The day my husband and I have dreaded is here.

[MoonRiver]

Today students can start carrying firearms onto his university's campus, including classrooms. And, get this, they do NOT even need to have a license to carry! And the idiots in our government are worried about Muslim grandmas???


http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article159193599.html

[redstatebluegirl]

1. I told my husband if this happens on our campus we are out of here.

He has offers from industry pretty often, he is in hard science. He has already had to call campus security twice when he was physically threatened by students over grades. I won't have it. I won't sit at home and wait for them to call me saying a pre-med student shot him because of his biochem grade.

Most of these young people do not have the emotional maturity to handle having a firearm available to fix things for them. I am not against gun ownership, I just want common sense laws to regulate them.

[MoonRiver]

2. It's a possibility for us too.

However, we have grandkids here, who we are very attached to. That and his age, over 70, make things more complicated.

[redstatebluegirl]

3. I totally understand.

We don't have kids, and have no family here. He has tenure, and he loves his job and the university, but things are quickly getting scary here with budget cuts and talk of a similar law. Our President has fought it successfully the past few years, but we have a lot of crazy people in our legislature so I know it isn't going away.

[MoonRiver]

4. Yes, it's all just so damned hard.

It would be hard for us, at his age, to find a position that pays as much. He's a distinguished professor, with all the perks accompanying that. If there is an incident, however, we're going to have to start looking. He has been doing that a little bit already, after Chump was selected.

[redstatebluegirl]

9. It has been hard with all of the anti-intellectual crowd, in our state and in the Trump camp.

My husband, like yours I imagine, is first and foremost a teacher, he loves his students. He loves seeing the light bulb go off. He loves teaching graduate students in his lab. It is a sorry state when people like our husbands are looking for other options when they love to teach.

[MoonRiver]

10. Oh, yes, my husband is just like that!

And how horrible now, to have such a sickening distraction.

[chillfactor]

56. I am a college professor....

I switched to teaching online classes...and I love it.....I have students all over the world and I feel safe.

[CK_John]

31. With automation, universities are nolonger needed.

[Oneironaut]

5. The biggest potential problem with this, imo, is suicides.

I always think of college students as adults with an asterisk. They're new adults, and still can't be fully trusted to make good decisions. Guns make suicide too easy - especially when acting impulsively.

I don't think schools are a good place for guns. All campuses should be gun-free, imo.

[MoonRiver]

7. I agree, but this is Koch brothers territory.

[redstatebluegirl]

13. Yes this is true.

I worked very closely with students for over 20 years, lost more than a few to suicide. This could make it easier for them to choose that path. With that said, the professionals will tell you if a person decides to kill themselves, they will find a way to do it. I don't think we should make it easier though, time gives those who love and care for them time to intervene.

[moonscape]

58. I don't fully agree. Suicide can be a spontaneous transient thing,

coming after a number of times thinking about it, sure, but that moment in depression when you can actually do it can be fleeting. Method is not always easy. Guns are.

I can say for a fact, had I had a gun at a certain young age, I would not be alive today.

[Hortensis]

76. You're both right. Especially that allowing adolescents to

carry guns in a crowded nation is a horrible mistake. Unbelievable that it's come to this. Far too many on the right have been following their leaders into a sort of political insanity.

[Sunlei]

23. suicides, a moment of rage (like road rage), drunk students lack of judgment, 'deals' gone bad,

mistakes- dropping the gun, cleaning the gun, forgetting a gun is in purse.

Young 'adults' are very impulsive. people with guns make a lot of careless mistakes, walls are thin and campus always crowded with people. Lot of people stressed, drinking to much, & bullied.

personally I think any time a gun discharges 'by mistake' (happens all the time) even when no one is hurt, this should be a high penalty crime. Not jail- but a bunch of gun safety classes and very high fines. No guns until classes are completed.

[jmbar2]

28. Their brains are not "done" yet at that age

The area of the brain responsible for controlling impulsiveness is the last to mature.

[Ilsa]

35. You got it. 5-7 years are still needed, if

what I read is true. Not until around age 25.

I hate that instructors are having to deal with this. Keeping everyone hypervigilant is counterproductive to learning, as well as dangerous.

Please, everyone, stay safe.

[Hortensis]

77. Yep. Easiest prediction in the world is that this level of

political insanity will not be sustainable, that this unbelievably foolish law will be repealed, and that that will happen after yet another in a string of tragedies.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

47. +about a million!

[ileus]

6. Even as a 2A progressive I have mixed feelings about this.

Sure life is worth protecting everywhere IMHO, but some of these college kids have zero responsibility. Their reasoning skills aren't that sharp, I doubt most will take the time to properly train, or use proper equipment to carry. Most will probably buy into the myth that a pistol with a safety is dangerous, and instead carry a slab sided auto believing a drop safety and silly trigger dingus are the only safeties needed. It also takes a proper mindset to be ready to save lives, I know I found it distracting going to college and all I neglected were my grades and classes.

Hopefully the biggest percentage of those that will choose to carry will be older students and those who have spent time in the military. Maybe just maybe everyone who decides to carry will take the job seriously and work hard to be safe.

[MoonRiver]

8. Unfortunately, hope will do nothing to prevent a massacre.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

12. Oh please.

[BeyondGeography]

27. And the upside is what?

Protection in case someone else starts shooting on campus? As a culture, we sure know how to stage a race to the bottom when there's a buck to be made.

[pablo_marmol]

64. The burden is on *you* to demonstrate the down side, NOT the other way around.

That's the way things work in a liberal and free society.....at least one that isn't hypocritical. See post #44, which demonstrates why you'll never be able to demonstrate a downside.

[BeyondGeography]

74. Haha, yeah

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017446545

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. Do you actually believe students will going to class wearing helmets and work gloves?

Or did you like this merely because it reinforces your prejudices?

[BeyondGeography]

92. Do you actually believe cops want more guns in public places?

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. Why should law be based on what cops want? I'm sure many don't like the 4th and 5th Amendments

Last edited Sun Jul 2, 2017, 06:38 PM - Edit history (1)

[BeyondGeography]

94. Yeah, fuck the po-lice!

Run with that. Run fast and be sure to duck, too. Especially when you're surrounded by newby gun consumers who don't even know how to handle a gun properly let alone shoot it.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/live-fire-training-not-mandatory-concealed-carry-permits/

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. *Do* let us know when you're ready to ditch the moral panic mongering and one-liners

For that matter, perhaps you could answer a question I asked in 2011- and never got an answer to:

What *empirical* evidence do you have that legal CCW weapons at colleges are harmful?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382537

[BeyondGeography]

100. What's it like, working for free?

This isn't about noble rights, it's about sales. Expand those rights, grow the business. Do you care so much about this issue that you're willing to do the NRA's work for free or do you at least have some skin in the game?

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. Gone over to conspiracy theory, have we? Also, you've elided the question, no doubt due...

...to lack of evidence. But don't give up! By all means, prove me wrong:

Show us all the blood on the carrels caused by those evil rude base murderers-in-waiting CCW toters
on the college campuses where this is already legal.

I've no doubt whatsoever that there's good, strong evidence out there that shows
that you're not just shouting and handwaving in support of a moral panic.

Go get it, tiger! Put that Google-fu to work...

[BeyondGeography]

107. And why is this an issue again?

There is no public good served, and I am comfortable that the arguments against are a damned sight more reasonable than those for. The only reason we're playing this tennis game here is because some people want to make a lot of money, which is the very force that makes so much of American life unnecessarily difficult and dangerous. "Progressives" usually get that point, but not when it comes to guns. It's made in the USA stupid as fuck, but nothing's too obtuse when it comes to making a buck. This is ultimately a discussion about money. What is it about guns that blinds you and so many others here to that clear-as-day fact?

[pablo_marmol]

114. "There is no public good served......."

The predictable strawman/burden shifting from a Controller.

Strawman: Few gun rights advocates claim a 'public' good. They claim a *potential* good for the *individual*.

Shifting the burden of proof: In a free and liberal society, the burden of proof rests with he/she/those who wish to *restrict* a right. NOT those who wish to defend it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. So much logical fallacy packed into one paragraph cries out for a thorough fisking

"There is no public good served"

So say you, however you've yet to demonstrate the truth of that statement.

"...I am comfortable that the arguments against are a damned sight more reasonable than those for."

You are perfectly free to express that opinion- as I am mine.

"The only reason we're playing this tennis game here is because some people want to make a lot of money"

And here I'd thought it was because some people wished to have the right to their chosen
means of defending themselves.

Are these the people you claim wish to make a lot of money, or some other
group of capitalists that you've *also* failed to document?

"This is ultimately a discussion about money."

Yet another ''argument by assertion', not essentially different in type than His Trumpiness's bloviations
on 'widespread voter fraud'.

"What is it about guns that blinds you and so many others here to that clear-as-day fact?"

Possibly the fact that we are not subject to fits of Colonism?:

"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."

Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[BeyondGeography]

127. The link between permissive gun laws and promotion of gun sales

Last edited Mon Jul 3, 2017, 09:42 AM - Edit history (2)

and related products shouldn't be so hard for you to grasp. I know you can do it; you have an agile mind and this, after all, is the most basic aspect of American life.

The NRA invested over $30 million in the Trump campaign last year. Why is that? Let's take a moment to ponder the reasons. After all, America is such an exquisitely creative place when it comes to getting a return on your money.

So we have the proliferation of open and concealed carry laws and which said organization is pushing around the country. This is an opportunity not just to get more people to think they might need a gun, but to sell them other things. Mais oui!:

https://www.thenation.com/article/gun-sales-are-plummeting-and-trump-wants-to-help/

One hazard of carrying a gun everywhere on a near-hysterical level of alert is that you might shoot someone and get sent to prison for it. But the NRA conference has a solution: “Carry Guard” insurance, which is promoted absolutely everywhere at the convention. For $31.95 a month, you get $150,000 in criminal-defense insurance and $1 million in civil-liability insurance if you shoot someone in self-defense but lose a court battle over it. The plan also offers a 24-hour emergency-help line, immediate access to bail money, and funds for “psychological support and clean-up costs.”

Masterful...We've created and new and growing revenue stream. This is the stuff of life, my friend!

It's also a blessing that the industry can count on its army of defenders just like you to pooh-pooh any and all objections to its expansion not least for the opportunities such discussions afford them to flex their muscular and scientifically-grounded brain power.

By way of example, we need look no further than your responses in this thread. You're here to ridicule, not reassure. The OP, whose husband, unlike you, now has to deal with a fundamental and, to him and many others like him, threatening change in his work environment, is succumbing to a "moral panic." He refuses to look at the cold hard facts, as advanced by someone who can't admit the most fundamental point of all.

[friendly_iconoclast]

135. Repetition is not a marker of veracity, and unreasoning fear is no good basis for law

See: Argumentum ad nauseum

Your thesis requires that all those who would seek to legally carry to be stooges of the firearms industry,
and thus denies their agency.

See: False consciousness

Also, while your two anecdotes may very well be true in and of themselves, they are non-sequiturs
in this instance and still don't logically prove your point.

See: Begging the question

"It's also a blessing that the industry can count on its army of defenders just like you"

And here I'd thought I was defending a principle. I suppose it's just unpossible that I might
be making my arguments in full knowledge of what I'm doing...

See: The aforementioned 'false consciousness' and 'begging the question'

"The OP, whose husband, unlike you, now has to deal with a fundamental and, to him and many others like him, threatening change in his work environment, is succumbing to a "moral panic.""

Yes, the OP and her husband *are* succumbing to a moral panic- and I have evidence for that,
via a question I asked here at DU in 2011:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382537

"What *empirical* evidence do you have that legal CCW weapons at colleges are harmful?"


As yet, no one has informed us of even one crime caused by a licensed carrier at a college where
it's legal. I may be wrong or have missed one, so if you have evidence to the contrary by all means
post it.

The fear of legally carried guns in colleges is no more 'reasonable' than a fear of brown people
or a fear of LGBTQ people.

[BeyondGeography]

137. CCW on campus is a fake need to begin with

It has been advanced purely in the service of commerce. Now you're in the business of trying to prove the harmlessness of an outcome that has nothing more than profiteering at heart. A fine use of everyone's time.

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. You've yet to demonstrate any harm to the practice, and I find your approach somwhat ...Borkian...

...for lack of a better term. You are perfectly free to object on anticapitalist grounds, but it is no
more or less Robert Bork's theory of 'moral harm'.

The writer Dan Baum illustrated the idea in a Harper's article in 2011:

"...My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe..."

[pablo_marmol]

115. "....that you're willing to do the NRA's work for free......."

A variation of Godwin's Law. You know you're dealing with a loser when your interlocutor resorts to smearing.

[pablo_marmol]

113. Haha, yeah -- PROOF

[Blue_true]

38. You seem to know guns.

I have a basic question. You are on an open carry campus at class change, people all over the place, cars, bikes, ect. You hear several shots, then lots of people pull their pieces, some start shooting, others trying to figure out what is happening. How would you figure out who to shoot at if say a terrorist was 50 yards from you and had shot several people, but now everyone has a gun out, some shooting at whatever? Let's say that terrorist is a skilled sniper who knows how to disguise location. Why would your chance of surviving with a gun in your possession be any higher than it would be if you didn't have a gun? My guess that if lots of people are carrying, the bad people will just change tactics, an IED instead of a high capacity gun, FYI. While the logistics for the IED would've more complicated, they are by no means not workable. I am trained in engineering, I know that I could spend an afternoon buying common stuff from grocery stores around town that would allow me to kill many people on a crowded block. Of course I would never attempt such an act, but my point is a gun would be next to useless to stop such an attack and it would be difficult to detect beforehand because nothing really out of the ordinary would be happening other that one or two actions that can easily be masked.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. To my knowledge, nothing like your mooted scenario has happened in the states that already allow it

I may be wrong, so if anyone has any evidence to the contrary I would welcome the chance to see it.

[Blue_true]

42. My point, maybe not made well.

Is if open carry happens, bad people will change tactics. It is not a question of will they as much as when. I don't know whether Texas has gone full open carry on campus, but the state's that allow it are, frankly, out of the way backwaters. Let New York State or California try that nonsense and see what happens. A terrorist know that he or she can get plenty of tv time if a college campus in NYC or LA is attacked, not so much if one in some Mississippi, Arkansas or Georgia college town is attacked.

[Hangingon]

51. TEXAS is not open carry.

Kansas is not open carry. What states are?

[politicat]

57. Both Texas and Kansas are open carry.

Open means visible and on the person -- belt hostler, on the back for a long gun, in the hand. One can still open carry if the state requires a permit; open carry is about the means and location of the transport, not the permit status of the person doing the transport. (Yeah, hair splitting, but that matters.) Texas requires a permit to open carry, but the permit is issued on a SHALL-ISSUE basis (Sheriff is compelled to issue the permit as long as the permit-seeker is not federally/state barred from owning based on strict, specific guidelines). A few states still have MAY-ISSUE basis, meaning the sheriff can deny a permit for other reasons, including "person doesn't have a good reason for wanting the permit," where good is defined by the Sheriff.

From the Wikipedia summary of Texas law: Long gun and black powder weapon (including handgun) open carry is not forbidden by law, unless in a manner "calculated to cause alarm."
Effective January 1, 2016, individuals with a handgun carry license will be permitted to carry openly, per House Bill 910 of the 2015 legislative session. Non-residents from states whose permits are recognized by Texas will also be allowed to open carry under the new law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas
The exceptions in Texas are felons, people under age 21, diagnosed mental illness, and being behind on child support.

Kansas is open carry, no permit, but with local control. Some areas of Kansas have open carry restrictions that aren't state law, and a concealed permit does not necessarily change that. Kansas allows both open carry and concealed carry without a permit as of 2015. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Kansas

Concealed carry is in the pocket, purse/bag, under clothes, in the car. That's usually by permit only. Except in Kansas.

5 states (California, Illinois, Florida, New York, South Carolina) and the District prohibit open carry in public places. In SC, one may carry a loaded firearm in the glove box or console of a vehicle, but not on one's person, and may carry it from the vehicle to the residence or accommodations, but not otherwise.

Minnesota and New Jersey require a permit to openly carry a long gun
North Dakota requires openly carried handguns to be unloaded;
Iowa, Tennessee, and Utah require openly carried long guns to be unloaded)
Pennsylvania and Virginia allow open carry location restrictions in specific densely populated cities

I checked the references across both a pro-2A advocacy site and a limited 2A advocacy site. They agree, though they wouldn't agree that they agree. Sources were smartgunlaws.org (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) and OpenCarry.org

So the overall tally on handguns (if not on the list, it's unrestricted open carry):
States that Prohibit Open Carrying of Handguns
California
District of Columbia
Florida
Illinois
New York
South Carolina

States that Require a Permit or License to Openly Carry Handguns
Connecticut
Georgia
Hawaii
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah

States that Otherwise Restrict the Open Carrying of Handguns
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Michigan
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Washington

[Hangingon]

88. TX and KS are not open carry on campus.

Yes, I know that TX and many other states are open carry statewide.

[pablo_marmol]

66. "It is not a question of will they as much as when."

Strong assertion. Do you have a degree in criminology in addition to the one you hold in electrical engineering?

The bad guys have known for a very long time that there are concealed carriers in their midst. If the "change in tactics" hasn't happened by now, it's unlikely that it will.

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. What *empirical* evidence do you have that legal CCW weapons at colleges are harmful?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382537

I asked that question *six years ago*, and to my knowledge no one has ever offered any.

Perhaps you'll be the first!

[Blue_true]

109. What evidence that you have that they are not harmful.

You can say there haven't been any incidents, but the 9/11 attackers plotted for many years before finding a way to carry out their attack. If you don't realize by now that real dyed in the wool terrorist don't try to match strength with strength, then there is no hope for you. To use your logic, our soldiers driving tanks around Afghanistan and Iraq made them safer, it did not, people making IEDs figured out how to make tanks targets.

Now, if you say that open carry may stop the nut that reads ISIS propaganda on the Internet then go out and try to kill people, then maybe you are right. But evidence from France and other places say that even having armed soldiers in a location does not stop an attack by a disciplined terrorist.

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. Then why hasn't happened yet? If harm cannot be demonstrated (and you've yet to do so), then...

...we should *always* err on the side of freedom when codifying new laws.

'Not think something would work' or 'a belief that guns are somehow 'sinful' don't rise to the
level of good reasons for banning something, IMNSHO.

[Blue_true]

121. You may have been the person that mentioned not being gunned down like sheep.

I don't know, when I talk to gun lovers, all of them seem to have the same somewhat macho visions. I have a question for you. Have you ever been in a live shootout where the other person had a gun? Maybe you were in the military in a war zone and did get into that situation, I don't know you. What I do know is that in three or four situations in my lifetime where a person that owned a gun encounter a person with a gun, the gun owners ended up dead. One of the people was a Doctor that treated me as a child.

I can mention situations that make logical and statistical sense to people like you and I will get pushback. Before I go on, I used to hunt as a kid and was pretty good, anyone that can take down a quail from a flushed covey with a rifle is no playboy with a gun. I gave up guns and hunting as a teen when I didn't have a kill shot on a squirrel but took the shot anyway, watching the squirrel that I had hit struggle to live was enough for me, I gave up guns that day and have not touched one since, I would have no idea of how to work modern guns. Since I was never in the military, I never shot at a person.

Now, back to you. If you are like most gun owners, you have never shot at a real human being. You certainly have not shot at a human being when one or more other human beings are obstructing the line of fire that you need to take to hit the human that you want to shoot. Until you have been in a real live situation where you are shooting at a live human being that may be shooting toward you, any hypothetical that you throw up don't mean a damned thing, you have no idea of how you will react.

[friendly_iconoclast]

123. You make two erroneous assumptions: 1) That I'm a gun owner; I'm not, and 2) Your own experiences...

...are somehow germane to the argument we're having.

For the view of an *actual* gun owner (and victim of an on-campus sexual assault), I give you
Ms. Shayna Lopez-Rivas:

[ileus]

52. Why would everyone have a gun out shooting at whatever?

You'd be correct, a personal protection device like a pistol or rifle isn't going to match a IED or bomb. As as you probably also know having a firearm doesn't guarantee jack. All a pistol or rifle in your possession really means is you're not being forced to be a willing victim, you at least have the tools to make them work for it. I think the main idea here is you don't have to wait to die like the kids at VT did just down the road from me.

You'll also find that maybe 3% of people are actually going to carry a firearm with them at any time. I know plenty of CC permit holders that never carry a firearm outside of their vehicle. Unless terrorist attacks on campus really increased I seriously doubt you'd ever see more that one maybe two persons able to respond.

I'm also a fellow BSEET

[Blue_true]

110. 3% on a campus where 10,000 people are walking around is a lot of guns.

At my college at class change, there were 3,000-4,000 people within 300 yards of me at class change. I went to a large State U. 3% of 3,000 people would have meant 90 guns within 300 yards of me. Tell me how I would stop a disciplined terrorist in such a situation even if I had a gun? My best hope would be that the person is at the far end of the 300 yards, even then, sorting through 3,000 people to figure out who to shoot is no simple task.

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. You wouldn't *be* stopping a disciplined terrorist. It's to give you a chance against street crime..

...and perhaps a deranged spree killer like Seng-Hui Cho.

[Blue_true]

122. Good luck with that.

I replied to you in another post. Besides hunting game with a rifle, me and other kids shot at pennies from a distance, guess who always won. But I have no idea what I would do shooting at a live human, even a street thug. BTW, you likely will have more luck with a disciplined terrorist than a street thug, because the street thug will expect you to resist and will kill you. The Doctor that I mentioned, street thug, home invasion, Doctor reached for a gun, street thug already had gun at ready, Doctor shot dead in front of his family.

Also, good luck taking on a deranged person that has a high capacity gun, most of his victims were likely dead before they knew what was happening. You are more likely to live if you ran for the nearest obstacle that you can find than you would be in a mano el mono shootout with a person that has lost any reason to live, even if you can shot another human being.

[friendly_iconoclast]

124. By all means, feel free to make your own choices in re self-defense

No one is arguing that point. I even agree with you as to the first and best choices being escape and evasion.

But what if E&E has failed?:

I do hope you will come up with something more substantial than " *I* don't think it'll work,
therefore you and everyone else shouldn't attempt it."

[Blue_true]

128. You seem to be bouncing around.

First it was stopping a campus terror attack, then it was about facing down a street thug. I am no expert on either. But every expert that I read says try to evade or run away from a terror attack first. I would guess that if you took the experts advise, your gun may become useful if the terrorist came to find you in hiding or tried to run at you to get a good shot at you.

The only expertise that I have on street thugs is to never go where they are most likely to hang out or be is some places late at night, and not to flash money and valuables around. The most that a street thug would get from me, if I am unwise enough to come across one, is my watch purchased years ago for $300, my credit/debit card which I can cancel as soon as he has it, my iPhone which I need to upgrade anyway, and on the street thug's lucky day, $100 that I spend each week for lunch, gas for my personal car and incidentals. None of that combined is worth me getting into a shootout with a street thug.

BTW, my degree is in BSCHE, with graduate business training. If I come off as a BSEE, it is only likely because of years of having to float in that direction to solve engineering problems. Just needed to get that off my chest.

[democratisphere]

11. I believe it is OK to carry concealed weapons anywhere as long as the gun owner has had

proper training courses, background checks, proper permits and concealed carry permits. Personal protection devices must remain an available option for personal security in today's world. I do not own or carry any guns.

[RKP5637]

14. ... well demonstrates the backslide of maturity in humanity to primitive times. n/t

[lindysalsagal]

15. WTF is in the water in Kansas????

I mean, it's not like you're near florida....

Seriously- why does so much 11th century stuff happen in kansas???? DOROTHY!!!!

[MoonRiver]

17. Sure does make you wonder.

Best explanation is in the book, What's the Matter With Kansas.

[Generic Brad]

30. The Koch brothers, the Tea Party/Freedom caucus and evangelicals

That is why we can't have nice things in Kansas.

[raccoon]

16. I don't blame you at all. I think that law is fucking crazy. nt

[pablo_marmol]

63. And of course the facts stated in #44 are irrelevant. NT

[femmocrat]

18. Our state legislature just passed a bill allowing school teachers to carry guns.

WTF is the matter with these idiots? People cannot have a gun safely in the house without a child finding it. How do they expect a classroom of 28 children not to be curious about the location of the teacher's weapon? Will the teacher have to have the gun on his/her person at all times? That will inspire a sense of security among the kids, I'm sure. (not)

Fortunately our democratic governor, Tom Wolf, is expected to veto the bill. TG for sane people and democrats.

I'm sorry... I know this is a separate issue... but I taught for 30+ years and said I would retire when teachers were allowed to have guns. I beat it by 3 years.
Truthfully, some of the teachers I knew were not all that responsible. I could imagine some of them all hepped up about being allowed to have a weapon at work. This is a rural area and guns and opiods are everywhere.

[MoonRiver]

20. It's really not a separate issue.

Guns and schools, regardless of the level, is a lethal combination. How can this NOT be obvious???

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. "How can this NOT be obvious???" If it's 'obvious', you should be able to answer the following:

"What *empirical* evidence do you have that legal CCW weapons at colleges are harmful?"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382537

I asked this six years ago, and to my knowledge *no one* ever came up with an answer.

How many people have been feloniously killed or wounded on college campuses by those (up till then)
legally carrying firearms?

The practice has been legal in some states since the 1990's- if there are examples, Google should be able
to help you find them.

[Yupster]

43. I did a talk at Forsan ISD which is a rural district in Texas recently

At the two entrances to the school, there are big billboards.

They say The teachers and staff of this school are armed and will use whatever force is necessary to protect our students.

Never saw anything like that before, but maybe makes sense for a small rural district. Could be twenty minutes before police get there if something goes wrong.

[Motownman78]

67. Except now the baddies know the

teachers and staff are armed, so they will plan around that or shoot them first. It is like some moron open-carrying a gun. The bad guy will know that you have a gun and pop your sphincter before you have any idea what is happening.

[Yupster]

72. Depends how many of them there are

I have no idea if there are two or twelve, but if I was a lone gunman wanting to kill a bunch of people and make a statement, I probably wouldn't want to get into a shootout with a bunch of rural Texas coaches and teachers. These guys know their guns and are used to killing things.

[DFW]

75. "Things" yes

Most of them are not used to dealing with things that shoot back.

[IronLionZion]

19. If students get into a heated argument they can always stand their ground

because they feel threatened like their life is in danger. Someone simply existing can feel dangerously threatening to another person. That person said something mean to me so I better defend myself with deadly force.

Gun nuts always say that a heavily armed society is a polite society. When everyone has a gun, no body shoots anyone. Just like Somalia and Afghanistan.

Here in the US, we have already had a good guy with a gun shoot another good guy with a gun by assuming that he was a bad guy. Many times. And not just police either, it happened in a Walmart recently.

[MoonRiver]

22. Exactly!

Also, if an unbalanced student gets a bad grade...

[Mickju]

21. This is unbelievably stupid

and horrifying

[MoonRiver]

24. Yes, and welcome to DU,

under the most unfortunate of circumstances.

[Mickju]

26. Thank you

I've actually been a member here since 2004, but didn't post much until I retired.

[calimary]

49. Well, still good to have you here!

[Mickju]

50. Thanks!

I appreciate it.

[Lee-Lee]

25. And when things follow the same path they have followed other places

Will you come back and admit your fears were overblown and unfounded?

Every time there is an expansion in places that people are allowed to carry the same alarmists make the same chicken little predictions about all the death and destruction to surely follow.

And it never comes to pass.

And yet when other states do it later the same voices make the same sky is falling predictions they did the time before.

I'm still waiting for all the people who predicted Wild West bar shootouts and blood in the streets when NC changed the law in 2013 to allow people who are not drinking to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol. 4 years in and not a single example of what they predicted coming to pass.... of course a year after it took effect with no problems the same people were making the same predictions iin Georgia when they proposed doing it, knowing they were wrong about it in NC.

Take a deep breath and think about this. If somebody actually wanted to shoot someone on a campus, was there a security checkpoint yesterday stopping them from bringing a gun on campus that is gone today? Were there metal detectors on the doors with armed security stopping them? Was it a magic force field?

Of course not. Nothing stopped them. People intent on shooting people didn't care about what the law said. The law only prevented people who were already inclined to obey the law and who didn't have evil intent from carrying.

You will be fine. Nothing bad will happen. The campus will feel and be exactly the same tomorrow and the next day as it was last week and the week before.

[tom_kelly]

29. As a FL resident

I can propose that the "Stand Your Ground" gun-humping-dream law has resulted in quite a few related killings. A few victims include: A black teen looking "out of place" in a condo complex (Sanford); a black man playing his car stereo too loud (Jacksonville); a white man texting during the movie previews in a theatre (Tampa). All three involve(d) a SYG defense. These are the ones off the top of my head but there are more. And, the killers in some cases have walked free. But, there's no doubt in my mind that the law itself had given these gun-nuts more confidence "standing their ground" while killing someone else.

Just my 2 cents from Florida.

[Lee-Lee]

32. Umm, no

First, none of that has to do with increased areas concealed carry is allowed, it is not comparable anyway.

On top of that-

All three of those didn't involve a SYG defense. Only one did.

The defense never once raised the issue in the Trayvon Martin case and did not claim a SYG defense.

The movie theater case the judge prohibited it and did not allow a SYG defense to be presented.

They tried in Jacksonville but it didn't work.

[pablo_marmol]

62. Shush!

Stop derailing the poutragefest with facts!

[Blue_true]

111. Near me, one person gunned down another guy for punching him.

The second guy was killed. Having a gun in such a situation makes it too easy for a person to resort to that as the first option. I live in Florida, btw and don't argue with irate people, I assume that everyone has a gun in their vehicle, purse or gym bag. Maybe that assumption is insane, but so be it.

[Hangingon]

33. Lots of angst here in TX when the school carry went into effect.

I have not heard of any actual incidents.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. You and Lee-Lee are countering an obvious moral panic with empirical evidence

As you can see, however, fear-mongering is *not* confined to the right wing...

[pablo_marmol]

65. I'm completely disgusted by your obvious disregard for progressive values.

You've triggered me......so excuse me while I dash off for the comfort of my safe space.

[mnhtnbb]

73. There have been instances of shootings-some fatal-- in parking lots outside bars in NC

where the argument went outside and accelerated to shooting; also in nightclubs and restaurants. These are just the most recent I could find.

http://www.wral.com/arrests-made-after-3-killed-in-shooting-outside-hickory-bar/16632103/

http://wncn.com/2017/04/22/2-people-hit-during-shootout-in-nc-bar-parking-lot/

http://wncn.com/2017/06/24/4-injured-in-shooting-at-nc-nightclub/

http://wncn.com/2017/06/26/911-call-witness-sees-2-men-fighting-before-fatal-shooting-of-former-ecu-football-player/

[Lee-Lee]

82. Not a single one of those involved a concealed carry permit

So the change in the law had exactly nothing at all to do with them. Zilch, nada, zero about any of them was as a result of the change in the law.

Nice try at misrepresenting them as being relevant, however.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Misrepresentation of facts is part and parcel of gun control advocacy n/t

[LanternWaste]

131. the mere presence of a firearm objectively increases the odds of a firearm accident.

Shallow or deep breathing is irrelevant (maybe you believe it adds an element of substance to your premise, but it doesn't)... the mere presence of a firearm, legal or not, objectively increases the odds of a firearm accident.

"You will be fine. Nothing bad will happen...."
Prophecy can be fun and entertaining... but is hardly valid.

[struggle4progress]

36. I've taught, on and off, for over thirty five years

I've had students leave suicide notes on exams or email me that they were contemplating suicide

I've had students assault me (without any significant physical injury) on several occasions

I have had students threaten to harm me

And I've had a more than a handful of students lose their tempers and shout at me

In my opinion, guns on campus is not a very good idea

[NobodyHere]

37. Canada Day?

[CousinIT]

39. "cant carry a gun if youre under the influence of alcohol or drugs" How goddamned STUPID is that?

If someone is carrying a gun then has some beers or gets drunk or gets high on something, he or she is not going to abandon the gun somewhere. The person will have their gun with them, even if/when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

They won't be under the influence to start with but they WILL get that way - and they'll still have their gun.

I mean WHAT POSSIBLY could go wrong, right?

Pfft.

If I had a kid going to college, the NUMBER ONE requirement: NO. GUNS. ALLOWED. ON. CAMPUS. NO EXCEPTIONS. If the college allows guns, there would be ENORMOUS pressure (including refusing financial help) from me to keep my kid from going there. HELL. NO.

[ileus]

53. Basically the same requirement for CHPs

If you're going to carry, don't drink or do drugs. Kind of defeats the purpose of carrying a PPD anyway.

[Lee-Lee]

84. Actually it very, very rarely happens like that

Now, I don't know about your level of personally resppnsibility is or how responsible the typical person you surround yourself with, but facts show that your typical concealed carry person is more than responsible enough to choose to not drink when carrying.

[Blue_true]

112. That prohibition really works well for people that drive while drinking.

Even DUI arrests don't stop those people. Imagine a drunk guy that has a temper even when sober with a gun? Not something that I want to see.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. I'll put this as gently as I can: You've succumbed to a moral panic

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028124653

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382537

From last year:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172198754

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/university-of-texas-campus-concealed-guns.html?_r=0

College officials in other states with campus carry, like Colorado and Idaho, say there has been little noticeable impact. In Texas, only people older than 21 can carry concealed handguns, and university leaders estimate only a few hundred will do so in Austin. Mr. Marsh said most people would never even notice, which, he added, is “the whole point of concealed carry.”...

...Already, she said, the law has interfered with teaching. During her first class after the law took effect, she said, her English literature students discussed the rules and she explained how she could not legally prohibit guns in class, or even ask who had them.

“Three of them started crying,” she said. “We did not talk about Jane Austen that day.”...

"But f_i," you may very well say, "don't you realize just how dangerous this will be?"

Yes. Yes, I do:

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

(tl,dr version- 108 Texas CCW license holder were convicted of felonies in 2015)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=198548

Out of a population of 940,877-that's *1* conviction for every 8711 permitees

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2015.pdf

Active License/Certified Instructor Counts
As of December 31, 2015


Active License Holders:
937,419
Certified Instructors:
3,458

These numbers reflect the number of licensed individuals and certified instructors

Given the stated estimates by university leaders -and known conviction rates-
it would seem that UT will most likely go about 16 years before the first CC licensee
enrolled there commits any felony, much less one involving illegal use of
a firearm...

[sheshe2]

45. K&R

[Cha]

46. I'm so sorry, MoonRiver! That's stupid

[PatrickforO]

48. I'm sorry.

I'm hoping that things will work out. Because, hey what could go wrong?

[pablo_marmol]

60. "Because, hey what could go wrong?"

Because hey --- what could be a more trite cliche? See post #44 for FACTS.

[PatrickforO]

68. LOL. Oh, come now...

Can you spell...

S

A

R

C

A

S

M

Really?

[pablo_marmol]

70. LOL. Oh come now...

As if the sarcasm was obvious. As if this isn't a common refrain for gun restriction supporters.

Really?

[Phoenix61]

54. Handguns in the dorms?

Because college kids are so good at keeping up with their belongings and locking things up that need to be locked up. If I had a child who was headed to college they would definitely not be heading there. Wonder how many international students they have now and if that will change due to this new law.

[Hoyt]

55. Don't worry, most of those who want to carry guns won't be there to study. They'll be going

to a football game, harassing young female students, acting tough around what they perceive are liberals, or some such gun fancier crud. Now, the campus police needs to make sure the toters aren't patrolling as a police/hero wannabe like George Zimmerman.

I don't think there will be much trouble for awhile.but I just hate to see ignorant white wing racists pollute college campus. I'm OK with letting them drive through Liberty College or something. I'm talking institutions of higher learning. While it won't be obvious immediately, gun incidents will increase.

The gun addicted were probably carrying there before. Now they will be "legal" and can claim some unarmed Black student scared them.

Suicides are a concern, but the poor kids who grew up in the gun culture probably already had one, some were presented with a gun by daddy when they left home.

[Motownman78]

71. North Carolina passed a law

like this in 2013. Nothing has changed. You want to know why? People bringing guns to school to do harm have ALWAYS been bringing guns to school to do harm.

[Hoyt]

87. I just prefer people leave their friggin guns at home, and not pollute schools.

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. Yours is thus an aesthetic judgement, not based on empirical evidence

[Hoyt]

104. Someone who straps on a gun to go to a college campus is a sick, paranoid loser.

Gun fanciers and addicts have been spreading NRA BS far too long trying to preserve the gun culture.

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. You're free to feel what you will, but personal tastes are no good basis for civil law

Last edited Mon Jul 3, 2017, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Added on edit:

Dan Baum, Harper's Magazine August 2011

"Happiness is a Worn Gun: My Concealed Weapon and Me" (page 36)


"...My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe..."

[blue-wave]

59. Isn't that Great! (sarcasm)

Drunken frat parties with loaded guns is just what America needs at this space in time. Who is the idiot that started this idea?

[pablo_marmol]

61. Eeeek! Wild west! Blood in the streets.

Actually, it never happens.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm

[tblue37]

69. I teach at KU. I am very upset about it, too. nt

[Vinca]

78. Wow. That would totally freak me out.

And you must be in Sam Brownback's Kansas, too. Still got hospitals?

[get the red out]

79. Students can be armed at keg parties

What could go wrong?

This isn't a way to prevent a situation like happened at Va Tech, this is a way to make more situations like that possible.

[Lee-Lee]

83. How, exactly, will it make situations like VA Tech "more possible"

That was a case of a person plotting to do harm who did so despite laws saying it was prohibited.

How, exactly, does this make it more possible for a oreplanned and premeditated attack to occur?

[get the red out]

85. Guns being commonplace

People will become immune to the sight of guns on campus, won't think a thing about it until the disturbed person opens fire. It will make it that much easier for someone who wants to kill to get in the position to do so.

[Lee-Lee]

86. Maybe you don't understand what "concealed" means

But you should look it up.

Your very weak attempt to justify that earlier asinine statement fails on many levels. First because people won't see concealed handguns more often because they are, by definition, not seen.

Second, because anyone intent on doing people harm isn't going to openly display their firearms on the way to go murder people and advertise to everyone they are armed.

Third, speaking from experience, in places where concealed carry is common and accepted people actually handling firearms instead of carrying them concealed still attracts attention and gets reported. There is no fatigue or ignoring it that occurs.

I guess you have the notion that people intent on evil will parade around campus with armloads of guns and nobody will notice or bat an eye. But that's not how the real world works or will work in this case.

[Stuart G]

80. All need to read about this shooting in 1966..Texas Tower Shooting..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting

On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman, a former Marine sharpshooter, took rifles and other weapons to the observation deck atop the Main Building tower at The University of Texas at Austin, then opened fire on persons indiscriminately on the surrounding campus and streets. Over the next 96 minutes he shot and killed fifteen people including one unborn child and injured thirty-one others; another victim died in hospital and the final victim died from the lingering effects of his wounds in 2001, and his death was ruled a homicide. The incident ended when police reached Whitman and shot him dead.

Before going to the campus Whitman had killed his mother and wife. It has been suggested that his violent impulses, with which he had been struggling for years, were due to a small tumor found in his brain on autopsy.

[Danascot]

81. Sure but the state legislatures

that passed these laws allow guns in their buildings ...

oh, wait ...

[malaise]

96. My view is that this is the 'brownshirting' of univerisities and colleges

If they don't like what you're saying or it's not RW views, your life is in danger. It is scary.

[Nevernose]

99. We should at LEAST make people get a permit

An extra background check and some proof of judgment and/or ability every few years. We can do that for cars, we can do that for guns, even under Heller.

[The_Casual_Observer]

101. This is just plain madness.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. What *empirical* evidence do you have that legal CCW weapons at colleges are harmful?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382537

AFAIK, no one has produced any in the >6 years since I first asked that question.
Perhaps you'll be the first...

[The_Casual_Observer]

105. Do you think I would waste time arguing

Or dignify an obvious mistake? Its madness.

[friendly_iconoclast]

119. "...dignify an obvious mistake? Its madness." 'Colonism' in its purest ray serene:

"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."

Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[KingCharlemagne]

106. Have no fear. KU pays its head football coach over $1,000,000 per year, but

pays assistant prods in math about $75,000 per year. Because KU has its priorities straight, see?

[MoonRiver]

108. Exactly...

[pablo_marmol]

116. "Progressives" love science/empirical evidence. Until they don't.

http://concealedcampus.org/common-arguments/

[friendly_iconoclast]

125. Guns and gun owners do to certain "progressives" what brown people, LGBTQ people...

and non Judeo-Christians do to the right:

They cause a panic reaction, which can be seen on this and other threads

[friendly_iconoclast]

126. "Rape survivors open letter to Florida State Sen. Diaz de la Portilla on campus carry"

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/268454-rape-survivors-open-letter-to-florida-state-sen-diaz-de-la

Shayna Lopez-Rivas

I am typing this letter from a Starbucks in Tallahassee, where I am situationally aware, trained, and well armed. Although I do not expect anything drastic to happen today, I am still prepared if something does go down—either to get the heck out and dodge, or tackle whatever happens head on, and I am prepared to do so with deadly force if needed. Although I now maintain great situational awareness everywhere I go and have self defense training in disarming, and in fighting off, an attacker, there are times where I am legally left without the tool that could best level the playing field in protecting me—my gun.

Currently under Florida law, I am not allowed to carry on my campus, Florida State University. On my campus that reported 17 sexual assaults in 2014; on my campus that uses maybe 10 uniformed officers at any given point in time to protect the whole campus; on my campus that refuses to back campus carry as a way for women to legitimately protect themselves from assault; and on my campus which claims sovereign immunity when they are unable to protect these women: I am told I am safe and I do not need a gun.

While President Thrasher and university officials would have you believe that I am not defenseless, and even, that I am safe on campus, I would beg to differ. I already used pepper spray once; do you want to know how that ended for me? I was left shaking and crying, half naked on campus grounds, with cut marks all over my body. That’s what pepper spray did for me.

As a gun rights activist, I can write all day about our Second Amendment rights. I will throw down statistics like how 0.1 percent of rapes were completed when women used a firearm as compared to a 34 percent completion rate when women used any other form of self-defense. Or how with the exception of two, all the mass shootings since the 1950’s have been in gun free zones. Stats are easy to discuss, but when it comes to talking about being raped, my throat gets dry and my hands freeze up. It’s a lot harder to write about nightmares than it is to write about numbers...

[Hoyt]

129. If you male gunners were like most women who carry a gun, guns would not be a problem.

Women -- with only a few exceptions -- tend to carry one gun (a small pistol, rather than a rifle or "assault" pistol), do not have a cache at home, don't use it to intimidate, don't shoot people in road rage incidents, don't pull a George Zimmerman, don't stand around with a confederate flag, don't promote more guns in more places, don't train for urban warfare, aren't likely to pull a gun in a store robbery trying to be a hero and screw up by shooting the clerk in the head instead of the robber, are truly interested in self-defense, don't pull the crap below (notice woman in photo does not have a gun), aren't into intimidation, aren't compensating, aren't sick, etc.


And, yes, I know there are a couple of exceptions, but not many. So no need to post of a photo with a woman and a gun. Fact is, guns -- and the problems they create -- are primarily a male issue.








http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=39895b6d-5350-43ef-806c-18c836ff2543&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. Your 'rebuttal' is both sexist and racist

[Hoyt]

132. Racist, why because it identifies guns as the toy of white wingers? Sexist, I don't think so.

I applaud women for acting rationally with gunz, unlike most male gunners who view them as a necessity for manhood or some such crud.



Marketers are noted for knowing their market. Here's how the market to you guys --

Proof of your manhood from Ammoland and Bushmaster. Do you have what it takes?

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. 1) Racist, because you refuse to post pictures of gun owners of color...

2) Sexist, because you stereotype an entire gender...

3) And above all: Stupid, as I do not own a gun-your stereotyping has run up hard against reality...

[aikoaiko]

139. Campus Carry begins on GA campuses too in July

I work on a campus and I'm not too concerned. I won't deny that more guns in an area increases the chances of a negligent discharge or impulsive shooting, but these things happen very rarely in college campuses with or without legal campus carry.

If a resident of the state of GA can lawfully carry concealed firearms on the sidewalk in front of my university I really can't think of reason why they should be prohibited from carry on the university property as if the university will somehow provoke a shooting.