Thursday, July 9, 2009

Guns on Campuses

Freedom States Alliance sent out its July 8th message containing the latest situation on allowing guns on campus.

Gun Lobby Loses 34 Bills In 22 States in Three Years; NRA's Agenda to Hijack Universities' Authority to Keep Deadly Weapons Off Campuses Squashed In Red States Such As Texas; Many Students To Shift Focus to Closing Gun Show Loophole.

As state legislatures across the country gaveled their sessions to a close, it signaled the culmination of a long, unanimous rejection of one of the worst ideas in modern political debate - the notion that state lawmakers should force colleges and universities to allow students to take loaded, hidden handguns into classrooms.

I had to laugh reading that. The language is so exaggerated, phrases like "hijack universities" and "force colleges and universities to allow students to take loaded, hidden handguns into classrooms." I understand what they're saying, but I can see why pro-gun folks would take issue with that way of saying it.

Nevertheless, the point is an interesting one. The Brady Campaign has recently posted a map showing the states which have rejected this legislation.

What's your opinion? Is this an example of the gun-control movement gaining some momentum? Although these laws would only affect those who already possess a license to carry firearms and wouldn't "force" anybody to do anything, don't you think the universities themselves have the right to determine this kind of thing?

Please leave a comment.

22 comments:

  1. If it is a public university then it is not private property and they should not be able to deny Constitutional rights.

    If it's private then it's private property and private property rights apply.

    One issue is this. Many Universities are sprawling campuses intertwined within a larger metropolitan area. My alma mater, University of Delaware is set up in such a way.

    It is perfectly legal to carry a firearm in the city of Newark, where UD resides. This includes CCW with a permit and unlicensed OC.

    Does the University have the authority to prohibit the entirely legal exercise of my rights on public property? They have no authority over me as a non-student.

    Also, since I can carry in the city and elsewhere what makes the University perimeter so different? Does it emit a magical forcefield that turns me into a mad man the moment I set foot on campus? Does it emit a forcefield that keeps violent criminals off of campus and guarantees my safety?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I doubt anyone in the pro-rights movement expected a very different outcome.

    Society has become so conditioned to the idea that mandated defenselessness is the natural and appropriate condition on college campuses, that it will take years of intense effort to turn back that hideous way of thinking.

    We'll be back--over and over again.

    Count on it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sure! Give everyone loaded guns, and then only the super stupid who shouldn't possess a gun in the first place will end up shooting themselves and removing their genes from the gene pool. It'll be puire Darwinism. Sure, there will some collateral deaths as a result, but that's the price I'm willing to pay for living in this country and having all the guns I want.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MikeB,

    I agree that the colleges and universities should be able to determine it for themselves, that is why the laws should be changed.

    Currently, in Texas, it is against the LAW to carry a firearm on campus.
    It could be a college that I started, that I ran, that I recruited nothing but pro-2nd amendment students for....and still we couldn't take firearms on campus.

    This is what I mean when I say the anti-gun folks want to take away freedom of choice.

    The perception of drunken college boys shooting each other in the frat house has been spread by the anti-gun folks....and the media - but I repeat myself.

    The reality is that most people would be like me. A returning student who doesn't live on campus, who works full or part time and attends school part time.

    I started at the community college when I was 23.

    I had been trained by the Air Force to use and carry the M-16 and a .38 Revolver.

    If one part of the government trusted me with firearms....shouldn't ALL of the government?

    What do you say....shouldn't universities and colleges have a right to choose?

    Shouldn't women walking to and from school at night have a right to choose? After all, it is not like anyone would want to try to rape a nubile young college student, right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has almost as many members as the Brady Campaign.

    http://concealedcampus.org/

    The Brady's are so afraid of this organization that they had to publicly lie about where the support for it comes from. When called on it, they refused to comment or provide any support for their claims.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Typical anti-gun nonsensical response by Zigrar. Emotional hysteria and fearmongering devoid of any reality or facts.

    You guys really are a sad bunch.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Statistics on College Rape

    * One out of four women will be sexually assaulted on a college campus. 1

    * One out of eight women will be raped while in college. 2

    1 Hirsch (1990). National Victims Center. Retrieved August 16, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncvc.org/ index.html

    2 Martin, Laura C. (1992). A Life Without Fear. Nashville: Rutledge Hill Press, 71. Retrieved August 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.uga.edu/~safecampus/statistics.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike W.,

    Are you surprised?

    It's the SOP for the gun controllers here. No facts, no figures, just ad hominem attacks and insults.

    I'll give MikeB that much credit in that he at least cutnpastes info from gun ban groups.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MikeB,

    I would really like an answer to the question about if the Air Force trusted me to carry firearms, shouldn't the college/state?

    How about a reply to the issue of college age females being raped?

    I have a 23 year old still in school.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some of you guys refer to yourselves as pro-rights people. You're referring to the right to bear arms, obviously, but what about everybody else's rights? What about my right to go visit my mother without worrying about a stray bullet hitting me as I exit Newark Airport? What about the rights of so many people who are afraid to go out of their houses because there are so many shootings?

    You also call yourselves pro-freedom, referring to the freedom to own a gun. That is total nonsense. Freedom would better be expressed by not having to have a gun. Your very insistence to have a gun diminishes freedom for everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bob asked, "I would really like an answer to the question about if the Air Force trusted me to carry firearms, shouldn't the college/state?

    How about a reply to the issue of college age females being raped?"


    I'm not for banning everyone from having guns. You, Bob, and 90% of your fellows are responsible and trustworthy gun owners, I have no doubt. In order to prevent the other 10% and the out-and-out criminals from getting weapons, we need better restrictions, that's all.

    About the rapes, I admit it's a big problem, but not one which can be remedied with guns. I believe, as I've said many times, guns do more harm than good. I know you believe the opposite. It's difficult to determine who's right because we both have academic studies and statistical data to support our argument.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MikeB,

    You didn't answer the question.

    The Air Force trusted me to carry weapons, the state trusts those with a CHL to carry right up to the edge of school campus....but not over that line.

    What makes me untrustworthy over that line?

    Why shouldn't the state that trusts me to carry in my home, in restaurants, in movie theaters, etc....trust me to carry on campus?

    How much more restrictive do we need to get? no one having a gun? Criminals don't obey that.

    You keep bleating about more restrictions...yet what restrictions will stop the crime????????????????????

    ReplyDelete
  13. MikeB,

    If you have statistical data and studies to support your argument...why has the CDC made this statement?

    The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

    and before you say this study is biased, show evidence. Here is a list of the authors
    Prepared by
    Robert A. Hahn, Ph.D.1
    Oleg O. Bilukha, M.D., Ph.D.1
    Alex Crosby, M.D.2
    Mindy Thompson Fullilove, M.D.3
    Akiva Liberman, Ph.D.4
    Eve K. Moscicki, Sc.D.5
    Susan Snyder, Ph.D.1
    Farris Tuma, Sc.D.5
    Peter Briss, M.D.1
    1Division of Prevention Research and Analytic Methods
    Epidemiology Program Office
    2Division of Violence Prevention
    National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC
    Atlanta, Georgia
    3New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University
    New York, New York
    4National Institute of Justice
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Washington, D.C.
    5National Institute of Mental Health
    National Institutes of Health
    Bethesda, Maryland

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

    In the absence of clear cut evidence that the utility & effectiveness of gun control laws, shouldn't the default be people are allowed to freely exercise their rights?

    Reputo has a great deconstruction of your argument on his site.

    So....if you have studies and statistics to support your side, why did the CDC NOT Find that ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ah, and now MikeB abandons his quest for facts and evidence and is reduced to rhetoric.

    Along your logic, what about my right not to be offended? I think your website should be shut down and your rights curtailed because of hypersensitivity. Do you agree?

    I have those same rights. You would rather rely on the Gov't to protect you (something the SCOTUS says they have no obligation to do) than rely on yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Freedom from fear" is not, and by definition cannot ever be a right.

    ReplyDelete
  16. we need better restrictions, that's all.

    But I thought you didn't want to "diminish freedom for everyone?" That is EXACTLY what restrictions do Mike.

    My having and carrying a gun DOES NOT impose any restriction whatsoever on your freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You also call yourselves pro-freedom, referring to the freedom to own a gun. That is total nonsense. Freedom would better be expressed by not having to have a gun. Your very insistence to have a gun diminishes freedom for everybody."

    So your argument is that we would enjoy more freedom if we had less freedom?

    Please show me where you have a Constitutional Right to what you claimed you have a right to.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bob asked for the tenth time, I suppose to make people think I've never answered this before, which is not the case at all, "You keep bleating about more restrictions...yet what restrictions will stop the crime????????????????????"

    1. Background checks on every transfer - no paperless private exchanges of guns.
    2. Licensing of gun owners and registration of guns (which combined with point no. 1, would diminish the gun flow.
    3. Assault weapons ban, one that is worded properly and enforced nation-wide.

    Other minor restrictions might be useful, but those are the major ones.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1. Background checks on every transfer - no paperless private exchanges of guns.
    2. Licensing of gun owners and registration of guns (which combined with point no. 1, would diminish the gun flow.
    3. Assault weapons ban, one that is worded properly and enforced nation-wide.


    Not while I live.

    ReplyDelete
  20. MikeB,

    1. Background checks on every transfer - no paperless private exchanges of guns.

    We have background checks on purchases from licensed dealers, yet straw purchases still happen and crooks still get firearms

    So that does not stop the crime.


    2. Licensing of gun owners and registration of guns (which combined with point no. 1, would diminish the gun flow.

    That doesn't stop the crime. So again your "restrictions" don't stop the crime.

    In the mean time...how many people will die because they lack the effective means of self-defense?
    How many people will be raped? Assaulted?

    how much blood will be on your hands because you are denying them the effective means of self defense?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Let's look at mikes proposals

    #1. Already have this in many states with no discernible impact on violent crime rates.

    #2.Licensing & registration. - Not just no, but HELL NO. It is not required for exercize of Constitutional rights. Period. And of course MikeB, you ignore history, which gives us all the reason in the world to NEVER license and register our guns. You can ignore history, but that doesn't alter it.

    3. AWB - How many times have we been over this Mike? "Assault Weapon" is a nebulous and totally made up political term with no set definition. Such weapons are not used in crimes, and such bans have not and will not lower crime rates. Why is it you want to do it again only harder?

    ReplyDelete
  22. MikeB,

    How about answering the question I asked about one step over the line?

    The Air Force trusted me to carry firearms. The state trusts me to carry firearms...up to the property line of the college.

    What makes me untrustworthy on the other side of the property line?

    ReplyDelete