Quote of the Day: USA Today’s Better Way Than Campus Carry Edition

c

“Gun advocates claim campuses are unsafe, but statistics show that college students are much likelier to be crime victims when they leave school than when they’re on campus. As horrific as campus shootings are, they’re extremely rare. They can be reduced by identifying disturbed students, getting them into treatment, stopping them from buying guns and keeping professional campus security forces at the ready. There are better ways to keep students safe than asking them to settle things at gunpoint.” Campus-carry gun laws won’t make colleges safer [via usatoday.com]

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    They keep quoting Adm. McRaven like he’s some kind of personal defense/gun guru.
    The guy probably hasn’t handled a gun or been in harms way in decades. Good grief.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Yeah, like John Sharp doesn’t know anything about guns. Idiots.

  2. avatar JWM says:

    When all that fails, and it will, what then? An armed student isn’t settling anything. They’re fighting for their life.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      That’s the thing; these antis, be it the ‘Moms’, ‘Everytown’, their lapdog ‘progressive socialist’ media partners, whatever, all stay on the same message when it comes to campus carry; Irresponsible gun carrying college ‘kids’ getting drunk and shooting each other because of immature impulses. And of course blood on the campus concourse and fake frightened liberal instructors.

      Give. Me. a. Break! What bunk. Their false fantasies are so far outside the realm of reality it’s hard to believe everyone doesn’t just tune out from the antis whole rhetorical propaganda ploy. But then of course, the target audience is as always, the liberal minded, emotion reliant, inexperienced, uninformed low information types who readily drink and swallow the dominant message from the legacy, anti-gun MSM.

      1. avatar Dry Sider says:

        I have worked on a few college campuses over the years. The suggestion that a student will try to influence a grade or shut down discussion because: GUNS! is such crap. Universities are doing this themselves with repressive threatening policies, and “FREE SPEECH ZONES.”

        Avoid them. Tell your kids, and anyone who will listen, to consider taking up a trade for a few years before college. They might find a better, more productive and less debt-ridden life.

  3. avatar Chris Meissen says:

    What a wonderful example of straw man argument! By couching the issue only in terms of campus shootings, the author can disregard the need for personal protection as a rare anomaly. And in doing sp the real issue of personal protection from rapes, muggings, and carjacking on campus is completely dismissed. College campuses are more than just classrooms and the risk of being a crime victim is more than just the risk of being the victim of a mass shooting.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Moreover, the college campus is merely one part of the checkerboard scheme of red and black squares where a 2A-able person is permitted/prohibited to/from carry.

      For the sake of discussion, let’s suppose there is a legitimate notion of “sensitive places” such as court rooms or commercial airplanes. A few such places impose relatively lightly on the RBA. (I’ll further assume, here, that such venues provide heightened security, whether that’s true or not). So long as “sensitive places” are few in number and infrequently encountered, they are endurable.

      Conversely, suppose we were all prohibited from carry within 1,000 feet of a: school; church; police station; fire hydrant; . . . ” There would be almost no where we could go in the normal conduct of our lives without crossing within the boundaries of one or another of such a “sensitive place”.

      All gun-free zones have a greater or lesser propensity to encroach and eventually eviscerate the RBA. Such is – apparently – the case in DC where Emily Miller claims she can’t walk her dog – armed under her DC permit – without crossing a prohibited zone.

      A college campus is – much like most of our daily travel places – not just a particular gun-free zone. It extends from the classrooms to the dark pathways to/from the buildings to the parking lots to the public roads that lead to our homes and workplaces. It is precisely this situation that led to the rape of Amanda Collins.

  4. avatar Sean in Tampa says:

    I agree that the areas surrounding campuses are usually some of most crime infested areas.(wonder why?) So, considering that, those who commit those crimes don’t magically stop and turn around when they reach the campus.

    Which is why we need to carry on campus.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      In addition to that, those students who live in off-campus apartments have a right to bear arms when walking to and from. Any gun-free zone extends beyond its own borders to wherever people need to secure their guns.

      1. avatar Sean in Tampa says:

        Precisely. Most young adults don’t have a vehicle yet, and walk, ride a bike or take a university bus.

    2. avatar Sian says:

      It’s the same reason gun bans at sporting events are a problem.

      It’s not that you’re unsafe at the sporting event. It’s that you’re unsafe returning to your car/home after you were disarmed.

  5. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    I thought it was an epidemic…

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      I know right? First it was an epidemic – “please give us gun control!” Now that there is legislation on the vote for campus carry – “Oh no, we don’t need it – this is a rare occurrence!”

      Either they hate guns – or they hate the idea of taking on the responsibility for their own safety.

      1. avatar John L. says:

        Re your last sentence, I think the former is a symptom of the latter.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      @ROHC: That was kinda my first thought–looks like at least one anti has been induced to admit that the “school shooting epdemic” isn’t one.

      1. avatar Gatha58 says:

        Robert, That struck me as odd also. That is that this person now admits that school shootings are not really a problem and uses that as a basis for the argument that students on campus don’t need guns for protection or to prevent an incident. In the past the argument seems to have been that because of school shootings that more restrictive gun laws are necessary. The anti-gun crowd seems to create whatever reality they want at the moment to benefit their anti-gun stance. It is amazing to me that the general public cannot see how inconsistent and biased their arguments are.

  6. Most students don’t live on campus. Ask students at Temple University how safe they feel.

  7. avatar Bonega says:

    “As horrific as campus shootings are, they’re extremely rare.”

    Wait a minute, I thought school shootings were on the rise. Which one is it?

  8. avatar Carson says:

    More and more doublespeak every day. Is “gun violence” a problem, or is it?

  9. avatar ThomasR says:

    Typical. The article talks about other states allowing for carrying weapons on campus yet not one word about zero issues by those legally able to carry a weapon on those university grounds.

    It talks about how more students are attacked going to school more often while not so much in the school it self. Ok. That is why they need to carry a gun, to protect themselves getting to school. Meanwhile, the lower chance of getting mugged, assaulted and raped is lower, but not zero. So that is not going to make those fewer victims feel better the next morning for not having a gun to defend themselves.

    Geez, the absurdity of this phobia about an inanimate object is just bizarre. They can’t see the logical fails in the process of trying to justify their irrational fear.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      The antis tend to subscribe to the “talisman theory” when it suits them. Simply owning or carrying a gun will make you go crazy with bloodlust and disregard all the laws and rules of the land, but because they know the Interstate commerce clause protects our ability to keep firearms in our vehicles and they can’t ever hope to remove that protection they argue simply having a gun in your vehicle, even when you are far from your vehicle, will magically protect you. So their basic operating logic is if a gun is useful to you, ie carried legally on your person, you will be the scourge of the earth, but if it serves you no practical purpose you’re doing it right. These are the same people that preach evolution and natural selection in a modern sense and don’t see why we laugh at them. They compartmentalized everything and make themselves and their situals exceptional “because I know better”.

  10. avatar vactor says:

    “keeping professional campus security forces at the ready. There are better ways to keep students safe than asking them to settle things at gunpoint.”

    these professional forces then too will be unarmed and not ‘settling things at gunpoint’??

  11. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

    It is hard to shoot dissimilar guns simultaneously, as our friend will discover.

    1. avatar JWM says:

      Cho. VA Tech. Dissimilar guns didn’t seem to slow him down. Nor did armed students. Because there were none.

      Gun control freaks are soaked in the blood of helpless victims.

  12. avatar C.S. says:

    Did USA Today just advocate for armed guards in schools?

  13. avatar Nick says:

    Of course there are “better” ways, and they should be made use of as well.

    And the bottom line is that they don’t always work and personal safety is a personal responsibility.

  14. avatar Anonymous says:

    Gun advocates claim campuses are unsafe, but statistics show that college students are much likelier to be crime victims when they leave school than when they’re on campus. As horrific as campus shootings are, they’re extremely rare.

    I agree with this. But gun advocates didn’t claim campuses were unsafe. anti-freedom rights-hating activists (e.g. Shannon watts formed MDA because of newtown). Death by school shooting is on par with death by lightening strike. But really – that is not the question at hand. People should have the right to defend themselves. It’s about freedom and rights – not about the illusion of safety and feeling good about all the regulations in place that benefit one person but not another.

    They can be reduced by identifying disturbed students, getting them into treatment, stopping them from buying guns and keeping professional campus security forces at the ready.

    They can also be reduced by allowing people the freedom to defend themselves rather than relying on a security force looking out for number one. The “more regulations is the answer” crew don’t want to look at the root problem. Because it’s scary. There are scary crazy people and people with zero morals whatsoever – they exist and they are out there walking around. The solution? Gun control… or attempts thereof. It’s basically like saying… “Look – I don’t want to be responsible for my own safety. Please do all this stuff for me government. Government – please take care of me. I just can’t handle it myself. Also, since I can’t handle it myself but those people over there with guns would like to handle it themselves please introduce legislation in favor of me rather than them. Those people don’t need to be taking care of themselves. Take their guns away, discourage their possession with additional regulations and red tape, and just take care of all of us.” I’m going to go with “No thank you.”

    There are better ways to keep students safe than asking them to settle things at gunpoint.” Campus-carry gun laws won’t make colleges safer.

    We don’t want safety. Stop trying to force feed us your safety crap. We want our rights and freedoms. No one asked students to settle things at gunpoint – strawman. Only sought the freedom and option to defend themselves should the need arise rather than accept the rapist’s payload of deficient genes and sexually transmitted diseases while they wait for the campus cadets to arrive.

  15. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Nope. This is nothing but a bunch of petulant little children whining cause they didn’t like the fact we peons got our way for once.

    Even if we did it their way the guards would be saddled by so many rules they’d be innefective, and after a few months they’ll start cutting security, because tenure for marxist professors is expensive.

  16. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Freedom of the press, is the affirmed freedom to protect, through mass media, the citizens of the United States from a secret and tyrannical government; thereby being a freedom protected by an armed citizenry [1]. It is not an affirmation of freedom from any other entity. It is not, also, a freedom bestowed upon an individual member of the “press”, or their entire species, because they happen to be a more noble creature than the average citizen. It is not freedom of speech; it does not permit, or allow for megaphone amplification to shout down or over another citizen’s free speech. It does not endure the marketing of falsehood, regardless of foreknowledge or intent. As such, when pooled with the nightly news report or the daily pages it must be rejected wholly.” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, Pg. 103]

    “There are laws to protect the freedom of the press’s speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press” (Mark Twain http://quotes4all.net/

  17. avatar 2AMexican says:

    I work security at a private college. Arming the security personnel here has never been a part of the thought process. With that said, I conceal carry under my work uniform. I am not the only one.

  18. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Your more likely….
    Military doesn’t carry weapons in non combat areas….
    Statistically your safer…..
    Treat the mentally disturbed…..

    Each statement leveraged by one to convince another to go along with the herd…survival by numbers, infringing on liberty by denying self protection and the institution absolving itself of responsibility in the preservation of life and placing students in greater danger by establishing gun free zones.

    No one knows the mind of another, the how or why someone snaps and decides to harm others. Time to move the needle towards opportunity of lawful self protection.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      The herd mentality…I think you’ve identified the key factor in the liberal progressive mindset.

      We’re all social creatures who have a deep-seated need to be part of a group, but they take it in an unhealthy direction. With them, whatever the group thinks is right: no dissent allowed.

      They behave like a herd of completely passive herbivores. They’re perfectly willing to let the wolves take a few defenseless sheep from the fringes — it’s a bonus, not a problem. It’s their primary survival strategy. Sacrificing the unlucky ones on the edges keeps the predators sated and makes the middle of the herd feel safer.

      I think that’s part of why they hate dissent so much; anything that diminishes or disperses the herd makes it a little more likely that they’ll find themselves on the edge of the group staring helplessly at the teeth of a wolf.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        You may be on to something here. The hoplophobes mostly enjoy the white privilege of living in relatively safe neighborhoods where they enjoy a low probability of being targeted. Police are close by and responsive. Burglar alarms on doors and windows.

        The thugs live in the inner city and prey on nearby victims. As long as they stay there the hoplophobes will continue to enjoy low-probabilities of being the sheep that are attacked.

        The huge threat to these privileged sheep would be precincts like Detroit and Milwaukee County where the constabulary urge constituents to armor up. Just as soon as the thugs decide that it’s too dangerous to attack their neighbors they will look for the sheep who are less-well defended.

  19. avatar Cameron B says:

    isn’t part of that the “Evil NRA”‘s cop in every school idea?

  20. avatar dh34 says:

    People still read USA Today? I thought the reason hotels gave them away free was for you to put muddy work boots on to spare the carpet.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      One does not read USA Today. One looks at the pretty pictures.

  21. avatar chuck (hates nj) says:

    They’re so right! What we really need is a law that makes it illegal to break the law within a 25,000 mile radius around every school. That will make the law breakers think twice about breaking the law.

  22. avatar Wiregrass says:

    So students are supposed to “settle things” with a rapist. Here that ladies? These people believe they know what’s best for your safety. I wouldn’t count on negotiating to work very well.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Come to think of it–yes, that’s what they believe. Either that, or try to degrade yourself so badly that the rapist gets disgusted and settles for just beating the crap out of you.

  23. avatar Fuque says:

    First they say:
    ” keeping professional campus security forces at the ready”….

    Then they say:
    “There are better ways to keep students safe than asking them to settle things at gunpoint”

    I’m confused here.. are they suggesting that presently, students settle their differences at gunpoint? ( proof please )

    OR they are under the illusion that they can control when and where a shooting will happen?

  24. avatar PeterK says:

    Wow, that whole thing is a complete load.

    “Gun advocates claim campuses are unsafe,”
    So do gun control advocates? Campuses are not inherently unsafe, but when people are forcibly disarmed it’s not hard not to feel like a target.

    “but statistics show that college students are much likelier to be crime victims when they leave school than when they’re on campus.”
    College kids never leave campus? How about here in NC where there have been several armed robberies on the periphery of the school just in the past year.

    “As horrific as campus shootings are, they’re extremely rare.”
    All crime is rare. So are fires. That doesn’t mean you don’t prepare for them properly.

    “They can be reduced by identifying disturbed students, getting them into treatment,”
    Right, because it’s so obvious and we’re doing so great now. What are you suggesting? Lock anyone up who doesn’t fit the right mold?

    “stopping them from buying guns”
    Ha! Like we stop them from buying booze and drugs?

    “and keeping professional campus security forces at the ready.”
    How much security? Where? How at the ready? Who is paying for this? Shootings have happened on facilities kept much more secure than school. They can’t prevent shootings, though maybe they can help stop one. Big maybe.

    “There are better ways to keep students safe than asking them to settle things at gunpoint”
    This is a huge straw man. The point is to allow people the choice of self-defense that best suits them.

    1. avatar PeterK says:

      Wow did anyone else read both opposing viewpoints? Such a striking difference.

  25. avatar Rokurota says:

    Everyone, don’t get sucked in to the efficacy argument. How many shootings, rapes, muggings and other crimes “campus carry” stops or doesn’t stop is not the point. Get drawn into that fight and you’ll get drawn into arguments about policing and crime stats. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

  26. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    From the USAToday article, “There are better ways to keep students safe than asking them to settle things at gunpoint.”

    Note that they are totally okay if “professional security forces” settle things at gunpoint.

    What does it matter whether a student or a “professional security force” settles an attack at gunpoint? If it is necessary, it is necessary. Whether a student or “professional” employs a firearm is neither here nor there.

  27. avatar David says:

    “but statistics show that college students are much likelier to be crime victims when they leave school than when they’re on campus”

    So the rape epidemic on campuses meme is BS.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      It might actually be BS.

      See: mattress girl.

      getting wasted and making a decision you end up regretting later =/= you were raped.

  28. avatar Jack says:

    Campus carry doesn’t need to make anyone safer. People don’t need to explain why they need their rights or prove to you that their having their rights helps anyone. You need to have a valid compelling reason to take away someones rights.

  29. avatar Sian says:

    “They can be reduced by identifying disturbed students, getting them into treatment, stopping them from buying guns and keeping professional campus security forces at the ready.”

    That involves effort and money expended by the university, and we know that’s not going to happen for such a low-frequency event, never mind the liability inherent in ‘identifying disturbed students’, many of which will disagree with the diagnosis.

  30. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    But wait… I thought the Obama administration was claiming that 20% of females on a college campus will be raped within their four year term there…

  31. avatar Kyle says:

    The problem with this argument is that if you can’t carry on campus you can’t carry to and from campus. For two of my three years of law school, I rode my pedal bike to school. Arizona allows guns on campus only when they are locked in the car. Since I didn’t have a car, that meant no gun to or from school, not just no gun at school. Even if a person is more likely to be a “crime victim” once they leave campus, not being able to carry on campus often prevents a person from being able to defend themselves off campus.

  32. avatar gsnyder says:

    Regular students are not the ones who cause trouble, so this statement is BS. No one suggests violence is how to settle a conflict. A Guard will never likely be in the right place at the right time so this is no assurance of safety. And again, the anti-firearm argument attempts to make criminals of law-abiding persons. The old worn-out propaganda is an armed person anywhere in the US of A is about to become a violent criminal. In any credible debate, credible is key, these arguments would be ignored.

  33. avatar Ralph says:

    As horrific as campus shootings are, they’re extremely rare. They can be reduced by identifying disturbed students, getting them into treatment, stopping them from buying guns and keeping professional campus security forces at the ready.

    All true. And when those systems break down, as they will, what then? What then?

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      The student pushes a button and a flashing blue light comes on as at IUPUI.

  34. avatar Ben S. says:

    “School shootings are EXTREMELY rare”?
    “There’s almost no danger of becoming a victim on school grounds, as compared to off-campus”?

    Well hey! That means the Left will be perfectly ok with repealing the Gun Free Schools Act, since it has almost no impact whatsoever on school safety, correct? Logically? Right?

  35. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    keeping professional campus security forces at the ready. At what campus do they have professionals on the security force?

  36. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Actually at IUPUI, the off campus thugs who venture onto the campus are the ones creating the problems. The students are not the problem, but they are sitting ducks.

  37. avatar gp says:

    Please take down the picture of that a-hole mass-murderer. He posed that photo himself, and by posting it you fulfill his evil desire.

  38. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The progressive college presidents and their professors would prefer their students be raped rather than a female student shoot and kill her attacker.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      “The progressive college presidents and their professors would prefer their students be raped rather than a female student kill her attacker.”

      Why yes, of course! Isn’t this the meme? Our rape-tolerant society promotes this ultimate act of misogyny? And, who are the guardians of our culture’s norms if not the leaders of our finest academic institutions? What other result might you expect?

      Look at it this way: Suppose that the Right-to-Carry were recognized in 80% of the States. Further suppose that women gradually bought into the idea that assuming responsibility for self-defense and bearing arms to that end would make them safer. It would follow that assaults on women would decline; thereby undermining the meme that our culture is misogynistic. This cultural scourge would be behind us and colleges would be obliged to find a new meme.

      Far better to maintain an adequate level of misogyny in as many gun-free zones as possible; and, the zone under their control (absent the authority of the State) are college campuses. There, the future leaders of society – the educated elite – can continue their exposure to rape, murder and muggings to keep the meme going.

      Here’s the really scary proposition. Suppose the idea of law-abiding citizens carrying guns were to catch on among minority women. These are the applicants for matriculation who are most actively sought after. Many work for 3 years or so between HS graduation and enrolling part-time for evening classes. They – like Amanda Collins – will desire to bear arms in their personal defense when leaving classrooms late at night. With legislatively mandated campus-carry they will be able to do so lawfully.

      The idea of self-defense by gun could spread into the White-Privlidged population who pay the tuition that keeps these institutions funded. The end of the Progressive agenda would then be in sight.

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