Students to school: ‘We want guns’
December 10, 2009 by Taylor HanniganPosted in: From the Courts, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
Campuses would be safer if students had guns, say two students who sued their school – and won.
Clayton Smith and John Swertz, Jr., who attended the Hurst, Texas, campus of the Tarrant County College District, didn’t like the fact that state law and school policy bans students from carrying concealed weapons on campus.
The pair wanted to protest the ban by wearing empty holsters on campus. Their planned protests also involved handing out pamphlets and wearing T-shirts depicting empty holsters.
According to the students, the school blocked an earlier attempt to wear empty holsters in protest of the ban. So when they were told by an interim chancellor that a second planned protest would be subject to the college’s rules and restrictions relating to student protests, they sued.
They said the college’s permit system violated their free speech rights because it lacked sufficient objective criteria that could be used to evaluate permit requests. They also said that the college’s practice of designating just one “free-speech zone” per campus was unduly restrictive. The students asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order that would bar the school from blocking the planned protest.
The court prohibited the school from blocking the students’ planned protests in areas that are traditionally considered public forums, such as sidewalks and streets.
But the students didn’t show they were likely to win their claim that they had a right to wear empty holsters in classrooms. Classrooms are generally not public forums, and the school could reasonably restrict speech there. Letting students wear empty holsters to class posed enough of a risk of disruption to justify banning them there, the court said.
Cite: Smith v. Tarrant County College Dist.
Would allowing properly licensed students to carry guns make campuses safer? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.
HigherEdMorning delivers the latest HigherEd news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HigherEd professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HigherEdMorning!
Loading ...
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 am
I hope the guy in the photo holding the gun isn’t “properly licensed.” Anyone at all familiar with guns knows you NEVER put you finger on the trigger until you’re ready to fire. Would it make campuses safer? I don’t think it would make any difference one way or the other.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
First of all, the article headline is sensationalistic and misleading. But to answer the question: No way. The majority of kids of college age (17-22) are not mature enough or mentally prepared to properly handle a weapon on campus, as well as keeping them safe from theft and misuse by others. Many campus security offices are also not staffed adequately for such a burden and local police shouldn’t need to be relied on for coverage.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Yes, allowing students to carry concealed weapons would make the campus safer.
The cases with school shootings where only the nutcases have guns might have been stopped sooner if a few sane men AND WOMEN might have been carrying guns also.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
In my home state, there was a tragic, highly publicized high school shooting in the late 1990s whereby several students and faculty were shot by one crazed student, with some of his victims dying there and others dying afterwards in local hospitals. And you know why the shooting spree suddenly ended? It ended when a private gun owner (an Asst. Principal) who had a valid, unexpired license to carry a concealed weapon or have a concealed weapon like say hidden in his vehicle, saved the day. When the shooting spree started in the school building, the Asst. Principal went outside to his truck where his loaded gun was concealed and when the action moved outdoors, he came up on the shooter, pointed his gun at him, subdued him and disarmed him until law enforcement arrived on the scene. I do believe having guns on campus to the point where it creates a hostile and uncertain environment for an armed nutcase who wants to make his bloody statement, or an armed career criminal will have a positive effect and will indeed make a difference. However, I do believe thoughtful and balanced discussion in educational and legal circles needs to be had on WHO should be approved to carry and use their weapon, if need be, in Pre-Schools, Day Cares, K-12 schools and college campuses.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
The day our college allows weapons on campus is the day I hand in my resignation as a college employee. Our students may have some history of gun handling and training but for the most part, they are typical late adolescents with a ways to go to adulthood. One drunken incident could lead to “borrowing” or “finding” someone’s weapon and lead to a huge problem. Violence begets violence and the only way to use another means to resolution is to choose to use another means to resolution. Teaching our children from younger ages that violence is not the answer is where it really starts. While the students in the original article have the right to express themselves, they do not have the right to bring even a licensed weapon onto private property if that is the rule on that campus. Period. And here’s to the thought that one day ALL guns will be melted down to make peaceful tools, like shovels to plant gardens so we can all eat.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
1-The photo has to be staged because (as jim t. points out) a knowledgeable person would never hold the weapon as such.
2-I’ve heard of several colleges lately where students are wanting the ability to carry concealed, so this is not an isolated incidence (though maybe the first to sue).
3-If you’re at all familiar with the procedures to become licensed to carry concealed, you know they are typically extensive and not something that happens on a whim. If these students choose this, there are forms to fill out and classes to attend. They have to show some responsibility just to go through the process of getting the CCW permit. In addition, many states have age limits, often 21, to apply for the permit. This isn’t something the partying freshman will be applying for.
4-The more responsible, educated citizens that carry, the better. There are records that indicate crime in conceal carry areas goes down, compared to areas that don’t allow responsible citizens to arm themselves.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I think that guns should be allowed on college campuses. We aren’t talking about “children” running around with guns. We are talking about responsible, clean record adults that have gone through the concealed weapons training (at the age of 21 for hand guns) and have been deemed responsible enough to know how to handle a gun. Abusing this privilege carries severe penalties. Additionally, considering college students as “children/kids” is part of an even larger problem. It is to the point that we don’t even let our kids grow up while in college, we just keep sheltering them and taking the responsibility off of them.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
As J Jensen states, this is not the first isolated incidence. There are schools in parts of states that are quite rural. In response to J Becker…”The majority of kids of college age (17-22) are not mature enough or mentally prepared to properly handle a weapon on campus, as well as keeping them safe from theft and misuse by others.” We send 18-22 year old men and women into the military and overseas to fight wars and we issue them combat weapons. These are the SAME men and women who are on our campuses returning and using GI Bill and Veteran Funding. This may not be an idealized path that higher education would like to go down, however it is now staring us in the face. If conceal weapons were allowed on campus, there could be campus rules to govern. Does this open a can of worms? Of course, but it’s already happening whether we know a student has a handgun in their pocket or not. Why not put structure around it.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
This is insane. Despite the compelling, and largely unique, story shared by Robert, adding guns in any context to an environment and/or situation only increases the liklihood that guns will be used. And contrary to the happy scenario of Robert’s where the where the AP subdued the assailant outside and without using his own weapon (a considered decision) guns in the hands of nervous, excited, terrified individuals in a class room is a recipe for increased fire in the classroom with more popele being wounded and/or killed as a result.
And as to the question of training, Police officers go through extensive and ongoing training in weapons use, and the appropriate situations, conditions and psychological ramifications of pulling the trigger. That does not come with your carry/conceal permit.
I know this becasuse I have on. And all I did to get mine, curretnly valid and in my wallet, was check the “Conceal and Carry” box on my permit request. That was followed several weeks later by an interview with the State Police. No verification of my skill as a marksman, no verification of critical thinking and or decision making skills, no verification of my weapons trinaing. THey asked extensiviely about my arrest record and personal frame of mind.
But to suggest, as several here have, that anyone with a conceal permit will be a level-headed wonder in a gun fight is ludicrous.
Guns should not be allowed on campus. Unless on the hip of a trained offiecer. Period
And let me state again, I am a gun owner, with a carry conceal permit.
And a professor at a state school.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I should add, the question from State Police about “my arrest record” was limited to ‘Do you have one?’, which is no, and ended the questioning there.
And please excuse what I see are several typos.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I Believe that all Staff, Faculty and Administrator’s that are properly trained licenced and want to should be allowed to carry. Think of the lives that could have been saved at Columbine and Red Lake Schools if this was allowed.. As far as the students go, I don’t think so unless they are over 21 and have had the proper training and Li censure. Right now as the Minnesota law reads No students or Employee (other than Peaceofficers) of any kind can carry a gun on to campus! But a stranger may!!!!!! DUMB!!!!
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
One gun in the hand of a good person is worth more than a thousand police officers AFTER THE FACT.
The image of seeing hunderds of flashing police lights after the fact that some nutcase killed a bunch of students and teachers in Virginia is still fresh in my mind. But you don’t read about how the year prior, at another campus in the same town, a would be murder was subdued by two students who happen to have guns they could get to.
Facts are not convenient to emotional outburst of “I’ll hand in my resignation” people. All said and done, guns don’t kill. People do.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Do you really think there arn’t any concealed weapons on campuses right now? Obviously the owners have enough self control that we only hear about shootings once in a blue moon by some psychopath. Try and convince me that there is a college campus in America with 40,000+ students and not one of them is packing concealed. You’re fooling your selves. The guns are already there, we need to make it leagal for them to be in the hands of people (students, faculty and staff) who exhibit responsibility and high moral character. I hate to break it to you but most cops start out as young 20-somethings with a gun and a badge and they turn out ok.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Jim Becker said: “The majority of kids of college age (17-22) are not mature enough or mentally prepared to properly handle a weapon on campus …”
First all states that I know of only issue carry permits to individuals over 21. Virtually all protests about carry bans involve prohibitions against carrying for individuals that hold valid concealed carry permits. Most concealed carry permits are only issued after a stringent background check and specific training. So the argument that 17-20 years olds might carry is a red herring.
The majority of our soldiers overseas are between 17 and 22 and many police officers are 21-22. We don’t seem to have any problem letting them carry weapons. But when they show up on campus, they are suddenly immature buffoons. I’m glad my professors didn’t have such a low opinion of me when I went to college. It’s ironic many college presidents are behind an effort to lower the drinking age to 18 because they feel their students are mature enough to deal with it.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
A few things that I would consider before arming students:
•In SOME states, such as Georgia, you can get you carry permit by just getting finger printed, paying for a background check, and signing your name. There is no course involved.
•If schools ever decided to do this, I would suggest they set a universal standard which would involve the same type of safety courses and instruction. I know many people, including cops, who’ve had accidental discharges. Handle a gun enough, and it could happen. And I’m talking about professional, gunsmiths, etc, and not the guy playing around. Hence the phrase, “always aim in a safe distance”, etc. The safety course would have to be extensive in addition to the state’s requirements.
•Also, I’m in favor of the “Crime with a gun” laws that make the punishment much more severe.
That all being said, I don’t think you’d see as many students carrying as you might think.
Oh, and LOL at the guy with his finger on the trigger.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
This underscores why all handguns should be illegal, for everyone, everywhere, other than members of Well Regulated militias (wingnuts, please read the text of the 2nd Amendment), military personnel, and police.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
How about banning guns altogether. Look at Japan, South Korea and other places around the world where people don’t carry guns and are much safer! How many more victims do we need before we decide to stop this escalating madness?
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Three quick points:
1. Didn’t we just have a mass shooting on a military base? An armed population does not mean that mass killings can be prevented.
2. Imagine those Oktoberfest or Spring Fling college campus “events” with 100s or even 1000s of drunk and armed students.
3. The homeless are perhaps the most victimized group in American society. Why don’t we start a campaign to arm the homeless?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
My son was shot and killed when he was ambushed by a robber at the fast food restaurant where he was working. I also teach at a midwestern university and have taught at large and small, public and private institutions over the years. I have become an unwilling expert on gun violence, and as the technical theatre professor in these schools, have also had to become an expert on gun safety.
In the the gun safety sessions I hold with my college age students, some of them over 21, I can undoubtably say that I would NEVER put a loaded gun in their hands on a routine or daily basis unless they were training for the military or law enforcement. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never worked with students and does not know human nature. Sooner or later, a tragedy will happen and the school’s liability will be likely catastrophic.
I expect they’ve never been to a faculty meeting, either.
But, I am more concerned about the constant and carefully orchestrated efforts to normalize gun ownership in this society, especially in the wake of so much criminal gun use. Over 70% of all crimes are facilitated or enabled by a firearm, including domestic violence. It has been shown over and over that owning a gun does not make you safer but the well-researched, peer reviewed studies by researchers of high caliber (excuse the pun) are overshadowed and out-shouted by the shoddy and ill-conceived studies by researchers supported by the gun industry who are accepted out of hand by those who so desperately want to believe in their own ability to protect themselves against some nebulous and random evil force.
I’m sorry, it is not normal to carry a gun with you all the time. At last count, only 7% of the population even wants to. That is by no means a majority or mandate. It does not make sense and indicates a level of paranoia that should be disqualifying to begin with. To think that carelessness, casual treatment, and poor judgment will not occur in a school environment is short-sighted and illogical.
To wear a gun without a uniform projects an immediate aura of belligerence and challenge, not confidence and authority. To see the number of massacres just this year that have been carried out by, not criminals, but concealed carry holders should give us all pause and a race back to at the very least “may issue” rather than “shall issue” permits.
As I know only too well that you can’t defend against ambush, I would propose this challenge(hypothetical, of course) to anyone who thinks Concealed Carry is such a great concept: The rules are simple. We would have dinner, you and I one night, and once we part company you would go about your daily routine as usual. Sometime in the next thirty days my mission would be to shoot you and kill you from a distance of less than ten feet. You would be welcome to carry a concealed weapon as you see fit, if you think it will help, but you could take no other inordinate security measures. I wouldn’t tell you when, I wouldn’t tell you where. It could happen on the first day or the thirtieth. At work or at home or anywhere in between. Oh, and I’d probably pop up from time to time unarmed just to see how you are doing. Do you think you could defend yourself against such a challenge? I will bet you a year’s pay that I would win. Wouldn’t this be a fun game?
The point is that the problem is not that we don’t have too many guns at the ready. It’s that we have too many guns already. Reduce the access to guns by those who are dangerous, immature, and unstable, and we’ll see a significant decrease in gun deaths. Really, that’s all the anti-gun violence groups are asking. Reduce the opportunities for careless, illegal, or ill-advised gun use and the numbers will follow. The statistics from other countries bear this out. Most large US cities and all the states have annual gun deaths that are greater tha the entire nation of Canada. What’s different? Our gun laws. We have laws that have been liberalized by the gun industry. Canada’s are much more conservative (to use the terms as classically, not popularly defined).
Come on, folks. Educate yourselves. Don’t listen to the gun lobby’s self-serving propaganda and rhetoric. They’re only concerned about putting their profits ahead of our safety. The gun industry has so many agenda items crossed off its list that it’s starting to ask for the craziest things imaginable. It’s time to push back and make a difference.
I used to tacitly support gun ownership, too. But then I looked at what the gun industry and it’s followers have become and it’s not my grandfather’s world anymore. Read their blogs. Listen to the convention speeches. Look at the statistics. Go to the gun shows and see the strange bedfellows there and watch to see how easy it really is to get a gun from a private seller. Read the websites that promote the paranoia, hatred, and distrust. Look at the natural connections between guns and drugs and crime. Then go take a shower and throw up a couple times and start doing something about the hold they have over us.
We can restore guns in American society to a reasonable and appropriate place, but we all need to come to the table to solve the problems, and put the commercial interests second to public safety.
It’s too late to save my child, but maybe you can save yours.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Do you honestly think that it is possible to “ban” handguns? What are more gun laws going to do? Do you think the guy who robs the convenience store or sticks up a guy in the alley bought his gun legally? No.
Yes, we did have a mass shooting on a military base. You can’t stop people who want to kill lots of people. He could have just as easily gotten into an SUV and driven through a park. If someone wants to hurt a lot of people, they are going to do it, gun or not.
As far as drunks go, there ARE laws for carrying where alcohol is served.
Enforce the laws that are in place. Don’t punish the people who obey the law.
Bottom line is that the US is a dangerous place and the criminals HAVE guns. Shouldn’t we at least have an equal playing field?
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
As the administrator responsible for student discipline on my college campus, I have grave concerns regarding students with weapons. Albeit the average college student is aged 18-23, many within this population are still quite immature, lacking critical thinking skills that are needed to engage in a “shooter on campus” scenario. Additionally, I see discipline cases on a regular basis whereby these adults (students) are behaving like impetuous children and require discipline penalties.
I know the popular philosophy is that carrying guns will even the playing field, and offer an element of defensive protection from a crazed individual seeking to do harm. The problem with that mindset is, what if the crazed individual is one of the students who was allowed to carry a gun? In such an instance there would be a shooter, as well as all of the other students who were carrying guns attempting to disable the shooter. Sounds a bit like the “wild west”. The bottom line is, we would be creating an environment that is more volatile than the one that already exists.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
*my post above was made BEFORE Bill’s, so that post wasn’t a reply to his. I am sorry for anyone who loses any family member due to violence*
Alcohol and Tobacco kill many times over the number of firearm deaths. Should we ban those? If someone is intent on killing another person, a knife can do even more damage that a bullet in most cases. Guns are not going anywhere. Just like you can still go out an illegally buy pretty much anything. If the demand is there, the market will provide. And if there are no more gun stores, then only people who buy them illegally will have them.
If you go through a through FBI background check, get fingerprinted, take the course, prove that you can use a handgun, then you should be able to buy one and carry it, period. Are there going to be occasional times when people misuse a firearm? Yes. Look how many people get drunk then drive a 2000 lb car into another car and kill multiple people. You are responsible for your actions.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Stephen – On military bases no one is allowed to carry weapons except for the military police and individuals undergoing training. Those individuals unf=dergoing training check out the weapons on the range and return those weapons before leaving the range. Anybody with a private gun must notify military police and register the gun before than can carry the gun on base and then only if they live in base housing. There are random searches of vehicles entering bases to look for things such as guns and drugs. Military bases are like schools. Virtually gun free.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Would you be in favor of “random searches” of you, your car, your house? What if someone just said “Bill has a gun.” Then some gov’t. authority could just come and search? No way. I know so many responsible gun owners, hunters, etc. They talk to their kids and some teach them to shoot, then lock up the guns.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
If police responding to a shooting on campus found one of these students walking around holding a firearm, what do you think would happen?
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I have no problem with young adults who are legitmate, having as many death dealing tools as possible. Of course, they would also need extensive firearms and use of force certifications from a reconized state expert(law enforcement?), senario training, stress training, psychlogiocal preparation for taking a human life, and of course, all players would need a few billion in insurance. Shooting at bad guys/girls may result in inocents being injured or even killed. This may not violate penal law, but the civil lawsuits against all parties, including the certifying agency, school, student shooter, parents etc. would be interesting. Ask a cop how he/she feels after justifiably taking a life – now ask a youg adult who has dealt with life and death issues based on a Steven Segal movie.
- Think about the definition of serious physical injury – impairment of a bodily organ – now shoot a firearm indoors without hearing protection – who pays for the hearing aides?
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
So you are ok letting an 18 year carry a weapon as long as it’s in a foreign field, just not on our campus soil? Why is he or she responsible enough in one situation, but not another?
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Unfortunatley the conversation seems to be pivoting on this point of schools, a controled environment, and the larger issue of society; going from the specific to the general.
I agree it is unlikely we will ever be able to scale back the level of gun ownership or perceived entitlement in our society. And no, random searches are not anything anyone wants in our society (or would tolerate).
But that is an entirely different conversation than the point of this one, which is whether guns should be allowed on school campuses. Where guns should be banned, and where I would have no problem with random searches. This is a specifc environment we are discussing, not the larger more general societal situation.
There are clear precedents for protecting schools and school grounds, like other particular environments, where limitations on personal freedoms are appropriate.
I beleive Bill has articulated the most lucid, logical and unfortunately personal argument supporting a ban of handguns on campus/school grounds.
We really do not need to debate here, the larger question of gun control in our society.
Bill – thank you for sharing your perspective on what I can only believe is a harrowing and devastating experience.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Bill, you have insulted me. You suggest that I am “paranoid”, have never been to a faculty meeting, that I am abnormal, and a slew of other insults.
Lets use your logic: People who wear seatbelts are paranoid! Why do they wear these things? Are they planning on ramming someone? Seatbelts make people drive recklessly, unless they are wearing a uniform while driving. People should take off these seatbelts and drive with more caution. This is the same reasoning you just gave, yet it sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?
I carry a gun for the same reason other people wear seatbelts, because it is always better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Answer me this question, if a cop never leaves the house without a gun, why should you? What is it out there that he is worried about, and why shouldn’t you be worried about it also? Is his life worth more than yours?
I end with advice for those of you who value your lives, given to me by a police chief: Be polite to everyone you meet, but always have a plan to kill them.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
And. . . no one has mentioned the issue of deterrence. If concealed carry is allowed, and even if only 1% choose to carry, the knowledge that there is one of a hundred that would fight with lethal force would surely deter. And – if deterrence fails, an armed defender in the ranks of victims will likely save lives of the unarmed. The unarmed populace of a military base is a great example. Would Hassan have started his rampage suspecting there were defensive weapons in his fishbarrel? Would 13 lives be lost? The answers are, “Probably not”, and “No”. In all these mass violence examples, the killing didn’t stop until guns arrived. While law enforcement was only minutes away – it was when seconds counted.
An armed society is a polite society.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Paul,
There is no legal way to scale back the ownership of firearms in this country. And I deny you to build a logical structure that points to external facts that supports the notion that such a thing is desirable.
On the direct subject at hand, your, and the much longer winded Bill’s points are unsupported by data. Yes an attacker can kill a single victim by ambush, but if the attacker is unable to discern whom among a group of students is armed, how does he choose his first few shots to stop the potential defender? The facts are that millions of Americans carry concealed, mostly legally, all over the country, and have a lower incidence of unlawful violence than Police officers. (Look it up yourself, I did)
I would feel safer with a dozen CCW in a room with me than a dozen Police officers, ages notwithstanding.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Paul says: “Police officers go through extensive and ongoing training in weapons use”
We wish this was universally true but it is a great bit of optimism. The training some locals have for police can be very brief and ongoing training is often skimped on by the “town fathers.” Many personal gun hobbyists are actually better trained and have more skills.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Bill says: “But, I am more concerned about the constant and carefully orchestrated efforts to normalize gun ownership in this society”
Gun ownership is already normal in society and has been since before the republic was founded. I grew up in Maine and Vermont where gun ownership was very common and violent crime with a weapon was almost nonexistent. I don’t know the answer to how to solve all our societies ills but I do think that continued restriction of liberties in a quick reactionary response to someone’s tragic loss is not likely to work. I can’t single out one party for this. We raised the drinking age and enhanced a culture of immaturity and secret binge drinking among our young adults. When do we turn back the clock and UNDO the restrictions on liberties that are not working?
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
I believe that the 2nd amendment is being over looked. That being said, if a person regardless of age has a valid concealed weapons permit or license should be allowed to carry at any public or private school, college or university. In fact unconcealed weapon carry was very common not to long ago. I remember high schools having rifle teams (22 cal) practicing on school property not all that long ago.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Please note that there are two Bill’s posting now. I published the long post earlier today and the other Bill posted the military post, which I agree with, having once worked on a military base as a civilian employee.
I had hoped to avoid the strident rhetoric on this site that I see on so many others, but it has crept in. Frank, you’re getting a little edgy, friend. We don’t have to descend to hyperbole here. We are not talking extremes. A couple small steps here and there that won’t affect your ability to hunt or shoot or even buy a gun for self-defense is all we’re really looking at. Holding gun owners absolutely accountable for the guns they buy and making sure they treat their gun ownership with the seriousness it deserves would go a long way to solving the problem. That and making sure that the gun sellers who intentionally violate the law are put out of business.
But we have to get all stakeholders to the table and up to now, the gun industry and its auxiliaries steadfastly refuse to meet on this subject to help us craft a response to the problems. Money’s at the root of it, of course. We’re seeing some headway, but not as much as some of us would like. Can’t we work on this together?
Actually, my idea of an equal playing field is keeping the guns out of the hands of the bad guys in the first place. Canada does it. Why can’t we? That’s the conversation we should be having. How do we reduce the opportunities for things to go wrong?
You have the impression that the background check (and we wouldn’t have that if it weren’t for Jim Brady and it was a major fight to get it), and the training, et al. is the answer. It’s not, as clearly articulated by Paul earlier. Each state has different requirements for concealed carry. I’d actually support a national concealed carry law, but you probably wouldn’t like it. It would include rigorous police level training and yearly recertification, licensing and registration of your firearm, a complete background check with a psych profile, and a demonstration of need, not want. I would go for that because then, I would feel that a person who achieved this standard would take their gun ownership seriously and would not be a danger to themselves or others as many CCW owners have clearly demonstrated recently. Guns are falling out of purses in grocery stores and out of pockets in toilets. These gun owners shouldn’t be carrying guns if they cannot secure their firearm better. They are a threat to everyone around them.
Frank, I also know a lot of hunters and shooters who teach their children about guns and don’t lock up the guns. A lot of little boys have died knowing just enough to be dangerous and having access to a pistol with one round left in the chamber after they removed the clip like dad showed them.
You can’t trust children. A curious child will find a gun in the house, and an imaginative child will play with it. How do I know this? I did it as a child myself. Thankfully, my dad had better sense than a lot of the gun owners I counsel after a tragic shooting in their home.
Many colleges already have guns on campus, in the hands of sworn security officers. Virginia Tech’s police force is larger than many small municipalities. How sad that is, actually. Greater security measures and protocols are being developed and implemented all the time. Would a student in one of the classrooms at VT been able to stop the shooter? Maybe. We’ll never know.
But I do know that I, and the parents of those murdered students, and the survivors of that shooting that I work with regularly in a support capacity are NOT willing to see guns carried to classrooms on a daily basis and kept in dorms in exchange for the one in a million chance that someone will barge in shooting and maybe one of the CCW students will be able to get off a lucky shot. It’s not a fair trade-off and the gun industry shouldn’t be jumping on these tragedies in order to promote their own commercial agenda. That’s not in the Second Amendment no matter how you read it.
Arthur, I never meant to insult you. Indeed, I have never met you. However, if some of my words have resonated with you in a way that you take such offense, perhaps you should examine why you are responding so emotionally. However, you bring up an interesting point. The police officer carries a gun because it is part of his job. I am an educator, and an artist. It is not part of my job outside the safety concerns when firearms are used onstage. I am not police qualified with a firearm, nor military qualified. I furthermore have no interest in carrying a gun to defend myself on a daily basis and have found myself only once in fifty years in a situation where it “might” have helped, but it also might have escalated the situation rather than defusing it.
There is no such thing as an armed and polite society. There is simply armed and shooting or armed and not shooting. Just look at the Middle East. Furthermore, you seem to think that guns protect police officers, but most officers I know will tell you that they rely on their communication skills and personal interactions more than their guns in a tight spot. Granted there are differences in threat levels and police protection between urban and rural areas. But one shouldn’t apply rural sensibilities to the urban environment. It is not logical nor fair.
Live your life as you will. But I dare to continue to hope that our society can be more peaceful and good than it appears to be now, even in the face of my son’s murder. I will not carry a gun in distrust or bravado, and I believe that my life is better for that committment.
Hope this helps. Paul, thanks for the kind words. They are appreciated.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I grew up with guns and own several. However, after 50 years on the faculty of a large university and having seen a number students go off the deep end, I cringe at the thought of letting ‘em carry. Some probably do already but I seriously doubt that a wide-open carrying policy will prevent or limit damage by a nut who decides to kill. What’s the likelihood of there being present an armed person who knows how to shoot a handweapon accurately (which takes a lot of practice) ? How many responders have thought about how it’ll feel to deal with an irate student (possibly armed) who comes in to complain about a failing grade?
I submit that this is not about basic freedoms; it’s about responsibly regulating campus life to make the place as safe as possible. More folks toting a pistol won’t do it.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
A shooter on Campus opens fire killing or wounding several.
Police are called to the shooting.
Students with guns start shooting back.
Police arrive and open fire on shooters.
Shooters DEAD.
Who are the good guys? The police don’t know. They are going to eliminate the threat. ALL shooters.
Maybe students that carry should all wear white hats. There should be a visible identifier worn by anyone carrying a weapon on Campus. That way I can steer clear of them when the shooting starts.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Bill, you fail to understand. You simply cannot get around the fact that if your son had a gun he might be alive today. You can live your life on your knees and hope the bad guys don’t get you, but they just might, they got your son didn’t they? Like most CCW holders I know, I will carry a gun whether it is legal or not. I simply would rather you stop trying to criminalize me for simply defending myself. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, it’s just that simple.
If you are truly an educator, it is only a matter of time before some nutter comes in shooting up your school. Turn on the news, it’s a pandemic… I am not paranoid, you are delusional. Don’t worry, you really have no idea how many of us there are that are armed. Look around you, someone is armed, can you spot him? You claim I’m some “crazy” “paranoid” “abnormal” “emotional” person, so I should be easy to spot… This is your delusion. We are everywhere, there are more guns than people in this country. You will never know how heavy the weight of carrying a gun is. Pun intended. The knowledge that you can take a life is there, and that weighs heavy on your mind. You know you will still go to court and answer for it for simply drawing the weapon. You become polite to the extreme. You relax because you know that nothing can harm you as long as you pay attention to your surroundings. People push you, yell at you, and you just laugh it off, knowing that you cannot afford to get mad.
Guns NEVER escalate the situation, they end it. Most gunmen see a gun and surrender. Those that don’t well they don’t care about death, and the ONLY thing that was ever going to stop them is a bullet. Hope you have a few handy?
At my school an officer who seeming thought like you tried to “defuse” a situation with a crazed gunman by “talking” him down with his “communication skills”. The officer got shot for his trouble and now there is a nice monument to his stupidity on campus. You need to work on your trust issues Bill. The police here don’t mind one bit me carrying a weapon, why would you? You will never know how happy it makes cops to see a CCW license. That means that person is the most law abiding citizen they will meet that day…
December 4th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Bill wrote: “To see the number of massacres just this year that have been carried out by, not criminals, but concealed carry holders…” This is the first I’ve heard of it. With so many recent massacres, I’m sure you’ll be able to provide a link to several of them. Yeah right.
“The point is that…we have too many guns already. Reduce the access to guns by those who are dangerous…” Your plan will be as successful as our laws against illegal drugs.
“It has been shown over and over that owning a gun does not make you safer but the well-researched, peer reviewed studies by researchers of high caliber (excuse the pun) are overshadowed and out-shouted by the shoddy and ill-conceived studies by researchers supported by the gun industry…” John Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime, was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.
You told us to get educated about guns. YOU need to get educated. It’s obvious that you don’t know a damn thing about them.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:49 am
As a college student college student not being able to have a weapon is very discomforting to me. people get robbed and injured on campus monthly and there is nothing we can do about it if it is to happen to us but prey we don’t get killed. The main argument seems to be “most young adults don’t have maturity to carry” if we pass a concealed carry class doesn’t that mean we do? some nutjob goes Virginia tech on us there is nothing anyone can do to stop it but wait for the police. by the time the police show up i may be dead. i do not like this fact. what are you all afraid will happen? everyone with CCWs will start shootouts in the middle of class? this has not happened on campuses that allow CCW. why would it happen on ones that ban it? infact crime on gun campuses is very low. in utah crime on campus is at an all time low. in fact nearly all gun universities are seeing crime rates dropping sense they ended there gun bans. i do not understand what the problem is? oh perhaps its the other argument, we will get drunk and shoot each other. yes this is always a possibility, but most people that are going to commit a crime with a gun are going to do it if it is banned or not.
also what is all this intense training we need? all the training anyone with a weapon needs is how to always keep the safety on. how not to shoot yourself, never to point the gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot. and how to accurately draw and aim if the time should arise. if the student can do these things what is the problem?
am i less of citizen than you all? this is truly insulting, i don’t have the maturity? what i understand is because i am under the age of, 22 was it? i can not decide when the right and wrong time to use lethal force is? I have been handling weapons since the age of 7, i own 34 guns most of which are the “evil” rifles, assault rifles, and belts feds. most of which are historical in nature, but several are for self defense also. i have never committed a crime nor ever will.
if i was to carry on campus and in the class room i can guarantee you nobody would ever even know i was armed. unless someone threatened my life, then they would know. i can also guarantee you that if someone was to shoot at me, i could shoot back and hit my target. yes i may die in the process, but i would rather die fighting than lay down and die without a chance. i will guarantee further that if someone was to try to go on a shooting rampage in my presence, i would try to stop them and who know perhaps save several peoples lives in the process.
furthermore a good or bad idea, it doesn’t matter. banned gun campuses are in violation of the 2nd amendment. as adults we have to right to ownership of a firearm. gun free zones in my opinion violate the 2nd sense you are literally denying the ownership of weapons in a certain area. argue that interpretation all you want. but that is what i have concluded. “shall not be infringed” is in there for a reason. you should not be about to restrict a right like that on a public areas. yet it is done.
also
i have talked to several campus police and they would rather some students be armed. of coarse there are those who think we are the retarded public who cant handle ourselves, but many officers know they cant be everywhere all the time. it seems the only ones who think that guns should be banned eigther don’t understand the people who carry guns, or refuse to listen to the facts regarding gun ownership. it seems the academia are biggest gun banners probably because they are the most idealistic and frankly in my opinion naive. that’s right the professors are naive. they don’t understand how the world works outside of a university in most cases, or course this doesn’t apply to all, but many. the only professors this seems not to apply to are those who have not spent there entire lives in school and on campuses. the ones that went out had careers and came back to teach. the ones i have talked to that were there career field first and professors second tend to agree with me. idealism is not reality. people are evil, bad things happen, be prepared, the police arnt always there to save everyone and the bad guy doesn’t always miss. even if one life could be saved by a CCW, wouldn’t it be worth it? this brings me back full circle to how crime rates on the CCW campuses keep falling.
ever heard of Kennesaw Ga? the head of every household there must own and know how to use a gun. and guess what. the town had been murder free for 25 years! and has one of the lowest crime rates per person in the nation. like said earlier, A armed society is a polite society. if a criminal knew everyone was armed, you think he would try to attack somebody in public? i think not. gun owners are always in the back of criminals minds. unless they know there banned.
oh and sorry in advance for spelling mistakes and bad sentences, its late, and ive been doing homework up until i wrote this.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:56 am
Always remember that when seconds count, the police will be there in minutes. You may choose not to carry, but don’t fall for the idea that you’ll be protected by the police – you won’t. As a police officer I’ve helped clean up a number of murder scenes, but I’ve never myself, nor have I ever personally known any other cop, that interrupted a murder in progress.
The first two things I did when my son turned 21 is (a) bought him a Glock 19 and (b) had him get a CHL. I carry off duty – I don’t see why he should enjoy any lesser level of protection than I do.
I agree that CHL holders should have more stringent training requirements, be encouraged to have some tactical training and be required to store their weapons in a prescribed manner when they are not in their immediate control. But that is a different question than whether they should be allowed to carry on campus at all.
Indeed, unless you happen to be in a gang, your chances of being killed by a drunk driver or being killed in an accident of any sort while drunk are orders of magnitude greater than being shot. If you really want to increase safety in the U.S., the most effective step by far is to ban alcohol.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Bill said:
To see the number of massacres just this year that have been carried out by, not criminals, but concealed carry holders should give us all pause
What is the number, Bill?
Tell us.
(also Bill, your posts are way too long)
December 4th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I’ll second that Bill’s posts are way to long.
Bill provide links to your stats.
If you will look into some of those toilet shootings. You will find that the absent minded gun “possessor” was a cop. They drop a issued weapon and shoot the toilet out from under themselves.
The VT shooting spree WAS stopped by students WITH guns. Look it up. Two students at VT retrieved their personal weapons from their cars and stopped the shooter. Most news reports only mention that the students “subdued the shooter”. They conveniently leave the fact that the students had guns.
I teach Marksmanship at a University. I see 100 students a semester handle rifles and handguns. All do so responsibly and safely.
I also teach the Handgun Carry Class for the University. I see students from 21-80. From former military to retired librarians, lawyers, and housewives. From no experience, to bad experience with, to well trained individuals. All have one thing in common they recognise that they have the responsibility for their own safety. That is not the duty of the police. So the Supreme Court has held on at least 3 separate occasions.
People who are serious enough about their own safety to carry a gun, who are willing to possibly stand in the gap for you or your family, are not the type of person to stand up in a faculty meeting and shoot the chair of the department over a parking space dispute.
My only dilemma is the training and licensing. I know the vast majority of people (perhaps 80%) who want to carry a gun need the level of training I provide and likely more. I think they should absolutely get this training. I do not, however, think they should be proscribed the ability to defend themselves because they can’t afford a class or licensing fee.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am
The problem is not guns on college campuses, its the behavior. Letting disturbed people remain on campus after they have demonstrated they are a threat( Virginia Tech) Our college administrators have failed us, they do not kick these people off of campus. They are to concerned about getting that tuition money or being sued. Where I teach at we have over the past three years filed report after report on a disturbed student and he is still here.Thes administrators because they have some higher educational degrees think they know it all. As a professor with 20 years experience teaching and 11 years as a former law enforcement officials they think they know more, I have warned them numerous times.These administrators need sued and fired with their 100,000′s pay checks.That is the real problem.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Studies show that if you have a gun, it’s about 10 times more likely to be used to kill you or someone you love than a “crimninal.” Ergo, keeping a gun around isn’t a smart move. It’s not something smart people do. So I say let people who want to have guns have ‘em. That way the dumb people will be eliminated, and the human species will benefit genetically.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:14 am
1. Self-defense is a basic human right. In a world where guns exist, the good guys carry them because the bad guys carry them.
2. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does extend the right to carry arms to individuals. It is the already armed citizens who, when necessary, will make up the militias that defend communities.
3. Private colleges and universities may be able to ban weapons in concealed-carry states, if they follow the laws for doing so. Public institutions should not be able to ban legally carried firearms.
4. In 1996, at the university library where I work, a librarian was murdered in his office, by a young man you had threatened and stalked him. If that librarian had armed himself, he would have lost his job. He did not arm himself, and lost his life. Having a firearm is not a guarantee that one can prevent a violent crime, but it sure raises the odd in favor of the innocent.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Clearly much of the violence we hear of everyday is due to the glamorization of guns and violence by Television and the Movies. I am sure that Bill would support a law to censor any theatrical production or motion picture that glamorizes violence in the interest of our collective safety. I’d say we should start with West Side Story – a production that glamorizes gang violence.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Dave Morris wrote: “Studies show that if you have a gun, it’s about 10 times more likely to be used to kill you or someone you love than a “crimninal.” Ergo, keeping a gun around isn’t a smart move. It’s not something smart people do. So I say let people who want to have guns have ‘em. That way the dumb people will be eliminated, and the human species will benefit genetically.”
Dave, I haven’t heard about the 10X studies. I remember hearing about a 42X more likely study but it was discredited. Virtually everybody I know owns a gun and yet not a single one of them have shot and killed a family member or themselves. Please provide a link to one of these studies so I can educate myself and my friends. Thanks.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Again, if we eliminated guns entirely except in the hands of highly regulated trained licensed hunters in season, we would all be much safer. All this talk about guns in the hands of “good” guys versus “bad” guys is hooey. Unless the person holding the gun is a police officer or a soldier, so far as I am concerned, if you have a gun, I don’t want to be anywhere near you. I don’t own a gun and I feel no need to own one. If you feel the need to own a gun, you should be up front about your lack of self confidence. My condolences to writer who lost his child to a murderer with a gun. And Texas2step, I’d be totally down with Texas succeeding from the US and walling it off so that y’all can create the murderous toxic waste dump without social services that right wing Republicans deserve.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Yeah, let them brings their guns to my classes. I’ll bring one too, so when my students act like petulant little jerks, I can pull it out and intimidate them. Are you kidding? I agree with the poster who said the day college students bring guns to school is the day she resigns. Especially since my classes require a fair amount of lively debate. All I need is for one student to get offended or upset with another student, or just be careless because of sleep deprivation, hangover, or stress in general, and we have another tragedy.
And for the poster who said we send kid off to war, no WE don’t. We don’t have a draft system in place right now, and I do not support enlisting young men and women into the military to go fight a senseless “war.” And I definitely do not support gun possession on ANY college campus. The problem is not “oh this person had a gun and shot up the place but if I had a gun I could’ve protected myself and everyone else.” The problem is how and why did the person have the gun, and why would they want to kill others or him or herself in the first place. Take care of these issues and you won’t need to pack for protection.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Dave likes to deceive with half truths and statistics. More statistics for you Dave. The mortality rate for everyone is 100%, whether or not you own a gun, and the average American has one testicle and one breast. Your statistics are meaningless.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Allowing guns on campus also means allowing people with ill intentions to have guns on campus. Not just those who want to discretely protect themselves, but also people who wish to do real harm. You can take every class you want and get every kind of certification required but that doesn’t mean you are mentally and emotionally healthy enough to carry a gun. If you want to carry guns, start your own college and go there. Let everyone else have the right to a gun free campus.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Doug F. and G. Wright, here are some widely reported studies about the risks associated with gun ownership. A pro-gun advocate named Kleck has tried to discredit some of these, but academic researchers don’t take him seriously — and his work has not been peer-reviewed or even published in an academic journal. There’s also a chilling study by the Centers for Disease Control, but I don’t have the citation at hand. Should be easy to find.
1. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1084-91.
Return to Text
2. Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP. Guns and homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1994;330:368.
Return to Text
3. Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DC, Savarino J, Thompson RS. The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. Am J Public Health 1997;87:974-8.
Return to Text
4. Kellermann AL. Gunsmoke — changing public attitudes toward smoking and firearms. Am J Public Health 1997;87:910-3.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I will preface my reply by offering condolences to the victims of all violence, and to warn that as a show of respect to those who have chosen to share their stores, I will pull no punches. Also, I offer my background. I am a graduate student at a state university, I own one handgun and one long firearm of historical significance. I have never committed a crime, and I plan on taking the state-required CCW courses within the next year to obtain my concealed carry permit.
First, Dave Morris. I took the time to examine the studies you offered. The issue I see is twofold. First off, the study is not an experiment, it is a post-facto statistical analysis. Secondly, the titles are misleading, as guns are not treated to a sufficient amount of analysis in the data-acquisition phase of the study. This is evidenced by a statistically insignificant difference between the number of households with guns in the “control” and the same data for the “case” households. The guns that were present in the home were, at best, a nominal part of the crime committed. I fact, most times, the presence of a gun in the home was purely incendental (no purpose for the gun’s ownership was ever explored).
As to the applicability of these studies to our discussion here, there is not a single mention of the legality of gun ownership in the case and control homes and no way to verify that the control homeowners claiming not to own a firearm were telling the truth.
Now, for my personal testimony.
Whoever said that a gun carries a heavy weight hit the nail on the head. Those of us who have even the most marginal hands-on experience with guns realize that this a trigger pull is a painfully short way to travel to take a human life. There is a gravity that comes with the knowledge of such a grim ability a twitch of one’s finger away. As such, whenever my weapon is no in my immediate control (without my CCW, immediate control includes trips to the shooting range, time at the range, and the trips back home) I store my guns in a safe, locked down, disassembled, and without a loaded magazine.
To address the issue of maturity, I present to you the idea that I already have a weapon capable of dealing a massive amount of death and destruction in a very short period of time – my car. I treat a drive with the same gravity as the handling of a weapon. I would never do it under the influence of a controlled substance, and if I did, I expect that this privilege should be taken away from me.
To tell you the truth, I would like to carry on campus. Consider, for a moment, what this means. In the presence of an armed and active mass murdered in my lecture hall, I will elect to draw my weapon and draw his fire towards me in the hopes that I would slow him down, eleminate him, or exchange the loss of my life for the preservation just a few of the lives of my fellow students, who would have precious moments necessary to get themselves out of harm’s way as the shooter focused his attention on me.
As if stands, though, I do not carry a weapon either on campus or otherwise. I leave my house willingly forfeiting the protection of my life to the police. Think about it, police are called when the first shots ring out. How many magazines can the shooter empty until they get there? I willfully choose to not protect myself to abide by the rules this society has set upon me. How much more maturity and understanding than this do you want?
December 4th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
AMS,
While I respectfully disagree with your postion, I appreciate your considered assessment and calm tone, something that has been absent in much of this string.
Without the intention of reigniting the vociferous tone that permeated this space for much of yesteday I would like to offer the appaling case in Washington for a moment. Four police officers, trained and armed were in essence in a classroom setting: and enclosed space and working on laptops. WE would reasonalby assume few, with the exception of military persone would be better prepared to deal with an armed agressor. Instead the assailant killed all four officers. This is so senseless and repulsive as to be incomrhensible. But a further issue that is an unsettling element for me is that when the assailant was finally killed he had one of the slain officers weapons on him.
If we allow students (of all walks, trained and untrained, mature and immature) to carry weapons are we potentially providing an arsenal for a gunman?
One thing that keeps coming to mind is the over arching issue: the US has more guns per capita than any other developed nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
and we have the highest per capita gun violence of any developed nation. http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
Correspondingly nations with the lowest per capita guns have lower per capita violence.
To reiterate: I am a gun owner 5 rifles, 3 handguns and a valid conceal/carry permit. However I do not beleive that more people carrying weapons is a solution to the problem of gun violence. Nor do I think we should unreasonalbly restrict the rights of gun owners. However, acknowldegin we will never be gun freee society, what aspects of our rights are we willing to cede in order to maintain the larger right to bear arms?
I am willing to forfeit my right to carry on campus, and support a rigorous enforcement of that forfeitture for all others setting foot on my campus, with the knowledge that we have to rely the authized personel to protect us, and that by ceding here for the greater safety of all, I still maintain the right to carry elsewhere. I am willing ot trust in the professinalism of the police over my own “hero-centric ego.”
And as a final observation about myself, I put myself through college, graduate school and great part of my life working in bars, many of htem as a bouncer. I’ve been in many bar fights, and have always thought I was the better man. Many times I have found that my heroic idea of myself was incorrect. It is easy to think we will all act perfectly, herocially in the moment. But when the moment comes sometimes our hand is not as steady as we like to think. The question of being at the other end of a barrel is a powerful one. I strongly recomment reading Men Against Fire
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Against-Fire-Problem-Command/dp/0806132809
for some additonal insight on this. Or speak to a friend who is a veteran. We all have many.
I sincerley appreicte this discussion because we will all be dealing with this, working to come to a compromise that works for our society, for the rest of our lives.
Wherever we go from here, it’s how we talk to each other about it while we struggle for a solution that will set the find the compromise.
As I stated at the outset, I don’t agree with your position, but I’d be willing to sit down across the table from you and starting working together to find a rational way forward.
I hope everyone has a good weekend.
And I apologize for the lenght of this. As the saying goes, if I had more time I would have written a shorter letter.
December 4th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
You all think that people with ill intentions cant get a gun and bring it campus? everyone who knows nothing about guns assumes when people get mad and have a gun on them there going to pull it out and use? i have got in many arguments and never ever thought of introducing a gun, that is probably the last thing that is going to happen. many students carry knives, do you pulls there knives out when they get in a debate? if we ban guns all together, those who want them will still get them. that means that then only criminals will have guns as in england. gun control has been tried my friends and has failed miserably. another poster said get ride of the problems first then we wont need guns. wow. you can not get rid of the problem of violent human nature. true it easy to get a legal gun. but it is even easier to buy an illegal gun. and you can not regulate illegal firearms. in England where all guns are banned 1000s of weapons are smuggled into the country all the time and sold directly to Ganges. not only that a firearm can be easily made. look up how well there gun control works. and yes in England gun crime rate is lower than ours, but there crime rate is exponentially higher (people use other means to kill people). people with guns don’t go running around pulling them out all the time like you all seem to assume. in fact there are people carrying all around you. you just don’t know it. the businessman at the corner has a .45, the pickup truck next to you has a ar15 under the seat, the construction worked has a .357 in his left back pocket. the grandmother in the grocery has a PPK in her purse. the woman in her minivan over there has her husbands glock in the glove box. you just don’t know it because they are never shown in public. gun owners are ten time more likely to shoot themselves? well car owners are ten times more likely to cause a wreck than non car owners, and as a pilot i am ten times more likely to wreck a plane than non-pilots. of coarse gun owners have a higher rate of accidents than non-gun owners. because only gun owners can have accidents with guns. but those are rare. i have a more likely chance of stepping on the gas instead of the break and killing someone or myself that way. that’s the dumbest argument out there. also my grandfather was shot in a parking lot when someone tried to steel his car. the only reason he is alive today is because he fought back. he didn’t have a gun and is very lucky to be alive. if he had a gun he may have not even be injured. also another story from my lawyer. he was out with his daughter one night and 5 guys tried to rob him. they told him to hand over his wallet. and were making sexual comments towards his daughter he pulled his gun and never even aimed it at anyone, simply showed he had one. and they left him alone. if he had not have been armed he would probably have been beaten and his daughter raped. my father was also shot. only reason he is alive today is because he was armed and fought back also. he didnt shoot back but the return fire made the shooter stop. look up stories like this, there are 100s of people alive today because the were able to defend themselves, there homes, and there businesses.
people kill people, not guns.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Quote: “Dave Morris wrote: “Studies show that if you have a gun, it’s about 10 times more likely to be used to kill you or someone you love than a “crimninal.” Ergo, keeping a gun around isn’t a smart move. It’s not something smart people do. So I say let people who want to have guns have ‘em. That way the dumb people will be eliminated, and the human species will benefit genetically.”
Well the studies also show Criminals kill Criminals and are responsible 90% of the reports, the source was the FBI statistics. The above studies data sets have not been normalized to take into account normal gun ownership as it would not give the results the anti-gun researchers want.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
“If you want to carry guns, start your own college and go there. Let everyone else have the right to a gun free campus.”
Why not start YOUR own campus and make no one have guns? Why should the onus be on other people who want their constitutional and historical rights? As a lifetime Democrat I can say that the problem with liberals when it comes to crime and guns is that you all do not understand the people you are talking about. I would be a lot happier if I could wish they not be there and some fantasy policy would fix it all. Get to know some of the people who care not for your rules, carry guns and will use them. If you survive the trial and get some clean undies afterwards you will be more sober about it. I don’t choose this policy because I like it. I choose it because I know from experience.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
You are right that you shouldn’t own or carry a gun without training, sense and serious contemplation about what it can do. Stats are not the right way to think about this problem. You could ban driving for people up to age 40 and cut way down on deaths on the highway. Practically everyone knows a policy to ban guns in society won’t work (or even happen).
Nancy Reagan said “Just say no” to drugs. I laughed at it at the time but I realized that having this attitude was exactly why I didn’t do them. What we need is not to restrict liberties but to create a set of laws and a culture that promote good values. The nanny-state works against this despite its best intentions.
What we need are more educated intelligent liberal people owning guns. They will help encourage the culture of responsible gun ownership and good civic values.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
In the interest of keeping this post short, please excuse the enumeration below.
1. I am a faculty member who owns several firearms, including handguns. I also hold a concealed carry permit in my state (CT). The process for getting a CCP in my state, though certainly more onerous than in others, in no way insured that I was “qualified” in terms of expertise, to discharge a firearm. Mandatory NRA sponsored qualification , while useful and enlightening, consisted in a couple of hours on a Saturday and anyone who feels safer with me having a gun because of it is delusional.
2. Comments regarding the fact that the age range involved here mirrors the age of those placed in the theaters of war are specious precisely because of the nature of training the military, which is so repetitious that the person, literally, can manage their weapon in their sleep. In addition, military personnel are trained not only to be concerned with their own handling of a weapon, but that of their troopmates as well. There is no civilian counterpart for this type of training (excluding perhaps, some militia training.)
3. Most responsible gun owners that I know, know better than to bring their handguns into potentially volatile situations. This would include crowded, noisy and testosterone laden environments, where things might get out of hand quickly. Even in the one case discussed, the AP did not carry his weapon on him, but kept in locked in his vehicle.
4. And finally, given the population of the US and the wide geographical variance in the tragic taking of life in educational settings, the idea that one should be able to carry a gun, in order to potentially save life is tantamount to suggesting that we should all wear special helmets to protect us from blue ice falling from the sky. There is simply no statistical manipulation that supports this idea, given that the nature of risk is that the more one exposes oneself to risk the greater of being a victim of that risk becomes. More guns = more incidents with guns. There is no logical basis for any other assumption.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Another Band Aid Says: “Allowing guns on campus also means allowing people with ill intentions to have guns on campus. Not just those who want to discretely protect themselves, but also people who wish to do real harm.”
Are you serious? Regardless of the rules on campus, people with ill intentions are going to disregard the rules and bring a gun on campus. Since law abiding citizens follow the rules, no one will have a weapon in the classroom except the bad guy. Maybe you can hide behind one of the girls or cower under a desk until the bad guy runs out of ammo. Good luck.
December 5th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Dave, I’m still waiting on the links to those “10 times more likely” studies. In the meantime, I pulled up three of the articles you listed. Did you actually read them? I don’t think so. Pretty weak stuff. I’ve included a few excerpts.
1. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1084-91.
“Fifteen victims (3.6 percent) were killed under legally excusable circumstances. Four were shot by police acting in the line of duty. The rest were killed by another member of the household or a private citizen acting in self-defense.”
2. Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP. Guns and homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1994;330:368.
I couldn’t get access to this article.
3. Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DC, Savarino J, Thompson RS. The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. Am J Public Health 1997;87:974-8.
“Members of a health maintenance organization whose families had a history of registered handgun purchase had risks of death by suicide and homicide that were twice as high as the risks of members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase.”
Okay. Maybe there’s a reason for this increased risk…read on.
“Inability to measure and control for other differences between case and control subjects could have biased our relative risk estimates. Three previous studies of the association between gun ownership and suicide and the only previous study regarding death by homicide adjusted their relative risk estimates for variables that we did not measure, including psychiatric history, substance abuse, criminal history, and previous household violence.”
“For death by homicide by means other than a gun, the relative risk was 2.0 (95% CI = 0.9, 4.7) among those with a history of family handgun purchase. Although chance could explain this finding, another explanation may be that handgun purchasers were more inclined toward violence or lived in more dangerous surroundings and these factors induced them to purchase handguns. This violent personality or environment may have increased the risk for both gunrelated and other homicide death, regardless of exposure to handgun purchase.”
“…within the first year after purchase, the relative risk of suicide was more than fivefold higher among those with a family history of handgun purchase. After the first year the increased relative risk of suicide persisted at a lower level, consistent with the theory that the presence of a handgun in the home may facilitate suicide during a period of despondency. For homicide the results were different; no Group Health member was murdered with a gun within 5 years of any first handgun purchase, and the elevated risks for death by homicide associated with handgun purchase did not
show any statistically significant variation by time since purchase.”
4. Kellermann AL. Gunsmoke — changing public attitudes toward smoking and firearms. Am J Public Health 1997;87:910-3.
“Guns in themselves do not increase or decrease the general level of violence in a community. However, access to a gun appears to amplify the consequences of violence when it occurs.”
If you don’t want to have a gun in your home, I support you 100%. In my case, my family of five has had several dozen guns in our home for the last 20+ years and we’re all safe and sound. During my childhood and adolescence, we also had several dozen guns in the home and no problems. I am a law abiding citizen and I see no reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to own and carry a firearm.
December 5th, 2009 at 8:35 am
I must correct an error I noted in my first post.
The shooting I mentioned that was thwarted by armed students was not at VT it was at the Grundy Law School in VA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
December 5th, 2009 at 9:30 am
To Doug_F: You said, “Are you serious? Regardless of the rules on campus, people with ill intentions are going to disregard the rules and bring a gun on campus. Since law abiding citizens follow the rules, no one will have a weapon in the classroom except the bad guy. Maybe you can hide behind one of the girls or cower under a desk until the bad guy runs out of ammo. Good luck.”
If I were teaching in a class and someone displayed a gun in a threatening manner, I would do whatever I had to to protect my students. I wouldn’t hide behind a girl (I’m not even sure why you would suggest that I would. I’m a female.). I also wouldn’t hide behind a desk. What purpose would that serve? Guns shoot through desks. Mostly, I find this argument to be another BAND AID to cover a larger problem. In the thirteen years I have been teaching college students, I have never, for protection or for ill intent, had someone bring a gun to class or admit to having one on campus. I have however had countless students with untreated psychiatric illnesses write about or speak about the desire to hurt or kill other students and teachers. These are clear moments when psychiatric intervention would be helpful. Carrying a gun to class would not. Most (if not all) universities do not have adequate processes for identifying and helping students who have had or about to have a psychotic break that leads to violence towards others or self. Most universities do not even have an adequate of process for identifying and treating students with depression, the most common mental health issue globally. To me, the problem is not about gun laws. The problem is we don’t have adequate services for students and for teachers in what is a stressful environment during stressful years.
TO CE: You state, “Why not start YOUR own campus and make no one have guns? Why should the onus be on other people who want their constitutional and historical rights? As a lifetime Democrat I can say that the problem with liberals when it comes to crime and guns is that you all do not understand the people you are talking about. I would be a lot happier if I could wish they not be there and some fantasy policy would fix it all. Get to know some of the people who care not for your rules, carry guns and will use them. If you survive the trial and get some clean undies afterwards you will be more sober about it. I don’t choose this policy because I like it. I choose it because I know from experience.”
You don’t know my political affiliation so don’t make broad, sweeping generalizations. I’m NON-PARTISAN, not a liberal, not a Democrat, not an Independent. Also, if you constructed your sentences more clearly, I might be able to respond to your views better. In fact, I have no idea what you are talking about, except that you are assuming I do not know the policies, laws, or practices of gun laws. This is false, I do understand them, I just don’t agree with them.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Another Band Aid, You originally argued that if we allowed anyone to have a gun on campus, we’d have to allow everyone to have a gun on campus. The point that I’m trying to make is that bad guys are going to carry a gun whether or not you allow them to. Since you don’t want to allow guys like me, who have nothing worse than a speeding ticket on their criminal records, to carry a gun, you will be left defenseless.
After I posted last night, I regretted my sarcasm so please don’t mistake what I’m about to write because it is a serious question. Please explain how you plan to protect yourself and your unarmed students against an armed bad guy in your class? You can’t. Do you plan to run out of the door? Throw a desk at the shooter? Just because the bad guy is crazy, it doesn’t mean that he or she is stupid. Reports on these past massacres have shown that the shooters plan their actions extensively. They chain doors and carry lots of ammo. Your only hope, at that point, is that there is a good guy in the class who has chosen to disregard the rules and carry a firearm in his/her back pack.
You also wrote, “Let everyone else have the right to a gun free campus.” All of these campus shootings took place on a “gun free campus.” Don’t you see the flaw in your logic? Do you also want the campus and local police to carry only pepper spray and a night stick when they come to rescue you? I don’t mean for that to sound sarcastic but I don’t know any other way to ask it.
In your second post, you admitted that you have had lots of disturbed students in your classes who have expressed a desire to hurt someone. If one of those students chose to bring a gun to class and carry out his/her desire, you don’t think having a gun of your own would be helpful? Hmmmm. I’m pretty sure most people would disagree with you on this point. Did any of the recent student shooters stop because someone talked them out of continuing? No. They were stopped by another gun.
I’m guessing that you were raised in a gun free home and have probably never even handled a firearm. A gun is just like any other tool. A screwdriver can be used to fix a machine or it can be used to stab someone to death. You should ask a friend who owns a gun to take you to the range and help you learn to use a firearm safely. I bet you’ll have fun and discover that a gun can also be put to a positive use. Hoping that they will all just go away isn’t realistic.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Doug F., thanks for taking time to read the studies. As you’ve no doubt noticed, I was wrong about the 10X risk. It is in fact 43X, according to the most authoritative of the studies. The evidence is pretty convincing, despite attempts to cherry-pick sentences out of context that support the pro-gun position. If you want to put your kids at 43X risk, that’s your business — though I wouldn’t let it get around.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Gordon, not sure I understand this: “Well the studies also show Criminals kill Criminals and are responsible 90% of the reports, the source was the FBI statistics. The above studies data sets have not been normalized to take into account normal gun ownership as it would not give the results the anti-gun researchers want.”
Want to try it again, this time in English?
December 5th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Dave_F: well put.
Dave Morris: I understood him. Seemed like English to me but I am a scientist.
Band Aid: I’ve got nothing but chuckles for that response. I didn’t make any assumptions about your political party association but it does sound like the boilerplate liberal attitudes I’ve heard for a long time. Frustrating for me because mostly I identify with the Democratic party and when these arguments against their opinions come up they are met with deflection (e.g. “Don’t you dare make assumptions about me” or “You don’t speak well enough for me to understand”). Checked the sentence construction and it seems OK. I work in math and the hard sciences and constructing properly qualified statements is difficult. Humanities people can often slide by on style and emotion but at the sake of accuracy. Not sure if that is your area or not.
December 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Dave,
Cherry picking out of context?!?! I don’t think so. Please point out where I have misread the readers of these posts. I bet you haven’t even read the articles. Also, I noticed that your data is old and most of it was written by the same author (Kellerman). You know you have a weak case but you won’t admit it.
I’m proud that all of my children (2 daughters and a son) are excellent marksman and safe gun handlers. Don’t worry about them or yourself. While you are running away, we’ll protect you.
December 5th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Dave Morris,
You wrote that Gary Kleck is a pro gun advocate that has been discredited and whose research has not been taken seriously, blah blah blah. Please cite some sources.
The below information was copied from the website: Gun Cite at http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Gary Kleck’s voluntary disclosure statement that appears in Targeting Guns: “The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.”
You were right about one thing. He is pro-gun but he only became pro-gun after he looked at the facts.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Dave Morris, you make no sense, at all. You seem to be missing the point. The problem is the guns. Guns don’t kill people. People do. Your statistics are debunked by reality. If a person was 43 times more likely to be killed by owning a gun, then they would not give guns to cops.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Mr. Wright.
I cannot believe you are rolling out that tired old canard. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a situation where one person has killed another by poking him with his finger. Humans use tools and what is at issue is the lethality of this particular one. In a fight, guns DO kill people, where other tools are less likely to do so without repeated efforts.
You remind me of the man who gets lost in the woods because he refuses to believe his compass.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Quote: “Dave Morris wrote: “Studies show that if you have a gun, it’s about 10 times more likely to be used to kill you or someone you love than a “crimninal.” Ergo, keeping a gun around isn’t a smart move. It’s not something smart people do. So I say let people who want to have guns have ‘em. That way the dumb people will be eliminated, and the human species will benefit genetically.”
Dave Morris, the above study above is based on faulty data. By this study my grown children should of been kill by the firearms I own. It is a fact the criminals don’t care, and the data set of the above study, did not remove the criminals from the data set because the resulting change in the results.
G.Wright I agree with you “Guns don’t kill people. People do.”
From all the anti-gun Statics that have been published, there should be a marked decease in population of the USA from gun violence. Also We should personal know of 4 or 5 victims of Gun violence. Myself I don’t know any victims and the last time I looked the population of USA is still increasing so the studies must be faulty.
Also from hearing and reading all the statements you would thing that the “GUN” all be it self get up and shoot you. The only reason for gun control is for control of the citizens, the NAZI’s did it, the Communist do it.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
No Norman. Mr. Wright is correct. It is about the people and not the guns.
However, let’s assume you are right and all of us pro-gun writers are wrong. What is your solution to the problem? Are you proposing banning all guns? Do you think that will work? Didn’t we try that with alcohol and aren’t we currently trying it with some drugs?
“In a fight, guns DO kill people, where other tools are less likely to do so without repeated efforts.” That’s what I like about them Norman. Guns are great equilizers. My 85lbs grandmother can protect herself from anyone when she has a gun. If she only has a baseball bat at her disposal, she’s not likely to be successful unless one of the other little old ladies from her Sunday school class is trying to take her down. In my family, we’re all law abiding citizens. We will only shoot someone if we’re afraid for our lives. If I have proven myself to be a trustworthy citizen, why shouldn’t I be allowed to have a firearm?
December 8th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Norman, do you live in a cave? People have absolutely killed other people bare handed. Your argument is absurd. Show me one gun that has ever been tried in court for murder.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Oh! Where to start?
Doug_F: You invite me into discussions that could (have) taken centuries. Tempting…, but no. You seem to be more of a literalist than is my wont for a debate. I have never, ever said anything about taking guns away from citizens (in re: population in general, rifles, and citizens who meet state requirements for a CCP. I simply said, or rather my basic premise is that, regardless of CCP status, weapons should not be allowed in certain venues, I include colleges and universities in them. I don’t believe that there is a Constitutional argument against this premise, as it has been practiced by the states for over 200 years. But then I am not up entirely with the conservative constitutional revisionists.
Mr. Wright:
Indeed people have killed each other with their bare hands, however, it was never my intention to argue otherwise. I simply said that other methods (I used the word tools, which is what might have confused you) tended to require multiple (i.e. somewhat prolonged and therefore interruptible) efforts.
The issue with the hand gun is that it is a concealable weapon with extreme lethality; extreme to the point of not being subject to intervention – either physical, or cognitive, viz. the circumstances in which someone is shot and killed as the result of an hypnogogic experience on the part of a shooter.
There is no mystery in this, indeed it is the reason people buy handguns: witness the comments of Doug_F above. And the simple fact is that, regardless of my support for the idea that a person be able to defend themselves, the idea of Mr. F’s 85 year old Grandmother bringing her H/K 9mm to her university class scares the bejesus out of me.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Doug F, your man Kleck is a joke among serious social scientists. If you haven’t seen a take-down of his dubious methods, sloppy research and naked partisanship, you aren’t looking very hard. Glad to hear your kids are safe gun-handlers. Just don’t expect me to send my kids over to play.
Gordon, the King County study is a bit old by now, but the data still hold up, and the study remains widely cited. Curiously, nobody seems to have gone back and done a follow-up correcting what the pro-gun folks say were the flaws in the original.
G Wright, good point about cops with guns. In fact, they do kill non-criminals alarmingly often — especially themselves. Suicide rates among U.S. police are 2 to 3 times higher than for non-police. Cops are twice as likely to kill themselves than to be killed in the line of duty.
Funny nobody has mentioned a couple of the most obvious facts about guns in the U.S. Our murder rate is way, way above that of any other developed nation. And just about every one of them has tough limits on handgun ownership.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Quote: Gordon, the King County study is a bit old by now, but the data still hold up, and the study remains widely cited. Curiously, nobody seems to have gone back and done a follow-up correcting what the pro-gun folks say were the flaws in the original.
I stand by the fact the data set used in the study is flawed and the data was not released for review if I remember correctly.
Dave, funny that you said “Funny nobody has mentioned a couple of the most obvious facts about guns in the U.S. Our murder rate is way, way above that of any other developed nation. And just about every one of them has tough limits on handgun ownership.” As before 1900 in England there was not any gun control, and after the government controlled ownership of firearms currently the English have a very high gun crime rate.
And the High US murder rate, at least 90% is criminally related (drug traffic) and there is so much money involved it’s not going to change due the Mexican drug Cartels being so violent and fighting each other for control, just look at Mexico!
The other problem is the criminals are not removed – capitol punishment – except US, England and some other country’s the convicted are executed.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I’m a neurologist. My best friend is a clinical counselor at our very busy county jail. This may come as a shock to those discussants providing rational arguments for widespread arming of students, but lots of people inside and outside of penal facilities have brains that just don’t work the way one might hope, even when they are sober, undrugged, well-rested and unstressed. Sound judgement, good intentions, good impulse control, equanimity (i.e., non-labile emotions), reasonable intelligence, etc, are virtues we ascribe to our fellow citizens until they prove untrue. Unfortunately, large numbers of citizens walk around missing one or more of these traits. Many stay out of trouble, many receive teatments of variable benefit and many fail the qualifyings and end up in jail. After spending time with such individuals, no rational person would welcome arming them. Unfortunately, figuring out how to identify and disqualify such people is difficult and sometimes impossible.
Antisocial personality disorders (“sociopaths”), maniacs, paranoids, substance abusers, delusionals, etc. exist; lots of them. If you doubt this, God bless your ignorance; you’ve led a sheltered life. As it is, arguments for unrestricted carry and conceal strike me as ridiculously uninformed and panglossian. In my opinion, current laws and criteria are too loose and allow too many truly dangerous people to purchase firearms. How to screen out the nut-jobs, where to draw the lines — that’s a whole ‘nother discussion. I just think some medical and psychiatric discussion has to inform these debates. Blind trust in the benefit of allowing lots of people to run around with guns is not reasonable because a lot of people aren’t as reasonable as one might hope.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Dr. Soso, Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. However, I find it hard to believe that these “sociopaths, maniacs, paranoids, substance abusers, (and the) delusionals” will choose to obey a law against concealed carry but ignore a law against murder. The fact of the matter is that they will choose to ignore both laws. Since the crazies will carry guns anyway, why would you choose to disarm yourself? Are you aware that the state of Vermont allows concealed carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens? No permit required. I guess Vermonters are an unusually sane group of people. By the way, I haven’t read a single comment on here from someone advocating unrestricted concealed carry.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Would carrying guns to class make students safer? I doubt it. Remember the Lakewood incident of a few days ago where a gunman killed four policeman in a restaurant – they all had guns, and the best they could do was one of them injured the gunman, but apparently not seriously. Dream on, gun lovers!
December 10th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Jean-Marie,
That comment is absurd. If you were in a classroom with a gunman, do you actually believe that you would be safer without a gun of your own? Sure, a few students might die before someone returned fire but the alternative is that everyone dies because no one can return fire. Obviously, it would only take a few seconds to kill four people that are sitting together at one table. 25-35 students spread out around a room would take considerably longer.
In the news this morning there was an article about a student who attempted to shoot his math instructor at a community college. He wasn’t successful because his gun jammed. I’m betting that that school doesn’t permit firearms on campus but that didn’t stop him.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Doug – The point is the following: If you were in a classroom with students many or all of which had guns, would you feel safer? Would this increase or decrease the likelihood that someone would, in some circumstance, start shooting at you?
An acquaintance of mine, a nice, gentle artist, died because a policeman had a gun and decided to use it. He was working in his studio late one night, with the door open, and someone who saw the open door called the police to report a possible burglary in progress. The policeman came to the door, saw the guy standing facing in the opposite direction talking to someone, and promptly shot and killed him. He was actually alone, talking on the phone to his parents, when this occurred. He had apparently just taken out some trash then rushed back in without shutting his door when he heard his phone ringing.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Jean-Marie Mitterand: The anti-gun lobby, are not logical. There binded by there own logic. It’s like leading a horse to water…….
December 11th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Gordon, you may think the King County study is flawed, but, inconveniently, the majority of professional researchers do not. The study was peer-reviewed and the data made available. Sorry about that.
Also, do you really believe there’s no connection between the tough gun control laws in other developed countries and their generally low murder rates compared to the U.S.? Even in the U.K., which you sort of cite as evidence, the murder rate is about a third as high as ours. Elsewhere, it’s even lower. And nowhere but the U.S. do guns account for such a high proportion of murders.
And here’s an interesting item for you. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the firearms-related death rate for children in the U.S. is 12 times higher than the other 25 OECD countries COMBINED. I’d love to hear your reasons for denying that one.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Ok, so we make stricter gun laws.
Criminals KNOW that the courts will STILL slap them on the wrists, fine them, give them probation, etc. If the punishment was as swift as in other countries, maybe gun crime, as well as other types, would not be as prevalent. The US already has gun laws, so it’s not the laws. Bottom line is that in other countries the system works faster so the punishment is given out faster.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Dave Morris Says: “Gordon, you may think the King County study is flawed, but, inconveniently, the majority of professional researchers do not. The study was peer-reviewed and the data made available. Sorry about that.”
I stand by the data set included criminal action which should not be included -
Dave Morris Says: “Also, do you really believe there’s no connection between the tough gun control laws in other developed countries and their generally low murder rates compared to the U.S.? Even in the U.K., which you sort of cite as evidence, the murder rate is about a third as high as ours. Elsewhere, it’s even lower. And nowhere but the U.S. do guns account for such a high proportion of murders.”
Guns had not a thing to do with the murders. A gun is a tool. As the murder rate it’s mostly criminals killing criminals as the current US court system just “courts will STILL slap them on the wrists” as Frank said.
Dave Morris Says: “And here’s an interesting item for you. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the firearms-related death rate for children in the U.S. is 12 times higher than the other 25 OECD countries COMBINED. I’d love to hear your reasons for denying that one.”
Dave, fact as you know, children just get into things. The fact is there are unresponsible parents and the fact the other countries the average citizen can’t get ANY type of fire arm just makes that statement comparing apples to oranges. Also the gang violence kills many children (criminals fighting over drugs).
December 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Dave Morris Says
“Also, do you really believe there’s no connection between the tough gun control laws in other developed countries and their generally low murder rates compared to the U.S.? Even in the U.K., which you sort of cite as evidence, the murder rate is about a third as high as ours. Elsewhere, it’s even lower. And nowhere but the U.S. do guns account for such a high proportion of murders.”
The murder rate where in the US. The places in the US with the highest murder rates, are the places where it’s still illegal for a law abiding citizen to carry a firearm on his/her person.
I also question the accuracy of your statement. The UK has several times now revised it’s crime reporting mechanisms, and reduced the ways in which it counts to prevent it’s crime figures from spiraling upward. Note that they are not actually reducing crime, they are just not counting it.
I would also like to point out that Murder rates are more closely associated with non-homologous populations associating than with presence or absence of firearms.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I fnd it interesting that Gordon, and to a leser degree Mark, unwittingly, keep making the case against more guns.
Gordon writes “fact as you know, children just get into things. The fact is there are unresponsible parents and the fact the other countries the average citizen can’t get ANY type of fire arm.”
A reasonable application of logic draws from that statement 1.) More guns in the general population will result in a proportionally more irresponsilbe parent nad proportional more “children that will get into things’ 2.) that places where guns are not available have lower incidents of gun-caused accidental and premeditated deaths.
Thank you Gordon, you’re right, we should have fewer guns in our society.
But to the case at hand, and let me say again, I am a gun owner with mutliple hand guns nad firearms: we are NOT discussing here the limitation of the right to gun ownership in the US. We ARE discussing the reasonable limitation of where that right can be extended. And as a conceal and carry permit possessing professor of reasonable mind at a major state institution I do not believe allowing all slef-selected indivudlas to carry on campus is wise, or will increase the level of security on campus. I beleive it will decrease safety on campus.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Paul,
I’m glad that you feel you are a reasonable person but I’m sure that most people feel that way about themselves.
The unfortunate thing about internet anonymity is that anyone can join this site and claim to be anything. You probably are a professor at a major state university but I seriously doubt that you own a single gun and have a CCW permit. You don’t think like a gun owner. You think like a liberal elitist. You own multiple handguns but believe that fewer guns should be allowed in society?!?!? Why don’t you start with your own personal collection? How do you reconcile something so hypocritical?
You didn’t fully explain what you meant by “self-selected individuals” carrying weapons on campus. Please fill us in. Who do you believe should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon? Only campus police? Only faculty and staff? Only CCW permit holders? Or no one? I really want to know.
I am truly amazed that a group of intelligent people are so willing to have their constitutional rights restricted. Allowing CCW permit holders to carry a weapon on campus MIGHT decrease safety but it might also increase safety. If there is a decrease in safety, I’m sure it would be miniscule but that is the unfortunate side effect of exercising constitutional rights. Nothing is free. If we really wanted to save lives, why aren’t we asking Congress to outlaw mega-powerful engines in automobiles that allow the drivers to travel at three times the legal interstate speed limit? Why don’t we outlaw backyard pools? No one NEEDS their own pool. We could save children’s lives.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Ah yes, the anonymity of the internet. Good one, you’re right; it allows us to be anything we want. Yet with all that freedom to fantasize it does not let us hide everything. Like, for example, your paranoia. I apologize for getting personal, but A) you don’t seem have a problem with that and B) you don’t leave me much choice since you called my integrity into question.
What, really, do I stand to gain from misrepresenting who I am? Is your view, your positions so threatened by what I say that you have to attack my credibility? Unfortunately, that does not reflect well on your position, or your ability to accept that others have a valid, or even different perspective from your own. Not a good place to start for anyone associated with protecting liberty, democracy and personal freedoms.
But let’s come back to me, since you deem fit to suggest I am not what I say I am. Yes, the anonymity of the internet provides lots of cover. Including for you to call me a liar because how can I prove you wrong? List my handguns? List their serial numbers? Scan my permit and post it? Offer to meet you in the tumble-weed strewn street and shoot it out to prove who is right by test of arms? Be honest, there is nothing you would accept – ‘you pulled those models from the web’, ‘you made up the serials’, ‘the permit is PhotoShop-ed’. You’re absolutely right, the internet does allow us to create fantasy. Ironically, it’s just that in this case it allows you to fantasize that I can not be who I say I am because I do not fit with your black and white perspective on who gun owners are and who professors are. And the internet makes it impossible for me to prove otherwise. So we have to dispense with “proof” and come back to ideas.
And so why is the idea impossible for you to accept that I am a professor (of biology) who owns fire arms (3 pistols and 5 rifles), has a CCP (NY), believes guns are too prevalent in our society (my opinion), and believes in the right of private gun ownership (ditto)? What is it about that mix that is so threatening to your world view? The world is not black and white, despite the efforts of so many to pretend otherwise. Most of life requires we deal in shades of gray. It’s called moderation.
And that would be the “reasonable minded” part you asked about. I consider it reasonable because I accept gun ownership and restrictions on that right, like not being permitted to carry it on my campus; that’s a moderate perspective. For comparison, you are arguing for the absolute (as in 100%) gun rights, including the right to carry guns wherever you want- that is an extreme view (100% of anything is the extreme end of the scale if you are following me), and in short hand that makes you a gun-rights extremist. And by suggesting I can not be what I say I am, you are saying everyone is either with you, or against you: an opposing extremist who wants o% gun rights.
Personally, I’m not much for extremism, not in my religion, my politics, and not in my world view. That’s not to say I don’t recognize extremism, and understand why people embrace it, it’s just not for me, I find it pretty unproductive.
At some point Doug you are going to have to accept the vast majority of US citizens are moderates. And frankly, and that is a good thing for you because we moderates will buffer you from the other extremists, those who want to ban gun rights entirely. And I’m not saying you need to stop being an extremist, I have no problem with that, just don’t call me liar because I’m not.
And to answer your other question, “self-selected” generally means those who select themselves, in reference to what I wrote I meant those who decide they want to carry a gun on campus if permitted, literally and legally. What I was getting at was even if legal not all campus citizens would choose to carry, just a self-selected group would. I was trying to avoid the generalizations.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
My paranoia? I don’t even have a CCW permit. Honestly. Reread my past comments. I’ve never claimed to have one. You have one though.
I’ll tell you what you gain from misrepresenting yourself. You gain credibility that is unjustified. “Look at me everybody. I’m a professor with multiple firearms and a CCW but I still support reasonable restrictions on my constitutional rights.” Gullible readers will then think, “Wow. Letting someone restrict my legal right to carry a gun is reasonable.”
Calm down Paul. I’m not going to ask you to “shoot it out on a tumble-weed strewn street.” Geez. I thought you said you were reasonable. By the way, I never ask you to prove anything but your overreaction to my comments has made me more confident that I was correct. You are not “threatening my worldview” but you are evading my questions.
After all of your ranting and raving, you never got around to answering my question about reconciling your ownership of eight firearms yet feeling that there are too many guns in society. According to Washington Ceasefire, an anti-gun website, there are an estimated 270 million firearms in the US. That is less than one firearm per citizen. You own eight and still believe that there are too many guns in society. Please explain. Sounds elitist.
Paul, you are putting words in my mouth. I never argued for “absolute gun rights.” Unless by that you mean the freedom to exercise our constitutional rights. The trouble with the term “reasonable restrictions” is that it is a subjective standard. Also, the push for more “reasonable restrictions” never stops. At first, we agree to give up a few of our “unreasonable rights” and we’re left with some smaller percentage of those original rights. Next, we give up a few more and it just keeps on going. That technique of changing public policy is called incrementalism.
I did not ask for the definition of “self-selected.” I asked what you meant by that and who you think should be allowed to carry a weapon on campus. Again, you evaded my question.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
# Paul Says: “Gordon writes “fact as you know, children just get into things. The fact is there are unresponsible parents and the fact the other countries the average citizen can’t get ANY type of fire arm.”
A reasonable application of logic draws from that statement 1.) More guns in the general population will result in a proportionally more irresponsilbe parent nad proportional more “children that will get into things’ 2.) that places where guns are not available have lower incidents of gun-caused accidental and premeditated deaths.”
Tell me why I should be surprised at your statement. Passing laws to protect one’s self, against our stupid actions. It doesn’t work, it just gives the control freaks another lever to take more freedoms away. Being in a free, has responsibilities, and there will always be persons which refuse and will be unresponsable, and that is not a reason to pass laws banning guns – try banning cars and motor cycles from anyone under 30, as traffic accidents kill to many young adults, and that kills more people than guns.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d14-Marta-crime-rate-falls-in-wake-of-gun-law
“Violent crime lower following law permitting legalized carry of firearms on mass transit.”
December 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Hey Doug,
So you honestly can’t see I answered both your questions right there in plan text? Maybe you got distracted by all the ranting and raving. Unfortunately you were not distracted at all by my subtle attempt at comedic hyperbole; I was trying to interject a bit of levity into what has become an increasingly less interesting conversation.
Any way, let me really simplify it for you:
I reconcile my stand because I am willing to accept major freedoms with minor limitations. Sorry the paragraph on reason and moderation was bloated and hard to follow.
To be honest, I don’t know how to spell out my use of “self-selected” any more plainly. The whole point of using that term is to say the group selects themselves. In other words, I don’t judge who gets to carry. That is the issuing agency’s responsibility, not mine. They either issue or deny a permit to anyone* who asks for one. *That would be the self-selecting part. And you’ll note I’m still not in it. I’m not evading, it’s got nothing to do with me, which is what I was pointing out. If guns are allowed on campus, I have no control over the people who chose of their own interest to carry a gun on campus. That is what makes so many people uncomfortable about allowing guns on campus.
So I hope that helps you understand I was not evading your questions. I made the mistake of trying to add some depth so you’d have a better idea of my thought process. Turns out that didn’t work so well. I’ll take responsibility for that.
Finally, as soon as you can prove to me in this forum that you are not really a Nigerian Prince who has a winning lottery ticket to which I am entitle to half I will figure out a way to prove to you that I am in fact a person who owns guns and also supports limitations on where I can carry them. By the way, be careful how you collapse the right to own a gun (preserved in the second amendment) and the right to carry one any and everywhere. They are not one and the same. That is, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
And I have to say I am very impressed with how strongly you are fighting for a “right” that does not even extend to you. Well done.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Well that’s a whole lot of snide going on. We have the right to bear arms but we are restricted severely w.r.t. knives and others but somehow guns are special. I personally think we should relax these restrictions on many other weapons.
Some people are put off by this and argue that some unstable people with get them. I think this happens already and isn’t likely to be improved by these rules. It will however reduce the chance that I or other law abiding citizens won’t be armed when they show up.
I’m not sure why there is such heated resistance to weapon ownership. I can kill someone with a pencil (but the range is very limited). Is the fear that people will behave worse if more reasonable people are armed? Is it that people will become less reasonable if they are armed? I lived in VT a long time and didn’t see any of this. Is the fear that some people will be irresponsible and the damage from this will be worse than what we have now (including the deterrent effect on criminals now more uncertain if their victims are armed)?
Drug legalization fears seem to be similar. There is no free lunch when it comes to liberty. Every time there is some public tragedy there is a visceral urge to make some restriction too prevent something like it. One has to think things all the way through.
What are the effects of these restrictions? Young people given less responsibility learn less responsibility. Are we so arrogant now that we think we can know what everyone else should and shouldn’t do? Part of being in a liberal society is putting up with some things you don’t like. We permit people to be drunks, swingers, and selfish capitalists so that we can also enjoy our wine and beer, choose our lovers and own path to marriage and seek our own prosperity.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:26 am
CEC Says: “Well that’s a whole lot of snide going on. We have the right to bear arms but we are restricted severely w.r.t. knives and others but somehow guns are special. I personally think we should relax these restrictions on many other weapons.”
The main reason the laws have not been voided, is the steep cost of the litigation. Technically all the weapon (guns and knife) laws are in violation of the 2nd amendment. Fear, ignorance, cooked statistics, and misunderstanding of the wording of the 2nd amendment, have been and are the driving force which gives the politicizations the green light to get the laws passed.
Just watch the fireworks if any restrictive law was passed affecting the 1st amendment.
CEC is right, “There is no free lunch when it comes to liberty.” and too may want to be safe by passing “safety” laws. All it does is removes the deterrent preventing criminals for committing the crime.
January 4th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Is being a private detective really that dangerous? I noticed on another post someone asking about this.