PDA

View Full Version : Gun Rights On Campus Movement Is Gainig Steam


.454
02-16-2009, 5:23 PM
Here is a surprisingly unbiased piece from Washington (com)Post on pro-Second Amendment student groups and their efforts to legalize the right carry concealed firearms in university campuses for self protection:

Students Aim for Gun Rights on Campus (http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/02/gun-rights-on-campus-movement-is-gainig.html)
:thumbsup:

ZRX61
02-16-2009, 5:31 PM
Whats the law on having your gun in the usual locked container with loaded mags next to it in your bag (or even just in your hand)?

SwissFluCase
02-16-2009, 5:33 PM
This is the next frontier of gun rights - ending "victim disarmament" zones.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

andrewj
02-16-2009, 5:41 PM
Consider them the "Air Marshals" of the classroom

pullnshoot25
02-16-2009, 6:53 PM
Friggin awesome.

Seesm
02-16-2009, 7:24 PM
I think as I have said before and I WILL say again...if your legal to own a gun it would be a safer world if we all were armed...

Do something stupid you will lose your gun rights, so I know I would tread lightly and not tread on people... Ahh I need to move to Texas!! haha actually we need to adopt ALL the good laws this week or next week... Who's with me? :)

SanSacto
02-16-2009, 7:35 PM
In a debate I had with a professor when he brought up the 2nd Amendment, I brought up the point that Utah permits concealed carry on campuses. He didn't like that, and said even if students were carrying that we could not stop the bad guy! I beg to differ......if I heard gunshots outside or in the hallway I would take cover and wait for backup. And if the bad guy came in the classroom, he would be all over the white board. The other students agreed with me when I asked if you would feel more comfortable if I or another student had protection. Campus cops are not in abundance.......

yellowfin
02-16-2009, 8:36 PM
Consider them the "Air Marshals" of the classroom
And the penicillin against the disease known as the anti gun movement. If/when the majority of states have campus carry, the anti 2A ideology will be effectively eradicated.

thebloodsonthewall
02-16-2009, 9:07 PM
In a debate I had with a professor when he brought up the 2nd Amendment, I brought up the point that Utah permits concealed carry on campuses. He didn't like that, and said even if students were carrying that we could not stop the bad guy! I beg to differ......if I heard gunshots outside or in the hallway I would take cover and wait for backup. And if the bad guy came in the classroom, he would be all over the white board. The other students agreed with me when I asked if you would feel more comfortable if I or another student had protection. Campus cops are not in abundance.......

Good job. Every time I engaged someone in a college class room in a discussion like that it did not turn out positively. That is why I take classes online now.

On a side note, my post count is higher then my Private Messages count now.

lioneaglegriffin
02-16-2009, 10:56 PM
I talk about UTAH campus carry with my political science prof. and she joked the students in utah must have high grades because the teachers wouldn't want to make them angry. (intimating that they would be shot if the failed a class) :( Then i came back with the teachers can carry to so they wouldn't be worried about that. ;)

vrand
02-16-2009, 11:34 PM
Also, a cool site with latest Liberty news :thumbsup:

andrewj
02-17-2009, 9:16 AM
What are your opinions? Should campus carry be a "may issue" or "shall issue" thing?

pingpong
02-17-2009, 9:38 AM
This is definitely a double-edged sword. I'd like to be able to carry on campus, but I would rather the hot-headed piss-drunk frat boy not :p

yellowfin
02-17-2009, 10:15 AM
This is definitely a double-edged sword. I'd like to be able to carry on campus, but I would rather the hot-headed piss-drunk frat boy not :p
The piss drunk types don't have CCW's, and since campus carry is asking for LEGAL carry and doing so while intoxicated isn't legal, they're not the ones getting the ok to do so. Many states I know of include in their criteria for carry permits that one be not a "habitual drunkard" or "of ill reputation" which would involve any public intoxication and DUI charges.

SwissFluCase
02-17-2009, 10:27 AM
The piss drunk types don't have CCW's, and since campus carry is asking for LEGAL carry and doing so while intoxicated isn't legal, they're not the ones getting the ok to do so. Many states I know of include in their criteria for carry permits that one be not a "habitual drunkard" or "of ill reputation" which would involve any public intoxication and DUI charges.

Most drunk prize fighter types I have known HATE guns and want nothing to do with them.

I wonder why?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Adonlude
02-17-2009, 10:29 AM
What are your opinions? Should campus carry be a "may issue" or "shall issue" thing?

It should respect whatever issue policy is in effect in the area that it resides. I wouldn't mind "may issue" as long as CCW's were actually isued. Police can't have quotas on speeding tickets but you know they will get in trouble if they aren't issuing enough. It is understood that a certian number of people will be speeding in a given area and tickets should be given out accordingly. It should also be understood that a certian number of sane people will want CCW's in a given area and they should be issued accordingly lest a fire be lit under the issuing athority.

bruss01
02-17-2009, 11:16 AM
I see both sides of the argument. There are a lot if irresponsible, careless or foolhardy young people these days. It's regrettable that those folks mess up a lot of things for those who toe the line and mind their p's and q's. But if someone is truly concerned about safety, they should be allowed to carry. If I were a young student, I would have no problem with the following criteria:

Carry a respectable grade point average
Have a driver's license (shows responsiblity with potentially deadly consequence)
Drug test
Record of responsible behavior (no graffiti or reckless driving, fights, vandalism, underage drinking)
No history of psychological problems or psychiatric meds
Pay a fee to cover the above costs, renewable anually

These would be in addition to passing a safe handling and marksmanship class and obtaining a general CCW permit - this would be for the special "on-campus" permit.

Personally I don't want anyone who can't meet every one of the above carrying a loaded firearm and sitting next to me in a class every day. Once a person is mature (over 25 in most cases) some youthful indescretions may be forgivable. But if you committed graffiti at 18 and now you're 19 or 20 and wanting to carry a gun... sorry, I need a little more of a clean track record to have confidence in your judgement and respect for others before I'm comfortable with you toting iron in my presence.

yellowfin
02-17-2009, 11:23 AM
I see both sides of the argument. There are a lot if irresponsible, careless or foolhardy young people these days. It's regrettable that those folks mess up a lot of things for those who toe the line and mind their p's and q's. But if someone is truly concerned about safety, they should be allowed to carry. If I were a young student, I would have no problem with the following criteria:

Carry a respectable grade point average
Have a driver's license (shows responsiblity with potentially deadly consequence)
Drug test
Record of responsible behavior (no graffiti or reckless driving, fights, vandalism, underage drinking)
No history of psychological problems or psychiatric meds
Pay a fee to cover the above costs, renewable anually

These would be in addition to passing a safe handling and marksmanship class and obtaining a general CCW permit - this would be for the special "on-campus" permit.

Personally I don't want anyone who can't meet every one of the above carrying a loaded firearm and sitting next to me in a class every day. Once a person is mature (over 25 in most cases) some youthful indescretions may be forgivable. But if you committed graffiti at 18 and now you're 19 or 20 and wanting to carry a gun... sorry, I need a little more of a clean track record to have confidence in your judgement and respect for others before I'm comfortable with you toting iron in my presence.

What exactly makes you think that the current 21 and other criteria in place is inadequate? Just because someone is on a college campus automatically makes them an inferior class of person? Is someone who has a TX or VA or MI CCW and moves here less qualified to have a CA one just because they're standing in this state now instead of a shall issue one?

bruss01
02-17-2009, 12:04 PM
Defensive much?

No, being on a college campus does not make one inferior.

But having such a short track record as an adult makes one an unproven quantity. This is the case that will be made by every opponent of campus carry. The way to fight that is not to adopt a policy of "no student will handle a firearm on campus irresponsibly, until he or she proves us wrong by doing so". I think the 21 age limit needs to go - if you're an adult, legally, you should have the rights of an adult within certain parameters. Freshman are no less deserving of a right to life than seniors.

The way to get campus carry is to offer it to a "Gold Standard" of student who has displayed a consistently high level of mature and responsible behavior. If that pans out, over a few year's time, then maybe the rules can be loosened to be more inclusive.

18, 19 and 20 year old students are, in many cases, still exploring the limits of good judgement. That doesn't make them bad, it just makes them not the person you want "exploring" what works and what doesn't regarding their behavior while they are carying a gun. It makes them incomplete.

Your defensive attitude makes me wonder if you would fail to pass one or more of the criteria I lined out. I don't expect any admissions, though. I think they are tough, but fair, and if a person wants to carry on a campus, they should be willing to make a few meager sacrifices (horrors, no pot at the frat parties) in order to avail themselves of that level of trust.

We trust students with another potentially deadly mechanism - automobiles. Statistics consistently show accidents and misjudgements to be highest among the under 25 age category. There is a class and a license required. A substantial lapse in behavior can result in the license being revoked or suspended. Insurance and safe operating condition of the vehicle are required. Does this mean we should ban student-age people from driving? No. But is creating an extra margin of safety to compensate for still-developing judgement and lack of experience a bad thing? Personally, I don't believe it is.

wolf13
02-17-2009, 12:38 PM
Defensive much?

No, being on a college campus does not make one inferior.

But having such a short track record as an adult makes one an unproven quantity. This is the case that will be made by every opponent of campus carry. The way to fight that is not to adopt a policy of "no student will handle a firearm on campus irresponsibly, until he or she proves us wrong by doing so". I think the 21 age limit needs to go - if you're an adult, legally, you should have the rights of an adult within certain parameters. Freshman are no less deserving of a right to life than seniors.

The way to get campus carry is to offer it to a "Gold Standard" of student who has displayed a consistently high level of mature and responsible behavior. If that pans out, over a few year's time, then maybe the rules can be loosened to be more inclusive.

18, 19 and 20 year old students are, in many cases, still exploring the limits of good judgement. That doesn't make them bad, it just makes them not the person you want "exploring" what works and what doesn't regarding their behavior while they are carying a gun. It makes them incomplete.

Your defensive attitude makes me wonder if you would fail to pass one or more of the criteria I lined out. I don't expect any admissions, though. I think they are tough, but fair, and if a person wants to carry on a campus, they should be willing to make a few meager sacrifices (horrors, no pot at the frat parties) in order to avail themselves of that level of trust.

If being on campus DOESN'T make them inferior, why then must they go through extra hoops to carry on campus, when they can 1 mile away at the grocery store?

There is nothing fair about your restrictions. If someone is allowed to carry, then they should be allowed to do so on campus. It has nothing to do with the fact that the restrictions are attainable, but everything to do with control. Simply look at how gun control started, and for what reason to see that simple restrictions are detrimental to gun rights.

bruss01
02-17-2009, 12:53 PM
Sure, I would love to have a world where everyone could carry everywhere all the time with no permits, fees, training or any other requirement. But I also rationally acknowledge that wouldn't be in the best interests of society nor the individual.

If you don't see a difference between walking in and out of a store where you spend maybe a few minutes (or any other typical public place) and being in a classroom (stuck there for the sake of your education) for hours, maybe a full day even, with hundreds of other people under 25 whose behavior you can't always anticipate or control... then I think that would point to the issue of people under 25 (yourself, perhaps?) not having a level of experience and judgement that one would expect from someone entrusted with carrying a gun on campus.

In other words, if you don't get it, you illustrate the point.

DDT
02-17-2009, 1:12 PM
In other words, if you don't get it, you illustrate the point.

that is a terribly weak argument rhetorically speaking. To suggest that someone disagreeing with your point is evidence that they cannot understand your point is nothing more than an overarching "appeal to authority" argument. So you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is dumber than you? Sounds like you need to understand the basis of discourse a bit better than you appear to.

Firearms are no more safe or unsafe than the people possessing them. You may well have been emotionally immature at 24 and incapable of handling the responsibility of carrying a handgun but don't assume the same about all 24 year old people.

It would seem that a classroom attended for hours would be a considerably safer environment than a convenience store in which you spend a couple minutes a day. (They don't call them stop-n-robs for nothing) Additionally, it would seem that the classroom situations that require the use of a handgun would be pretty cut and dry. Do you really think that two students are going to open fire over a disagreement about Stewart's theory of social Darwinism? Or are more concerned about a gun battle over the last 2L erlenmeyer flask in chem lab?

wolf13
02-17-2009, 1:24 PM
Sure, I would love to have a world where everyone could carry everywhere all the time with no permits, fees, training or any other requirement. But I also rationally acknowledge that wouldn't be in the best interests of society nor the individual.

If you don't see a difference between walking in and out of a store where you spend maybe a few minutes (or any other typical public place) and being in a classroom (stuck there for the sake of your education) for hours, maybe a full day even, with hundreds of other people under 25 whose behavior you can't always anticipate or control... then I think that would point to the issue of people under 25 (yourself, perhaps?) not having a level of experience and judgement that one would expect from someone entrusted with carrying a gun on campus.

In other words, if you don't get it, you illustrate the point.

So because you are older, I don't get it? If you wish to make a point, go ahead, but to infer that I am dumb because I disagree with you is wrong.

Nobody is stuck in college, it is a choice people make. I am amazed that you think that once out of the college environment, that people won't react the same. Yes, I would say that having a gun in a non school environment is more dangerous than in one. In a classroom, everything is structured, and there aren't random people walking around. The classroom setting is actually fairly set, even in college. People show up, or don't, and sit down.

Why does it matter how long I spend in one place? What effect does that have on anything regarding guns? Guns are dangerous no matter where you are, and how long you are in a spot.

I also wasn't aware that only people over 25 are allowed out in public, must have missed that one.

7x57
02-17-2009, 1:40 PM
Part of the problem here is that campus CCW discussions always seem to assume the the purpose is to prevent another Virginia Tech.

It isn't. It is also about, for example, girls walking back to the dorm in the dark alone.


Carry a respectable grade point average


So a girl who gets poor grades can be allowed to be a rape target? Is her person of less value because she is not a good student?


Have a driver's license (shows responsiblity with potentially deadly consequence)


So non-drivers, perhaps those who cannot afford cars, should not be protected from being mugged?


Drug test


If you said "no drug-related record" I'd agree. But testing assumes guilt unless innocence is proven. It teaches people at the beginning of full citizenship that the government can make intrusive tests without cause.

It teaches them subjugation.


Record of responsible behavior (no graffiti or reckless driving, fights, vandalism, underage drinking)


I agree with these, because they are *actual acts* and not suspicion, and because they are all voluntary choices.

But they *will* be abused. Someone will be bullied and defend themselves and then the school will call it fighting.


No history of psychological problems or psychiatric meds


The problem with this is that contrary to the propaganda of the profession, many psychological diagnoses are pure judgment calls. I promise you that exceptions for psychological problems are holes through which anything can be driven.

That said, there are certainly issues which prevent one from being safe and responsible, so it's a tough call. The statute needs to be written very narrowly so that the types of problems and the evidence for them are narrow.


Pay a fee to cover the above costs, renewable anually


Ah, yes, the "poor people" prohibition. This works real well--we have a lot of experience keeping guns out of the hands of poor white trash and dem colored folk. Their persons are not worth protecting, as they don't have money, and we all know the "lower classes" are dangerous untrustworthy slobs.


These would be in addition to passing a safe handling and marksmanship class and obtaining a general CCW permit -


The problem with those classes is that they are back door taxes on exercising a right, and arbitrary judgment of the government to decide what constitutes a pass. The government might decide at some point that you need to be able to shoot a 1" group at 50 yards.

One way to control this is to require the class to be free to all qualified applicants. If the government asks you to know something you don't need to know, then they pay for the extra class-time.

It hurts me to suggest that the government provide free services, but the above at least lays the pain on the government.


this would be for the special "on-campus" permit.


One of the basic problems underlying your arguments is that you accept the gun-banners theory that campuses are different. They are not, except that "think of the children" makes people's minds turn to mush even more effectively when schools are involved.

No segregation for schools.


Personally I don't want anyone who can't meet every one of the above carrying a loaded firearm and sitting next to me in a class every day.


Personally, I don't want a Marxist idiot who thinks that the economy should be nationalized sitting in the oval office next to me in class and spouting his drivel there or anywhere else.

Oddly enough, however, he has first amendment rights that are not dependent on my personal preferences.

Equally oddly, other students have second amendment rights that are not dependent on your personal preferences either.


Once a person is mature (over 25 in most cases) some youthful indescretions may be forgivable.


Their life becomes valuable enough to be worth protecting at 25? Interesting.


But if you committed graffiti at 18 and now you're 19 or 20 and wanting to carry a gun... sorry, I need a little more of a clean track record to have confidence in your judgement and respect for others before I'm comfortable with you toting iron in my presence.

It's a good thing that your personal level of preference is not terribly relevant. Graffiti reflects on respect for other people's property. It is not violence related. A record of fighting (directly related to violence and self-control) or public intoxication (a voluntary loss of self-control) may well disallow carry (I'm not sure that public intoxication should count unless some other actual poorly controlled act was involved, though it probably will be if the police were involved).

The second key flaw in your whole line of argument is that it is about when one should be granted the privilege of being armed. The point of having the 2A legally recognize the human right of self defense is so that the government may not treat it as a privilege. IOW, it is unacceptable to require the citizen to prove they are capable of CCW. The burden must be on the government to prove the citizen cannot. Otherwise, it is not a right.

7x57

bruss01
02-17-2009, 1:42 PM
that is a terribly weak argument rhetorically speaking. To suggest that someone disagreeing with your point is evidence that they cannot understand your point is nothing more than an overarching "appeal to authority" argument. So you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is dumber than you? Sounds like you need to understand the basis of discourse a bit better than you appear to.

Firearms are no more safe or unsafe than the people possessing them. You may well have been emotionally immature at 24 and incapable of handling the responsibility of carrying a handgun but don't assume the same about all 24 year old people.

It would seem that a classroom attended for hours would be a considerably safer environment than a convenience store in which you spend a couple minutes a day. (They don't call them stop-n-robs for nothing) Additionally, it would seem that the classroom situations that require the use of a handgun would be pretty cut and dry. Do you really think that two students are going to open fire over a disagreement about Stewart's theory of social Darwinism? Or are more concerned about a gun battle over the last 2L erlenmeyer flask in chem lab?

You seem to have the same viewpoint, that it is the individual who is considered different. I submit that it is the environment that is different. It is high density, populated mostly with people who haven't yet developed mature judgement. Yes there are exceptions, and it's too bad we have to ask a little more of those exceptions because of their peers. A college campus presents many of the same risks as a dance club or mosh pit. The difference being that if you feel unsafe because the guy next to you keeps absent-mindedly fiddling with his CCW (or poking you where you carry yours) then you can just leave, risking only your entertainment for the evening. Whereas, on a college campus, if you are stuck next to someone you think is careless or unsafe, you can't just get up and walk out. Your future is at stake, and you shouldn't have to risk your life next to a careless goon who just happened to satisfy the criteria for a CCW permit.

Shootouts between angry students is not the primary concern. Constant safe behavior (both one's self and one's companions) is I believe the main concern. Accidents happen, and automotive insurance statistics show the under-25 group is a much higher risk than the general populace. If you're not acknowledging this, then you are refuting reality.

Look at it from the college point of view. Parents should believe a school is safe in order to send their children to study there. One or two "oops" accidents, even one where no one is hurt - if they make the media, then that means a lot of parents won't want their kids going there - which means lost revenue for the school. The insurance industry compensates for increased risk by charging the under 25 age group higher auto insurance premiums. I use the same reasoning to hold Campus CCW permit holders to a similar standard - yes my "gold standard" is a higher "premium" but that simply reflects the increased statistical risk associated with their demographic group.

If after a few years, the additional concern proves to be unwarranted, the standards can be relaxed to be more inclusive. It's a short sighted person who sees a 50% improvement in a situation as unacceptable. The outcome will then be based on the actual student behavior - if there is carelessness and resulting accidents among even the Gold Standard permit holders, then the program will probably be revoked. If they prove worthy of the confidence they have been entrusted with, then they will have opened the door to broader carry acceptance. The only reason to decry this proposition is if one cannot meet the criteria or if one adopts an "all or nothing, right now" attitude - which I have never found to be an indicator of a mature mindset. Both of those are the merit behind my statement "if you don't get it, you illustrate the point". In case one, the person is guilty of immature behavior. In situation two, they illustrate a single-mindedness that does not lend itself to the complexity of CCW in such a sensitive and potentially risk filled environment where shades of grey and weighted judgements must be discerned. It's not intended as an insult, but as a simple observation.

bruss01
02-17-2009, 4:32 PM
Part of the problem here is that campus CCW discussions always seem to assume the the purpose is to prevent another Virginia Tech.

It isn't. It is also about, for example, girls walking back to the dorm in the dark alone.
So a girl who gets poor grades can be allowed to be a rape target? Is her person of less value because she is not a good student?

So non-drivers, perhaps those who cannot afford cars, should not be protected from being mugged?
If you said "no drug-related record" I'd agree. But testing assumes guilt unless innocence is proven. It teaches people at the beginning of full citizenship that the government can make intrusive tests without cause. teaches them subjugation. I agree with these, because they are *actual acts* and not suspicion, and because they are all voluntary choices. But they *will* be abused. Someone will be bullied and defend themselves and then the school will call it fighting.

The problem with this is that contrary to the propaganda of the profession, many psychological diagnoses are pure judgment calls. I promise you that exceptions for psychological problems are holes through which anything can be driven.That said, there are certainly issues which prevent one from being safe and responsible, so it's a tough call. The statute needs to be written very narrowly so that the types of problems and the evidence for them are narrow.Ah, yes, the "poor people" prohibition. This works real well--we have a lot of experience keeping guns out of the hands of poor white trash and dem colored folk. Their persons are not worth protecting, as they don't have money, and we all know the "lower classes" are dangerous untrustworthy slobs.The problem with those classes is that they are back door taxes on exercising a right, and arbitrary judgment of the government to decide what constitutes a pass. The government might decide at some point that you need to be able to shoot a 1" group at 50 yards.

One way to control this is to require the class to be free to all qualified applicants. If the government asks you to know something you don't need to know, then they pay for the extra class-time.It hurts me to suggest that the government provide free services, but the above at least lays the pain on the government.One of the basic problems underlying your arguments is that you accept the gun-banners theory that campuses are different. They are not, except that "think of the children" makes people's minds turn to mush even more effectively when schools are involved.No segregation for schools.

Personally, I don't want a Marxist idiot who thinks that the economy should be nationalized sitting in the oval office next to me in class and spouting his drivel there or anywhere else.
Oddly enough, however, he has first amendment rights that are not dependent on my personal preferences.
Equally oddly, other students have second amendment rights that are not dependent on your personal preferences either.Their life becomes valuable enough to be worth protecting at 25? Interesting.

It's a good thing that your personal level of preference is not terribly relevant. Graffiti reflects on respect for other people's property. It is not violence related. A record of fighting (directly related to violence and self-control) or public intoxication (a voluntary loss of self-control) may well disallow carry (I'm not sure that public intoxication should count unless some other actual poorly controlled act was involved, though it probably will be if the police were involved).

The second key flaw in your whole line of argument is that it is about when one should be granted the privilege of being armed. The point of having the 2A legally recognize the human right of self defense is so that the government may not treat it as a privilege. IOW, it is unacceptable to require the citizen to prove they are capable of CCW. The burden must be on the government to prove the citizen cannot. Otherwise, it is not a right.7x57


You're having an argument with yourself. For instance, your statement "So a girl who gets poor grades can be allowed to be a rape target? Is her person of less value because she is not a good student?" which you want to put in my mouth, is not what I said or implied. Go read "More Guns, Less Crime". Unless the rapist knows her GPA, he can't know that she is unarmed. She is protected by the fact that SOME students carry guns, maybe not as directly as if she herself carried one, but in the mind of a rapist he knows he is taking a much bigger risk than preying at a campus where no carry of guns is allowed. He also knows her shrieks may summon a nearby fellow student who is armed. Your statement could easily be re-worded to imply that you think the stupidest, clumsiest, most irresponsible, bubble-headed bimbo on campus ought to have a gun, just because the world would not be the same without her. Being a good student means having your shizzle together. If I were going to design pilot-program to test the viability of on-campus ccw carry, I would want the participants to be people that had their act together, not the party-boyz and girlz with underwater grades (below C-level). The question of on-campus ccw is not "How do we help John Student feel protected on campus" the question is how do we help the most people and the over all situation? You seem to think that the way to do it is just throw open the barn door, give anyone who wants one a pistol and a permit, and let nature take it's course. I'm of the opinion that the accidents and tragedies and lawsuits that would ensue from that course of action would make DAMN CERTAIN nobody who is WORTH being trusted, ever got the chance again. By starting out with a pilot program with a select few who meet a high standard, you can open the door gradually and scale back only when the results begin to tell you you've gone too far.

You think I'm for limiting your rights - I'm saying you'll have more people, exercising more of their rights in the long run, by taking an incremental approach. Yes I have a strong libertarian streak, but the real world demands a practical approach that won't blow up in the face of gun rights activists. Having a Gold Standard on-campus permit is my proposal for taking the first steps in that direction.

andrewj
02-17-2009, 4:51 PM
I think the statement below covered it quite well:

"She is protected by the fact that SOME students carry guns, maybe not as directly as if she herself carried one, but in the mind of a rapist he knows he is taking a much bigger risk than preying at a campus where no carry of guns is allowed."

I see that concept being similar to having police roaming the town. There isnt an officer per each resident of the town but the fact that officers are present keeps us honest.


BTW:
the stupidest, clumsiest, most irresponsible, bubble-headed bimbo on campus

Yeah, thats my type! :D

DDT
02-17-2009, 4:52 PM
You seem to have the same viewpoint, that it is the individual who is considered different. I submit that it is the environment that is different. It is high density, populated mostly with people who haven't yet developed mature judgement. Yes there are exceptions, and it's too bad we have to ask a little more of those exceptions because of their peers.

You are not asking anything of those people because of their peers. You are denying them a civil liberty because of their peers. This is a significant difference. Are you saying that you are against issuing to NFL or NBA players because they are often together in dense packs and have a long history (as a group) of showing astoundingly little maturity? The same for residents of San Francisco?


A college campus presents many of the same risks as a dance club or mosh pit. The difference being that if you feel unsafe because the guy next to you keeps absent-mindedly fiddling with his CCW (or poking you where you carry yours) then you can just leave, risking only your entertainment for the evening. Whereas, on a college campus, if you are stuck next to someone you think is careless or unsafe, you can't just get up and walk out. Your future is at stake, and you shouldn't have to risk your life next to a careless goon who just happened to satisfy the criteria for a CCW permit.


This is a completely specious argument. The behaviors you are describing are illegal and you are certainly welcome to call the cops and that person's permit will be revoked. As for someone playing with your Carry weapon. Classmates should not know you are carrying, much less where!


Shootouts between angry students is not the primary concern. Constant safe behavior (both one's self and one's companions) is I believe the main concern. Accidents happen, and automotive insurance statistics show the under-25 group is a much higher risk than the general populace. If you're not acknowledging this, then you are refuting reality.


So, no hunting for the under-25 group? Or just not hunting trips that last longer than a short college class?


Look at it from the college point of view.

As part of "The State" the college doesn't have the luxury of a "point of view" as it regards rights defined in the constitution of the US.


Parents should believe a school is safe in order to send their children to study there. One or two "oops" accidents, even one where no one is hurt - if they make the media, then that means a lot of parents won't want their kids going there - which means lost revenue for the school. The insurance industry compensates for increased risk by charging the under 25 age group higher auto insurance premiums. I use the same reasoning to hold Campus CCW permit holders to a similar standard - yes my "gold standard" is a higher "premium" but that simply reflects the increased statistical risk associated with their demographic group.


As regards your criteria:
Carry a respectable grade point average
I assume you are also in favor of requiring non-students to show "respectable job reviews."

Have a driver's license (shows responsiblity with potentially deadly consequence)
I'm sure those who don't have the money or have some physical disability that prevents them from driving appreciate your random requirement.

Drug test
I don't even know how to respond to this. I used to work for a guy and we worked with "highly sensitive" information. He was a wonderful libertarian and when one of our customers asked about drug tests he said: "We used to have random drug tests but found the quality was so high we didn't feel the need to continue testing."


Record of responsible behavior (no graffiti or reckless driving, fights, vandalism, underage drinking)
How about, no record of irresponsible behavior.


No history of psychological problems or psychiatric meds
Most all issue regulations have exemptions for those mentally incapable of bearing the responsibility. I don't see a reason for a higher rule for those under 25.


Pay a fee to cover the above costs, renewable anually
I don't see any reason that once you issue to have more frequent costs or renewals. If they violate the rules/laws then revoke.


If after a few years, the additional concern proves to be unwarranted, the standards can be relaxed to be more inclusive. It's a short sighted person who sees a 50% improvement in a situation as unacceptable. The outcome will then be based on the actual student behavior - if there is carelessness and resulting accidents among even the Gold Standard permit holders, then the program will probably be revoked. If they prove worthy of the confidence they have been entrusted with, then they will have opened the door to broader carry acceptance. The only reason to decry this proposition is if one cannot meet the criteria or if one adopts an "all or nothing, right now" attitude - which I have never found to be an indicator of a mature mindset. Both of those are the merit behind my statement "if you don't get it, you illustrate the point". In case one, the person is guilty of immature behavior. In situation two, they illustrate a single-mindedness that does not lend itself to the complexity of CCW in such a sensitive and potentially risk filled environment where shades of grey and weighted judgements must be discerned. It's not intended as an insult, but as a simple observation.

The 40 states that have reasonable-issue laws have many years of issuing to those between 21 and 25 without a rash of incidents. Is this enough evidence to show your concerns are "unwarranted?" If not then you are not arguing their maturity level but rather the fact that a classroom is some sort of sacrosanct environment in which either people aren't deserving of the same levels of self-protection as everywhere else or a place where people lose the common sense they present everywhere else in their lives.

The overall problem seems to be that you view the right to keep and bear arms as a privilege and not a right.

7x57
02-17-2009, 5:03 PM
You're having an argument with yourself.


Apparently.


For instance, your statement "So a girl who gets poor grades can be allowed to be a rape target? Is her person of less value because she is not a good student?" which you want to put in my mouth, is not what I said or implied.


It is. The problem is you don't even understand the effects of what you advocate.


Go read "More Guns, Less Crime". Unless the rapist knows her GPA, he can't know that she is unarmed. She is protected by the fact that SOME students carry guns,


First, it is not at all unlikely that the rapist does in fact have a pretty good idea of her GPA. There were plenty of people in school that I knew for a fact were struggling. The fact that I didn't have a copy of their official transcript didn't mean I didn't know who was struggling in multiple classes and who was failing.

But that's irrelevant. Your argument is pointless because, once again, you do not acknowledge that by forcing her to earn her privilege, you have eliminated the right as a right. You are forcing her to depend on other people. You have denied her the ability to stand up to someone twice her weight and far stronger.

You have made her life less worth protecting than someone privileged to carry, because her protection is an indirect effect of theirs.

It is a good thing for society that a few people carrying protects many others. But it is not relevant to a civil right. It is not acceptable to say that you can only speak politically if you got a B in government class, even though many other people who got Bs or better may agree with those who did not and could speak on their behalf. The reason is that they have the right to speak on their own behalf if they so choose.


Your statement could easily be re-worded to imply that you think the stupidest, clumsiest, most irresponsible, bubble-headed bimbo on campus ought to have a gun, just because the world would not be the same without her.


Who decides who is irresponsible? Who decides who is a stupid bubble-headed bimbo? Frankly I think those are both true of the majority of Obama voters. I think *I* should get to decide.

The media painted Palin as a bimbo simply because they hated her, and many people believed it and voted for Mr. "I want to be president of the 57 states." It wasn't true, but it can be made to look that way. If the parties had been reversed, I guarantee you that the whole country would think Sarah Palin was Marie Curie and Joan of Arc rolled into one, and they would also be laughing that the Republicans nominated a black male bimbo to pander to the minority vote. The case would have been just as easy to make. It's a great and powerful way to silence people and demographics you dislike, or that threaten you.

Second, once again you fail to grasp the difference between a right and good policy. I said nothing about whether she *ought* to have a gun. Frankly, there are a great many people who *ought* not to open their mouth because stupid stuff comes out, and a great many who *ought* not to vote because they screw the country up every time they do. Those considerations are irrelevant, because they have a right to vote and to speak.

As far as the bubble-headed bimbo goes, she has the right to keep and bear arms until she does something *concrete* that gives the state a compelling reason to strip her of those rights. You want her stripped of her rights based on subjective judgment calls. I can run the country as a dictatorship on that basis, and if enough people vote me as king I'll prove it.


Being a good student means having your shizzle together.


I'm not going to comment on the truth of that statement. I propose that you only be able to vote if you have good grades, so you have some vague clue as to what you've voting for.


If I were going to design pilot-program to test the viability of on-campus ccw carry, I would want the participants to be people that had their act together, not the party-boyz and girlz with underwater grades (below C-level).


Pilot programs are different. They are by definition discriminatory, because points must be proven. If your proposed conditions are only the thin wedge in the door, we can consider whether their usefulness is worth the danger of setting a dangerous precedent and establishing bad right-to-regulate.


The question of on-campus ccw is not "How do we help John Student feel protected on campus" the question is how do we help the most people and the over all situation?


No, the question is "how do we follow the Constitution?" That is more important than good policy--fortunately, however, we can get both, and that's why we are likely to win.


You seem to think that the way to do it is just throw open the barn door, give anyone who wants one a pistol and a permit, and let nature take it's course. I'm of the opinion that the accidents and tragedies and lawsuits that would ensue from that course of action would make DAMN CERTAIN nobody who is WORTH being trusted, ever got the chance again.


I am unable to see the difference between this argument and what the antis said would happen in Florida, and all the other states too. It has always been the case that CCW holders are one of the safest and most law-abiding demographics around. Why do you believe that student populations are so amazingly unique that this would no longer be the case?


I'm saying you'll have more people, exercising more of their rights in the long run, by taking an incremental approach.


The problem is that your arguments seem contrary to the end result of not treating campuses as magically special and different places, and that they seem to establish precedents that will hurt us very badly later. Students of age are citizens, and if we can abrogate their rights in the name of expediency we can do the same to other citizens.


Having a Gold Standard on-campus permit is my proposal for taking the first steps in that direction.

I have no objection to that statement in principle; it is not, however, the impression you were giving It might help me to know what you're arguing if you can state what the permanent rules for campus carry should be, assuming the incrementalist approach works. I advocate getting the wedge in the door with nakedly discriminatory rules if that is useful--I'd support a women-only CCW rule for example.

But we have to know the endgame and not give it away as part of the baby steps. The above baby step would be safe because gender discrimination is so blatant I think we could always challenge it. I fear that isn't the case for some of your ideas.

But aside from establishing new rights-to-regulate for the state or otherwise hurting ourselves, I have no objection to most things *as a matter of tactics.*

If it turns out that I'm talking about the endgame and you're talking only about the opening moves, then we're talking past each other and should either get on the same page or just try a different game. :D

7x57

bruss01
02-17-2009, 5:33 PM
If we can end up with unlimited, unrestricted carry for students on campus everywhere with no downside (or at least enough upside to offset the downside) then I'm all for it.

I think the odds of having virtually every campus eventually adopting such a policy, or every state adopting such a law, is verging on nil. The anti's would fight that tooth and toenail, and a lot of worried parents would too.

I think a limited permit system that starts with the cream of the crop and gradually expands, is a much more reasonable approach. No right is absolute - there are just and reasoable limits to every right acknowledged in the Constitution. Opening up a pilot program with a very good chance at success, might be the first step in determining just how far those limits can be extended before the costs outweigh the returns.

I think it is important that any change be a gradual one. This is how the anti's worked, chisel away a little at a time at gun rights. Now we have to chisel away at gun control and gun fear and gun hate to get them back. There is a good balance to be had, I believe, and it can end up very much in our favor. But the "all or nothing, my way or the highway" approach is doomed to failure because it asks too much, all at once. That is just not how good, lasting change comes about IMHO.

7x57
02-17-2009, 6:26 PM
I think a limited permit system that starts with the cream of the crop and gradually expands, is a much more reasonable approach.

It seems we've been arguing different things, so it's pointless to disagree. I don't object to your conditions *if* the "Right People" kind of lawyers say they won't bite us later. If they won't, then *I DON'T CARE* how discriminatory the trial program is.

But part of the endgame needs to be to end the "special status" of colleges. There is blood on the hands of the people who created special "free fire" zones. If you can carry downtown, you should be able to carry on campus.

But now that we're just talking initial tactics, I suspect the better approach is to allow CCW *for teachers*. I'm not convinced teachers are any safer than students (in fact, if the students were raised with guns they will not be), but titles and positions impress voters and parents. Let the teachers carry on campus if they can carry off campus, and then a few years later we can try for student's rights with (I believe) more faculty support than we'd have ever had otherwise. Once again, since voters and parents are foolishly impressed with titles and positions their support will be very useful.

I am dearly awaiting the first news story of a killing spree so dramatic they can't keep it off the news that is stopped by a student or faculty member with a CCW.

7x57