There’s a pair of stupid public forum articles in the Tribune that just make me laugh [one, two]. The first has about the most idiotic statement I’ve ever heard: “Here in Washington there is a ban on all guns in the District. I can certainly say that I feel safer in downtown D.C. than I ever did on the university campus because I know that nobody is carrying a legal weapon.” Leave it to a woman to make a statement this stupid based on how she “feels,” rather than actual facts. In the year 2000, there were 41.8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants in Washington D.C., compared to a whopping 1.9 in Utah [D.C./UT crime stats]. She may “feel” safer (moron), but she certainly isn’t. Another quote by this woman: “Certainly, making guns illegal in certain places is no guarantee that nobody will break the law, but I feel good knowing that the government has taken a stance that there is no tolerance for these weapons.” Again, she “feels” good about the government’s stance on weapons. But let’s not forget the government’s STANCE ON MURDER. God damned stupid idiotic moron.
In the second article, the guy not only makes some absurd statements, but doesn’t back it up with any reasoning whatsoever: “The days of packing a gun for self-protection expired well over 100 years ago. We are no longer in the wild, wild West. Such action would solve the current problems with the University of Utah and the district court judges’ gun lockers.” So this guy is saying there is no need for self-protection? I would think that’s up to each individual person to decide–it’s called SELF-PROTECTION for a reason. And in that last statement, he reasons that since banning concealed weapons will solve the problems of some other idiots, that nobody should be allowed to legally conceal a weapon. Allowing concealed weapons on the U of U campus and putting gun lockers in courthouses would also solve the problems, so according to this guy’s logic, concealed weapons should be legal.