Tuesday, October 9, 2012

More on the Guns on Campus Debate

from an op-ed in The Statesman by Aaron Abel

I wish humanity had never created nuclear weapons. But we did, and despite their horrific nature, we can’t get rid of them. As long as there are those in this world willing and able to obtain and use them for purposes of evil, we can never destroy our greatest weapons without surrendering to evil altogether.


By this same logic, it follows that we cannot disarm our own people and leave them defenseless to the moral traitors in our midst. Thankfully, we are a country with great liberties like those granted by our constitution’s second amendment. Consequently, I am allowed to obtain a permit to carry a handgun for my own protection. I can take it with me almost anywhere I go on a daily basis, just not where I happen to be most of the time, on ISU’s campus.
This is a perfect example of a simplistic argument which doesn't even make sense.  The gun-rights advocates repeat it over and over again as if it does.  They call it  the "you can't put the genie back in the bottle" argument.  They think it's cute.

The only problem is no one is wishing guns had never been created. No one wants to disarm everyone.  No one wants to take their guns away.

In his close-minded way, Mr. Abel goes on to completely disparage the following sensible observation.

The USA Today staff argued, “More guns on campus—places where binge drinking, drug taking and immature judgment are common—will undoubtedly cost more lives than they save.”
The USA Today staff goes on to argue that assuming everyone with a concealed gun permit is well trained is a recipe for disaster, citing the nine bystanders shot by NYPD during the Empire State Building shooting this summer.
Basically he says armed civilians with concealed carry permits are better trained and more responsible than cops. Now that's a self-serving argument which is more wishful thinking than anything else.  Just think about it for a minute.  Police officers have a basic training to undergo in the beginning of their careers and often mandatory follow-up training.  Civilians have none of that. In some states they literally have no requirements to carry concealed. How could they possibly be better equipped to handle guns than the cops?

The simple fact is that where there are more guns there is more gun violence. Sometimes that violence takes subtle forms, for example, imagine an aggressive and armed student angry over his grade on a term paper.  In confronting the offending professor he lets it be known that he's carrying.  Does anyone think this kind of interpersonal dynamic will improve the university environment and  increase higher learning?

No, the prohibition of guns on college campuses is a sensible and reasonable restriction on general gun rights. The proof is that even in some of the most gun-friendly states it is the policy. In fact only six states allow it and that's after years of non-interference by the government in the expanding gun-rights situation.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.




21 comments:

  1. This is profound ignorance..................

    Does the fact that the small-arms-fetishists have subverted our college youth disturb anyone else?

    Again as I have previously stated, mere civilians have no reasonable claim to a legally enforceable "right" to "keep and bear" small arms, providing them with any protection against what they may perceive as "infringement" or (rather preferably) prohibition, (whether complete or progressive) being used as a means of civilian disarmament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, yes, you've previously stated this, but notice how little agreement you get?

      Delete
    2. Agreement is not necessary, comrade, mentions are. My ideas attract more discussion (even if they are seen as "constantly bizarre" or even "deranged"). New ideas are being discussed, when they where previously taboo.

      Delete
    3. Comrades we are not and never will be. Get that straight. I will fight your nonsense now and forever. You're attracting attention, all right. Not good attention, but so long as you're feeling noticed...

      Delete
    4. I kinda like E.N.'s take on things.

      Delete
    5. What a shock, Mikeb. At heart, you're a statist and a control freak.

      Delete
  2. No can find a single instance of any students with concealed carry licenses causing any trouble in any of the six states that no longer criminalize concealed carry at colleges and universities. There is no problem.

    And what if one or two students did misbehave? If one or two people yelled "fire!" in a crowded theater when there was no fire -- leading to a stampede with plenty of deaths and injuries -- would we begin forcing everyone with a loud voice to wear muzzles before entering theaters? After all, anyone with a loud voice could yell "fire!" and cause untold injuries and death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure if your inability to find a single case is very convincing.

      The wearing muzzles comparison is one of the stupidest we've seen, and that's saying something.

      Delete
    2. Because you don't see gun ownership and carry as a right. The comparison is good. I might shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, but I've never done so. In your view, I'm a risk that has to be muzzled just in case. My side believes in freedom.

      Delete
  3. Why do so many states continue to criminalize concealed carry at schools, colleges, and universities?

    (a) Many people are irrational.
    (b) Many people assume everyone's brain works just like theirs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's because the gun-rights argument for guns on campus is bogus. Intelligent and reasonable people know this and thankfully they've been able to prevail even in gun-friendly places.

      Delete
    2. 1. Declaring a gun-free zone doesn't stop bad actors from bringing guns with them. It only stops law-abiding citizens.

      2. Campuses typically have few security or police officers to cover a lot of territory.

      3. As we've shown you time and again, people with carry licenses have an excellent record of following the law.

      Tossing out insults doesn't change my ability to reason and to gather facts. We'll win this one soon enough.

      Delete
    3. It disarms potential bad actors before they act.

      People with carry licenses have no better track record than the rest of you, and that's nothing to brag about.

      Delete
    4. You've been shown plenty of evidence that your statement isn't true, and yet you continue to make it. Texas Colt carry showed you the crime reports from his state that prove that carry license holders commit crimes at a much lower rate than the average public. The Violence Policy Center can only come up with around five hundred over a period of several years--that's out of eight million and more.

      In addition, you always think that people are ticking bombs on the edge of going off. If that were the case, we'd all be dead now.

      And you're ducking the point that someone who wants to kill a bunch of people won't be deterred by a gun-free-zone sign. You just can't get around that one.

      Delete
  4. 1. The majority of people on college campuses who have carry licenses will be professors and staff, since twenty-one is the minimum age in most states. A few older students may also have licenses, but I know that they are also the ones who have calmed down.

    2. Mikeb, you love to say that gun owners who have big accidents must have had a series of smaller incidents in the past. Don't you imagine that the same applies to binge drinkers? A DUI, for example, would disqualify a person for a carry license. Your side always trots out the binge drinkers, but those are the ones who won't spend the time to get a license. If they want a gun, they'll just bring a gun.

    3. If a student informed me that he has a carry license and suggested that I'd want to change his grade, he'd either find out that I have a license too, or he'd get a visit from campus security, depending on the circumstances. But really, Mikeb, what's to keep a student from telling me that he brought a gun illegally, if that's what he wants to do? Making a threat is a crime, so why wouldn't such a student bring a gun without bothering to be licensed?

    As always, your side believes that a gun-free zone sign has magical powers. Dangerous people will bring guns without regard to the law. Those of us who have gone through the process of demonstrating how responsible we are aren't the ones to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MikeB: “No one wants to disarm everyone. No one wants to take their guns away.”

    Ok, I think it is time for you to start adding the disclaimer “except for E.N.”

    But why are you saying that anyway? Mr. Abel didn’t say anything about people taking all his guns away- he is talking about being disarmed when he goes on campus where he spends the bulk of his time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't want to disarm everyone. I believe that State actors have a perfectly legitimate reason (and an internationally recognized right) to possess arms.

      Delete
    2. 1. We don't care about what's internationally recognized.

      2. You want to disarm citizens. That's close enough to everyone for us.

      Delete
  6. "The simple fact is that where there are more guns there is more gun violence."

    That has to be true, because without guns, there can't be gun violence. Just as there is no handheld laser beam mass blaster violence, because the handheld laser beam mass blaster hasn't been invented yet. So, my question to gun control advocates is, would you like to see zero instances of gun violence in America? And if you would, why wouldn't you want to disarm people and take their guns away? Because if you don't, by your logic, there is some amount of gun violence that you find acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An equally important question: is it a good outcome if "gun violence" goes away and other forms of violence increase so that total violence is higher?

      An even more important question: is it a good outcome if "gun violence" -- which mostly affects criminals -- goes away and violent crime increases to citizens?

      Yes, various sources indicate most shootings happen between criminals -- especially gang members. The numbers range from over 50% of all shootings to as many as 90% of all shootings are criminals attacking other criminals.

      Delete
  7. "No one wants to disarm everyone." Mike - who on college campuses should be allowed to be armed if you do not believe everyone should be disarmed?

    ReplyDelete