by Chad D. Baus

The State of California has more gun control laws in more places affecting more people than anywhere else in the country. Without a doubt, California is what gun ban extremists desire for all of us. And this week, seven more defenseless college students are dead – dead on a “gun free” college campus in that gun control state.

From NBC News:

In the deadliest campus shooting in five years, a gunman opened fire at Oikos University in Oakland. One witnesses said he told students: “Get in line and I’m going to kill you all.”

[One] Goh, a 43-year-old Korean-American who dropped out of the college several months ago, was named by police as the suspect.

He surrendered at a Safeway grocery store several miles away from the scene.

Three others were injured but suffered non-life-threatening injuries, police told NBC Bay Area.

The station said at least one of the injured, a 19-year-old woman, was released from the hospital late Monday after suffering a gun shot wound to her arm.

Paul Singh, whose 19-year-old sister Devinder Kaur was shot in the arm during Monday’s rampage, told Reuters that according to his sister, Goh was a former student who showed up to class for the first time in four months.

“‘Get in line and I’m going to kill you all,’ is what he said this morning, my sister told me. They thought he was joking at first,'” Singh said.

Tashi Wangchuk, whose wife attended the school and witnessed the shooting, said he was told by police that the gunman first shot a woman at the front desk, then continued shooting randomly in classrooms.

…Jordan said that five of the victims were pronounced dead at the scene, and two others died after arriving at the hospital.

It’s the same story, over and over and over again. This type of disgruntled person always seems to go where they know there are plenty of defenseless victims. Nothing about California’s gun control laws, or the “no-guns” campus policy, kept these people safe.

In an amazing twist of fate, the latest spree killing happened on the same day the group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus began a national protest to call attention to the fact that students are left helpless against such murderers.

Top leaders at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, already under fire from lawmakers in the wake of the “Fast and Furious” debacle, also get harsh marks from the men and…

1- Non-gun Owner’s Title

Thanks to all of those who answered my call for a term to describe people who choose to reject personal ownership of firearms. Those numerous suggestions, ranging from silly to sarcastic to serious, led me to an answer.

The Dangers of Being GUNLESS

by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/consult.htm

Gunless people, those who steadfastly refuse to keep and bear arms, practice marksmanship or learn gun safety create certain burdens for the rest of society.

• Gunless people increase the need for police protection, by being unable to fend for themselves in certain dire emergencies.

• By remaining unarmed, a gunless person becomes a “free rider,” obtaining safety and protection against criminal activity through the responsible actions of others.

• Gunless people in general reduce national security. An armed populace is more capable of aiding in national defense, from border risks to crime or terrorism events, and poses a greater deterrent to such activity.

• Borrowing the logic from the Wickard v. Filburn case at the U.S. Supreme Court, gunless people have a negative impact on interstate commerce. By failing to keep and bear virtually the only property that is constitutionally guaranteed,* they weaken the economy and contribute to lowered economic stimulus. This is admittedly a somewhat circuitous argument, but it seems quite popular in other arenas (e.g., growing grain for your own use) and so appears germane.

We should reserve judgment, but it seems that Zimmerman acted lawfully.

by John R. Lott Jr.

President Obama, Jesse Jackson, and others have chosen to personalize the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., highlighting the racial issues by expressing concern for people who look like they do or live where “blacks are under attack.” Many conservatives and liberals have also already concluded that the shooter committed a crime. All of these reactions are premature.

In response to the shooting, Florida governor Rick Scott has set up a commission to review the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Gun-control organizations, including the Brady Campaign, have gone beyond this and even more drastically called for the end of right-to-carry laws.

But such outrage should be restrained until we have all of the facts. Zimmerman’s call to the police, which has been heard over and over again, does not appear to tell the whole story. There is other information that appears to back up the shooter’s account. That evidence, rather than racism, might well be the reason that police chose not to arrest the shooter. Fox 35 in Orlando spoke to one eyewitness, identified as “John,” the day after the shooting. He explained: “The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘Help, help’ . . . and I told him to stop and I was calling 9-1-1.”

The witness further indicated that it was the guy on top who was doing the hitting, and that the shot occurred while that attack was taking place. The man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, was the man in the red jacket. The police report corroborates the witness’s account: “While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.” Zimmerman told the police, “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.”

Zimmerman and his neighbors seem to have had reason for forming a neighborhood-watch group: During the past year, the Miami Herald reports, eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting occurred in their gated community. And Zimmerman had even caught at least one thief himself.