majoring in finance and a fraternity brother.

“Right now everyone is very quiet, shocked, crying,” said Jason Garcia, 21 and the president of the fraternity. “Even us frat boys can get emotional, break down.” Inside, students were hugging, talking quietly. Two counselors offered help.

Outside her dormitory Thursday night, Michelle LeBlanc, 19, a sophomore, said she was supposed to be in Cole Hall when the shooting happened but had been late for class. A friend, though, had been inside, she said, and had sat beside a student who was shot in the head.

“She had to hold his head until help came,” Ms. LeBlanc said. “She’s so upset.”

Mr. McEnery, the student who had crawled as far as he could from the gunman on Thursday afternoon, said he had fled the building only after the bullets stopped pounding. The room was silent. He looked up, saw another student looking around, and raced out.

“I just can’t stop thinking about everyone,” Mr. McEnery said of the students who died. “It’s going to be tough going back.”
 
Last edited:
Easy Access to Automatic Weapons?

Let me ask a couple of questions?

1. Can you identify who were the "two apologists for easy access to automatic weapons by malcontents?"

2. Are you as exercised by the "malcontent" who just butchered the NY psychologist and do you think it not justified for the government, ie politicians, to now step in and do something to contain the violence committed with meat cleavers?

Perhaps you are unaware, but the sale of fully automatic weapons in the US has long been banned. Law abiding citizens cannot get them but it serves as little deterrent to the criminal element. I never envisioned the meat cleaver murder in NY, but mass murder by "malcontents" with machetes is well documented. I am certain you recall the UN (God Bless'em..) failed to act nor did the good ol' USA when tens of thousands met such a fate on the African continent 15 or 20 years ago.

If the 101 students in the NIU classroom and the professors had all been required to be armed, the poor bastard who did the shooting would have never gotten around to committing suicide...he would have been full of holes before before he hit the deck. Which, of course, leads me in circular fashion, to my original point: it is infrequent that shooters do their deed where there are concealed carry laws or an overt show of force figures into the mix. Think Air Marshals...seen any terriorsts commandeering airplanes lately?

Finally, certainly the majority of the citizens in this area of the country (NC) is for more gun control! In fact NC passed concealed carry laws about 10 years ago...violent crime rates have plummeted. It should be tried everywhere. The places with the greatest "gun control" typically have the worst violent crime. No surprise there...and to think it will change otherwise is sheer fantasy!
 
How many laws are going to stop evil?

You know, maybe there are not a lot of angry OD's out there because most of us aren't hot heads. Laws are not going to stop someone who is a wacko. Someone intent on killing people is going to find a way to do it with whatever weapon is available. If not a handgun, a shotgun. If not a shotgun, then a sword. If not a sword, then a homemade bomb. If not a bomb, then drive a stolen fuel truck into a building. If not a truck, then a fuel laden airliner into two tall sky scrapers.

More laws are not the answer. There are plenty enough laws out there already. Unless you want a list of everyone in the country that has ever had a diagnosis of mental illness kept by the government that could be checked before purchasing a firearm. Then that brings up a whole mess of questions about privacy and the possibility of governmental abuse. Who keeps the government accountable? If you want more laws, then I would would go for that with enough checks and balances. It still won't stop the madness.

I think we need to see that these cases are symptoms of a disease in our country. Too much hate, too much focus on violence. Not enough love and service toward one another. Moral relativity with no absolutes of truth and right or wrong, glorification of movie stars and "reality" series(ha), Video games, WWF Smackdown, movies glorifying violence, no recognition of God and the importance of Judeo-Christian values-they all contribute to this. The founding fathers were right when they said our form of government cannot sustain itself without recognition of God. How about more laws banning violent video games, hate speech, and gangster rap?

So, how do you stop evil? You don't. You just take steps to help prevent it but you will never stop it totally. That's why I have a concealed handgun permit. Maybe I can make a difference if they situation came up but pray I never have to. Some people are sheep, some are wolves and some are sheep dogs to protect the herd. Maybe be we need more sheep dogs.
 
Let me ask a couple of questions?

1. Can you identify who were the "two apologists for easy access to automatic weapons by malcontents?"

2. Are you as exercised by the "malcontent" who just butchered the NY psychologist and do you think it not justified for the government, ie politicians, to now step in and do something to contain the violence committed with meat cleavers?

Perhaps you are unaware, but the sale of fully automatic weapons in the US has long been banned. Law abiding citizens cannot get them but it serves as little deterrent to the criminal element. I never envisioned the meat cleaver murder in NY, but mass murder by "malcontents" with machetes is well documented. I am certain you recall the UN (God Bless'em..) failed to act nor did the good ol' USA when tens of thousands met such a fate on the African continent 15 or 20 years ago.

If the 101 students in the NIU classroom and the professors had all been required to be armed, the poor bastard who did the shooting would have never gotten around to committing suicide...he would have been full of holes before before he hit the deck. Which, of course, leads me in circular fashion, to my original point: it is infrequent that shooters do their deed where there are concealed carry laws or an overt show of force figures into the mix. Think Air Marshals...seen any terriorsts commandeering airplanes lately?

Finally, certainly the majority of the citizens in this area of the country (NC) is for more gun control! In fact NC passed concealed carry laws about 10 years ago...violent crime rates have plummeted. It should be tried everywhere. The places with the greatest "gun control" typically have the worst violent crime. No surprise there...and to think it will change otherwise is sheer fantasy!

This is such a hot button issue...

Even if every single student in that classroom carried a Howitzer, it wouldn't have stopped that guy from getting off enough shots to do the damage he did. Would less people have died? Perhaps...perhaps more would have died if every single person opened fire in a crowded classroom.

People who advocate gun conrol laws freely admit that they aren't likely to stop that kind of murderous rampage. I think the concern is (rightly or wrongly) that if every single person was packing heat, then relatively minor altercations or disagreements with people....a rude waiter, someone who cuts you off in traffic, a neighbor playing loud music early in the morning, could turn into a shoot out at the OK corral.

Proponents of guns will certainly argue that if everyone is packing heat then people will be less likely to cut each other off etc. etc. but I'm skeptical of that.

If people were responsible with their guns, and were properly trained in their usage then it would likely not be a problem if more people carried, but as we see time and time again, too many people are NOT responsible....enough kids die every year by screwing around with unattended firearms.
 
Erratum

"certainly the majority of the citizens in this area of the country (NC) is for more gun control!"

I inadvertently left out "NOT" and verb subject disagreement always annoys me, as in "in this area of the country (NC) are "NOT" for more gun control.

I believe the evidence is now in. We have tried the kinder gentler approach and the criminal/ whack-o crowd continues to ignore our "Please don't shoot" signage so abundently displayed at government buildings and schools. I like the idea of mandatory marksmanship! Goes along well with that Second Amendment deal....the idea about being free and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. How inconvenient...for some.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. And for all the "we want more gun control" crowd, I do believe Swimmin' Ted's car has killed more people than my gun(s). Now step up and be consistent. How many Automobile Control Advocates do we have out there that's going to demand Ol' Teddy never operate his own taxi service or demand he stay off the highway. I thought so.
 
This is such a hot button issue...

I think the concern is (rightly or wrongly) that if every single person was packing heat, then relatively minor altercations or disagreements with people....a rude waiter, someone who cuts you off in traffic, a neighbor playing loud music early in the morning, could turn into a shoot out at the OK corral.

Proponents of guns will certainly argue that if everyone is packing heat then people will be less likely to cut each other off etc. etc. but I'm skeptical of that.

This concern was voiced by the local Lefty Rag masquerading as a newspaper when NC passed our concealed carry law. Not so much as a brandished weapon in uncivil disagreement has ever been reported. (OK, after ten years, a local former city councilman shot a marine (who hopped into the councilman's car as the two were leaving a bar in the wee hours of the morning), anyway the Marine was shot in the head leaving the man in a near vegetative state...but after more than two years, the shooter has yet to be charged. He maintains he shot the Marine in self defense. But outside that, I can think of no other case. On the other hand, many criminals have been shot, killed, wounded or maimed...all very good things.:) Like I said, violent crime has gone down...way down and the citizenry is and feels safer. Now who can deny their feelings?

This concern is now never mentioned by the local news boys anymore because it doesn't hold water. This line of thinking presumes, like so many notions liberals have: people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, so liberals feel compelled to act "in the best interest" of these unfortunate souls. Children are nothing more than rutting antelope so we must offer them birth control and MORE sex ed, so goes the thinking. Why people will rush around in a constant state of agitation and fire their pistoles in indiscriminate fashion to vent their frustration, so we must make guns un/less available to the neanderthals. There is simply no end to the do-gooders who want to do more good. And all the power ends up in the collective hands of our new government masters..which is why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Not to protect us from one another, but to preclude an over reaching govenment depriving us of our liberty.

'Nuff said.
 
This concern was voiced by the local Lefty Rag masquerading as a newspaper when NC passed our concealed carry law. Not so much as a brandished weapon in uncivil disagreement has ever been reported. (OK, after ten years, a local former city councilman shot a marine (who hopped into the councilman's car as the two were leaving a bar in the wee hours of the morning), anyway the Marine was shot in the head leaving the man in a near vegetative state...but after more than two years, the shooter has yet to be charged. He maintains he shot the Marine in self defense. But outside that, I can think of no other case. On the other hand, many criminals have been shot, killed, wounded or maimed...all very good things.:) Like I said, violent crime has gone down...way down and the citizenry is and feels safer. Now who can deny their feelings?

Really? So not a single solitary resident of North Carolina who got a gun in the last 10 years has used that gun to commit a crime? Not a single bar fight escalated into a shooting? Not a single bullet fired in a road rage incident? Can the decline in violent crime be shown to be the direct result of more guns in tha hands of citizens, or do other factors come into play such as a decrease in drug use, or a decrease in poverty?


This concern is now never mentioned by the local news boys anymore because it doesn't hold water. This line of thinking presumes, like so many notions liberals have: people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, so liberals feel compelled to act "in the best interest" of these unfortunate souls. Children are nothing more than rutting antelope so we must offer them birth control and MORE sex ed, so goes the thinking. Why people will rush around in a constant state of agitation and fire their pistoles in indiscriminate fashion to vent their frustration, so we must make guns un/less available to the neanderthals. There is simply no end to the do-gooders who want to do more good. And all the power ends up in the collective hands of our new government masters..which is why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Not to protect us from one another, but to preclude an over reaching govenment depriving us of our liberty.

'Nuff said.

See, you're making the mistake that so many Rushbots make....you're assuming that I'm a liberal because I have a small disagreement with you on this issue.
 
Did that guy steal my idea or what?

In a debate yesterday on CNN, a gun lobby spokesperson advocated all college students be allowed to carry concealed weapons to class.

I was in Army ROTC in the 70s. Marksmanship was a fine class. I am willing to extend this very useful training to the body politic at large... then students may carry concealed weapons to the classroom. I would bet, and I am not a betting man, a years salary if such were the case, one would see less of the carnage like VT and fewer calls for stripping in selective fashion, our constitutional liberties.
 
Ken Elder wrote: "a rude waiter, someone who cuts you off in traffic, a neighbor playing loud music early in the morning"

Now you do sound like a liberal and where I come from if it sounds like a duck, it is not likely to be a zebra.

Ken Elder wrote: "Really? So not a single solitary resident of North Carolina who got a gun in the last 10 years has used that gun to commit a crime? Not a single bar fight escalated into a shooting? Not a single bullet fired in a road rage incident? Can the decline in violent crime be shown to be the direct result of more guns in tha hands of citizens, or do other factors come into play such as a decrease in drug use, or a decrease in poverty?

Will Elmore wrote: "OK, after ten years, a local former city councilman shot a marine (who hopped into the councilman's car as the two were leaving a bar in the wee hours of the morning), anyway the Marine was shot in the head leaving the man in a near vegetative state...but after more than two years, the shooter has yet to be charged. He maintains he shot the Marine in self defense. But outside that, I can think of no other case."

Perhaps I do not possess the steal trap mind of yesteryear, but I can think of no one killing a rude waiter, or someone killing someone who cut them off in traffic, or others who met their demise because a neighbor was pissed at their loud music.....Now you change the dynamic and throw in the real criminal element who will commit crimes irrespective of from whom or where they secured their gun.

There could be additional reasons for the downturn in violence, In the best seller FreakOnomics, the author makes the case that abortion on demand had killed so many blacks that Rudy did not do a damn thing to cut the crime rate....the abortion industry in America is responsible. I don't know...I don't like abortion either, but could that be partly responsible? I don't know.

I do know a people disarmed is in deeeeeep do-do. Finally, poverty has nothing to do with crime. There was no great crime wave in the 30s in the midst of the Great Depression when seemingly everybody was poverty ridden. I grew up in an orphanage, and I don't know about every kid who grew up there, but I would venture to guess the great majority did not engage in criminal conduct to advance their careers. Evil people just do evil things and you nor I can change that. It is a hearts and minds issue and regrettably there are those in society today that live for the wrong reasons and they simply couldn't care less about you or me or society in general.
 
Ken Elder wrote: "a rude waiter, someone who cuts you off in traffic, a neighbor playing loud music early in the morning"

Now you do sound like a liberal and where I come from if it sounds like a duck, it is not likely to be a zebra.

.

Ahhhh yes..... You must be one of those "true conservatives" who believes that any one who has even the slightest issue with any position you take, whatever it may be, is a liberal.

I'll drop out of this discussion now Will, because it's pretty clear that you're just an ideologue.
 
Amen and Amen

Ah, and I would suggest that the author step back and analyze MORE than just the Constitution. This is a biased and horribly arrogant display of the disdain this individual holds the 2nd Amendment.

:rolleyes:Perhaps we should simply require, again, every able bodied man--women too-- to give up about two years of their lives to serve in a state or Federal "militia." Then the concerns of 2nd amendment opponents would vanish would they not? And they'd get that fabulous marksmanship class I've been recomending for all college aged kiddies. They might then more fully appreciate "sacrifice" in larger measure than seems the case at present.
 
Don't drop out just yet...

Ahhhh yes..... You must be one of those "true conservatives" who believes that any one who has even the slightest issue with any position you take, whatever it may be, is a liberal.

I'll drop out of this discussion now Will, because it's pretty clear that you're just an ideologue.

I hate to cloud this emotional discussion with some data...

"Children and Gun Violence

America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)

The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)"


How safe with a concealed weapon. Have you ever experienced an armed robbery? Let's see how quickly you whip out a gun when there are several perpetrators. Are you ready for a shootout.

The reality is there are far more accidental deaths, suicides and impulse family killings than bad guys who are stopped by private citizens. Imagine road rage combined with a gun in every auto glove compartment.
 
Ideologue? Ideologue? You calling me an ideologue?

Ken Elder wrote: "I'll drop out of this discussion now Will, because it's pretty clear that you're just an ideologue."

The ol' "ideologue" chestnut works its way into the conversation. Well, of course I am an "ideolugue." Proud, conservative "ideologue." You probably have additional epithets but since you're bowing out, "non-ideologues" like you go nuclear, call people names and retire from the field.

And I was hoping you wouldn't do that.

Have a nice day.:)
 
A few points:

(1) The crime was commited with a shotgun, not an 'automatic weapon'. But, don't let the facts get in teh way f an uneducated opinion. If you cannot differentiate between an 'automatic' weapon and a shotgun, I certainly do not trust your interpretation of gun laws.

(2) Once again, it was a 'gun free' zone, and occurred in a state with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.

(3) I can spout statistics with the best of them, if you guys want to go that route. All of the statistics in the world don't change the underlying foundation of my thought. We have an individual right to keep and bear arms that is RECOGNIZED (not granted) by the Constitution of the United States of America. There have always been whackos that kill. Gun contol will do NOTHING to stop this.

(4) It has only been 'illegal' to own automatic weapons in the US in a few states. Even with the 'assault weapons ban of 1994, I could still go down, fill out the appropiate forms, and purchase a preban fully automatic weapon. I can still do so today, just a form, a phonecall, and extra taxes.

(5) Concealed carry permit holders commit crimes at a lower rate than sworn Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs). There is NO population of citizens that is perfect or immune from criminality.

(6) The ol' 'Road Rage' argument. Does it happen with permit holders? Sure, but it is extraordinarily rare. The fact of the matter is that blood doesn't rn in the streets with citizens carrying.

(7) As far as being ready for a shootout. I really feel most anti-gun folks are guilty of a bit of projection. (here's a great article on that issue) The last thing I want is a 'shootout'. I am not blood thirsty. The most important thing you can do is to be situationally aware and avoid dangerous situations in the first place. every situation is different, but using my weapon would be my absolute last resort. If I had a son or daughter in that lecture hall, would their having a firearm make any difference? Maybe, maybe not. But, I'd at least not rob them having that option, and I'd at least like them to be able to even the odds a bit more in their favor.
 
Liars and statistics and just why don't we ban cement ponds?

I hate to cloud this emotional discussion with some data...

"Children and Gun Violence

America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)

The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)"


How safe with a concealed weapon. Have you ever experienced an armed robbery? Let's see how quickly you whip out a gun when there are several perpetrators. Are you ready for a shootout.

The reality is there are far more accidental deaths, suicides and impulse family killings than bad guys who are stopped by private citizens. Imagine road rage combined with a gun in every auto glove compartment.

"Accidental Death -- Do you know the risks?

Ten years ago, during a routine checkup, my doctor asked me if I had a gun in the house. He thought that having a gun in the house was a serious hazard to my young children. Now, according to economist Steven D. Levitt, yearly in the U.S. "there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns." Levitt also observes that yearly there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential swimming pools.

So why didn't the doctor ask me if I had a swimming pool? Why do people people grossly overestimate the danger of trivial risks, while ignoring the danger of greater ones? Why do I see obese people smoking cigarettes slopping on sunscreen to avoid skin cancer? Why do people who spend hours driving to work each day on busy freeways worry about dying in an airplane crash? Cripes, auto accidents and falls kill 25 times more people in the U.S. each year than airplane crashes and firearms accidents combined. So what's wrong with these people? I want to hit them on the head with a bat.

Psychology speaks of the "availability error". Airplane crashes are far more dramatic than auto accidents, and remain more accessible in a person's memory. Similarly, an accidental gun death, especially if a child is involved, is far more dramatic than a falling, choking, or drowning death -- and so also remains more accessible in a person's memory.

This problem is compounded by the news media, which (1) perseverates over dramatic events, regardless of how inconsequential they may be to the reader or viewer, and (2) never puts anything in perspective.
At 6:05 p.m. CDT on August 1, 2007 the main spans of the I-35W bridge crossing the Mississippi river in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota collapsed. Nine people (identified as of this writing, August 18, 2007) died as a result. A media feeding frenzy ensued with calls for reconstruction of practically every bridge in the United States, regardless of cost. These demands were supported by authoritative statements from such unbiased authorities as the CEO of the Minnesota chapter of the Associated General Contractors, who "said everything MnDOT does is based on cost-benefit analysis." (See Minneapolis Star Tribune, August 3, 2007). The death toll amounted to 1/5,000th of annual U.S. highway fatalities (42,642 in 2006, according to the NHTSA), but of course nobody in the news media mentioned this fact. Widespread discussion of gephyrophobia ensued, with post-traumatic stress counselors offering advice to Californians traumatized by media coverage of the event. The story soon faded as attention turned to a Utah mine collapse in which three (3) miners and as many rescuers were lost. Mooing and lowing about workplace safety quickly replaced babbling about bridge safety.
The net result of all this is that public policy is distracted in bizarre and useless directions. Instead of cautioning Americans to watch their weight, quit smoking, wear seatbelts and life jackets, and take care when using ladders, we have endless grandstanding over safety measures like trigger locks on handguns, radon amelioration, and photocells on garage door openers. These are nice ideas, but require much effort and expense for trivial results. Better to spend the effort where it will have a detectable effect."

The above was "borrowed" in its entirety and the words are not mine but express my sentiments quite well.

With regards to being equipped to handle a gun in the face of one or more perpetrators, one can never know exactly what one might do in any given situation, but I find myself in agreement with the observations of Al Capone, "You can get more with a kind word AND a gun, than you can with just a kind word." Criminals offer no kind words and they will not likely respond favorably to any "pretty please" type pleadings while shooting you in the head!
 
Guns on Campus...

...If I had a son or daughter in that lecture hall, would their having a firearm make any difference? Maybe, maybe not. But, I'd at least not rob them having that option, and I'd at least like them to be able to even the odds a bit more in their favor.

As a former professor, I would not be comfortable knowing that in my class of over 100 students many were toting a concealed weapon. It could effect outspoken opinions contrary to other deeply held student beliefs. It is call academic freedom! That 100% daily discomfort, trumps the 1 chance in a million that a crazed gunman would burst into that one class begin shooting and all the gun toting students would pull out their loaded guns and fire away.

There is a far greater chance under your scenario that your son or daughter would be killed by accidental gunfire with children kidding around than any crazed gunman.
 
Last edited:
Bad data

The Children's Defense fund is an anti-gun organization. If you want to use statistics, how about using the FBI or other unbiased legitimate governmental statistics keeping entities. I don't think you would trust the pro-gunners argument by stating "the NRA's statistics say..."

And let's be clear in our definition of children. Many anti-gun organizations, the AMA is also another, distort the numbers by using people below the age of 21, not 18 or 15. Some like the CDC include misleading data also. They report the deaths of youth by firearm that are killed in the act of a crime, not just by accident or by suicide.

The bias and just plain lies cannot be hidden when you look at all the facts with unbiased research.
 
What was I saying just earlier today about sheep? Interesting.

Study: People flock like sheep

Friday, 15-Feb-2008 3:21PM CST
Story from United Press International
Copyright 2008 by United Press International (via ClariNet)
LEEDS, England, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Researchers in England find people really are like sheep and have a flock mentality -- a finding that could be used for good, they say.
The study, published in the Animal Behavior Journal, finds it may take a minority of about 5 percent of people to influence the other 95 percent of a crowd of more than 200 people to go in the same direction.
"There are many situations where this information could be used to good effect," study leader Jens Krause of the University of Leeds says in a statement. "At one extreme, it could be used to inform emergency planning strategies and at the other, it could be useful in organizing pedestrian flow in busy areas."
In the experiments, larger and larger groups of people were directed to randomly walk around a large hall and to refrain from communicating in any way with any other person. A few people are selected to be "informed individuals" and given more detailed instructions about where to walk.
In all cases, the "informed individuals" are followed by the others in the crowd, forming a snake-like structure. Krause observes in most cases the participants don't realize they are being led.
 
Fine...one more post

Ken Elder wrote: "I'll drop out of this discussion now Will, because it's pretty clear that you're just an ideologue."

The ol' "ideologue" chestnut works its way into the conversation. Well, of course I am an "ideolugue." Proud, conservative "ideologue." You probably have additional epithets but since you're bowing out, "non-ideologues" like you go nuclear, call people names and retire from the field.

And I was hoping you wouldn't do that.

Have a nice day.:)

No additional epithets Will, though I was shocked to learn that ideologue was an epithet and was in fact you who misclassified me as a liberal, having made that illogical conclusion simply on the basis of the fact that I'm not in absolute 100% lockstep agreement with you on this issue so therefore I'm a liberal.

In any event, I bow out because there isn't much point in discussing this issue with you. I already know everything you're going to say, and I'm confident that you aren't going to make any arguments that are going to give me a different perspective on this, not because I wouldn't mind a different perspective but because you subscribe to the philosophy of "What would Rush do?" I already know what Rush would do, so there isn't much point in hanging around and listening to you parrot it.

Perhaps we can engage on another topic.....all the best....