Arizona State University students react to gun bill (Right to carry on-campus)

[shadowrider]

Faculty members at community colleges and universities across Arizona could soon have the right to carry guns into their classrooms.

Worried about the safety of people who study and work on college campuses lawmakers across the nation are pushing bills aimed at arming college and university faculty members. Florida, Arizona and Texas are among the states considering such laws.

Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, said he decided to sponsor House Bill 2001,which would allow community college and university instructors to carry a concealed weapon after an Arizona State University professor told him he feared for his safety.

"He said he felt like a sitting duck," Harper said. "After what happened at Virginia Tech . . . I think it's clear that . . . there needs to be more responsible, law-abiding individuals that can protect themselves on college campuses."

--snip--

Harper said his bill is needed because the current Arizona law, which allows university administrators to ban firearms on their property, gives criminals unchecked powers.

"University or college police officers are few and far between," he said, adding that many lives can be lost in the time it takes officers to respond to a shooting.

--snip--

But Alex Anderson, a 19-year-old ASU student who lives in a Tempe dorm, says allowing guns on campus makes her feel less safe.

"I come here to learn. I don't want to have to worry about my professors carrying a gun," she said. "The truth is that the amount of times a gun actually caused an accidental tragedy has been more times than it was used to prevent crimes or even used in a plan to shoot people."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2011/01/20/20110120arizona-state-university-campus-gun-bill0121.html#ixzz1Brhg4g2L

[shadowrider]

1. Newsflash for Alex: You're probably ALREADY surrounded by

concealed weapons. People want to protect themselves. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[pipoman]

2. The states with similar laws on the books have had no trouble

arise from it.

"I come here to learn. I don't want to have to worry about my professors carrying a gun,"(unwarranted fear isn't cause to dismiss effective policy) she said. "The truth is that the amount of times a gun actually caused an accidental tragedy has been more times than it was used to prevent crimes (nonsense) or even used in a plan to shoot people."(and more nonsense)

[shadowrider]

3. Sometimes people speak from an emotional standpoint. Yes! It's true! n/t

[DrDan]

5. unlike gun owners. . . .

:sarcasm:

[jaxx]

4. Nonsense for campuses to allow guns.

<..> 15 "Right-to-Carry" states leave the decision of concealed carry on college campuses entirely to each college/university. A person with a license/permit who was caught carrying a firearm on a college campus could not be held criminally liable but students and employees of a university would be expelled or have their employment terminated. These states are Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

Though these states contain a few colleges/universities, such as Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA), that allow concealed carry on campus, most prohibit it.
Utah is the only state to allow concealed carry at all public colleges/universities, by prohibiting public colleges/universities from creating their own restrictions.

http://www.concealedcampus.org/state-by-state.php

[pipoman]

7. Unless the college or university is

maintaining their policy by actively using metal detectors at every entrance to the campus, the campus isn't secure or gun free.

The link posted is a little out of date as Iowa (and maybe others) is now "shall issue". Also, IIRC, Washington allows carry on campuses. There may be others.

[jaxx]

10. Concealed carry would be an outrage on campus.

Let them use metal detectors if they need to, but keep the guns out.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. Why would it be an outrage? It's not a problem/outrage at usiversities that allow it...

more like a poutrage, if you ask me.

[jaxx]

17. Because it's an unnecessary thing to do and goes against

the students rights who don't want them. Gun people forget that when they demand concealed carry they are stepping on the rights of those who don't want a gun sitting next to them in a restaurant or on public transportation or in a school. I'm sure you'll agree that all citizens have rights.

[shadowrider]

18. You're implying a right to safety which simply doesn't exist

When you go to a restaurant, you're surrounded by guns, whether you know it or not. Has that affected your dining experience in the past?

[jaxx]

20. No concealed carry in IL, but I've stopped dining in Iowa

since they allowed it. Gun rights are usurping safety to the public.

[shadowrider]

29. That is your right, you are making a personal choice and I respect that n/t

[jaxx]

39. Thank you.

It's something I feel strongly about.

[shadowrider]

41. On the other hand, MY choice is to carry, concealed. Do you respect MY choice?

Not being confrontational, just curious.

[jaxx]

43. At home yes.

On the road, yes. In school, no. In public venues, no. On the street, if you think you have to, ok.

What about open carry? I'm ok with that in those places (not schools). It's the hidden element I don't like....which is my right to know what I'm sitting next to.

It might surprise you to know that my dad taught me to shoot when I was around 12. Targets. I don't own a gun and don't want one. But I don't oppose gun ownership.

[shadowrider]

45. How in the world are you going to get the criminal element

who by definition would NOT open carry, to switch to open carry? IMHO, THEY are the ones you should be worried about carrying concealed, not law-abiding citizens.

[Katya Mullethov]

51. A push for mandatory and festively painted penis gourds as standard attire ?

I am just throwing these out there , trying to think out of the box .
But I "feel" there will always be a possibility that we might see it in our lifetimes .

[jaxx]

55. Life imprisonment for no license.

Looking into gangs etc. There is no easy way. Open carry is a deterrent.

[shadowrider]

58. Look into gangs. Sheesh

Are you aware how meticulous law enforcement must be when gathering information on gangs? Are you aware how many cases are thrown out because of a technicality? Are you aware how many people SCREAM about civil rights violations of these (Children, many of whom are up to 25 yrs. old) when the cops are investigating?

Do away with the technicalities and supposed civil rights violations, THEN maybe something can be done to actually put a dent in gangs.

[jaxx]

61. Yes, I'm aware of those who scream about them.

This conversation needs to end now. There are others on the thread who are now sniping which does nothing for the subject. Rather than fighting I'd rather try to stay on subject some other time.

Have a nice day.

[PavePusher]

68. May I see your First, Fourth and Thirteenth Amendment Licences, please? n/t

[petronius]

54. But there is no right to know what you're sitting next to,

and definitely no right that addresses your desire not to sit next to things/people you don't like or that worry you.

You do have the right to choose not to go places that allow things you oppose, and if you owned a business of any sort I'd defend your right to prohibit anything you want (outside of protected categories), but the notion that the contents of your neighbor's pocket is any of your concern is just totally unsupported by our law and history...

[jaxx]

57. Funny how I have no rights isn't it?

I disagree. Put the gun out in the open and give me a choice.

[petronius]

60. Nobody said you have no rights, just that the 'right' you're claiming here is imaginary

You have a right to forbid firearms or anything else on your own property.

You have a right to go or not go wherever you please (provided it's legal), based on whatever criteria you choose.

You do not have a right to know what's in someone else's pocket or purse, and you definitely don't have a right to not be around people that displease, worry or frighten you.

You may have a desire to know what people around you possess, and you're free to express that desire as the reason for your support of this law or that, but it's nowhere in the realm of rights...

[RSillsbee]

64. I'm down

I have no problem w/ OC

[shadowrider]

62. When you go out to eat, do you demand everyone around you disclose

whether or not they're carrying? Do you ask those standing around you at the grocery store?

No? You need to start exercising that right and ask.

:banghead:

[PavePusher]

67. Please point to this "right to know".

We'll wait....

[RSillsbee]

63. No concealed carry in IL

for the law abiding that is

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. What student rights are being violated?

If you substitute African Americans for those carrying guns does you example still work?

[jaxx]

22. Why would I substitute A-A for gun carriers?

That analogy has no relationship at all.

Students have the right to a peaceful and safe environment. Guns in classes and dorms do not assist in that peace and safety.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Because it shows how flawed your argument is

You claim there is a right not to be around firearms...which does not exist anymore than there is a right not to be around African Americans

[jaxx]

33. I think that analogy is flawed.

[PavePusher]

69. Civil Rights are Civil Rights.

Americans of African decent have the same rights as anyone carrying a gun legally.

Excellent analogy.

[Euromutt]

78. No, it's pretty apt

Because the putative right you're positing doesn't pertain to whether you actually are safe; it's about whether you feel safe. You're arguing that something should be prohibited because it makes you feel unsafe, without regard to empirical evidence whether it actually makes you unsafe.

It's your perception that a person carrying a firearm in your vicinity ipso facto presents a threat to your safety. Another person might perceive that a large black man being in their vicinity ipso facto presents a threat to their safety. Whether or not those respective perceptions are correct--or at least supportable by evidence--is immaterial to the question.

[Katya Mullethov]

34. The wish is to not be around

A hair triggered gibbering gibbon with a gun like Uncle Fester in Tuscon . But the subconscious realization that in order to obtain this goal , very dangerous steps would have to be taken that would put even their own freedoms in jeopardy . So it is a simple step to then concentrate on the gun , the easy out, and ignore a more pressing and painful issue . The shit smeared crazies that fill our libraries and youtoobs .
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fvSSLy0eIhA/TS3_qWD48BI/AAAAAAAAAoc/mjEM_paN28I/s320/crazy+Jared+Loughner+uncle+fester.jpg

[jaxx]

36. You bring up Tucson, and the one person with a gun on him

didn't use it. Why? He said he would have shot the bystander who had the gun after the shooter was subdued. He wasn't sure who to shoot.

A gun isn't the end all to nuts going around killing people.

[Katya Mullethov]

47. If my colleages will observe , this aversion negates one's ability to interpret the printed word

Into anything other than murderous hyperbole .

For my next demonstration our subjcet will don top hat and tails and sing ,
" Puttin' On the Ritz " .

And if I may ask the audience once more , please , no flashbulbs .

[shadowrider]

48. Can I use my not yet invented digital camera with a light setting requiring no flash? n/t

[PavePusher]

70. Exactly. He made the right decision.

As legal carriers of guns do hundreds of thousands of times every year.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. I see your position...

Students have the right to a peaceful and safe environment.
I cannot say that they do not... as you point out, not all rights are enumerated (I agree). But I can say that universities are relatively incapable of ensuring this. There simply are not enough security guards and officers. This is the same logic that exists in cities... don't citizens have the right to a peaceful and safe environment? What makes a university so different from a public setting that universities should benefit from defenseless populations? Keep in mind, that being a student should not preclude the right to adequete means of self defense.

Guns in classes and dorms do not assist in that peace and safety.
Do you have evidence of this assertaion - that lawfully held firearms are a detriment to campus peace/safety? I would say the most direct analysis would be to look at university that allow such ractices and look at the specific policies. Are guns allowe on campus and in classes only... or in the dormatories as well?

[jaxx]

35. We all know there is no guaranteed peaceful and safe environment.

Sad, but true. But going to college (assuming they don't pass this down to high schools etc.) shouldn't be a reason to carry a concealed gun around. Remember the VT shooter had lawfully held firearms, so I don't buy that argument. Our laws are loose for ownership, they need to be tightened up and adhered to. That aside, guns on campus are an accident waiting to happen...either by choice or by accident.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership, I'm opposed to carrying them around hidden from view. If people want to adopt the open carry rules I might be able to live with that (but not at school). Slap it on your hip and let the world see what you have. The known is better than the unknown.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

50. Your irrational fear amuses me

Tell me, are you afrid of the dark too?
Do you ask those monsters under your bed not to conceal themselves?

:rofl:

[jaxx]

59. That's not very civil to the conversation is it?

I'm not afraid of you. ;-)

[PavePusher]

71. Supporting evidence, please.

We've seen all these unfounded assertions before.

Weak sauce, to be kind.

[ZombieHorde]

75. I also thought of a similar analogy, but I don't think the comparison between people and firearms is

fair in this case.

A concealed oxygen tank would be closer, but the medical nature of O2 tanks still makes the comparison a bit unfair.

[Euromutt]

21. Sorry, where is that right codified, exactly?

<...> they are stepping on the rights of those who don't want a gun sitting next to them in a restaurant or on public transportation or in a school.

Which right is that, and where is it codified?

Because I'm pretty certain there is no such "right." Basic John Stuart Mill: the only limitation of freedom should be as it infringes upon the freedom of another. The fact that the person next to you might be carrying a firearm (not "is"; we're talking concealed carry here) isn't an infringement on your own freedom. However, demanding that other remain unarmed even though criminal law permits them to because it makes you uncomfortable, thereby depriving them of the means to defend themselves against an "active shooter" on campus, is most assuredly an infringement on their freedom.

Sure, all citizens have rights, but those rights don't extend to the behavior of others. Anti-abortion types have rights, but not the right to prevent someone seeking an abortion to get it, for example. You have the right not to have someone threaten or inflict physical injury on you with a firearm, but as long as they're merely carrying the firearm holstered, they aren't threatening you, and your rights are not being infringed.

As John Cleese famously put it, nobody has a right to not be offended.

[jaxx]

23. Ninth Amendment

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Rights do not have to be spelled out to be rights.

Again, an analogy that makes no sense. Abortion rights do not threaten the person in the desk next to you. A loaded gun does, as in it may be dropped and go off harming someone else, or it may be used to provoke or intimidate.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

27. An uncodified right should preclude an enumerated right (right to adequente means of self defense)?

[jaxx]

37. Rights are rights.

Does the second trump the ninth? Not in my book.

[Euromutt]

76. You'll have to forgive me for being rather skeptical about that answer

Now, while I do take the ACLU's point of view that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights should apply against encroachment by private entities as well as by government, the Ninth Amendment is not a blank check to make up rights.

Moreover, as I noted in my previous post, "you have the right not to have someone threaten or inflict physical injury on you with a firearm" (so congratulations on making a point I'd already acknowledged). It is already illegal to use a firearm to intimidate a person (covered in my own state of Washington by the law on "unlawful carrying or handling" of weapons http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270) or to endanger or cause injury due to criminally negligent handling (respectively, "reckless endangerment" http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.050 and 3rd degree assault http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.031 subsection (d)). The laws are probably comparable in your neck of the woods.

As I also stated previously, merely carrying a firearm, assuming it's properly holstered, does not constitute any of the above. Note, moreover, that almost all handguns manufactured or imported into the United States in the past 25-30 years are "drop-safe"; that is, they are designed with firing pin blocks (or similar devices) that are only disabled when the trigger is pulled. Two recent incidents in which a concealed firearm negligently discharged, injuring the owner in one case, and another diner in the other, both involved Remington-pattern derringers (which very often don't have trigger guards) carried loose in a pocket instead of in a decent holster. The one that discharged after being dropped may have been fairly old, given the age of its owner. I found it quite incomprehensible that the public prosecutor declined to prosecute in that instance, given the grossly irresponsible behavior of the gun owner.

But a person carrying a handgun of relatively recent manufacture, in a decent holster with a decent amount of retention, should not have that problem. So what it comes down to is that your putative "right" is to dictate the behavior of others even though it doesn't affect you.

[hack89]

32. Students don't have the "right" to deny others their civil rights.

do you understand how the Bill of Rights works?

[jaxx]

38. The same as gun carriers don't have the right to deny others of

their civil rights? Yes, that is perfectly understood. Student or gun carrier?

[hack89]

40. Not wanting to be near gun carriers is not a civil right

I cannot use my gun to commit a crime or deprive anyone their civil rights (which usually involves committing a crime). With out an overt threat(which is a crime) the mere possession of a gun by a licensed carrier is not a crime.

[jaxx]

42. I disagree with that.

And many people legally possess guns who shouldn't be allowed to have them. The ownership laws need to be tightened up...no mental issues, no type of previous abuse or battery what so ever, no felons. Yes, some are on the books, but they aren't used the way they should be. Thus tightening up the laws.

[shadowrider]

46. Define "tightening up" the laws. Which laws would you tighten, in YOUR opinion? n/t

[jaxx]

53. The ones for mental issues and any abuse.

Abusers are hotheads, not gun material. And those with mental issues can be helped in many ways, but guns aren't the answer. Again, I'm not against gun ownership if the person is capable in all ways of being responsible for that ownership.

[shadowrider]

56. There are already laws on the books for mental issues and abusers

PROVIDED they've been reported and have undergone psych evaluations. In the case of the Tucson shooter, everyone knew he was crazy but no one did anything about it. You can tighten all the laws you want but unless action is taken beforehand to help the individual, they'll be useless.

If someone has an abuse background and has had a restraining order against them or have been arrested for such, they can't buy a weapon.

Again, the laws are already there.

[hack89]

49. Mental illness and a criminal background are already disqualifiers

which has nothing to do with allowing guns on campus. Don't you agree that if a person meets all the criteria deemed necessary to carry a gun, they can carry on campus.

[PavePusher]

72. Can we apply that to all other Rights as well?

Or are we only being bigoted to the Second Amendment today?

[PavePusher]

66. Uh, sorry, a student does not have the right to deny...

my Civil Rights. Or to deny me tools of self-defense.

My bearing arms does not violate anyone elses rights, no matter how many you invent.

[pipoman]

15. In states with shall issue

concealed carry, 46 states that is IIRC, a college student who has a permit can carry any public place with a few exceptions. There is little reason a college campus should be any different. It is not like campuses are known for the high level of safety or the high quality of security. We will see this as a growing movement. It will have no more negative consequences than concealed carry has had..which is to say, not many.

[Euromutt]

77. Washington state falls under the description in jaxx's post

That is, it's not a criminal offense to carry on college/university property, but every public college and university (including community colleges) has administrative rules (student conduct code, terms of employment), making it a disciplinary offense, leaving one open to expulsion or dismissal.

However, according to DU member paulsby (who is a law enforcement officer of some capacity in King County, WA), no public institution of higher learning has actually ever tried to expel a student or dismiss an employee on the basis of these rules, because if an individual so affected were to sue, the court would very likely rule that such rules are in violation of the state constitution (http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx), which states (Art. I Sec. 24) that "the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself <...> shall not be impaired," and which public institutions of higher learning, being government agencies, are bound to respect. Accordingly, the institutions in question will, in practice, avoid such a confrontation and hope that most people will obey the rule as written, unaware that it's invalid.

And as you say, without sealing off the campus and checking everyone at a limited number of access points, mere words on paper won't render a campus "gun-free." Hell, at my own alma mater, Evergreen, a female student was raped at gunpoint in her dorm room about four years ago. As far as could be determined, the perp probably wasn't connected to the college; just some fuckhead who walked onto campus with a gun under his jacket and walked around until he found a ground-level window open.

[tularetom]

6. OK I get the whole point of having guns in your home

I live in an area where the sheriff has repeatedly admitted he lacks the resources to patrol here (too few people and too remote) and he'll only respond to crimes in progress.

You can't live out here without having firearms in your home and we do (even my 75 year old neighbor has a neat little revolver that fires .410 ga slugs).

The cops can't protect you (and really they aren't supposed to) so you have to protect yourself.

But if people feel so scared they can't even go in a fucking university classroom without being armed then we have really failed as a society.

[shadowrider]

8. Is your neighbors revolver a Judge? n/t

[tularetom]

11. It sure is - Taurus Judge

I'm glad she has it, too. She lives alone on 120 acres and we're the only neighbors within a mile of her house.

[shadowrider]

12. Just askin cause that's my home defense weapon n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

30. Fascinating hellboy pistol

I trust it's loaded with Long Colts .

Technical Branch will tell us why the new 28 ga version will cause crime by Monday or Tuesday , maybe Friday . I guess they could always change their mind after a year or two of production though. That would be pretty funny , wouldnt it ? I'll lol all the way to a mostly green map .

[shadowrider]

31. It's loaded with .410 n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

44. In that case , math whizzes innerweb wide recommend

Using it like a shark bang stick .
Especially with fat guys in the winter .
It all works out in the end , they're slower .

[shadowrider]

9. That was the thought at VT too n/t

[mvccd1000]

16. Yeah, because...

...nobody commutes to college; they all simply magically appear in the classrooms armed with deadly weapons.

Well, not exactly. My dad often rode a bicycle the 12 miles to college in the 70s, sometimes coming home well after dark, or he would go straight from his graveyard shift doing plant maintenance to school, leaving home at 3pm and not getting home until the next day after his classes. While he may not have needed a gun IN the college classroom, who is the college to prohibit him from carrying it through the rest of his routine?

When I commuted 40 miles to college, I often filled my days with classes so I only had to drive two days a week. This led to Mondays and Wednesdays that ran from 10am - 10pm. The parking ramp and surrounding street parking weren't in the best of neighborhoods, and I had to walk through them to get to my car after 10pm. Wouldn't want me able to defend myself, though, because then my gun in my backpack might have had to enter a sacred college classroom.

I think people lose sight of that part of the issue and labor under the delusion that CCW holders only want to carry in the classroom, as if that is where the danger may be. This is why our constitutional protections should be guarded against people who think THEY should decide what people "need" to be allowed to do.

(For example: "Nobody NEEDS to carry a gun in a college classroom...")

[aikoaiko]

52. Its not that we can't go into the classroon without being armed....

... (and i speak from my own point of view here) its that it makes no sense that my states things its swell that I carry a concealed weapon when I go to the convenience store across the street from campus, I can keep a gun concealed in my car on campus, but I can't carry a firearm concealed on my person.

Part of my job on campus is to end the academic careers of students and every one of them is unhappy about it. Most are merely unhappy. Some are verbally aggressive and a tiny percentage are threatening.

[PavePusher]

73. Crimes happen on campus.

Universities can not guarantee safety and security.

This has been proven repeatedly.

They also seem to not be accountable for failure to provide security, even when they are allowed to restrict Civil Rights.

What are we to do? Pray for hope and change?

Here's my change: let me protect myself, and I won't sue you shoeless when you fail to do so.

[Callisto32]

13. Funny that we think we can trust people with the intellectual future of young people...

but not firearms.

[Euromutt]

24. Frankly, I think this bill is bullshit

It's bullshit because it only provides for faculty members to carry. Why should a student who is otherwise legal to carry a concealed firearm anywhere off-campus be forced to rely on some assistant prof to stop an "active shooter"? In my experience, there's no shortage of students who are damn sight better educated in the use of firearms than the course instructor.

What's also bullshit is this quote:

The truth is that the amount of times a gun actually caused an accidental tragedy has been more times than it was used to prevent crimes or even used in a plan to shoot people.

Alex, here's a tip to make you a better student: question your sources. Because that "truth" isn't, and any social sciences faculty member who's honest will tell you there is no "the truth" in science; we can only identify what is demonstrably untrue and discard it.

[shadowrider]

28. So far the conversation has been civil and it's appreciated

That'll change when the disruptors show up.

[PavePusher]

74. Oops, I may fit that catagory. Sorry... n/t

[PavePusher]

65. Blatent ignorance and bigotry openly carried on ASU campus.

Gotta love that.

"But Alex Anderson, a 19-year-old ASU student who lives in a Tempe dorm, says allowing guns on campus makes her feel less safe. "I come here to learn. I don't want to have to worry about my professors carrying a gun," she said. 1."The truth is that the amount of times a gun actually caused an accidental tragedy has been more times than it was used to prevent crimes or even used in a plan to shoot people.""
1. Ignorance. As has been demonstrated many times.



"There is a statistical correlation between those societies that have fewer guns and those that have fewer crimes," Hattenhauer said. 1."But we let any three-toothed hick carry a concealed gun. 2.Now we're selecting professors as prospective firearms experts?"
1. Bigotry. You ass.
2. If these folks are smart enough to be teaching, they are smart enough to learn how to use a gun safely and responsibly. If they can't, they shouldn't be teaching.