Opponents of Self Defense Recycle Old Lies
Special interests hostile to armed citizens and self-defense are once again spreading tired lies about Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and its mission. In press releases published mainly by anti-gun websites and blogs, groups such as the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus and the Brady Campaign claim that all efforts to rescind defense-free zones on college campuses in 2009 failed. Echoing similarly loaded and inaccurate allegations made earlier in the year, the notoriously anti-gun groups claimed failure in every state that considered concealed carry on campus legislation, calling such bills “dangerous,” “radical” and “extremist.”
These allegations come on the heels of legislation announced in three states (Georgia, Arizona and Virginia) which would remove arbitrary bans of concealed firearms on campus.
Furthermore, the critical eye of anti-defense groups somehow overlooked legislation passed in Arizona and South Carolina, which permits lawfully-armed citizens to keep firearms locked in their cars while on campus. They neglected to mention that legislation in Maryland, which would have criminalized concealed carry on campus, failed. They overlooked a Texas court siding with SCCC members wishing to protest concealed carry bans, and they ignored Michigan State University’s policy revision to allow concealed carry outside dorms and classrooms. In fact, far from being defeated, two bills introduced in Michigan in 2009 are still alive and pending.
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has lobbied for bills in more than 20 states since 2007, and expects more legislation across the United States in 2010. SCCC advocates allowing concealed carry of firearms on campus only by residents already authorized by their state government to carry elsewhere.
Anti-defense groups such as the Brady Campaign claim to represent students in the fight to keep colleges gun-free. Yet they remain silent when Colorado State University’s student government voted 21-3 in favor of keeping the concealed carry policy. They likewise enjoy propping up the opinions of anti-gun law enforcement only when convenient, ignoring local police who oppose the still-unenforced Colorado State gun ban, or who support Michigan concealed carry on campus legislation. They invoke safety as their chief goal, even though select colleges in Colorado, Michigan and Virginia, and all public universities in Utah, have successfully permitted concealed carry on campus, or that CSU’s crime rate plummeted upon the passage of concealed carry.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
An oft repeated LIE is hard to kill...ask the Catholic Church...the anti-gunners took instructions from them apparently.
That I seem to be the only gun-control supporter on this site... Or atleast I don't remember reading actual comments here that agree with me.
I'm not an activist on gun issues, nor do I seek to advocate for gun control . But I'm continually amused at how everyone claims that blood baths at colleges would be elliminated or drastically reduced if only a student were around to shoot back.
I think my opposition makes assumptions based on the 'intuitiveness' of having an armed student response to a crazed lunatic.
I'm not saying that the hypothesis is wrong , but I think that you could only argue that a shootout is the best response based on assumptions.
Civilians do stop crimes, sure. But students at colleges lose their cool all the time and I think putting more guns around them will just create better opportunities for them to make the wrong choice. I think that, by trying to get more guns on campus you are just creating an environment that breeds more rampages... That end a little sooner.
It seems that many of these rampages seem are premeditated, and that's important for trying to solve the problem, but I think it's a non-sequitor in the argument for bringing guns onto campus. It just seems reactionary, and it also seems to play into 2nd ammendment folk's wider agenda to deregulate gun ownership.
I understand that many of you will use the "shall not be infringed" trope against me, but I don't buy into unreasonable absolutism. The State has an interest in the well being of society and I don't believe founder worship and frontierism is a responsible policy choice for a "1st world", heavily populated country. Plenty of countries do just fine with reasonable gun control.
It just seems to me that gun ownership absolutism is motivated by desires that don't truly account for societal realities. Pragmatism seems anethema to the priorities of " gun rights " groups and I think that is dangerous.
Let the skewering begin. Peace.
P.S. I probably haven't effectively conveyed my feelings on this but I'm happy to discuss
Rampages are going to happen. Ending them a little sooner is a more feasible solution than every last student on campus remaining a target. When Columbine occurred the priority of Law Enforcement was to establish a perimeter and maintain the peace surrounding the building, not engage the suspects...
It's been that way in every active shooter scenario I've seen since then. You live in Florida, so you should remember how the Orlando office building went down.
I carry concealed everywhere except the post office , though as someone who carries concealed I will say the following: Situational awareness and training are necessary BEFORE you strap a gun to your waist, ankle, or under your shoulder. If you can't react (or know if/when you should react) then you have no business strapping that weapon to your body. There are legal ramifications. You are responsible for every bullet which leaves the barrel of your firearm. If you can't be responsible, you should not be armed. There's too many variables to predict how a scenario will unfold even if you have experienced a similar scenario before.
There are students who are responsible enough to take on the right-to-carry on campus and there are students who probably think they are responsible enough whereas in reality they aren't. The chances of the right person being in the wrong place at the right time are not always cut and dry, but self-defense is a fundamental right whether you've got empty hands, haphazard tools, or tedious preparations on your side.
Fyi: please read my reply to Douvas for my updated position before responding to this.
No one says you don't have a right to defend yourself in whatever way you can. The argument is wether or not it's appropriate to guns in classrooms.
As you can read above on my new thoughts, I am swayed by the position of only supporting concealed carry as the supermarket comparison is practically irrefutable without straying outside the context of the comparison.
I think the concealed aspect solves the appropriateness aspect for me as I am firmly opposed to visible weapons on campus by civilian non law enforcement.
Remember, your right to own a firearm is not absolute and must be considered against the desire for commity and comfort of the general public.
For clarification, I'm not opposed to OPEN carry in public, it's only settings like schools that I believe you don't have the absolute right to flaunt your "armed" status.
If you're a concealed carrier, you don't flaunt your armed status. At least that's my stance.
That's a totally different subject. SINCE the government shall not infringe, we have the right to self defence.
I once saw a picture that showed two people. One, a scrawny little wimp and an Arnold Swartzaneggar look a like with a bunch of guns hung on holsters and over his shoulder and what have you. The caption read something like "which one woud a mugger attack ?".
Well of course the mugger is going to pick on the weaker one. If the mugger doesn't know which one is the weaker one, what does he do?
You're worried about rampages, but rampages are going to happen whether we're allowed to carry weapons on campus or not. How long those rampages last is determined by how many others are carrying weapons. One student legally armed at VT saves how many lives? The more firearm carriers there are, answers that question with fewer victims.
Rampagers are still going to rampage, but how far they get before being stopped is determined by how many other students have weapons. I can't tell you that you can't stand up to someone threatening to take your life, and you can't tell anyone else the same. So, how they stop someone else shouldn't be your decision either.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Rice Klown, here is a lengthy document from Students for Concealed Carry on Campus--the group leading the fight for licensed concealed carry on college campuses--that clearly demonstrates that their arguments are not based on "intuitiveness" and that your argument (which is based purely on "intuitiveness") about college students losing their cool and going on shooting rampages has no basis in fact. You'll notice that not once in the 96-page document does SCCC use the "shall not be infringed" argument.
http://www.concealedcampus.org/pdf/sccc_package.pdf
Thank you Douva! I read the first 30 pages or so.
If it's accurate, it answered most of my concerns. I still have some thoughts but pending further information I think I may be coming over to the side of CONCEALED carry on campus.
My main "pro-control" position is in opposition to automatics and military grade firearms . I'm not anti-gun, but I see no reason whatsoever to grant ownership rights for assault weapons .
As for concealed carry , I'm generally for it but this document gives me good reason to alleviate my opposition to carry on campus.
I think at this point we'll just have to see how it pans out in the event of a rampage on a carry on campus school . But my position could now be considered as Cautiously supportive of concealed carry on campus. However I think it's more of a support for the positions taken by this particular organization (SCCC) in that only registered concealed guns should even be considered. I nevertheless still oppose ANY open carry on campus.
Again, thank you Douva.
P.S. My delay in response to you was in having to read this and sleep on it.
Rice Klown,
Thanks for taking the time to read through SCCC's handbook. People are usually surprised to find that SCCC's agenda isn't quite as radical as most gun control advocates would have them believe.
It's a topic for another discussion, but in response to your comment about " assault weapons ," you should keep in mind that military grade weapons and "assault weapons" are not the same thing. If you'd like to know what exactly differentiates an " assault weapon" from a military weapon, check out this site:
http://www.ProtestEasyGunsLIES.com
I don't think all things are being considered on this point. It is not necessarily the idea of students or anyone else shooting back in situations where the good guy is confronted with the bad guy. But there is also psychological ideas coming into play here. Consider the fact that if the wrong doer knew that there was the possibility that he may have some resistance. The bad guy wants total control but if one or more people have a weapon as well, the perp would be less likely to take them on. Its more of a presence thing more than anything. Just like leaving a cop car in the parking lot of a convenience store to if not anything else, make someone think twice about doing something wrong.