Live Free or Die? Not on Campus


The New Hampshire House recently passed a statewide preemption bill. The state Senate appears to have punted, relegating the bill to “further study” limbo. Among other things, the bill would prevent public universities and colleges from enacting campus bans. This provision, predictably, is causing widespread panty-soiling hysteria amongst the usual suspects. . .

According to the Nashua Telegraph Security officials argue against NH House bill that would allow guns on campus:

Daniel Pelletier, director of security at Nashua Community College, said guns and college students should not mix on campuses where there can be abuse of alcohol and illegal drugs.

This is an argument I’ve never been able to fathom. Does Daniel actually believe that people crossing the invisible, intangible boundary between campus and town will suddenly become drug- and booze-addled lunatics? Does he think that Budweisers and blunts aren’t abuse except on college campuses? Or (more likely, in my opinion) is he trying to create the impression in the general public’s mind that passage of this bill will result in gun racks mounted in every dorm?

In fact, neither of these is the case. Student concealed carriers will remain the sober, law-abiding citizens that they are whether they are on campus or off. Likewise, faculty members who carry can also be counted upon to exercise the sort of caution and restraint that is the hallmark of the vast majority of concealed carriers.

But no tired, anti-gun  shibboleth is too well-worn for Daniel:

Having untrained citizens with guns only heightens the risk, as law enforcement officers are trained to treat anyone bearing a weapon as a potential threat, Pelletier said.

I’m wondering what new ingredient is being mixed into the antis’ purple Kool-Aid because they seem to be awfully forthcoming lately. First Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson admitted the group’s true goal; zero gun deaths annually. Nothing “reasonable” or “common-sense” about that goal. Then the village of Oak Park, Illinois directed gun rights advocates to sit at the back of the bus room at a village meeting, and now Daniel admits that LEOs are trained to treat every armed person (except, I’m guessing, other LEOs) as a potential threat. I’m sure 60 years ago some LEOs treated all ‘coloreds’ as a potential threat, but that doesn’t make it right.

At any rate, is Daniel actually saying that trained law enforcement personnel, the only ones we should trust with guns, can’t be trusted to determine actual threats in an active shooter situation? That being the case, since “untrained citizens” like Joe Zamudio actually can discriminate between a real threat and someone who has disarmed that threat, perhaps the police are the ones who should be disarmed in order to reduce the risk.

Next we hear from the administrative side of things:

University System of New Hampshire Chancellor Edward MacKay said allowing guns to be freely held at two- and four-year colleges may increase the suicide rate and put law enforcement officers at risk.

The only problem with this statement is, well, the whole statement. Study after study has shown there is no link between the availability of firearms and overall suicide rates. Heck, a simple glance at this graphic shows that Finland, Belgium, Austria, Japan, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Scotland and New Zealand all have higher suicide rates than the U.S. while this graphic shows that they all have significantly lower firearm ownership rates. But you already knew that, right?

And again with the ‘law enforcement officers at risk’ argument. First, did a no-gun policy protect this officer? Second, if concealed carriers are not a risk to cops off campus (and they aren’t) then why would they be such a threat on campus? Third, where are all the suicides and cop shootings on Utah campuses?

Then we have another campus cop weighing in on the issue:

University of New Hampshire Police Chief Paul Dean said college campuses should be places where young, vulnerable students can go without fear of gun violence.

So tell me chief, do you keep these “young, vulnerable students” locked on campus day and night protecting them from that “fear of gun violence?” Because otherwise as soon as they step off campus to hit the grocery store or barbershop they may well encounter concealed carriers. How many of your students have been shot by permissive concealed weapon possessors?

Finally the chief is reduced to whining that statistics don’t support carry:

“There is no credible evidence or statistical evidence that laws allowing permissive concealed weapon possession reduces crime,” Dean said.

I guess a peer reviewed study looking at county level crime data over the course of years, controlling for more than a dozen outside factors, with results duplicated by more than two dozen independent researchers showing a link between more guns and less crime doesn’t qualify as credible in the chief’s eyes. But we’ll let that pass for the moment and look at the fact he does concede; that allowing individuals to exercise their natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right[1] to own and carry the self-defense weapon of their choice does not increase crime.

So if concealed carry is no problem, what’s the problem?

comments

  1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    Bruce, Your argument that we think people will change once across the boundary between campus and surrounding community is a typical attempt to deceive on your part. You know very well we don’t think that and by posing the question you disparage us as if we did.

    On college campuses there is a high concentration of young people, the ones who party hardy. It’s the percentage of them compared to the surrounding community which is composed of all ages and types.

    And like David Codrea does continually , you got the “only ones” argument in there. This is the manifestation of self-centered gradndiose victimism. And it’s mendacious too. I don’t know any gun control folks who are happy with the cops and want to disarm ALL of the civilians.

    Your logic: “In fact, neither of these is the case. Student concealed carriers will remain the sober, law-abiding citizens that they are whether they are on campus or off.”

    You mean the 21 and 22-year-olds who’ve been legally carrying for less than a year. You suppose they’re as they’re as responsible as their more experienced counterparts? Why, other than that it supports your opposition to a sensible gun restriction?

    1. avatar ST says:

      The real reason college administrators don’t want anyone but the campus police armed is the same reason Michael Bloomburg arrests any civilian in New York City who’s armed without a badge.The matter has nothing to do with ‘student safety’,and everything to do with *control*.Under the status quo with most laws on the state books concealed carry on campus can only be authorized by the University Administrators,in a way establishing a New Jersey based ‘may issue’ system where a student has to prove justifyable need instead of an outright ban.Good luck convincing college boards to give up that power,even in the face of evidence that campus disarmament is a failure.Virginia Tech proved that failed policy.

    2. avatar VA Pete says:

      Boy it gets old saying the same things over and over and never having it sink in. Students are NOT safe now. Leaving them unarmed and vulnerable is not “sensible gun restriction”.

      I have two daughters in college and am under no delusions about the maturity level of college students or what the party scene is like. However, I would easily trade the miniscule risk of some kind of CCW incident with the significantly larger risk of violent crime that comes from being in a “gun free zone”.

    3. avatar Darren says:

      You know, Mike, for someone that does not carry you certainly feel free to comment on the mental processes of people that do.

      Carrying a firearm makes you ACUTELY aware of the fact that you are armed. It’s a weight, literally, that reminds you constantly of what is in your possession and the responsibilities it entails. It is also interesting how removing fear makes you more peaceful and able to deal with jerks in life. A few examples:

      “I’d really like a beer right now — wait, I’m carrying. I can wait until later.”

      “That jackwagon cut me off and gave me the finger to boot. I can escalate into a road rage incident but since I am armed this will not end well for anyone.”

      “Is this guy really trying to pick a fight with me? I have better places to be. De-escalate, defuse and leave.”

      There are many other examples that you too can experience if you choose to exercise your constitutional rights. Until you do, refrain from speculating on the responsibility level of those of us who manage to carry a firearm and, day after day, year after year, do so responsibly. A college student responsible enough to obtain a CHL is responsible enough to carry in the classroom, IMO.

      Not to mention that some of those 21-22 year olds with CHLs at college campuses may have spent the last 3-4 years carrying fully automatic weapons in service to their country in places considerably more dangerous than, say, Italy. Do you think those students are less “responsible” or “experienced” than the very campus police trying to keep them disarmed?

      1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

        Darren, You say, “Carrying a firearm makes you ACUTELY aware of the fact that you are armed.” But, is that true in every single case? No, of course not. Maybe that’s how it works for you or for most, but you cannot talk for all.

        “Do you think those students are less “responsible” or “experienced” than the very campus police trying to keep them disarmed?”

        Yes. Did you go to college yourself? Don’t you remember what the average student is like?

        1. avatar ST says:

          The ‘average’ college student cannot acquire a legal permit to carry anyhow.Most states mandate a minimum age of 21 before even being eligeable for a permit.That eliminates a lot of the immature crowd from consideration.

          It must be said that the security situation of the colleges I have attended are laughable.The exterior doors are locked ,but people routinely let strangers in the building out of a sense of politeness.Classroom buildings require no ID or key for entry,and there is obviously no weapons permitted on the grounds,so if there is a repeat of the Clocktower Shooting its going to be a bad day for a lot of people.

        2. avatar Darren says:

          I went to college myself. Then med school.

          I was responsible then, I am responsible now.

          And yes, I have yet to talk to someone with a CHL who carries who doesn’t feel the same way about being aware of the responsibility. In part, this is because having a CHL means keeping the firearm concealed — not printing, not dropping it out of your holster, etc. The cost of a firearm, holster, belt and CHL is not insignificant, particularly comparing those costs to the income of your average 21-22 year-old college student. It’s kind of a big deal.

    4. avatar temp_2k says:

      Mike30200,

      You are assuming that college campuses act responsibly in the first place. This article contains evidence to the contrary:
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124001493

      Colleges have an incentive not to report crimes, or mis-report crimes as lesser crimes, because their funding is dependent on making the campus look safe. They can cover up rapes much more easily than shootings, which can go go to the public eye nationwide (although one college got caught in the article). Combined with the fact that, for some colleges, the campus police do not have the powers of regular officers, many rapes and sexual assaults go unpunished. This is more than a gun control issue, and people on campuses (faculty included) might not feel like they would need guns if campus security were overhauled from the Department of Education’s funding criteria to the students’ trust in the college’s protection.

      By the way, by the way, from your blog, you are unhappy with cops yet still want to disarm all civilians. It seems like you want to disarm cops as well from the tone of your posts. Is that what you meant by “I don’t know any gun control folks who are happy with the cops and want to disarm ALL of the civilians”? If so, how is that going to make campuses any safer?

      1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

        “By the way, by the way, from your blog, you are unhappy with cops yet still want to disarm all civilians. “

        Please point out where I said that or else, man up, and admit you lied.

        I’m getting a bit tired of guys like you who accuse me of wanting to disarm ALL civilians. I don’t.

        1. avatar temp_2k says:

          Mike302000,

          I apologize for giving the wrong impression; I was in a rush to get to work and I didn’t match up my words with my intention (having English as a second language doesn’t help either). I was trying to get clarification from your viewpoint, so I read a couple of posts from your blog. I didn’t lie–I just didn’t have time to read through a lot of your blog. I admit that I didn’t read through your blog very thoroughly, and it was the general tone of your writing that made me think you’d want to disarm cops and civilians.

          Specificly, this post on your blog made me think (in my haste) that you believe civilians should be disarmed specifically:
          http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/12/its-all-about-freedom.html
          From my interpretation of your post, you believe that the Second Amendment does not grant gun rights, but it was intended to allow formation of militias. If I am mistaken, please clarify what you meant. Also, could you point to some posts on your blog that show that you don’t believe in disarming all civilians?

          I like to end by saying that my point in my previous post that campus security is ineffective at protecting students for a variety of reasons. Now, campus security has become a gun control issue because people want to take control of their own security. If the students felt safe, I don’t think they’d care about guns on campus–buying a gun takes money away from rent and beer. Instead of focusing on the last paragraph of my last post, how can we remedy the root causes of campus security?

        2. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          That blog post you linked to was written by my co-blogger Laci. I believe he feels like I do, though, that we need to better qualify people for gun ownership, not eliminate all of it.

          Here’s where I clarified my position.

          http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-official-goal.html

          http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/solution.html

    5. avatar GS650G says:

      Mr. Mike B203000,
      When I was 17 in the military the US government taught me to fire a 9mm and be proficient with a machine gun. I spent the next 6 years protecting your ass with it. Your welcome.

      1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

        Gimme a break, will ya GS. Kids who join the military at 17 generally are running away from home for one reason or another. To paint that in patriotic colors is inaccurate, at best.

        1. avatar ST says:

          Irresponsible Commenter of the Day Award goes to MikeB,for negatively commenting on a state of life and training that he has zero concept or experience of.

        2. avatar Darren says:

          If that’s the case, he wins it every time he comments on concealed carry.

          This one is a particularly egregious and insulting ad hominem, though, and does not even address the point which is that age does not determine responsbility, or even expertise.

        3. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Please send a link to any flame and it will be removed. guntruth@me.com.

        4. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Darren, there have been many points raised in this thread, including the one I picked up on after GS650S started waving the flag.

          You want to talk about the age not determining responsibility, I disagree with that too. Your best most mature 17-year-old is better than your worst 25-year-old. But by and large, there’s a big difference between those two ages as far as responsibility goes.

        5. avatar Sixtine says:

          Bosnia? Really? Do you mean boerfe or after 8000+ Bosniaks were massacred at Srebrenica (by army units that obviously would not have been disarmed by any restrictions)? Do you mean boerfe or after between 20,000 and 50,000 women were raped during the course of the war (by Serb soldiers or policemen, who would not have been disarmed by any restrictions)? Do you mean boerfe or after 2500+ Bosniaks were murdered (by Serb military and police forces, who would not have been disarmed by any restrictions)? Do you mean boerfe or after 1500+ Bosniaks were murdered at Visegrad (again by Serb line military and police forces)? Do you mean boerfe or after 14,000 Bosniaks were massacred in Prijedor (still by Serb military forces)? Do you mean boerfe or after 2000 Bosniaks were murdered in Lasva Valley (by Croatian military forces, this time)? Those atrocities were committed by line military forces and police entities – not groups that would have been disarmed by restricting access to handheld weapons (even British police and military forces maintain their own inventories of firearms). If you were looking for something to hang your hat on, one would have thought you would have chosen something other than the corpses of 28,000+ Bosniaks who were murdered by military forces, or the additional 20,000 to 50,000 women raped by military forces. But, who knows – with your warped and twisted outlook on reality, you might consider those numbers a necessary sacrifice for the “safety” of the rest.

        6. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          ST, you couldn’t be more wrong about my not having experience in that which I comment on.

    6. avatar Cmdrlimpet says:

      “Third, where are all the suicides and cop shootings on Utah campuses?”

      Show me the evidence Mike. Utah has not only allowed firearms on campus but also Ensured compliance from the state university. This has been the law for many years, and rest assured, a single data point suggesting it was more dangerous would have the Brady campaign starting to foam at the mouth. The fact of the matter is that it works just fine and nobody has found evidence to the contrary in this state. Utah college campuses are roundly ignored by anyone pushing an anti-gun agenda, because there’s nothing but evidence to support lawful concealed carry on college campuses.

      We have evidence Mike, where’s yours?

      1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

        Yes, the Utah campus carry history is good evidence of what has worked in Utah. Do you really think that has something to do with the Newark campus of Rutgers University?

        1. avatar Cmdrlimpet says:

          Yeah, I do. I believe that students are students. Whether you’re from Utah, New Hampshire, or New Jersey you can still be capable of being a responsible individual in college. The fact that there are some individuals that don’t behave responsibly in college shouldn’t compromise others’ ability to defend themselves. That’s as silly as saying that some college students will drink and then drive, so we shouldn’t allow any college students to bring their cars.

        2. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Let me ask you another way. Picture the college campus at Ogden Utah. You know there are guns there, no problems reported.

          Now think about the Rutgers campus in downtown Newark. The main school is in New Brunswick but this is a building in Newark. Can you picture the average students, the ones who come by public transportation from East Orange and Patterson. Would you really expect them to handle gun ownership and concealed carry like their counterparts out west do?

        3. avatar Cmdrlimpet says:

          The ones who bother to get a permit; yes.

        4. avatar CarlosT says:

          Why not? Are you saying being from New Jersey makes them mentally impaired or something? Or that Utahns are some kind of superior being or something?

        5. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Turn that question around. What do you see being different, and why, about the behavior the NJ students versus the proven track record of the Utah students?

        6. avatar Cmdrlimpet says:

          Careful Matt, you’re touching on the real problem here. The liberal elite is totally okay with guns in the hands of “the right people.” Which really means people in the same socioeconomic group as them. Mike doesn’t mind Utahns having guns, cause they’re all clean wealthy Mitt Romney clones. People from Jersey, those are voters, we need to keep them as powerless as possible so the nanny state can be justified.

    7. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

      Yawn, still no data from you to prove otherwise mikeb.

      Why at your advanced age are you still afraid of the mythical boogeyman?

      You know, the monster under your bed, in your closet whom you claim to exist, yet you cant articulate any proof that the monster exists.

      Oh wait, lets figutre out what the % percentage chance a person will be around someone legally carrying concealed.

      We see US Census 2008 18.4 mil students, 42% 21 or older, 4,300 schools.

      186 mil / 4,300 schools = 4,276 avg. students per school

      US Census 186 mil 21 or older, 8 mil cpl licensee’s BATF 8 mil / 186 mil = 4.3% of population has cpl license.

      18.4 mil x 42% = 7.728 mil x 4.3% = 332,304 / 4,300 schools = 77.28 avg. per school.

      77.28 / 4, 276 = 1.8% chance of being around a student who is carrying concealed. Oh wow, that is so scary and so dangerous.

      Based on your unsubstantiated fear, we should see thousands, uh no, hundreds, uh no, even tens of police reports showing you college students are identifying and assisting police in catching people who are carrying concealed today? Nope, you people can’t even see the criminals carrying concealed today, yet you are more afraid of law abiding citizens than criminals. Speaks volumes of your mental immaturity how you are still scared of the mythical boogeyman.

      Oh wait, now that we have figured out how many people you cant see carrying conealed (yet you are not afraid of the bad guys doing so), but may be near carrying concealed, what is the risk compared to someone safe, say a doctor.

      ATF Max 8 million CPL’s US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.

      Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report 2009, 137 or 45 per year equals .00000562 per concealed license holder. You can also review Florida’s data on CCW at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html it says the same thing.

      JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 98,000 by medical malpractice every year or .065 to .14 per physician.

      Physician is .065 or .14 /.00000562 = 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.

      So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren’t you antis crying to ban doctors?

      So a 1.8% chance you will be a round someone carrying concealed legally, whom you cant see doing so, who is 12,000 to 25,000 times less likely to kill you than a doctor.

      There Mikeb, we have articulated your mythical boogeyman for you.

      Glad you and the few anti freedom whiners finally have a oh so seriously high % of, oh wait, that % is really, really, really really small.

      Uh Mikeb, do you have government data and even the anti’s own data is used, to disprove the simple basic math used to articulate your mythical boogeyman, no, you never do!

      But thanks for the laugh first thing this morning, your the best sarcastic irrelevant comedian out there Mikeb.

      1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

        simple basic math hahahahaha

        You win. I give up.

  2. avatar Colby says:

    Some people are responsible and some people are not. Some people are trustworthy and some people are not. Age and experience are not automatic qualifiers. I was one of the sober kids.

  3. avatar BT says:

    I’m a college kid. CCW’er. I live off campus, but only a half mile. It doesnt make a lot of sense for me to drive (or God forbid, pay for a parking pass). So I walk to campus. Only problem is that I live in Cincinnati, and the area around our campus is ghetto. And not in the fun way. The first murder of the year in the Greater Cinci area last year was a block from my house.

    I’m a biology student, so I have lots of late labs and meetings. Which means I walk home alone, late at night. I’m 6’2″ and 200lbs with a big beard, but too many people I know have been robbed at gunpoint for me to feel safe about it. I don’t trust the LEOs in the area to protect me. They don’t really seem to give a shit about you as soon as you step off campus. Being able to CC my weapon on (and relevant to the situation: to and from) campus wouldn’t make me feel like nothing bad could happen, but it would make me feel a lot better about it.

    Owning a gun in a college environment hasnt turned me into a drunk school shooter, I havent settled any disputes with .40 cal hollow points, and I certainly havent posed any threat to any LEOs trying to do their jobs.I hope NH can get this cluster sorted out. It would be a disservice to college students everywhere to do otherwise.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      I’m a grad student at the same school (I’m assuming you’re talking about UC), so I know exactly what you mean. It may not happen often, but there has even been the occasional armed robbery ON campus (not by students of course), despite the heavy police presence. It’s rare to find someone on campus who doesn’t know AT LEAST one person who’s been mugged, assaulted, or raped after they leave campus – yet the police presence only extends to campus.

      I know people from outside the area would probably say “Well, campus police only has to protect the campus” – and you’re right. However, UC isn’t just patrolled by campus police, it’s patrolled by all police. Campus PD, Cincinnati PD, Hamilton County Sheriffs Dept, and on occasion the State Highway Patrol. The ridiculous thing though is that all of the City / County / State LEO’s don’t seem to give a damn about what happens to you once you step off campus property.

      1. avatar BT says:

        Actually, I’m at the other school… (Please don’t hate me.)

        But Clifton and Norwood are pretty much the same in terms of crime and the way you get treated by the cops, student or otherwise. Norwood PD is really only concerned with underage drinking and really seems to think that crime only occurs in your part of town. And Cincinnati PD won’t touch anything remotely close to the edges of their jurisdictions, which happen to be all around our campus.

        Makes you feel real safe right?

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    New Hampshire might want to consider changing the state motto to “Live Free or Move to Vermont.”

  5. avatar Skyler says:

    I don’t understand the implied negativity towards gun racks in dorms.

    1. avatar Ropingdown says:

      Gun SAFES in dorms. Could stop people from stealing their booze and weed, too. Triple win.

  6. avatar JTB says:

    I am a college student living off campus. About an hour ago I went to the mall to buy a shirt, and CC my 9mm. Lo’, I didn’t kill anyone. Then when I went to go eat lunch on campus, I had to stop by my apartment to drop off my gun. Went an ate, came back and here I am. Someone explain why I would have been a threat if I was allowed to just go eat lunch with my gun? Jezz.

  7. avatar Tim McNabb says:

    What are the consequences of carrying on campus when it is not allowed?

    1. avatar ST says:

      It varies by state. Some states like Texas & California explicitly ban possession and carry of guns on campus grounds in the state laws , with attendant felony charges outlined in the legal text.

      Some states do not regulate or explicitly list colleges as a prohibited location, which means colleges usually then take it upon themselves to ban guns on their own initiative. Since the university legally owns the land in this case the college ‘ban’ has the same legal weight as Aunt Mary banning guns in her home on Thanksgiving dinner;if one carries as an ordinary citizen against policy and is discovered the college would probably escort such a citizen off campus under threat of trespassing.

      Students in the same situation would be subject to College punishments which aren’t a matter of state law, but equate to anything from expulsion, academic censure, and fines on down the list.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      I think the consequences of not carrying can be far worse. Remember VT.

  8. avatar ST says:

    Not that my perspective is worth much, but I believe the resistance to campus carry is based on two problems.

    One is power-happy college bureaucrats who are just fine with the way things are right now.Since most of them enjoy cozy relationships with state governors, such people can easily have an exception added to the state law on concealed carry vis a vis college.

    Two is the “not my child” syndrome on the part of the uninitiated gun owner. While record numbers of guns were sold last year, the hard part for them is breaking out of the ‘non-gun owner’ mental process .I can see a lot of parents strapping on a Glock or Bersa 380 believing that concealed carry is a great idea for self protection in the city or the ghetto,but that firearms simply shouldn’t be around their darling Son or Daughter at Anywhere University.

    Alcohol, drugs, cars,and casual sex kill more people than guns do yearly….but society accepts exposure of those risks on campus as part of the deal of growing up . Guns should be considered no different.

  9. avatar Silver says:

    Of course, having students carry might begin to instill all students with the notion that they live in America, a place that abides by the values of responsibility and self-determination, and such ideas would conflict greatly with the leftist indoctrination that many universities love to push. I know my college did.

    Oh, well. Nice to know our fine academic institutions think so little of their pupils and would rather line them up for slaughter than trust them with their own lives. After all, can’t have our beloved victim mentality without creating more victims, right?

  10. avatar Tom says:

    My observations of College Campus.
    The campus cops are incompetent and have NDs.
    The faculty is a bunch of liberal elite control freaks.
    The entire place is full of Lenin-Marx dogma.
    The campus faculty usually has not worked in private business and is totally government oriented and dependent, therefore, you should be government oriented and dependent.

  11. avatar C. Walther says:

    Two arguments about campus carry piss me off to no end:

    1) the antis seem to think college student = stupid, reckless youth who came straight from high school and has no concept of personal responsibility. They COMPLETELY ignore the number of graduate and non-traditional students, which includes everyone from military reservists to the mother of three. Yes, the stupid reckless youth are plentiful, but to lump everyone that goes to college in that category is just insulting.

    2) the pros seem to think that the “campus carry will make a mass shooter think twice” should be the selling point for legislation (I’m looking at you, Senator Wentworth). This selling point doesn’t account for the more likely situation of one-on-one crime (robbery, rape, assault, murder) that happens when students (such as the mother-of-three mentioned above) go home or have to commute beyond campus. Case in point, there was a big fuss at Texas Tech last semester over the fact that off-campus crimes against students don’t have to be reported. Take a look at the map on the bottom of this link: http://www.dailytoreador.com/html_717e104e-ce6a-11e0-a1ba-0019bb30f31a.html

    Both of these arguments killed any meaningful discussion that may have been possible in the Texas debate (I’m deliberately ignoring the fact that both sides close their ears). Hopefully New Hampshire doesn’t make the same mistake.

  12. avatar MikeSilver says:

    “There is no credible evidence or statistical evidence that laws allowing permissive concealed weapon possession reduces crime,” Dean said.

    If anyone needs “credible evidence” that is verifiable and independently generated, check out this GeorgiaCarry.Org report. It uses FBI Uniform Crime Statistics and has 4 examples of changes in the crime rate on campus after gun laws are changed.

    http://georgiacarry.com/research/GCO-Guns_Good_Bans_Bad.pdf

  13. avatar Ropingdown says:

    How can you encourage the perception of your college as a drinks-and-sex fun park, and therefore worth the outrageous tuition and fees, if you have to worry about having guns in the house? No football, no party-hearty-after-studying image (note that spelling, MikeB), college loses ranking points, eventually goes broke. Simple. And then there are the state legislators who need a safe place to send their alcoholic kids, hoping they’ll grow up in four or five years. Not every kid can go the the University of West Virginia.

  14. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    Ralph’s got the right idea because Vermont is a great place to live and I love going there on vacation. I don’t see a problem with campus carry because if a BG trys to do you in, at least you have a chance to defend yourself and not just lay down like a good little sheep and die.

  15. Some local colour —

    This is all a bit of a tempest in a teacup. The only way a pro-gun bill passes in NH is over the veto of governor Lynch, a 1970s-style anti-gun liberal Democrat whose dream is to turn NH into MA. He’s had to eat several pro-gun bills recently and it usually takes two to three years to get enough of the legislature to stand up to him.

    This is Lynch’s position:
    http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2012/010312-no-guns-dorms.htm

    Well, it’s his position on the specific issues in the leg this session. He’s a gun banster, in general, who’d make Sarah Brady and her alter ego MikeB squeal with delight if he had a free hand. But he hasn’t either. Politics here as anywhere is the art of the possible.

    The Democrats here are split between the ones who crave re-election (they are wishy-washy) and the ones in urban welfare areas (Nashua, I’m looking at you) who want NH to be MA also. The Republicans are split between old-Yankee country club types and more lively tea party sorts. There is a strong libertarian tendency in both NH parties.

    The NRA lobbyist who covers NH is a huge obstacle to gun rights. He is a throwback to the era when NRA was all about hunting. He puts the NRA on the line against any carry or self-defense bills; he undermined Constitutional Carry last session and nearly torpedoed Castle Doctrine. He has done this in other states also, including PA, where he lives. His name is John Hohenwarter, and he’s completely untrustworthy.

    As an aside, anyone that relies on the Nashua Community College cops for protection in a life-threatening situation is probably going to die. Their low opinion of others’ gun-handling is simply projection.

  16. avatar Matt in FL says:

    In the state of Florida, you have to be 21 to get a CWFL, but most kids go to college at 17 or 18. If people are worried about “immature kids straight out of high school” carrying on campus, doesn’t the law already take care of that? Just based on the age requirement, the people carrying on campus will likely be seniors or grad students at the youngest…

    I don’t understand the problem, at least here. Is the permit age lower in other states?

  17. avatar Rebecca Stewart says:

    “campuses where there can be abuse of alcohol and illegal drugs.”

    NO ONE thinks that the ABOVE is the REAL problem? Let’s start cracking down on illegal activities and leave people’s Constitutional Rights alone.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email