If you put manned metal detectors at all the entrances to all school buildings (including fire doors), you might have a case for banning guns on campus. Otherwise, what? How would a campus-wide prohibition against all guns—illegal and otherwise legal—make a university campus any safer? Seriously. I don’t get it. But then I’m not arguing for collegiate “gun free zones.” Unlike Colin Goddard, the comely, media-friendly survivor of the Virginia Tech massacre, who’s made control his raison d’etre. It behooves Colin to explain how a gun ban helps rather than hurts student safety. From what I can glean from Goddard’s remarks at thenewsstar.com, his logic is a little . . . odd . . .
“I don’t think the way to deal with campus shootings is to have more shots fired,” said Goddard, a 2008 Virginia Tech graduate who now works with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Oh, I don’t know. A few shots to Seung Hui Cho’s center of mass early on in his attack, or maybe one to his head, would have prevented at least some of his murderous mayhem. That’s a common sense conclusion that kind of messes-up Goddard’s (and his Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence financiers’) rationale. So they change the subject.
Goddard said the proponents of the bills around the country always argue, “We don’t want another Virginia Tech happening” but they allow guns to be purchased at gun shows and from private sellers without doing a background check. “That doesn’t provide safety for anyone.”
Goddard’s misdirection is not only irrelevant but it’s really irrelevant. Cho bought his guns from a Roanoke gun dealer. As with Jared Lee Loughner, the real question surrounding the Virginia Tech massacre is why a man with a long history of severe mental health problems, a man clearly identified as a danger to students and faculty (accused of stalking two female students), was allowed to remain on campus.
Goddard: pay no attention to the nutcases behind that curtain. Focus on the guns.
Guns shouldn’t be allowed on campuses because “college campuses are unique places,” he said. For many, it’s a place for “major life-changing experiences and having guns does not promote a safe environment for those changes.”
At the risk of seeming impolite and insensitive, what the hell is he talking about? Is Goddard saying that if you allow guns on campus college students won’t have their first gay sex experience or hit from a bong or decide that they should devote their life to the teachings of Karl Marx?
Even the article’s writer senses that Goddard’s logic is a bit dubious. So Mike Haston lines up another quote from a Virginia Tech survivor due to testify against Louisiana bill HB413, which would strike down bans against campus carry. Well someone who was there.
Joining Goddard will be Kaamil Khan, an LSU Law School student who was attending Virginia Tech at the time of the shooting.
“Personally, I don’t think it would make campuses safer,” he said. “I was there at Virginia Tech. I don’t think having a gun would have made a difference.”
And he’s an expert because . . . ? And Hasten doesn’t give a quote to Students for Concealed Carry because theirs is a prima facie case. Why shouldn’t eligible students and faculty exercise the same Second Amendment rights that they exercise walking down the street or sitting in their [off campus] homes?
They joined the [bill’s] author in arguing that if students and faculty members were armed on the campuses where innocent students were gunned down, the attackers would not have had so many victims. They also say it would be a deterrent for anyone to come on campus to shoot students if other people were armed.
TTAG is preparing a little demonstration on that score. Meanwhile, what’s wrong with the supposition that legal guns on campus are both a security advantage and a deterrent? And why aren’t Goddard and others of his ilk making the same case against campus carry in Louisiana that they made up north: that college students are too immature and emotionally unstable to carry a firearm?
Answer: culture eats strategy for lunch. Louisiana’s gun culture, which exposes its citizens to firearms from an early age, would kick that one to the curb in a New York minute. And here’s something else that doesn’t get a look in: if there’s a campus ban on guns, thousands of gun-toting parents lose their right to carry a concealed weapon when visiting their children. How do you think they feel about that?
“…to have more shots fired” by whom? However, the first three words of the sentence are spot on.
““Personally, I don’t think”
And it shows.
“culture eats strategy for lunch. ”
First time I’ve heard it phrased that way. Extremely valid and interesting point which brings up 2 points
1) Is somebody on the anti’s side getting better at fighting us? A new person behind the scenes maybe?
2) How do we change the culture in Chicago? (Chicago is the problem for Illinois, in terms of 2A issues)
RF says: “Oh, I don’t know. A few shots to Seung Hui Cho’s center of mass early on in his attack, or maybe one to his head, would have prevented at least some of his murderous mayhem.”
If only some of you guys were qualified to get that done, instead of endangering bystanders or shooting yourselves in the feet. You know, there were several CC’ers in proximity for the Loughner shooting. What could they do to stop him? Nothing. One of them very nearly added to the tragedy by his own admission.
You guys are not qualified. You prove it every day. Read your own blog entries and responses. I don’t want people with your training, qualifications, and attitudes on college campuses with guns. I vote no confidence in your abilities.
People, this is sorta like poker. After a half hour at the table, if you don’t know who the sucker is, you’re the sucker today. The next time you are out shooting, look up and down the line. If you can’t spot the mall ninjas and range commandos, guess what.
What’s your basis for being “qualified”? I agree that I would not want many of the people I see at the range to be blindly firing at a perceived threat; it would definitely be a danger to the general public. However; to lump everyone together as “not qualified” and say I don’t want people with your training, qualifications, and attitudes on college campuses with guns. I vote no confidence in your abilities, is rude and frankly kind of ignorant.
There are many of us on here that have very high levels of training and qualifications. Some of us have attended courses taught by very well known instructors who have spent years devoting themselves to training police officers and military units in the proper and effective use of firearms. Some of us, myself included, went through rigorous training in order to be qualified to carry a sidearm as part of our job.
I for one have a lot of confidence in the great majority of people that I know personally on this site.
”A great many civilians are far more proficient than most police officers simply because they are more interested in firearms and shooting, and are willing to take the time to practice.”
Police officers are civilians. This is exceptionally important to note, especially when applying common-law principles to police encounters.
Do you ever get dizzy from talking yourself in circles?
“If only some of you guys were qualified to get that done, instead of endangering bystanders or shooting yourselves in the feet. You know, there were several CC’ers in proximity for the Loughner shooting. What could they do to stop him? Nothing. ”
Geraldo interviewed a young guy (24, you know, college age) who was carrying that day and did NOT shoot for the reason “Loughener was already subdued and there were a lot of people around him so I did not want any collateral damage.”
In one sentence you say that you wouldn’t want the big bad people with guns to shoot because of possible collateral damage, and then the very next line you use liberal group think to tie it up in a nice bow saying that since people acted responsibly and did not shoot in a crowd, that no one should be able to carry.
Zamudio: “I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ ” But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrestled the gun away from the shooter.
“Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out.
Zamudio agreed: “I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.”
Wow, so basically he exhibited good self control in an extremely tense situation?
Good point against armed civilians…
It’s not like cops have negligent discharges, or miss more often than they hit what they are shooting at in real world situations. Only untrained amateur civvies would do silly stuff like that.
Magoo, if you are trying to make a point by using examples, it would help you to make your case if your examples did not contradict your point.
In other words, he clicked off the safety while the gun was holstered in his pocket. Kept his hand on the grip to ensure retention.
He came about as close to shooting anyone as most traffic stops where police unsnap the retention straps to their holster.
That 24 year old showed remarkable restraint, maturity, quick thinking, and proper judgment. He did better than many police officers would have done in the same circumstance, yet he gets criticism? please….
I would actually agree that the average concealed carrier has significantly less training than I would like him or her to have. There are quite a few who have taken more advanced training, but I’m guessing probably the majority have very little, if any, more training than they were required to take and in quite a few shall-issue states, including mine, the requirements are a joke.
But on the rest of it, while plausible-sounding to those unaware of the contradictory evidence, Magoo has failed to make his case. It’s boils down to fear mongering and supposition.
The concealed carrier nearby at the Loughner shooting (I’m only aware of one) said that he had a scary, split-second decision to make about whether one of the people who was subduing Loughner was the shooter. Ultimately though, he made the right decision.
Police officers tend to kill a lot more innocent people than concealed carriers do. This is despite the facts that concealed carriers are far more numerous than police officers, police officers are required to take more training in firearms, and police officers are more likely to have less-lethal weapons at their disposal in addition to their sidearm.
There was only one documented armed citizen at that incident to my knowledge. He admitted that there was a very real danger when he responded quickly and competently to a mass murder in progress. His awareness of the danger he and his gun could have contributed is a demonstration of his exceptional level of competence. So far as I know he didn’t have any advanced training – he was literally an average Joe with a gun – but he didn’t draw, didn’t put his finger on the trigger, didn’t aim, didn’t shoot anyone, didn’t shoot at all, and he was aware that running into that chaotic scene was dangerous to him and to everyone else.
The Loughner incident is one more data point out of millions that an average Joe with a gun can respond competently without advanced training. Your vote of no confidence is a reflection of your dependence upon the state and your opposition to strong independent free men (and women) having the means to defend their own lives, liberty, and property and it has nothing to do with the competence of the people you evidently don’t believe should be allowed to exercise their rights.
“If only some of you guys were qualified to get that done, instead of endangering bystanders or shooting yourselves in the feet.”
“You guys are not qualified.”
“I don’t want people with your training, qualifications, and attitudes on college campuses with guns.”
“I vote no confidence in your abilities.”
Wow, very classy. In the past, even when I disagree with you (which I do often), I was usually able to acknowledge and appreciate your line of thought and/or reason and logic. This post was little more than overt flaming. You took everyone who reads and comments on this blog, lumped us all into a group, and called us irresponsible incompetent cowboy vigilante gun nuts (because you’re apparently some kind of expert and are the only one here who should be trusted with a gun). You displayed textbook elitist/better than all you little people mentality and have reaffirmed my belief that most anti-gun folk think the same way. You’ve lost all credibility with me, and probably everyone on this sight (if you had any to begin with). You were intentionally incendiary and insulting and I am genuinely offended.
This post is the last one of yours that I even bother to read.
Well, Magoo, you’ve convinced me.
Convinced me that you’re not qualified to exercise your 1st Amendment rights, and should immediately cease making any comments on this subject.
they allow guns to be purchased at gun shows and from private sellers without doing a background check.
I’m so sick of this line. Yes there are private sellers who are being stupid and not checking any form of id, but I find that to be the exception to the rule (at least here in VA). Even if you passed laws requiring mandatory NICS checks at gun shows and outlaw private sales, the bad guys and the crazies will still find ways to get a weapon.
Every gun I have bought and sold over the last six months has been a FTF private sale. Every one of those transactions has been made with a signed bill of sale and multiple forms of id to prove that me or the other person is eligible to purchase a firearm.
Goddard’s reasoning is essentially flawed. He wants private sales to go through the same federal checks that allowed mentally ill individuals like Cho and Loughner to buy guns. Since that system worked so well for Cho and Loughner, the rest of us should join in?!
I’m quite happy that Goddard survived to receive a full education. Unfortunately he seemed to have missed classes in basic reasoning.
Ryan Finn says: “What’s your basis for being “qualified”? I agree that I would not want many of the people I see at the range to be blindly firing at a perceived threat; it would definitely be a danger to the general public.”
Well, there you are, Ryan. This is what I don’t get. You and I see these yahoos at the range and yeah, they’re scary. A number of TTAG’ers say they won’t go to public ranges anymore due to these idiots — it’s too dangerous. (My father and brother are of the same general persuasion.) These people are not safe enough for a gun range and we want them carrying on college campuses? Really? Why? How does that make the least bit of sense?
I can not make it through my 15 minute commute each day without seeing some yahoo driving like a retard and endangering the lives of others. So, following your logic, because clearly there are a ton of bad drivers, everyone should be banned from driving.
How does that make the least bit of sense?
Your arguement? It makes no sense, as demonstrated above. Even if you really do think driving should be banned, due to many bad drivers.
First of all, you’re using a story about a CC’er making a correct decision as a talking point against CC. Do you honestly not see how logically upside-down that is?
The rest of your “argument”, if I’m being generous enough to call it such, is nothing more than an ad hominem informed by baseless stereotypes. Do you think that pinning a badge on someone causes some magical transformation that makes a cop more qualified than anyone else? I’ve known a lot of cops and very few of them put any serious range time in.
I mean, if you could show us some actual data showing that liberal CC laws lead to higher crime or more accidents I’d be willing to give your point of view a little more creedence. But with all the states liberalizing their laws in the last twenty years those increases have never happened. Never. Anywhere.
How can you continue to cling to a position in the face of so much evidence against it?
Magoo, I agree that a lot of people who own firearms are not the most qualified to do so, some are straight up irresponsible, hence IGOTD.
However, my point (you have to read the sentences that don’t agree with you too, its only fair) was you were lumping everyone at TTAG into that category of unqualified dangerous people who had no training, qualifications or attitudes that would be deemed appropriate for the “privilege” of carrying a concealed weapon on campus. To quote, “You guys are not qualified. You prove it every day. Read your own blog entries and responses. I don’t want people with your training, qualifications, and attitudes on college campuses with guns. I vote no confidence in your abilities. ”
My response was,
“What’s your basis for being “qualified”?….
There are many of us on here that have very high levels of training and qualifications. Some of us have attended courses taught by very well known instructors who have spent years devoting themselves to training police officers and military units in the proper and effective use of firearms. Some of us, myself included, went through rigorous training in order to be qualified to carry a sidearm as part of our job. ”
You didn’t respond to what my comment was actually about. What’s your basis for being “qualified”?
None of that matters to me because we don’t get to select who carries on campus. We don’t get to cherry-pick the best and say no to the rest. If carry is allowed, we get everybody — which means first and foremost the eager beavers. You know, the chowderheads. The very same guys we see making asses of themselves at the range.
Why is campus more special than normal society where concealed carry is legal? Why would campus carry suddenly allow unqualified individuals? Would campus carry create a different qualification system for permits?
The asses at the range are possible concealed carriers. Why has our streets not run red with blood?
That’s not an argument in favor of campus carry. That’s an argument against carry everywhere.
The lack of blood running in the streets is an argument against carry?!
Compare crime statistics for Vermont where there are no permit process and concealed carry is legal against Massachusetts where concealed carry is regulated. I will wait.
I think it’s a neccessary “evil”. No matter what activity you engage in , the chowderheads will be there. It’s not a gun exclusive thing. I know the car analogy is beat to death, but we accept moron drivers everywhere on a daily basis who are far more likely to do damage than someone CC’ing on a college campus with no formal instruction.
When carrying a firearm was legal before it became vogue to ban such things in the 70’s, where there ANY cases where a concealed carry holder misused his firearm on campus? Past behavior is a good indicator of the future behavior is it not?
The answer is no. In the 100 year plus history of when carrying a concealed weapon on campus was legal, there wasn’t a single case of misuse on any University campus. Not 1. Just as today there has been zero incidence of misuse in the 30+ campuses where it is now legal.
You need a better argument then misplaced concern and fear mongering.
Not to mention that people have waded into such situations unarmed to stop crazy people (and make no mistake Cho and Loughner were crazy). I’m not “qualified” to administer 1st aid- but you would sure as heck appreciate any service I could render should you have a fish hook in your hand or a wad of…. something stuck in your throat.
Some people, though they don’t wear a badge are shepherds by their nature. I’m ok with that.
“You and I see these yahoos at the range and yeah, they’re scary…. These people are not safe enough for a gun range and we want them carrying on college campuses? ”
I see some of the yahoos we let drink, I see some of the yahoos we let use kitchen knives, I see some of the yahoos we let drive, I see some of the yahoos we let vote…on and on.
It’s not just about safety, or security, or what is best for society. It is also about freedom.
We as adult U.S. citizens should be presumed to be responsible by our federal, state and local governments until we show ourselves not to be. That is how it works with all of the above and I don’t think it should be any different with regards to where legally armed citizens should be able to carry their firearm.
Beyond that, I would bet that many of the yahoos we see on the range are not concealed carry licensees
Here are my fears of guns on campus: one is pedagogical, and one is practical.
I fear that students and faculty might not enter into truly meaningful discussions of important issues if they know or believe that others in the classrooms are armed.
For example, I have asked Jewish guest speakers to come into my ancient literature classes to talk about the Old Testament, and one of these speakers was harassed and threatened after his lecture because of his religion. I cannot imagine what it would have been like for him if he had to wonder if the student who went after him was armed.
In a similar vein, some of my students are gay or lesbian and confront thoughtless, and at times, even hateful comments. Again, it might well be even harder for them if they had to wonder if their classmates were armed. It is difficult, at times, to keep a classroom both open and nurturing. Students need to feel free to express their views, yet there has to be a level of respect of other points of view so discussion is stimulated instead of stymied. I worry weapons in this setting would not act as a stimulant.
On a practical level, what happens when shots are fired in a building? If students and staff come racing out of their rooms and head for the exits, there will be mass confusion. If several people have retrieved their handguns and are in the hall, how will anyone know who the threat is and who the CCs are? I worry that adrenaline, fear, and chaos will lead to more shootings. The situation this spring in Arizona (where none of those carrying weapons made a bad decision) is not similar to the scenario in a classroom building, for no one in the halls would have seen the original shooting, or even known where the shooting took place. This would be a far more chaotic situation.
One the other hand, I have been teaching for 25 years, and I have always thought about how to get my students out of my classrooms safely, and I realize that there are some settings that it would be best if we would bunker-down–if I had my 1911 on me. Hypocrisy knows no limits, and I have wondered about carrying on campus even as I worry about people carrying on campus.
“I fear that students and faculty might not enter into truly meaningful discussions of important issues if they know or believe that others in the classrooms are armed. In a similar vein, some of my students are gay or lesbian and confront thoughtless, and at times, even hateful comments.”
This is nothing more than a rephrasing of the “fender bender” argument. Every time a CC bill comes up we’re warned that it’s going to turn into the wild west and people will be shooting each other over minor car accidents or getting bumped into on line somewhere. And it just doesn’t happen. Most people are not homicidal maniacs who refrain from killing their fellow man each day only because the means to do so isn’t readily at hand.
Also, there’s no constitutional right to go to college. If someone is harasssing a student to the point that the student fears for his safety you may want to consider, and I’m just spitballing here, maybe expelling the offender.
“If students and staff come racing out of their rooms and head for the exits, there will be mass confusion. If several people have retrieved their handguns and are in the hall, how will anyone know who the threat is and who the CCs are? I worry that adrenaline, fear, and chaos will lead to more shootings.”
I’m pretty sure that buildings with rooms exist off campus as well. Has your scenario ever come to pass? Anywhere?
Your fears seem to rest on the idea that as soon as campus carry is approved the entire student body is going to run out and get a gun. People who had no prior interest in CC are suddenly going to start packing. There’s just no reason to believe that anything beyond the 3-4% that usually CC are going to carry.
I am sorry, but several of your points seem to be off target. At no point did I use a wild west argument: I simply stated that people might not feel as open to discuss issues if there are weapons (or thought to be weapons) in the setting. I made no claims that people would start shooting; I simply talked about an educational atmosphere.
I certainly know that buildings off campus have rooms in them. But most buildings are not designed to pack as many people as possible into as little room as is necessary. You are correct: I do not know if this situation has ever happened. But, if there continue to be shootings on campuses and a small minority of students and staff choose to carry weapons, this situation could very well happen.
I do not believe that my premise was based upon “the entire student body” carrying handguns. I believe I stated “if several people retrieved their handguns.” Let’s use your figure of 3 to 4 percent of the population carrying–that would mean about one person per class of 25-32 (the number of students I teach per section depending upon the level of class it is). The building in which I normally teach, there are between 10 and 14 classrooms per floor that can hold up to 35 students, as well as two pit classrooms that hold 200 students each. Excluding the pits, even if there were just 2% of the students and staff who carried, that would mean that there would be maybe 5 to 7 people per floor who were armed. Yes, I think that there could be confusion and the danger of unwanted shootings.
As has been discussed here at TTAG, it is often difficult to remove students from the campus. And my Jewish friend has grown accustomed to dealing with religious bigotry. The population of our campus comes from predominantly rural areas/small towns/small cities where very few people are not either Catholic or Protestant.
I find your concerns theoretically well-founded. Let’s face it, any thinking CC’er has considered “friendly fire” scenarios where more than one CC’er responds where deadly force is appropriate, but where stress and confusion make telling fellow CC’er from the bad guy difficult.
You do realize there are groups using violence and the threat of violence to intimidate speakers NOW, when concealed carry is forbidden? I suspect these groups would be reluctant to carry on their antics if they thought one of their targets might be able to defend themselves.
The Jewish speaker and gay students you cited above have to wonder if people are armed anyway. I find it hard to believe that someone who would commit a wrongful act with a gun would have any compunction about breaking a no guns rule. Unless you’re prepared to establish a secure perimeter around the campus and put everyone who enters campus through TSA-style security checks, people will always have to wonder about others being armed. Absent those security measures, the best way to create an environment where people feel safe to express controversial ideas is to allow those who feel threatened the option of being armed themselves.
Matt, in all honesty, I have never wondered if any of my students are armed, even though we have no way of keeping weapons off of campus (okay, there was one young man years ago, but that is it. He was from the north-woods of Wisconsin, and I just think that he did not feel safe in our community of 50,000). I understand you argument about having those who feel threatened carry weapons. It is just that after many years in the classroom, I disagree with that perspective. There is something to be said about MAD when it comes to nation states, but the classroom is a very different environment and has different goals.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, and I respect the way you have represented yourself here, but I think that some of what you are saying is really the Not In My Back Yard attitude.
People are always able to rationalize why their particular case is special and different. If we allowed every person a waiver for laws, rules, restrictions or rights that they believe they should be able to ignore then very shortly we would live in a society with no laws rules restrictions or rights.
Colleges are unique in many ways, but not unique enough to require an entirely different approach. Many places have similar logistical concerns. Movie theaters and sports stadiums have large groups of people crammed into as small a space as possible, but the legislature does not generally carve out an exception for them. Debates, town hall meetings and protests have people of vastly different views whom are often openly hostile to each other, they do not get a legislative pass either.
With regards to your concern over people feeling comfortable or not…honestly most people either make risk assessments or don’t. People may be a little edgy the first few months after the law were to change, but eventually most people would slip back into condition white where they do not believe they are in any threat or danger. Those that tend to be more switched on with regards to their environment will be more aware of who may or may not be a threat and maintain condition yellow (which generally has nothing to do with a weapon, unless/until one is openly brandished)
And I truly appreciate your respectful and well thought-out positions.
If I might make a few points. There are often limits placed upon bringing weapons into governmental buildings, and there are real limitations place on first amendment rights at all sorts of public gatherings. I know of political signs being confiscated at the doors of town hall meetings, and I well remember the “protest/free speech zones” that were used during the Bush II presidency to keep those with anti-Bush signs away from the president. ( http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/ ). I am not suggesting these are good things, just that there are all sorts of limitations placed upon our rights.
To your point about movie theaters and sports stadiums, as far as I know, most stadiums are “gun free zones.” (Having been to enough Packer/Bear games, this might not be the dumbest law. Many drunk people and very strong emotions–though, I truly believe essentially everyone doing a CC would be rational and not drink while carrying). Also, the purpose of these places is to entertain the patrons. University classes are designed–or should be–to encourage the intellectual interactions of people who might well hold very different points of view.
Again, I truly see your point of view.
I don’t think MAD really applies here. We’re talking about guns, not hand grenades (much less nuclear weapons). Things can go wrong of course, but guns can be aimed and fired in such a way that only one person gets hit.
One of my friends teaches government and politics to undergrads. He has been threatened with bodily harm by a student because he wouldn’t allow her to say overtly racist things in his classroom and he’s also had run-ins with students he has caught cheating. The threat from that first student was via her boyfriend, who was not enrolled. My friend would have no way of knowing if either one of them was armed, but the boyfriend didn’t even have expulsion from the college to fear for carrying. My friend tried to get that woman expelled, but the feckless administration didn’t do anything. He has gotten another person expelled for academic dishonesty.
My friend has formal training and lifelong experience with firearms and he would feel more comfortable with the risks he faces if he could carry on campus. So the school’s no gun policy actually has a chilling effect on his ability to maintain a classroom environment where controversial ideas can be safely discussed, or where academic dishonesty can be confronted.
Matt, You are correct about MAD; I simply meant to equate two sides who are equally armed. Clearly, this was not the best simile I could have used.
And, again, I appreciate your friend’s situation and why he would want to be armed. I am not sure that his position is not correct and that mine is wrong. I will certainly spend more time considering my point of view.
About the feckless administration, I am not sure what they could do about the young woman and her boyfriend. While everyone knows what the situation was, the university could very well have gotten itself into trouble if it had expelled her.
1) Colin Goddard has absolutely no special credentials of any sort that would elevate his views and opinions above any of the other nescient blowhards that spout this unmitigated nonsense every day. Six years ago, an intoxicated moron broke a great many bones in my torso and limbs with his car — that doesn’t make me an expert on road safety.
2) Operational knowledge of a tool, mechanism, or even a concept is very different from discipline, “maturity”, or whatever else you want to call the ability to control yourself under pressure (i.e. a killing spree taking place). I could know everything about firearms — all the tactics of use, from the proper stances to dynamic entry techniques, how to treat and handle them, and KNOW how to react during a mass murder in progress — completely, but break down under pressure even after just a few bullets have flown.
On the other hand, I could be so clueless as to require somebody else to insert the magazine into my pistol every morning for me, but react coolly and evenly in such a situation, pull out the gun, point it, and fire one or two well-placed rounds into whatever son of a bitch was committing the atrocity.
Discipline and reactional naivete stability are completely independent of any sphere of knowledge or proficiency related to firearms, because they’re universal, and can help you just as much, or screw you over just as much, with anything else you do, whether it’s driving a car, cutting a steak, performing tricks on your skateboard, or breaking up a brawl at a bar. You don’t NEED “special” ANYTHING for firearms – what you need is to know how to use your gun, just as with absolutely anything else, and a little discipline, just as with absolutely anything else, unless you’re planning on a career as a highly professional private contractor, or something.
If you wouldn’t kill or hurt another person with a book, or a fork, or a car, you wouldn’t do it with your gun. It’s incredible that most of the world’s population falls for this shit.
Res Publica Americana says: “If you wouldn’t kill or hurt another person with a book, or a fork, or a car, you wouldn’t do it with your gun. It’s incredible that most of the world’s population falls for this shit.”
The only trouble with that theory is we know it’s not true. Hand some people a firearm and they seem to become smarter — more careful, responsible and conscientious. They rise to the occasion, understanding what is required, in other words.
But hand other people a firearm and they instantly get dumber. Every day, people with firearms do things they wouldn’t dream of doing otherwise. Placing a gun in their hands actually seems to lower their IQ. That is essentially the theme of TTAG’s excellent feature, Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day. No intent to do wrong is required; only carelessness. You know, it’s fairly difficult to kill someone with a fork. It can be done, but it requires some skill to do a quick, neat job. Not so with a firearm. All it takes is a split second of inattention.
On most campuses, people are allowed to carry folding knives, and I’m sure there are people who use them irresponsibly- but I don’t think campuses are the worse for allowing them. There aren’t numerous stabbings which occur, and you don’t hear of people being afraid to voice their thoughts because someone has a knife clipped to their pocket or belt. As for people getting dumber with a handgun, that may be true for being placed in the driver’s seat of a car, and I haven’t heard any solutions for that yet.
Again, you are making an argument for tightening driving restrictions, not for loosening gun restrictions. If you notice, many gun rights arguments are relativistic. As in: “How come we can’t be stupid and irresponsible like those guys over there? It’s just not fair! We never get to have any fun.”
That’s basically what the knife–> gun argument comes down to. There was a time when every man had need to carry a pocket knife for everyday uses that had nothing to do with self-defense. That was almost before my time and I am pretty damn old. Today, unless you are a colorful frontier character (or a blade freak) you probably don’t carry one. I have no particular objection to people carrying reasonable folding knives. Unless you’re a trained killing machine, you can’t take out 19 people in 15 seconds like Loughner did.
I would argue that the problem with the automobile comparisons are not that they can’t be fitting, but those uncomfortable with guns just can’t get past cars and guns being so different. In addition to that, even a thoughtful person might counter that the utility of the automobile is so great that even when they acknowledge the harm done with them, they still think the car is a great net benefit to society. Even as a vigorous advocate of the RtKaBA, I admit that the automobile comparisons can be weak in their effect, even when the logic is sound.
Very good point Keith; I never looked at it like that before.
HB413, the bill that would have allowed those who have concealed carry permits to legally carry on public college campuses in Louisiana died in committee.
Interestingly, the committee vote that killed the bill was taken before those in favor of the bill were given a chance to speak. Goddard got his chance to speak. Those with opposing views did not. Democracy in action in Louisiana.