One hundred forty-nine days ago: Nine parishioners were shot dead with a legally purchased 45-caliber handgun in Charleston, N.C.

Seventy-nine days ago: Two journalists were shot on live TV with a legally purchased 9mm handgun in Moneta, Va.

Forty-three days ago: 10 people were shot with six legally purchased handguns and rifles at the Umpqua Community College campus in Roseburg, Ore.

This is not news. Hearing about another mass shooting is not as shocking as it should be. We have become so desensitized that we feel powerless. We have grown numb to the daily reminder that none of us are safe from the national epidemic of gun violence. The gun lobby has proven to be more powerful than our demand and desire for a safer world.

The very senselessness that leads to the act of randomly taking someone’s life through the pull of a trigger is mirrored in our paralyzed response to the tragedies. The families of every victim taken by gun violence — along with the rest of the American people — are left wondering who will be next.

We shouldn’t have to wait to find out.

As a freshman at Georgetown, I was pleased to find out about Georgetown Against Gun Violence: a club committed to educating the community about gun violence and to leading a movement for reform, starting with students. The two founders of the club, Emma Iannini (SFS ’16) and Sarah Clements (COL ’18), are from Newtown, Conn. After the Sandy Hook shooting, three years ago this December, Emma, Sarah and many other activists around the country transformed their pain into positive change. They have called on all of us to be more than simple bystanders who are silenced by the seemingly impossible task ahead. They encourage us to stand up and demand that our voices be heard.

I’ve lived my whole life in the flatlands of Oakland, Calif., a place I’m proud to call home. I have fond memories of the streets of Oakland, such as playing kickball with the neighborhood kids and walking to school with my dad and sisters. But although I always feel safe at home, my neighborhood is no stranger to violence — gang-related or otherwise.

Two years ago this December my 20-year-old cousin Michael was walking home late at night about a mile from my house. A local gang member drove up the street and shot Michael point-blank in the head with an illegally purchased gun. He shot him from inside his car, then drove off. He took his life because he thought Michael had done something he had not done. He killed Michael on a hunch. My cousin was left lying on the sidewalk because someone had mistaken him for someone else.

Before Michael was murdered, the street corners with candles in remembrance to victims and the names of homicide victims in the news all seemed to be the sad realities of other peoples’ lives. But suddenly, I saw my last name in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle. A member of my family had died an unnecessary death from a completely preventable cause. Gang retaliation is one example of the many ways in which guns can enable people to act on assumption and emotion. We cannot simply take someone’s life because we have a hunch that they might deserve it in our prejudiced calculus.

While Georgetown students are very diverse, the fact that we have access to a college education gives us a national advantage over countless people and a responsibility to use our resources to give a voice to the voiceless. Whether those at risk from gun violence are suburban elementary school students or inner-city residents, our Jesuit values have instilled in us a call to be women and men for others. As students at Georgetown, we are part of a tradition that fosters social change and leadership in the service of others.

This year marks the first year that deaths by guns outnumber deaths by cars for Americans aged 18 through 30. The National Rifle Association, among others, resists any legislation for gun reform and worries that stricter gun safety laws would compromise America’s most fundamental freedoms.

Gun reform is crucial to preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands and is not an attempt to take away all guns. It’s time to put our safety above the shallow argument that our right to bear arms is at stake

This year, we,as college students have already lived through 26 college campus shootings. A university is an institution of learning. On campus, we should feel safe from unwarranted attacks. It is a shameful truth that many college campuses, including ours, are currently developing comprehensive safety protocols in the case of a school shooting. Unfortunately, these safety protocols are necessary; we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the terrifying reality at hand.

Previous generations have failed us by refusing to stand up to the gun lobby. Now it is confronting us, and unless we take action, we, too, will fail. We have a responsibility to ourselves and our fellow students to call for gun safety reform and demand action.

We cannot let ourselves grow numb to yet another tragedy. We cannot tolerate being in a constant state of fear. We must find the courage to stand up.

 

Sarah Stenger is a freshman in the College. She is also the co-Director of the School Safety team at Georgetown Against Gun Violence (GAGV).

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

37 Comments

  1. Gun violence has been decreasing for decades, even as gun ownership has risen. Mass shootings are equal to, or lower, than they ever have been.

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/06/mass-shootings-arent-on-the-rise.html

    Yet still we get moronic fearmongering like this from 18 year olds coddled in the protective ideological bubble of the Hilltop.

    Georgetown is failing in its mission to educate critical thinkers.

    • efrain aceves says:

      You are definitely accepting and desensitized of the statistics….whatever your age,
      hear an 18 year old, and honor the wisdom.

      • 18 year old… wisdom!!!! Go find your safe space and cower there until a real grown up comes to coddle you.

      • Sorry, 18 year olds are still children and have little to no “wisdom” NOR and they special snowflakes that get to tell adults how to live.

    • Meanwhile, a college student from anti gun California, goes on a gun free flight, to a gun free country (France) . She sits in a gun free restaurant, with gun free friends/customers and is shot dead by islamic terrorists ignoring Frances gun free laws !

  2. Why does those who push for stricter controls or oppose guns ignore the lack of criminal prosecution by district attorneys and judges?

    Existing penalties plea bargained away.

    Criminals with guns in many instances don’t have the book thrown at them. Back on the street after a short detention (slap on the hand justice)!

    News organizations ever so silent!

    Gun control is not crime control. Pass mandatory criminal control!

    If found using a firearm unlawfully….

    No reduced bail, no plea bargains, no reduced sentences, no early release from prison, and minimum state sentencing laws for crimes committed with a firearm.

  3. JPM,

    I assume you are:

    1) Not a troll, but a compassionate individual(sarcasm, just in case it was taken literally).
    2) Not currently enrolled at Georgetown, or an 18-year-old.
    3) Have a college education prior to the year 2000
    4) Not friends with any family member or friend who was affected by-or brutally murdered because of-any recent mass shooting in recent memory.
    5) Someone who doesn’t care what the current generation experiences when it comes to gun violence. How lucky are you.

    Yet we still get moronic, statistic-cramming rhetoric from a disconnected soul like yourself: coddled within a reality distortion field of the status quo.

    Small town America is failing in its mission to reach and re-educate cold-hearted, anonymous writers of the internet.

    • To formulate good laws, one must use statistics, not emotion .

    • I’m a current student here (though not 18-years-old), but I have to question what you’re arguing. Are you saying that “the current generation” of those of us who earned (or are earning) degrees after 2000 should reject statistics in the pursuit of emotionally-driven policy? How is rhetoric that is based in statistics “moronic”? As terrible as it is to personally experience the tragedies associated with gun violence or to have a family member brutally murdered, should that experience really serve as the basis for policy? It seems to me that policy proposals (especially those based in reactive emotion and trauma) should be evaluated by their objective likelihood of achieving the ultimate goals set forth by society (in this case, the reduction of violence) and that statistical analysis is a good means of determining their efficacy. Do you really mean to propose a separation between rational (often statistical) analysis and policymaking?

      Finally, whether someone is from a small town or a large city should have no bearing on the value of their ideas (unless they’re specifically talking about something inherent to small towns or large cities, I suppose). Your comment is a perfect exemplar of the condescending elitism often directed at “small town conservatives” by “big city liberals”, assuming that somehow the other side is stupid and stuck in the past.

  4. Mr. Potosky,

    Why [do] those who push for more criminal prosecution by district attorneys and judges ignore the lack of attention to preventative, restorative justice practices for high-risk youth? Where is the “it takes a village to raise a child” attitude?

    Existing social awareness for high-crime, impoverished neighborhoods and communities are magically wished away, whenever it is convenient during “intellectual” debates.

    Again, it is obvious if indeed the poor do not have the book thrown at them-and are back on the street after a short detention “slap on the hand justice”; it is not in the tax payers interest to truly fund long jail stay, and ultimately openly support the school-to-prison pipeline. Check out the budgets for your local prisons and feel free to think about the manipulative dententikn system you are asking all tax payers to support.

    News organizations: ever so incentivized by private corporations!

    Crime control is not societal stability. Pay less attention to criminal punishment propositions and more to restorative community projects!

    If found using a firearm unlawfully…

    The community at large has failed, in more ways than one: to be educated enough to see the early signs of volatility and violence, as well as the multiple episodes where an individual cries for help by acting out, to know how to proceed once identified, and to have the guts to stand with their fellow constituents as they work through the myriad of issues that lead to gun violence. Would you ever make contact with this population, and step in see what you can do to help them?

    If you don’t, the police will handle that final mile for gun violence of course Your tax dollars do some good to keep you safe enough to write comments on this college blog from the safety of your own home.

    Also, any sentence that leads to prison is less rehabilitation and more punishment, and isolation. Prisons wouldn’t take your state criminals if wasn’t for state money. Business as usual needs warm bodies.

    Don’t feed the troll under the bridge and feed the poor instead, figuratively and literally.

    • @Pnj

      Re: “it is not in the tax payers interest to truly fund long jail stay”

      I agree. Most gun crimes are caused by repeat offenders – that’s why we should have a law that imposes a mandatory death sentence on any recidivist with a violent criminal history that uses a firearm to commit a crime regardless of childhood upbringing, economic impoverishment, mental health, age, IQ or ethnicity. It would save the taxpayers a lot of money and eliminate any future threats from these people due to reduced sentences, escapes or pardons as well as eliminate any trouble they cause to non-hardened criminals while they are incarcerated.

    • ” Gun violence ” made up term . The term that should be used is…… wait for it – ” criminal use of a firearm ” !

    • Herein lies the problem. Amazing how it is societies problem, to the choices that people make. Although when a person of color pulls themselves up and makes something of themselves and realize that conservatism is the only rational basis for preserving this country they are called an Uncle Tom or out of touch or not “black” enough.

  5. Re: “national epidemic of gun violence”

    According to the CDC in 2013 there were about 11208 people murdered by firearms in the US which works out to about 31 people per day. These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 319 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 28,000 people being murdered by a firearm. Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 28,000 people. To me, 1 in 28,000 is an acceptable cost to help ensure the security of a free state and the right to own a firearm that has harmed no one. It is also estimated there are 70 million gun owners in the US which means on any given day 69,999,969 gun owners didn’t kill anyone yet because the news media magnifies these relatively isolated and infrequent events to the level of an epidemic, the anti-gun folks answer is to take the guns away from people who harmed no one. The number of homicides with a firearm will never be zero. So given the fact that deranged individuals and murderers are an intrinsic part of the human race and we currently live in a free society, what number would ever satisfy you to the point you would say “we don’t need any more restrictions on the private ownership of firearms”?

  6. Re: “legislation for gun reform”

    In 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1994 I suspect similar arguments were made for “legislation for gun reform” when more restrictive federal gun laws were passed. Since all of the regulations derived from these laws are apparently not enough, maybe you can understand the reluctance of gun owners to entertain the idea of quietly accepting the any more. The problem is the real agenda of the people leading the charge for more gun control is to ban all guns except for the government and governments (unlike individuals) have the track record for killing people that don’t agree with them. This is really just about using relatively infrequent, isolated incidents of gun violence to whip lawmakers into an emotional frenzy to goad them into quickly advancing the agenda of gun control irrespective of any facts in more incremental “progressive” steps in order to set a new baseline and move the goal posts to the point where an unscrupulous government would have the option to do what ever they please.

  7. We all notice that pnj could not actually answer the substance of jpm’s remarks but had to go instead to an ad hominem attack.

    It is interesting that objective truth on the issue is considered “statistic-cramming rhetoric”.

    And these people and their ilk really believe, in their hearts, that they have something of value to add to the issue other than pure, emotional thinking with no logic, no reason, and no rationality.

  8. Re: “Gun reform is crucial to preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands”

    The problem you have is that in 2010 (for example) there were 725000 violent criminals in state prisons and 15000 in federal prisons. This works out to a total of 740000 or about 0.238% of the US population which means that about 1 out of every 420 people in the US that have been caught have no qualms about ignoring whatever laws you pass and killing or injuring someone and the gun is often their tool of choice. So the bottom line is (1) The human race produces a few bad individuals prone to violence who just refuse to play by whatever rules you promulgate and until you find some way to identify these individuals and the courage to permanently eliminate them from society, innocent people are going to be killed (2) Because of these bad individuals, bad things happen every day to people who through no fault of their own were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Criminals will always have guns if they want them. If worst comes to worst they will be smuggled into the US from Mexico inside a bale of marijuana and sold on the black market.

  9. The root issue of “Guns on Campus” (or, really, just “guns”) all comes down to how you view the rest of the population. If you see all those anonymous people out there as nascent criminals just looking for their next ‘score’, you’ll (naturally) want to suppress gun ownership. If they have to hold you up with a knife or a cudgel, you’ll probably survive the encounter and only lose your possessions.

    But if you see the rest of humanity as a sea of mostly good people just trying to do their best as they go about their business, you’ll probably be for more gun ownership or, at the absolute worst, against making things harder.

    Now, my view is that good people outnumber bad people by a wide margin: 20-to-1 is the bare minimum I would admit as an estimate; it’s probably more like 500-to-1. I wouldn’t be bothered if -everyone- had a gun because I don’t believe any but the smallest fraction of them will ever present a threat to me or mine, and when they do, I expect I’ll have lots of help defending against unlawful activity.

    L. Neil Smith once wrote an essay on why he casts his votes strictly on the basis of how a politician votes on the 2nd amendment, because how a politician sees -you- tells you everything you need to know about that politician. How that politician sees the rest of the world informs hir views on guns equally as well as it informs us about the politician.

    So it all comes down to -you-. Do you think the world is a dangerous place filled with enemies who wish to harm you? Or do you see it as a community filled with neighbors within which hides the occasional stinker? How you view guns tells me everything I need to know about what you think of me.

  10. criminals keep shooting people in gun free kill zones so you want to make the whole country a gun free kill zone. I will never surrender my weapons. Your move.

  11. Detoxifying your mind of ‘progressive’ socialism, a student responsibility.

    Lose the liberal pap, and re-educate yourself on America’s founding First Principles.

  12. “Gun reform is crucial to preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands and is not an attempt to take away all guns. It’s time to put our safety above the shallow argument that our right to bear arms is at stake”

    My dear Ms. Stenger. You have shown yourself to be both idealist, not all together bad, and naive, dangerous to others. As you mentioned in your opening paragraphs, the guns used were all legally purchased. But you say that “gun reform is crucial…” Just how do you propose to reform guns to save humanity? Please be explicit. Use another sheet of paper if you fill up the first one.
    Background checks: didn’t work. What would you add that would make it work?
    Training: How would more training make them safer?
    Limit magazine size: The Santa Monica shooter bought 40 10-round magazines over multiple month period.
    Mental Health: who gets say who’s crazy and who isn’t. And how is this not an invasion of peoples privacy?

    Also, defend your statement that any argument defending the second amendment is “shallow”. Sounds like an emotional argument to me. Be specific, logical and less emotional.

    Before we will entertain your emotional argument, we’d like to see how you plan to correct the injustice of guns in society.

  13. And how well did France’s strict Gun Control laws work last night?

  14. Andrew Benghazi says:

    There is no point in arguing with those who would try to strip us of our God given rights. They have made their minds up and nothing you or I can say will change them. When a person tries to take your rights from you, your only reply should be a bullet.

  15. “Sarah Stenger is a freshman in the College. She is also the co-Director of the School Safety team at Georgetown Against Gun Violence (GAGV).”
    So you’d be OK if someone was beat to death with a hammer or baseball bat?

  16. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. 1/3 are murders and justifiable homicides. The tiny fraction left over are accidental deaths, less than 600 in any year.
    How many of those auto deaths were suicides? Probably 0.
    How many of those auto deaths were murders? Probably 0.
    How many of those auto deaths were justifiable homicides. Probably 0.

    All ACCIDENTAL DEATHS.
    So quit comparing them to gun deaths.
    Try comparing them to accidental drownings, falls, poisonings, hospital mistakes and all other non deliberate causes of death.

    • And Japan has a total ban on guns, and TWICE as many suicide as the US.
      So does that mean guns DISCOURAGE suicide?
      Or maybe the facts are, that the tool used isn’t insignificant.

      Proof: Name the country WITHOUT suicides.

  17. Paris is what happens when the citizens can not shoot back.
    Not that Trump is my “guy”, but his statement that “things would have been much difference if the people were allowed to carry” is exactly true. Many lives would have been saved and future attacks would have been discouraged.

  18. I carried concealed when I lived in Oakland and always will carry a firearm when I go back. Twice I used a Colt .45 1911 to defend myself from feral “teens” who attempted to relieve me of my possessions and do me harm. The only “gun reform” needed is to allow all to legally be armed for self defense. Worked for me.

  19. Mr. Burton,

    Thank you for your “objective” response. Would it be more effective if you speak for yourself and not throw around the we pronoun so loosely? The bandwagon approach may not sway as many people as you would think. Although, I appreciate any allusion to the Borg and its collective consciousness;)

    Unfortunately, your interpretation of my reply was incorrect; I did not intend to respond to JPM’s post and its “substance” with countering statistics. I highlighted how insensitive he was to the rest of this article. Someone pours out their heart about losing a loved one, and JPM fails to address what one may do when they lose someone close to them, which is to become impassioned to action. JPM only spits out a link because that is easier to do than to actually think about the roots of gun violence.

    Of course I would go ad hominem with JPM’s cold response, and this would be the only reason I would reply to an open forum. All facts on the Internet are verifiable, and the hope is they are all peer-reviewed;)

    My motive, as you pointed out correctly with your ad hominem attack upon my response, was not to offer any clear rebuttals.

    The only “truth” I care about is the motive behind a post because I know nothing about the poster, yet JPM doesn’t appear to be someone who values every human life, and that doesn’t sit well with me.

    If you think my remark about statistic-cramming rhetoric was an indication of my disregard for facts, I would like to state that I like Jim Smith’s responses; his delivery of statistics was polite- and would you agree that he did not appear as ambulatory as JPM?

    Jim Smith provided a lot of statistics, and that in itself has more merit, as long as it is verifiable:) Owning a gun isn’t the problem, as Mr. Smith pointed out, and I also believe guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

    Again, my post harps on the overall lack of community responsibility towards-and it’s response to-early triggers and indicators that make gun violence the first choice for these murderers. I ask you, what are you doing on a personal level to help reduce the likelihood of these acts, other than arguing about it and using the bandwagon approach to belittle me? I already feel quite small according to Carl Sagan’s perspective:)

    Is there such a thing as emotional thinking? Do you mean emotional intelligence? Are you touching on what drives me to post? Passion. It is not just an emotional, knee jerk, involuntary response. Did you know that emotion, motive and motion all have the same etymology roots? Do you not feel any emotion posting what you post? Are you the Borg after all?

    I also want to clarify that logic, reason, and rationality are all valid parts of intellectual debate, and yet that was never my aim. If you knew I value human lives over rhetoric, then why use an ad hominem attack to describe me with a straw-man fallacy, or use a poisoning-the-well fallacy to discredit my post? Ilk without a cause? Nothing valuable to say? Do you judge strangers often on what value or contributions they can make on this little blue planet? How does that work for you? Are you the beholder of absolute truth? Absolutely;)

  20. I can only hope the logic of Georgetown’s upper classmen is better than what’s “demonstrated” here.

  21. Dear Sarah Stenger,

    Can you give a detailed list of exactly what you propose? Gun control or as you put it ‘gun safety reform’ means a lot of different thing to a lot of different people! Also, would you be willing to trade a ‘National Concealed Carry’ for ‘Universal Background Checks’? And if you want more, what would you be willing to trade for that? I have a feeling I already know the answer but would like to hear it directly from you.

  22. Let’s see if I understand your position correctly.

    You state: “One hundred forty-nine days ago: Nine parishioners were shot dead . . . ”

    The unarmed victims were slaughtered in a “Gun Free Zone”, in violation of numerous currently existing laws which forbid the act itself as well as forbid the violent predator from having a gun there in the first place. The victims were all unarmed and unable to defend themselves when they were attacked with deadly intent i violation of the law.

    You state: ” . . . with a legally purchased 45-caliber handgun in Charleston, N.C.”

    WRONG! The gun was ILLEGALLY purchased: The goblin was a Prohibited Possessor that committed a felony in order to ILLEGALLY buy the gun that he used in the “Gun Free Zone”.

    You state: “Seventy-nine days ago: Two journalists were shot on live TV with a legally purchased 9mm handgun in Moneta, Va.”

    The two UNARMED VICTIMS were slaughtered in violation of numerous currently existing laws which totally forbid the acts of premeditated murder and attempted murder.
    Yet you emote that if there had only been just a few more laws to ignore, he would have surly obeyed them.

    You state: “Forty-three days ago: 10 people were shot with six legally purchased handguns and rifles at the Umpqua Community College campus in Roseburg, Ore.”

    Yes 10 UNARMED people were shot in another “Gun Free Zone”, in violation of numerous currently existing laws totally forbidding the acts of murder and attempted murder.

    You state: “Hearing about another mass shooting is not as shocking as it should be. We have become so desensitized that we feel powerless.”

    So true!
    No one hears the repeated point: ALL THE MASS SHOOTINGS HAPPENED WHERE THE INTENDED VICTIMS ARE UNARMED!!
    Either official “Gun Free Zones” (with laws and signage) or Unofficial “Gun Free Zones” were none of the victims accepted personal responsibility for their own protection by being armed.

    You state: “We have grown numb to the daily reminder that none of us are safe from the national epidemic of gun violence.”

    So how much of the “gun violence” is actually ILLEGAL ACTS committed in VIOLATION of numerous currently existing laws that TOTALLY FORBID the ILLEGAL ACTS?
    What new gun control laws, do you honestly believe, those who ignore the current and more serious laws against rape, robbery and murder, would obey? And why wouldn’t they simply ignore your new gun control laws as well?

    You state: “The gun lobby has proven to be more powerful than our demand and desire for a safer world.”

    That’s simply not true: It is good sense, facts, logic and reason that has proven too powerful for the foolishness and cowardice of victim disarmament.
    Where has the cowardly ideology of “The more helpless you are when attacked with deadly intent, the SAFER you are!” actually saved lives?
    Exactly how does the belief in disarming the intended victims actually make the victims of deadly attacks safer?

    You state: “The very senselessness that leads to the act of randomly taking someone’s life through the pull of a trigger is mirrored in our paralyzed response to the tragedies. The families of every victim taken by gun violence — along with the rest of the American people — are left wondering who will be next.”

    And how is DISARMING the intended victims, supposed to make the victims SAFER when they are attacked with deadly intent?
    Psst! Criminals don’t obey the law.

    You state: “We shouldn’t have to wait to find out.”

    That’s RIGHT!
    Those who have loved ones, whose lives are actually WORTH protecting, should protect them!
    Why should a cop, risk his life to save something so insignificant (your life or the lives of your loved ones) that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?
    And no, THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS:
    “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

    “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov’t) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order”
    (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

    This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to *YOU* and *YOU ALONE* to provide it.

    If your loved ones lives AREN’T worth protecting; they can just wait for the police to eventually show up and write out a report . . . like they did at:
    “Gun Free” Red Lake High School? – 9 slaughtered, 5 wounded
    “Gun Free” San Ysidro McDonald’s? 21 slaughtered, 19 wounded
    “Gun Free” Columbine? – 13 slaughtered, 21 wounded
    “Gun Free” Sandy Hook? – 26 slaughtered, 2 wounded
    “Gun Free” Virginia Tech? – 32 slaughtered, 17 wounded
    “Gun Free” University of Arizona College of Nursing? – 3 slaughtered, 5 wounded
    “Gun Free” University of Alabama (Huntsville)? – 2 slaughtered, 3 wounded
    “Gun Free” Northern Illinois University? – 5 slaughtered, 17 wounded
    The “Gun Free” Umpqua Community College? 9 slaughtered, 9 wounded

    You state: “As a freshman at Georgetown, I was pleased to find out about Georgetown Against Gun Violence: a club committed to educating the community about gun violence and to leading a movement for reform, starting with students.”

    Again, try and think rationally: Who is actually FOR “Gun Violence” except criminals?
    How much of the “Gun Violence” is ILLEGAL ACTS deliberately committed in total disregard for the law?
    How will disarming the intended victims make them SAFER if they are attacked with deadly intent?

    You state: “The two founders of the club, Emma Iannini (SFS ’16) and Sarah Clements (COL ’18), are from Newtown, Conn. After the Sandy Hook shooting, three years ago this December, Emma, Sarah and many other activists around the country transformed their pain into positive change. They have called on all of us to be more than simple bystanders who are silenced by the seemingly impossible task ahead. They encourage us to stand up and demand that our voices be heard.”

    So why is your choice, to make your voice heard, used to say stupid things?

    You state: “I’ve lived my whole life in the flatlands of Oakland, Calif., a place I’m proud to call home. I have fond memories of the streets of Oakland, such as playing kickball with the neighborhood kids and walking to school with my dad and sisters. But although I always feel safe at home, my neighborhood is no stranger to violence — gang-related or otherwise.”

    So tell the gang members to turn in their guns!
    See how easy that is?
    Why do you believe that those who murdered you cousin, would turn in their guns?

    You state: “Two years ago this December my 20-year-old cousin Michael was walking home late at night about a mile from my house. A local gang member drove up the street and shot Michael point-blank in the head with an illegally purchased gun. He shot him from inside his car, then drove off. He took his life because he thought Michael had done something he had not done. He killed Michael on a hunch. My cousin was left lying on the sidewalk because someone had mistaken him for someone else.”

    You’re sure, “if there were just a few more gun control laws, this wouldn’t have happened!”
    Right?
    Maybe we need more laws against shooting people in the head for walking on the street . . .

    You state: “Before Michael was murdered, the street corners with candles in remembrance to victims and the names of homicide victims in the news all seemed to be the sad realities of other peoples’ lives. But suddenly, I saw my last name in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle. A member of my family had died an unnecessary death from a completely preventable cause.”

    So what new gun control law, do you emote, the gangbanger that MURDERED your cousin would have obeyed, if only the gun control law had been in place?

    You state: “Gang retaliation is one example of the many ways in which guns can enable people to act on assumption and emotion. We cannot simply take someone’s life because we have a hunch that they might deserve it in our prejudiced calculus.”

    So what new laws would the gangbanger that MURDERED you cousin have obeyed?

    You state: “While Georgetown students are very diverse, the fact that we have access to a college education gives us a national advantage over countless people and a responsibility to use our resources to give a voice to the voiceless. Whether those at risk from gun violence are suburban elementary school students or inner-city residents, our Jesuit values have instilled in us a call to be women and men for others. As students at Georgetown, we are part of a tradition that fosters social change and leadership in the service of others.”

    Hmm, do the police in Georgetown carry guns?
    Why? What do they KNOW, that you and your friends are obviously ignorant about?

    You state: “This year marks the first year that deaths by guns outnumber deaths by cars for Americans aged 18 through 30. The National Rifle Association, among others, resists any legislation for gun reform and worries that stricter gun safety laws would compromise America’s most fundamental freedoms.”

    Now you have stooped to simply telling lies.
    According to the FBI data, there were 8,454 gun murders in 2013. (And only 8,124 in 2014.)
    While in 2013 there were 30,057 vehicle fatalities.
    You’re a college student, can you not do basic math?
    Do you really not know that 30,057 is over 3.5 TIMES more vehicle fatalities than 8,124 gun murders? Which were ILLEGAL ACTS.

    You state: “Gun reform is crucial to preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands and is not an attempt to take away all guns.”

    Many powerful politicians use you as a stupid sheep, when they stated:
    Bill Clinton, Former President Of The United States, whose “Justice” Department gassed and burned alive 76 men, women and children over less than $10,000 in gun taxes, that later was proven not to have even been owed:
    “Only the police should have handguns.“

    “When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps”

    Joseph Biden, Vice-President of The United States
    “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

    Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator From California
    “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” (Associated Press, November 18, 1993)

    “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it.”

    Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator From New Jersey, who copied the Nazi’s gun control laws for the majority of the US’ ’68 Gun Control Act (Did we really need what the Nazis gave Germany?)
    “We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.” (Press conference on March 1, 2000)

    Howard Metzenbaum, Former U.S. Senator
    “No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”

    Pete Stark, U.S. Representative From California
    “If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.” (Town Hall Meeting, June 1999, Fremont California)

    William Clay, U.S. Representative From Missouri
    ” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”

    John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator From Rhode Island
    “I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” (In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13A)

    Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative From Illinois
    “I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” (Tape recorded on June 25, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp at the Chicago Gay Pride Parade)

    Major Owens, U.S. Representative From New York
    “We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

    Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative From Illinois
    “My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.” (Chicago Tribune, December 5, 1999)

    Josh Sugarmann the executive director and founder of the VERY anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC).
    “The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns,” (The Washington Monthly, June 1987)

    An interesting side-note; At the same time that Josh Sugarmann, the executive director and founder of the VERY anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC), made that statement, he holds/held a *FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALER LICENSE* and lists the VPC Office HEADQUARTER as the “gun store location”!

    You can verify this through PUBLIC RECORD at https://www.atfonline.gov/fflezcheck/
    His license number: 1-54-XXX-XX-XX-00725

    You state: “It’s time to put our safety above the shallow argument that our right to bear arms is at stake”

    If it weren’t so serious, your naivety on this subject would be cute.
    But it IS serious!
    And your belief, that violent predators, will obey gun control laws is foolish at best.
    Stricter gun control laws to reduce “Gun Violence” is like stricter laws place on law-abiding drivers in order to reduce drunk driving deaths. (Drunk drivers kill more people than guns every year.)

    You state: ‘This year, we,as college students have already lived through 26 college campus shootings.”

    How many of those were in “Gun Free Zones” assuring that only the violent predator would be armed and the intended victims would be helpless to stop the attacks?

    You state: “A university is an institution of learning.”

    Yet you’ve learned nothing from history.
    Proof: How many of the “26 college campus shootings” were in “Gun Free Zones” where the victims were unarmed?

    You state: “On campus, we should feel safe from unwarranted attacks.”

    So, how exactly does the victims being UNARMED when they are attacked with deadly intent accomplish that? The gun banner, with the heavily ARMED security detail surrounding them, say you should vomit, urinate and defecate on yourself, in order to disgust them into leaving you alone.

    You state: “It is a shameful truth that many college campuses, including ours, are currently developing comprehensive safety protocols in the case of a school shooting.”

    And what are the basics of those “comprehensive safety protocols”?
    basically: “When in danger, when in doubt; run in circles scream and shout!”
    It you can hear the message tone, over the GUNFIRE in your classroom, they’ll send you a nice text saying: “There’s an active shooter in classroom D-9 . . . and fish sticks in the cafeteria today . . . ”
    But NOTHING to actually STOP the active shooter, until he gets bored and kills himself.

    You state: “Unfortunately, these safety protocols are necessary; we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the terrifying reality at hand.”

    And yet . . .you DO!
    You believe the best way to deal with violent predator, during a deadly attack, is to be unarmed and helpless.
    Where is your head?

    You state: “Previous generations have failed us by refusing to stand up to the gun lobby.”

    It’s time for you to stop being an ignorant sheep, and actually do a little honest research for yourself.
    Start here: How many school shootings in the US were there PRIOR to the “Gun Free School Zone Act”?

    You state: “Now it is confronting us, and unless we take action, we, too, will fail. We have a responsibility to ourselves and our fellow students to call for gun safety reform and demand action.”

    Now you’re lying again.
    It’s not about “gun safety”!
    You have been told to believe that by disarming the law-abiding intended victims, people like the violent predator that murdered your cousin, will turn in their guns as well.
    History shows this belief to be foolish at best.
    The more helpless you are when attacked with deadly intent, the more likely you are to DIE.

    You state: “We cannot let ourselves grow numb to yet another tragedy. We cannot tolerate being in a constant state of fear. We must find the courage to stand up.”

    And your solution is to stand up and create even MORE of the “Gun Free Zones” where all the massacres are taking place?

    Here’s another point to consider: Name the last 5 US massacres, not committed by the Government, where the intended victims were ARMED.

    “If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it.
    The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury.
    Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim.” -Jeff Cooper

  23. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

    Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government. Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media prostitutes tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jewws, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazzi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

    Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.
    Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

    American Thinker

  24. another moderated site

  25. efrain aceves says:

    ………..and is the correct number of 8454 homicides in 2013 (as per the FBI) acceptable
    to you???!!!!! In our young American society of a little over two centennials have we evolved as rational human beings to this type of mentality……desensitized, satisfied and accepting of such a statistic?

  26. @efrain aceves
    You ask: “………..and is the correct number of 8454 homicides in 2013 (as per the FBI) acceptable to you???!!!!! In our young American society of a little over two centennials have we evolved as rational human beings to this type of mentality……desensitized, satisfied and accepting of such a statistic?”

    A slight correction to your statement: It’s NOT “8454 homicides”, it’s 8,454 gun MURDERS. (Homicide can be a legal act, for example if done in self defense.)

    I’m not “desensitized, satisfied and accepting of such a statistic” at all!
    Instead, I prefer to focus on the subject and what the facts of the matter tells me that I’m dealing with, and address the issue with facts, logic and reason, instead of just having a pointless emotional reaction dictate my reactions and behavior.

    On the subject of CRIMINAL violence: what would be effective to actually stop the crimes?
    Write a new gun control law?
    What new gun control law, will those who ignore the current and more serious laws against rape, robbery and murder, obey? And why wouldn’t they simply ignore the new gun control laws as well?
    Besides, do you really believe it would have helped the victims of any of the US mass “GUN FREE ZONE” shootings, if the victims had yelled at the goblins: “HEY JACKASS! This is a place of SAFETY, SECURITY and LEARNING! This is a GUN FREE ZONE you can’t even have THAT gun in here! And what you’re doing is ILLEGAL!”?
    Logic suggest to me, that wouldn’t of had any effect on the goblin, except for maybe a laugh.

    Make ALL guns illegal?
    The Constitution doesn’t support that.
    But more importantly, the main thing that would accomplish, would be to only disarm the law-abiding. Meth is illegal in all 50 States, 57 if you’re an Obama supporter, and yet if you’re willing to violate the law, you can get Meth in any city ,in any State, of this Country.
    But more importantly, this would take the viable means of self protection away from the old, and weal and female.
    Logic tell me, that’s no good.

    Trust in the police for the protection of myself and my loved ones?
    The old saying: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!” isn’t exactly true.
    The REAL saying should be: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away . . . after they receive the call for help, which usually doesn’t happen until AFTER the crime is over and the predators have safely left, and the area is once again safe and secure.”
    Besides, what will the police bring, that would stop the attacker anyway?
    Logic suggests, that if a cop actually needed a gun for a call, the person the call was made for, needed a gun as well.
    “OH! But it’s the JOB of the police to protect individuals from harm!”
    While many would try to protect you if they could, the reality is that same officers would try to protect you, even if they were garbage collectors instead of police officers: It’s the person’s reaction, not the job requirement.
    Proof: “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

    “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov’t) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order”
    (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

    This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to *YOU* and *YOU ALONE* to provide it.

    And I ask myself, in my heart of hearts: “Why should a cop risk his life to save something so insignificant (my life or the lives of my loved ones), if even the owner is unwilling to protect it?”

    So my solution: Arm myself as the local law enforcement officer does, and for the very same reason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*