As I followed the story of the Idaho legislature making the carrying of guns on campus legal for a small subset of students that were highly trained, it was shocking to see how much silly disinformation was published in an attempt to railroad the legislators into voting against the measure. Everything was thrown at them, from the usual “blood in the streets” predictions to smears of adult students as irresponsible drunks, to a highly inventive notion that Idaho campuses would lose funding for their nuclear research reactors. One educator asked when he would be able to shoot students, in a lame attempt at sarcasm that was published by the New York Times . . .
The legislation became effective on 1 July. The small number of trained and licensed students are now able to legally carry on campus. And while it’s still early days, a reporter interviewed some students at Idaho State University and most are fine with it.
“I do not and would not carry a gun on campus, but I am for it,” says ISU student, Scott Fisher.
“It really doesn’t matter to me. I mean if they want a weapon on campus, fine, just don’t show it off. I’m good not knowing,” says ISU student, Abigil Barnes.
Some students on the ISU campus say they feel a sense of security, now knowing that their fellow classmates and their professors can be armed on campus.
Here is the money quote:
Although there are not many students attending the summer session at ISU, most the students that were on campus said they don’t have a problem with the new gun law.
As has happened again and again, as the right to bear arms has been slowly restored across the country, dire predictions of blood and disaster are put forth in attempts to frighten the population and legislators into doing what those who desire a disarmed population want. Then, when that didn’t work and the predicted bloodshed failed to materialize, they wait for the next proposal to loosen the restrictions, and regurgitate their inane arguments all over again. Wash, rinse, repeat. They have nothing else.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch
The thing is, the students interviewed are peers with those that might choose to carry. They know better than anyone else that no one is gonna get shot in the streets.
Accidental gun deaths and school shootings are so uncommon (2-4% of all gun deaths are accidents right?) that any negative or positive effects won’t really be measurable. Since hiring security guards to defend schools from psychos (someone in an old article did the math for public schools and it was over $1 million in guard salary for every potential life saved) isn’t a viable option the only choice to protect schools is to let the kids and staff carry.
Whenever an anti tries to justify gun control to end school shootings, ask them how. Ask them how they know it will help, because they can’t answer that truthfully.
“Ask them how they know it will help, because they can’t answer that truthfully.”
You make some excellent points. However, it should be pointed out that they don’t WANT to answer that question truthfully.
It’s not about it helping with school shootings. Gun control is not about the guns, per se. It’s about control.
The rank-and-file gun control advocate may well believe civilian disarmament makes everyone safer. The leadership of these movements, however, is after a much bigger prize.
These lines about violence and making people (especially children) safer are just that…lines to tweak emotions so they gain support.
But that’s not their end game, and they don’t really care about answering for their “theories.” They’re just stepping stones on a path to disarmament for authoritarian reasons.
One of the things about those preaching disarmed populations, even at a high level, is how incredibly ignorant they are about firearms and history. They are often willfully self delusional as well, or in other words, they are very good at lying to themselves. This makes it rather difficult to determine their precise motives.
I think the clearest and most likely motive is simply that they want power and control over others, this makes them feel better about themselves. They have great needs to have their egos stoked. Allowing others the means to resist their power likely “feels” very offensive to them at an emotional level. They project their own desire to control onto others, so they are not comfortable with others having weapons.
I’d ask them, “Howcome all of the mass shootings so far have taken place in so-called “gun-free” zones?”
Most, not all. Giffords was in a parking lot IIRC.
Parking lots are still murder free zones, right? How’d that work out? To Rich’s point, though, the laws don’t have an effect on those who don’t care about the long term consequences. It takes immediate, physical opposing force to repel or deter these killers; i.e., a good guy with a gun.
To those whose self-defense plan consists of hoping that the spree shooter is so close to them that when he does open fire, at point blank range, those few who may survive the initial enfilade might perhaps have a chance and the courage in the midst of the carnage and confusion to charge the killer, tackle him and engage in MMA style hand-to-hand, ground and pound until the police arrive…….well, good luck with that.
There are about 30,000 deaths by gunshot in the United States in a year.
Roughly 10,000 of those are homicides, about 700 to 1,500 of the homicides are justified. The FBI under-reports justified homicides by a factor of 3-7x.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/06/justified-homicide-in-califonia-not.html
About 20,000 are suicides.
Accidental deaths have been holding fairly steady at about 600 a year, so that would be 2% of the total.
Couldn’t accidental deaths be over reported, as there’s perhaps less stigma and maybe more sympathy for a family that loses someone, especially a child, accidentally as opposed to intentionally? There’s also the insurance angle, in that policies may not pay out within a certain time period, or maybe at all, in the event of suicide; but “accidental” deaths would be covered.
It is a possibility. Most gun “accidents” happen to people who are on the very far edge of the responsibility spectrum. Most “accidents” involving small children are when a child is shot by an irresponsible adult who was not following the safety rules.
More children under five drown in five gallon buckets each year than die in fatal firearms accidents. That number tends to be in the single digits.
“Whenever an anti tries to justify gun control to end school shootings, ask them how. Ask them how they know it will help, because they can’t answer that truthfully.”
I have used this many times in gun control debates on various “progressive” blogs. “How would ‘X’ have prevented any of the mass shootings in the last year?” They can’t answer. When they do, you can easily pull on any of the recent shootings to debunk their theory. Safe storage mandate – defeated easily. Background Checks – you have ER in UCSB who passed all the requirements in the strictest gun-control state in the union.
While the civilian disarmament complex is always going to be in full swing on control mode, getting out there and presenting a rational, firm pro-gun argument might help open someone’s eyes. After all, someone opened my eyes to the Truth about Guns (not just the site) and it changed my mind once I got real facts.
Thanks for that reply. That was my point; not that you would convince the hardcore gun control advocates but that you might get their fence sitting friends to think a bit more about it.
Just the same old non truths over and over again.
All have been shown to be statically false, the blood in the streets will flow mentality.
More guns on a campus can only make things better in the long term.
The less the students see who is and who isn’t.
The better.
In time no one will even care.
Just as in any society there is always the possibility of a bad egg.
Odds though.
Less then zero in my opinion or as they say statically insignificant to even count.
The only “blood on the streets” in America are in urban, drug addled, gang infested, ghettos. A combination of drug laws, non-free markets, and a people with a culture of violence is what causes problem. The majority of gun owners who commit a minorty of gun crime clearly are not.
Just a word to the “educated” professor who wanted to shoot unarmed students: Now that the students can carry firearms if you try to randomly start shooting them your odds of survival are terrible and that is the way it is supposed to work. It worked in the Cold War and it works now.
As a student at the University of Idaho, I was happy to see the legislation pass–not that I wasn’t already carrying, mind you, but now I can carry more than an LCP without fear of expulsion. However I do have to laugh at the implication that someone with an “Enhanced” (that’s what Idaho calls the new permits which allow you to carry on campus without academic reprisal) permit is “highly trained.” A few hours in a classroom and two boxes of ammo does not an operator make.
I’ve been carrying for years so I’ve learned to recognize the signs… and I lost count of the number of times I saw someone with the tell-tale signs of a gun on campus, even before the legislation passed. We’re a gun-loving state. This legislation reflects that, even if I tend to find most everything else that our conservative (state) government does abhorrent.
Certainly “highly trained” is a matter of degree. The enhanced permit requires much more training than the “ordinary” permit, even if it is only a few hours.
My youngest daughter is on college campus and has no problems with students having guns there. I bet you find out most of the resistance comes from the liberal faculty and the administration.
The truth is not as exciting as quivering university administrators would have you believe. There are now over 200 colleges and universities that have concealed carry. Blood is not running in the classrooms. I am completing my Masters in (choke) Education and my oldest son is a senior in engineering. We both have concealed firearm permits. You do the math; yes, I am that old. You have to be 21 to get the permit in my state so my son is no babe in the woods either. We both are well trained and competent in safely using firearms. The people going berserk over concealed carry on campus just don’t really know who we are. We pray they never have to find out.
I have a brother that lives in Idaho. Cool state.
for those of you that live there: you better get your antis sorted out and put in their place. Those bunch have infested around the Boise area like a cancer. No doubt ‘fugees from that third world country called southern california.
Idaho is a very cool state! 😉 The problem with the outcry against campus carry is that it was more theatre than reality. Idaho is a very firearms friendly state. Many Idahoans carry. It’s really hard to show exact numbers because most Idahoans also tend to keep their business to theirselves. But ask about firearms in most places away from Boise and they look at you like you’re from another planet. Of course they have firearms and of course they carry them around. I would wager that Idaho has more firearms per capita than most any place I’ve ever lived. Yet, I have only heard of a few incidents involving firearms. The blood in the street just doesn’t symbolize the condition here. People here are largely very friendly and tend to be very helpful when needed. And I believe that having the ability to equalize power readily has a great deal to do with why it is so wonderful.
The actual infestation is in what we call “The People’s Republic of the North End” of Boise and Blaine County (Sun Valley/Ketchum). We have used judicious gerrymandering to concentrate the libs in a few precincts (the Idaho Legislature is 81% GOP), and we passed the campus carry bill after a modest but effective purge of RINOs from a few key Senate seats in 2012.
It is kind of fun to read the whining of the libs in the local birdcage liner (the Boise newspaper). Funny how they get so upset with an Idaho legislature that won’t “cross the aisle” to approve Democrat idiocies, but they are just fine with Californicate’s Dem super-majority Legislature passing every anti-gun bill possible. Hey, that’s different! I am SO glad I escaped the people’s Republic of California 10 years ago. I believe I have made a significant contribution to the FLGS’s bottom line in that period, and I certainly enjoy voting against anyone who runs as a “moderate” in our GOP primaries.
Having been to Austin, Texas, San Antone (Antonio), Tx,, Texas A&M, a few other college campuses, I would be nervous if they had sharpened pencils outside a controlled environment, for the most part. However, I do not know the age, experience, or training involved with other students. I do know that “Gun Free” zones work as well as “No Dumping” zones.
Insofar as permits are required, beyond the age requirement that severely limits eligibility, there’s also a robust element of self-selection involved in concealed carry in most places. Aside from the expense of the firearm and ammunition, non-negligible to the typically tight-budgeted college student, there’s the time, license and training expenes, too. The combined effect tends to weed out those who are borderline responsible and most everyone else who simply has higher priorities. It isn’t as though they’re handing out Glocks in freshman orientation swag bags.
Also, even after you have your permit you have to choose to carry. Many people get their permit and use it as much as that treadmill sitting in the closet. Self-interest goes the furthest toward well-educated and well-trained in almost any field, including firearms.
this makes me happier
Every once in a while my wife and I have official business at a University and every time I lock my firearm in the car I ask her “do you feel safer now?”. She’s getting sick of me asking but I’ll keep asking.
Every one of the people I knew in college that are now carrying are model citizens. Most of the stereotypical drunks and “wild kids” I knew only know about guns from the Hollywood myths. Wild exaggeration and fear are really their only tools in trying to wriggle out of fair legislation that can actually improve the safety on campus. Just like Chicago and other high crime areas colleges don’t want their failures showcased, they want to keep control away from individuals.
I get emails just about every week from my school.
Assault on campus
Robbery on campus
Robbery in parking lot
Car Jacking in parking lot
The list goes on and on. I know there was a rape that happened last year inside the fkning place. I was under the impression that this was a decent school but apparently not. Given my situation in life at the moment, I cannot switch schools. Out of the question. Really wish this school would let me carry.
I attended Boise State for 5 years and carried every day I was on campus…the sky did not fall. Imagine that.