Arizona State University President Crow urges governor to veto campus gun bill

[jpak]

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/southwest/view/20110408asus_crow_urges_arizona_governor_to_veto_gun_bill/srvc=home&position=recent

Arizona State University President Michael Crow is urging Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill allowing guns on campuses.

The bill would bar state universities and community colleges from prohibiting the carrying of weapons on public rights of way on campuses.

Both chambers of the Legislature have passed the bill. It could reach Brewer’s desk on Monday.

Crow says allowing guns on campuses endangers students and visitors. He says police could have trouble quickly identifying a shooter if more than one person is armed.

<more>

GOP/NRA extremists

yup

[47of74]

1. And he thinks that nasty person will listen to him?

[barbtries]

2. doubt it

but it's always refreshing to hear a sane voice from AZ

[Logical]

3. I assume you know criminals will not pay attention to the law anyway? n-t

[whoneedstickets]

5. yeah, sure is great we can distinguish between the two so easily

and that one never switches over to become the other on a moment's notice following some stressful act like losing a job, failing a test or getting dumped in a romance.

[Logical]

6. Please provide proof Conceal Carry license holders have increased the crime rate. n-t

[whoneedstickets]

13. When you provide proof they haven't.

There remains no robust, credible statistical evidence that the adoption
of shall-issue laws will generally lower crime, and indeed the best, albeit
admittedly imperfect, statistical evidence presented thus far points in the
opposite direction: that the adoption of shall-issue laws will generally increase
crime.

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

[Logical]

31. From 2003? Really?

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Prove the opposite!

At Least 11 Law Enforcement Officers Have Been Shot and Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Since May 2007

Washington, DC–The sniper attack Sunday on Virginia sheriff’s deputies–resulting in the deaths of two officers and the wounding of two others–was committed by a concealed handgun permit holder. The sniper, concealed handgun permit holder Randy Newberry, was later killed by police. The two slain deputies will now become the 10th and 11th law enforcement officers killed by a concealed handgun permit holder since May 2007 according to Concealed Carry Killers (http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm), a Violence Policy Center database that tracks killings not deemed legitimate self-defense committed by private citizens licensed to or otherwise lawfully allowed to carry concealed handguns (such as in states where permits to carry concealed are not required).

Prior to the Virginia shooting, Concealed Carry Killers had identified nine law enforcement officers shot and killed by concealed handgun permit holders.

Newberry was approved three times for a concealed carry permit, a process that includes a background check.
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=4096

[chibajoe]

167. According to your link, in 2008 3 officers were killed by people with concealed carry licenses

In that same year, 4 officers were killed with their own weapon. By your logic, we should take guns away from police so that they don't get killed by their own gun, since they are 25% more likely to be killed by their own gun than by a CCL holder. Personally, I would be willing to give up my right to carry a concealed weapon if you would be willing to also take guns away from police.

[rrneck]

8. People don't just snap. nt

[whoneedstickets]

16. Really? I call BS on that!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/a-history-of-workplace-sh_n_670128.html

[rrneck]

17. Outstanding.

Now produce the mental health history and life circumstances of each example listed in the impeccable resource you found.

[whoneedstickets]

65. Yeah, you make an outlandish claim and I'm the one that needs to find data.

Classic form on the gunnie side.

[PavePusher]

74. You made the first claim:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x399373#399389

Cite your evidence and stop the misdirection. There is no man, there is no curtain.

[rrneck]

88. Did the people in your example "just snap"? nt

[Starboard Tack]

24. You've obviously never worked for the USPS

That has to be the most absurd comment you've made here. Not up to your normal standard.

[rrneck]

30. Really?

If people just snap for no reason, what would working for the USPS have to do with it? Unfortunately, that was your usual standard.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Columbine/dp/1932360824/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1302382227&sr=8-2
Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond
Product Description
An eye-opening look at the phenomenon of school and workplace shootings in America, Going Postal explores the rage-murder phenomenon that has plagued — and baffled — America for the last three decades, and offers some provocative answers to the oft-asked question, "Why?" By juxtaposing the historical place of rage in America with the social climate that has existed since the 1980s — when Reaganomics began to widen the gap between executive and average-worker earnings — the author crafts a convincing argument that these schoolyard and office massacres can be seen as modern-day slave rebellions. He presents many fascinating and unexpected cases in detail. Like slave rebellions, these massacres are doomed, gory, sometimes even inadvertently comic, and grossly misunderstood. Taking up where Bowling for Columbine left off, this book seeks to set these murders in their proper context and thereby reveal their meaning.

[Starboard Tack]

23. Didn't you know CCW holders never freak out

and they are not subject to stress, they never fail tests and are never spurned romantically. They are our new heroes. Look how much they spend to put the economy back on it's feet.

This guy must have been the exception
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=4096

[Glassunion]

28. We freak out like the rest.

We just have an excellent(but not perfect) track record of not doing anything illegal while we are freaking out.

Years ago, my fiancé dumped me three weeks before our wedding. For another guy... Who she had been sleeping with for weeks before she dumped me. I shot no one. I punched no one. I called her many many bad things that I will not repeat, but that was it. No one was physically hurt. Shit happens. My firearm played no part in that drama.

I've never been fired so I cannot attest to the emotion involved.

I've failed many tests. Again, no one was hurt.

I should be no one's hero. Except to my wife. Someone needs to get the bugs that get into the house. And the garbage does not take itself out. Also, dinner does not cook itself and she can't cook to save her life.

[Starboard Tack]

32. If my wife couldn't cook I'd shoot her

Seriously, though, I'm sure we've all been through the kind of situation that you described and thankfully not been shot. Otherwise, we'd be living in a blood bath. Obviously, most CCW holders are very stable individuals. But people do freak out every day and some of them act out with guns. It's all about numbers and how many gun deaths are too many.

[Glassunion]

71. How many of those acting out with guns are CCW holders?

[Starboard Tack]

75. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize they were immune.

How about the 9 cops they've shot so far? Ask their families.

[PavePusher]

91. And somehow this is commentary...

on all legal weapons carriers?

Please, explain that mechanism....

[Starboard Tack]

93. Did I say that? Just showing they aren't all perfect.

So probably better for the rest of us if you just decided to leave your guns at home, legal or not. When someone gets shot he doesn't really care if your gun was legal or not. You toters do get all carried away with the "legal" thing, don't you? Like someone deputized you or something. I see they sell little "goodie" badges too, as well as the special underwear.

[PavePusher]

96. No-one claimed legal carriers are perfect.

But they have a lower rate of criminal conviction than the general public.

So, you've proved nothing other than you can build a Strawman and beat it up all by yourself.

Someone must be very proud of you. Or something.

[whoneedstickets]

66. Good for you, Domestic violence reports tell another story.

[GreenStormCloud]

98. Domestic violence reports show CCW holders to not be violent.

With regard to any level or kind of criminal activity we have proved ourselves to be far more law-abiding than the general population. Texas publishes the conviction rate for each year. Of 460,000 CHL holders only 106 were convicted of any crime in 2009. Most of those convictions were for nonviolent crimes.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Ah, yes. Hiding behind the disguise of libertarianism, AZ attempts more gov't interference.

It's bullshit for a million reasons.

But, it's nice to see the center of the knuckledragger universe shifting from Texas to Arizona. Arizonans need some sense of identity.

[rrneck]

7. Why don't you list them? We'll wait. .. nt.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Oh, fuck. You again.

Enough. Goodbye to you in 5 seconds.

[rrneck]

18. LOL! I get that a lot from antis. nt

[PavePusher]

76. So, no evidence to present, eh? n/t

[oneshooter]

95. You mean you is skeerd! RUN AWAY!!! n/t

[petronius]

9. Removing unjustified restrictions seems the opposite of government interference to me

:shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

15. From one perspective. But from the perspective of people who don't want guns on campus...

... it's pure fascism.

[Oneka]

20. Pure Fascism

since when is it Fascism, for the government to relax unconstitutional restrictions on my rights?

[Buzz Clik]

49. Couple of things (HUGE misconceptions by those who wrap themselves in the constitution)

1. The right to bear arms is a very vague right in the first place, and the right to bear arms was hashed out in the courts, not guaranteed unconditionally in the constitution.

2. All constitutional rights can be restricted: your right to vote, free speech, religion, and even your right to live. This ridiculous notion that your "right" to carry firearms is limitless is one of the silliest notions that keeps repeating itself in the Gungeon. Did any of you pay attention in Civics class?

[rrneck]

50. Of course it's not limitless.

Those limits are being defined all the time. To expand CCW.

[Oneka]

59. they arent really "rights" then are they.

Lets all be intellectually honest and call them what they really are then shall we?


Government granted PRIVILEGES.

When the people in this nation stand up and start acting like citizens instead of serfs, maybe we can again claim our "god given rights"
instead of ask permission from our ever beneficent government, to exercise our privileges.

It's folks that think that claiming our rights is a "ridiculous notion" that keeps most of us servile to the state.

I hope your chains continue to rest lightly!

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

69. The misconceptions are yours.

"1. The right to bear arms is a very vague right in the first place, and the right to bear arms was hashed out in the courts, not guaranteed unconditionally in the constitution."

There is nothing vague about it. Nothing what so ever. The only vagueness is in the minds of people that do not understand how our bill of rights works, through either ignorance or ideology, or a blissful combination of the two. Based on your statements, it would appear you fall in among them.

I tire of pointing out the obvious, but I'll make an exception for you:

The second amendment is a restriction on government, nothing more, nothing less. That restriction protects a right - the right of the people to both keep and bear arms.

Restrictions on governmental exercise of power, are in fact how the rights enshrined by the bill of rights are protected.

Simple basic constitutional theory. Read about it some time.

"2. All constitutional rights can be restricted: your right to vote, free speech, religion, and even your right to live. This ridiculous notion that your "right" to carry firearms is limitless is one of the silliest notions that keeps repeating itself in the Gungeon. Did any of you pay attention in Civics class?"

Nobody here claims that rights can't be restricted. I'd wager, however, that none of us on the other side of the issue from you think that restricting the right in question to the point of non-existance is acceptable.

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.

After your comments, I dare say you ought not to be questioning whether anyone else payed attention in civics class, being that you yourself do not appear to have a grasp that even approaches firm on this particular subject matter.

[petronius]

22. If the word fascism applied at all here - which it doesn't - it could only apply

to the mindset that would impose unfounded and unjustified restrictions on personal freedom, based on the wants of a subset of the population.

People who don't want guns on campus are free not to like the law, but liking, wanting, and feeling carry very little weight when it comes to Constitutional rights. I take the (IMO) liberal position: if people want government to restrict anything at all, then they need to present a darn good and well-supported reason for the restriction, and make that restriction as narrow as possible...

[Starboard Tack]

25. How do you feel about smoking bans?

[petronius]

29. Generally against, except where there is quantifiable and non-trivial data in support (nt)

[Starboard Tack]

33. Where do you think it is OK to smoke?

[petronius]

36. Once again, you have the question backward. But you should already know

the answer: every place where there aren't quantifiable and non-trivial reasons to the contrary. Just like with gun bans...

[Starboard Tack]

39. OK I smoke and I own guns.

I don't smoke around non-smokers because it is dangerous and others find it offensive.
I don't carry a gun because it is dangerous and others find it offensive.

[petronius]

40. And I support your right to make those choices, like I would oppose any effort

to impose your choices on others...

[Starboard Tack]

45. I choose not to offend others

You think people should have the right to smoke in restaurants, theaters, airplanes, your house, wherever they feel like it in your world? You think it's OK to talk loudly in a library?
You think society evolves with a "fuck you, I'm all right, Jack" attitude? Sounds libertarian to me, which is not uncommon around here.

[petronius]

55. You can't possibly think that that's what I said

But if you're truly confused, I'll try again: my position is that government should not enact bans or restrictions on any freedoms, choices, or rights without a clear, quantifiable, and non-trivial foundation (reason, need) for that restriction. And, if a restriction is justified it should be as narrow as possible to meet the need.

What people do or don't allow in their own private non-commercial space is up to them, of course...

[Starboard Tack]

73. I would call 30,000 firearm deaths a year quantifiable

maybe you find that number trivial. Compared to 50 in the UK.
How narrow do you think is appropriate?

[PavePusher]

78. You do your cause no help by including inflationary numbers in your "evidence".

Over half of those deaths are suicide. Suicide is not a gun issue (as proved by equal or higher suicide rates in places where gun ownership is much more heavily restricted). Suicide is a mental health issue.

[Starboard Tack]

82. Many see carrying a gun as a mental health issue

But to keep the numbers "pure" let's cut the number in 2.
Oh, heck only 15,000 and as the UK numbers were about 50% suicides, that would leave what, 25 in the UK.
So, apart from your unsuccessful diversionary tactic, did you have a valid point? Or are you getting ready to leave the dark side?

[RSillsbee]

101. So, how do you intend to prevent those deaths

W/O infringing my civil liberties?

[Starboard Tack]

104. I don't intend to prevent them, do you?

I have no desire to infringe on your civil liberties. Why do you look to me for the answers? I don't have the answers for you, only for myself. I won't be shooting anyone and nobody will shoot me because I'm armed, because I won't be.
I don't live in a world full of good guys and bad guys. I worked through that shit around the age of 15, when I discovered that people are pretty much the same wherever you go. Sometimes individuals do bad things. Sometimes shit happens. You want to live in constant fear, that's your choice. Meanwhile, I'll just keep on enjoying my life.
If you get enjoyment from walking around with a gun strapped to you, good for you. Why do you care if I find that uncivilized? I'm not gonna shoot you or try to take away your gun. Got my own, don't need yours, thank you.

[oneshooter]

105. Yet you have advocated the banning of items that you admit you don't even know what they are! n/t

[Starboard Tack]

108. The only banning I endorse is the carrying in public

I could live with a total ban on all guns. Wouldn't bother me. But I'm not proposing that or advocating it. I don;t think they are necessary, but that's just my opinion.

[RSillsbee]

109. So you're willing to pass a law

that would guarantee the only people carrying in public are the criminals?

[Starboard Tack]

115. I would probably support a law that would ban ANYBODY carrying

in public, including criminals. Why would I want criminals to carry? I know it's hard for many to get their heads around the fact that the reason British cops don't want to carry guns is because it would give the crooks a reason. They actually have a sense of fair play (comes from cricket). So, call me crazy, but it can work, I think, or maybe not. But it sure as hell ain't gonna work by spreading more guns around.

[RSillsbee]

118. Do you think such a law might work as well

as laws banning ANYONE from smoking weed?

[Starboard Tack]

120. In public? Probably better, because guns are more offensive

Not too many are offended by weed, but some would be by folk smoking in public. That's why they have "drug free" zones near schools. A lot more civilized than encouraging students to take guns to school.
How many weed deaths do we have annually?

[oneshooter]

131. Including Law Enforcement also. Looking at a lot of dead and injured cops. n/t

[rrneck]

165. What makes you think crooks need a reason? nt

[oneshooter]

110. What about this............

Starboard Tack (539 posts) Fri Apr-08-11 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #94
97. Absolutely. Ban assault weapons.
Regarding handguns, I'm not convinced either way. Does that make me a gun banner?
Are you a gun lover?
Keep it real.


Starboard Tack (539 posts) Sat Apr-09-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #149
152. I already researched this. That's why I said assault rifle.
Bottom line, I would prefer civilian ownership restricted to shotguns (max. 2 barrels), no pumps. Rifles with no auto and 10 round max.. I think that's being reasonable. No outright ban on guns. Handguns - still open on that, but it really does look like it's getting out of control, especially the CCW madness.
Keep it real.

Starboard Tack (539 posts) Fri Apr-08-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #109
117. Yes. Works very well in the UK
Keep it real.

Starboard Tack (539 posts) Fri Apr-08-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #112
119. I would definitely like to see UK style gun legislation here
OK are you satisfied now? Is that clear?
Now, having said that, I am also a realist. The rural nature of much of this country changes the equation. So, as I have said many times, I have no problem with owning shotguns and hunting rifles, both of which I would restrict in terms of capacity. Regarding handguns I'm somewhat ambivalent, but am leaning more and more towards a ban, mainly because of what I have been reading in this forum. The fervor of the pro-gunners is truly disturbing. I never had a problem with handguns in the past, but all this concealed carry nonsense and taking them to school is so over the top. I think you're helping arms peddlers sell a lot of guns, but you're alienating a huge segment of the population and I think it will backfire on you. Pardon the pun.
But, personally, I don't really care. It's just a fun conversation.
Keep it real.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x397413#399067

Nope, nothing about wanting to ban anything there.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

114. What's up with that?

Are you still trying to tie me up over the Assault Weapon/Assault Rifle definition thing. I will concede my ignorance to a certain degree in terms of long guns and their various capabilities. I'm a simple guy. So, what do you want me to do? Explain again where I stand?
OK
I came to this forum to learn about the debate on guns. So, be patient with me. Most of my current opinion is based on what I have read here, from you and others. So my position is more fluid than most. I am capable of changing my opinions and as I have said, my thoughts on handguns are still somewhat open.
What would I definitely ban? The indiscriminate carrying of all guns in designated public areas, open or concealed.
Permits to own and carry should be issued based on demonstrable need and restricted accordingly.

That's where I'm at right now. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise, but I must tell you that your comments have done more to turn me against gun ownership than anyone else in this forum.

[friendly_iconoclast]

116. You've had some remarkably specific recommendations for an 'ignorant' person.

You are not the first gun prohibitionist to attempt the faux-naive schtick here, and I rather doubt you'll be the last.

So explain to us again why we should give any weight to your opinions on whether gun ownership is suitable or not?

[Starboard Tack]

119. Isn't it amazing how an ignoramus like me can stir up so much shit?

How about that for a bit of "faux-naive"? Chased all the others away did you? Why should you give weight to my opinions? No reason at all. I'm just another human exercising his 1A rights and for some strange reason that's got a lot of you all bent out of shape. Only YOU, the individual, can decide whether gun ownership is suitable or not. YOU, not me, not the government, nobody else. Whether it is legal or not is a whole other question. Whether the peddling and/or consuming tools of destruction as fashion accessories is suitable or conducive to social harmony is definitely an interesting question for some of us.
How can you call me a gun prohibitionist? I own guns. Because I think carrying them around is idiotic? It's just an opinion.

[rrneck]

117. How would you enforce a law

regulating what people carry on their persons?

If possible, what impact would that precedent have in our civil rights.

[Starboard Tack]

144. Having asked all my British friends that question let me quote

Ban the fucking things. If the cops don't need them, why should anyone else?
What fucking civil right? The right to be shot.
We solve our differences over a cup of tea.

[PavePusher]

146. Interesting response, considering Britians' violent crime rates.

And yeah, I lived there for 7 1/2 years, so I've seen it, up close and personal.

[Starboard Tack]

149. What is reported as violent crime in the UK is not the same as US

You should look at the stats involving death or injury.
Also Brits are more likely to report any crime. They have a much friendlier relationship with the police in general. Not surprising, as the cops are unarmed and not threatening.
Violence is a problem in all societies. The proliferation of firearms does not and will never resolve it.

[rrneck]

153. So you got nothin'.

All righty then.

Instead if derivative snark how about an actual answer. Some call it "discussion ". Isn't that why you're here?

[Starboard Tack]

159. Hold on. I give you quotes and you call it "snark"

You call a response of "Bullshit" a discussion?

[rrneck]

162. No.

I called it derivative snark. Nobody cares about some second hand smart ass me too bullshit. I asked specific questions that you are trying to avoid.

I would remind you that every post you write is permanent public record.

[rl6214]

125. Just a few comments:

The thing about banning "the indiscriminate carrying of all guns in designated public areas" is that the criminals don't follow the bans. The criminals KNOW that if there is a ban on "the indiscriminate carrying of all guns" then they will be the only ones with guns, because they don't follow the rules, and will have free run of the place to do whatever they want.

"Permits to own and carry should be issued based on demonstrable need and restricted accordingly"

Let's start with "permits to own". Are you suggesting anyone that wants to purchase a gun needs to obtain a permit based upon a "demonstrable need"? If we are following the 2a the way it has been defined by the supreme court, need is not a prerequisite of owning a gun.

As far a "demonstrable need" to carry a gun, again the criminals don't care if they come upon you and you have or haven't proven to have a "demonstrable need" before they assault/rob you, they don't attack only in designated areas where people have shown a "demonstrable need", they just do it.

[Starboard Tack]

145. Good points, but the only solution you really offer is a total ban.

Because everything else is broken. OK, I'm good with that. Let's do it the UK way, demonstrable need for ownership. Makes a lot of sense. If it's going to save thousands of lives every year, I think we can give up an arcane "right" for the sake of a more peaceful and less fearful society. And think of all the money folks would save on all those doodads the gun industry peddles.

[rrneck]

155. Demonstrable need:

There's never a cop around when you need one.

That's that self defense solution you don't buy.

[Starboard Tack]

157. Correct. I don't buy it.

[rrneck]

166. You don't think people have to defend themselves

against larger, stronger, more aggressive assailants. That tells us a lot about the world you live in and what side of the class war you're on.

[Starboard Tack]

168. I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves

How they do it is up to them. If I chose to use a gun to defend myself, which I might do in extremis, it would not have a higher capacity than a double barrel shotgun. Can't imagine ever needing something more powerful than that. I am now convinced from the rants I've seen here that the recent proliferation of gun sales and CCW permits has nothing to do with self defense, but rather right wing political intimidation in the guise of a civil right.

[rrneck]

169. I see.

If people don't use your weapon of choice there must be a conspiracy afoot.

Don't you think it would be a bit difficult to swan into a Starbucks and order a latte wagging a coach gun? It would totally wreck the sleek lines of your ensambe.

It seems you would build laws around your own personal preferences. Spoken like a true consumer.

[Starboard Tack]

170. "swan into a Starbucks and order a latte wagging a coach gun?"

And what the hell is an "ensambe"?
Whatever your smoking, I want some.

[rrneck]

171. I'm high on reality

You missed the sarcasm because you refuse to accept the fact that people get assaulted outside their homes.

Faith based self delusion often impairs one's sense of humor.

[Starboard Tack]

172. Actually I thought it was pretty funny. Keep it real

[oneshooter]

130. Just an answer to this.......

"Starboard Tack (546 posts) Mon Apr-11-11 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #105
108. The only banning I endorse is the carrying in public
I could live with a total ban on all guns. Wouldn't bother me. But I'm not proposing that or advocating it. I don;t think they are necessary, but that's just my opinion.
Keep it real.

You have advocated for a ban on"asault rifles" without knowing what they are, advocated to disarm Law Enforcement, which would cause a lot of dead cops. See no need for handguns.

Yet you say you are advocating a ban on anything. If you endorse UK style laws then you endorse a near total ban on firearms.

You are not to be believed.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

147. I totally endorse UK style laws. You are correct.

The more I listen to you and others here, the more I endorse them.
Why? Because they work. How about that.

[rrneck]

148. Prove it. nt

[Starboard Tack]

151. Prove what? That the UK laws work?

Nothing is perfect, but they work much better than here. Look at the stats.
50 gun deaths in the UK
30,000 in the US
I'd call that working

[rrneck]

154. Bullshit.

Produce homicide rates, assault rates, types of weapons used. Then explain how laws in one culture can be simply applied in another.

And include links.

[Starboard Tack]

158. OK

Knock yourself out
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/international-and-domestic-statistics-compared
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

Let me know if you need more

[rrneck]

160. What was that supposed to prove? nt

[rrneck]

161. That proves nothing.

I'm asking specific questions and you're dodging them. As usual.

[petronius]

85. The restriction needs to specifically address the stated need with the least

amount of secondary impact (and the claimed foundation must relate to the specific proposed restriction) - that's what "narrow" means.

So, how does your big number relate to the campus CCW ban that is the topic of this thread? And does that specific ban have any quantifiable relationship with the big number you present as a rationale? If the relationship can't be shown - and no one in the forum has yet managed it - then the restriction is unnecessary and inappropriate.

It's really quite simple: if someone wants to enact a specific restriction on Topic X to reduce Problem Y, then that someone needs to show that the specific restriction has a significant benefit on Problem Y, and all avoidable side-effects have been eliminated...

[Starboard Tack]

123. Hmm! Let me think

Topic of this thread is campus carry. OK
Stated need I think would be along the lines of STUDENT SAFETY, REDUCTION OF CAMPUS VIOLENCE.
Now, you can call me stupid, but I think the obvious answer to that problem is NO GUNS ON CAMPUS.
Others make the opposite argument. I call that argument beyond ridiculous as a solution to said problem.
Sorry, this is a no brainer.

My numbers were not specific to the thread. So here we go

Scotland, March 1996: Gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton shoots 16 children and their teacher dead at their primary school in Dunblane, Scotland before killing himself.
NONE SINCE THEN. I WONDER WHY?

Now here are the US numbers for the 3 years following Dunblane.

United States, October 1997: A 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed his mother before shooting dead two students, including his former girlfriend, at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi.

United States, December 1997: A 14-year old boy killed three students attending a prayer meeting at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky.

United States, March 1998: Two boys aged 13 and 11 killed four pupils and a teacher after setting off fire alarms at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

United States, April 1999: Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 of their classmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.

Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

[Glassunion]

124. I'm not sure you are comparing apples to apples.

Topic of this thread is campus carry. OK
Campus carry = Those with a CCW(must be 21 and pass a criminal background check.) will have the ability to carry their firearms on college campuses.

Stated need I think would be along the lines of STUDENT SAFETY, REDUCTION OF CAMPUS VIOLENCE.
Every example you gave were gun free zones. There were federal laws, already in place prohibiting these shooters from legally carrying their firearms. There are also federal laws prohibiting the possession of firearms at ALL of these places that you used as an example.

Now, you can call me stupid, but I think the obvious answer to that problem is NO GUNS ON CAMPUS.
Again, every example you gave ALL were gun free zones and in essence were a "NO GUNS ON CAMPUS" location.

Scotland, March 1996: Gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton shoots 16 children and their teacher dead at their primary school in Dunblane, Scotland before killing himself.
NONE SINCE THEN. I WONDER WHY?

Now here are the US numbers for the 3 years following Dunblane.

United States, October 1997: A 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed his mother before shooting dead two students, including his former girlfriend, at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi.
So, you have a 16 y/o who would not be allowed by law to possess the firearm(broken law #1). Bringing it to a location where it is prohibited by federal law to be in possession of a firearm(broken law #2). Then he killed 2 people at said location(broken laws #3 & #4).

United States, December 1997: A 14-year old boy killed three students attending a prayer meeting at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky.
So, you have a 14 y/o who would not be allowed by law to possess the firearm(broken law #1). Bringing it to a location where it is prohibited by federal law to be in possession of a firearm(broken law #2). Then he killed 3 people at said location(broken laws #3, 4 & 5).

United States, March 1998: Two boys aged 13 and 11 killed four pupils and a teacher after setting off fire alarms at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
So, you have a 13 y/o and 11 y/o who would not be allowed by law to possess the firearm(broken laws #1 and #2). Bringing it to a location where it is prohibited by federal law to be in possession of a firearm(broken law #3 & #4). Then they killed 5 people at said location(broken laws #5, 6, 7, 8 and 9).

United States, April 1999: Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 of their classmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.
So, you have an 18 y/o and 17 y/o who would not be allowed by law to possess the firearms(broken laws #1 and #2). Bringing it to a location where it is prohibited by federal law to be in possession of a firearm(broken law #3 & #4). Then they killed 12 and injured 23 people at said location(broken laws #5 through 39).

[Starboard Tack]

143. Sorry if I strayed from the thread, but from your response

I gather there are only 2 solutions.
1. Legal campus carry, which I consider a really stupid and potentially disastrous option.
2. Total ban on handguns. Somewhat draconian, but I could live with it. Worked in the UK, so why not. Hey, WTF, it's a no brainer

[Glassunion]

152. Would you mind if I gave you a few facts?

To option #1:
My state has legal campus carry but leaves it up to the college to have a no guns policy.
Not one individual with a CCW has ever caused an issue on any single campus where the college does or does not allow carry. So this disaster you speak of has yet to rear its ugly head after over an entire decade of shall issue.

To option #2:
I'm glad you could live with a law that does no effect you. And no it did not work in the UK. #1 They still have gun crime(yes it is reduced), but it is still there. #2 They have a higher rate of violent crime than we do and I would find that unlivable. In light of that, I do not see where the "no brainer" part comes in.

[rl6214]

126. "Now, you can call me stupid, but I think the obvious answer to that problem is NO GUNS ON CAMPUS"

Three things:

The criminals on campus don't care that there is a law that says "NO GUNS ON CAMPUS", therefore they will ignore that law and have free reign because they know the law abiding citizens will not have guns.

Second thing is that the people that go through the trouble of taking a class, getting fingerprinted, having a background check, buying a gun and going thru a background check there and paying $500+ for all of the above have proven to be much more law abiding than the average citizen.

Third, none of these kids that committed these crimes were old enough to obtain a concealed carry license so they would have and did break the law in what they did anyway. Had there been a teacher there with a concealed handgun, they may have been able to stop the mass killings at just a few, we'll never know.

[Starboard Tack]

142. And your point is? More guns is going to make it all safer? I think not.

Do you have some good examples to back that up? What's wrong with tasers? Much less chance of collateral damage.

[rrneck]

43. People find smoking offensive

because of the measurable effects on their senses, including health risks involving second hand smoke. One's personal feelings about either smoking or guns cannot be fairly or justifiably legislated.

[Starboard Tack]

52. Trust me, many people's senses are affected by guns

[rrneck]

54. you cannot legislate your feelings

[Starboard Tack]

81. People find gun toting offensive because of the measurable effects

on their senses, including health risks involving being shot.

[rrneck]

86. It may affect

their sensibilities. There are no physical effects.

Do you have evidence of an increased danger of getting shot and can you provide a firearm free self defense solution for all the people who mean you no harm?

[Starboard Tack]

89. The evidence would include all those shot by CCW toters

There are lists out there, like the 11 law enforcement officers shot by legal toters. Google them. I think being shot has a physical effect. I'm sorry, but I don't buy the self defense excuse anymore, not in terms of carry everywhere, just in case. Paranoia is treatable.

[rrneck]

94. Lists aren't statistics. This forum frequently reads like a police ink blotter for both sides of

the issue. People defend themselves from assault all the time.

Unfortunately statistics can tell us how many but it can't tell us who. And that's what people really need to know.

NOT being shot has no physical effect, which is what you get from the vast overwhelming number of CCWers.

[RSillsbee]

46. How is a gun in a holster dangerous?

I carry a gun pretty much everywhere I go I have yet to see it jump out of the holster on its own.

As for offensive I OC often and I don't really get any reaction ( To be fair I genarlly OC a compact S&W 9mm that most don't even notice)

[Starboard Tack]

53. Jumping off a building isn't dangerous till you hit the ground.

[RSillsbee]

57. Project much?

People don't just "snap" there are frequently blatant warnign signs and precursors. There's also the fact that by the time most murderers become murderers they have extensive felony backgrounds

[YllwFvr]

64. should offensive be a disqualifier?

it bothers me when people make out in public, but I dont think it should be illegal

[Straw Man]

113. Dangerous and offensive?

I don't smoke around non-smokers because it is dangerous and others find it offensive.

It's just as dangerous to you when no one else is around. I suggest you quit, but I certainly wouldn't want to make tobacco illegal.

I don't carry a gun because it is dangerous and others find it offensive.

Get more training, and carry concealed.

Or don't carry at all. It's your choice.

[rrneck]

42. I'm against them

as long as smokers don't exhale.

[Starboard Tack]

84. I'm sure many feel the same about toters

I think they are sensible restrictions, even though they restrict where I can smoke, which was a civil right way before any constitution. Remember when we all resisted wearing seat belts and helmets? My 1A rights are restricted in libraries, classrooms and theaters and lots of other places. The discussion here is when restrictions make sense and when they are oppressive and unnecessary.
You appear to like statistics. If we go that route, the total banners win hands down. No guns = no gun violence.
I would prefer a less draconian solution, but don't see a glimmer of one coming from the toters. In fact, they're just shooting themselves in the foot IMO.

[rrneck]

87. LOL! Actually I hate statistics.

Sensible restriction include a remedy for those harmed by them.

"No guns = no violence ". There was plenty of violence before the invention of the firearm.

Any further adjustments to where a gun can be carried will probably not be found through adjudication.

[Starboard Tack]

90. If you are going to quote me, please be accurate

I said "No guns = No gun violence"

[rrneck]

92. Sorry. My bad. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

99. So knife, club, or fist violence is Ok with you then? N/T

[Starboard Tack]

121. Of course not. No violence is OK with me.

But I don't put a candle out with a fire extinguisher either. If someone is close enough to attack you with a knife, club or fist, I don't think your gun is going to help much, as it will probably be in your attackers hands already. Unless you shoot them first and that's called murder. Or point it at them - that's called assault with a deadly weapon. Hey, it's your choice, not mine. Good luck.

[rl6214]

128. Take a look at this link, it's called the Tueller Drill

and it addresses assault using a knife. It's surprising how quickly an assailant can cover ground and attack you with a knife or a club and how quick you need to be to draw your gun and defend yourself so they don't have to be that close to attack you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

[Starboard Tack]

132. Interesting link.

Personally, I'd rather defend against a knife attack with a sturdy walking stick or similar. Remember, the goal is self defense not who can kill first. In my police training, we were taught many techniques for disarming a knife wielder. Techniques I had occasion to use more than once. None involved using a firearm. Many knife attacks are committed by the mentally impaired. Shooting a sick person is tough to live with.

[PavePusher]

134. I'd rather use a gun.

I have no obligation to let an attacker get within arms-reach of me. Nor do weaker people have an obligation to go hand-to-hand with an assailant in order to avoid harming them. If you go up against a knife in melee-combat, you should be prepared to be cut... badly.

P.S. Despite your insinuation, shooting a person causes death in a small minority of cases.

[Starboard Tack]

138. Hey, each to his own. Good luck with all that.

I like to stay clear of all kinds of combat, including melee-combat. What do you consider a SMALL MINORITY?

CDC stats for 2004
* Total Number of Firearm Injuries: 64,389 / Rate: 21.93 / 100,000
* Total Number of Firearm Fatalities: 29,569 / Rate: 9.94 / 100,000

[rrneck]

150. link?

[Starboard Tack]

156. Pleasure

http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics

[oneshooter]

136. "Shooting a sick person is tough to live with. Being killed by one is worse. n/t

[Glassunion]

137. +1

[Starboard Tack]

140. I wouldn't know, never having done either.

And there's no chance of me shooting one, so at least that problem is out of the way.

[Starboard Tack]

141. I wouldn't know, never having done either.

And there's no chance of me shooting one, so at least that problem is out of the way.

[GreenStormCloud]

135. Anything that threatens my life is NOT a minor threat.

Comparing an assault with a knife to a candle is asinine. Shooting them before they cut me is not murder. I can shoot in self-defense once the threat is there.

You offer no solutions to the problem of self-defense. Ignoring personal defense trusting to luck and singing Kumbaya won't work.

[Starboard Tack]

139. You decide how to respond. That's your choice.

Let the jury decide if it was justified or not. Good luck. At the end of the day it is only yourself that you have to live with.

[GreenStormCloud]

163. I will be alive to live with myself.

In Texas genuine self-defense is often not even prosecuted. You seem to want to prosecute all self-defense shootings.

[Starboard Tack]

164. Nonsense. When and where did I say anything like that?

Why would anyone prosecute a true self-defense shooting?

[rl6214]

127. "No guns = no gun violence."

How do you propose to disarm all of the criminals out there who would not/will not turn them in if ordered to do so. On the other hand the law abiding citizens will turn in their guns. How would that work out for crime in the US?

And most of us don't "tote". We aren't "toters", we carry concealed. Normally when someone uses "toter" or says we are "packing" it is in some sort of veiled insult. I know you have said you are here to learn.

[S_B_Jackson]

60. So Arizona getting involved in the running of an institution that it created...

is fascism?

I think you don't understand the meaning of the term you so blithely toss about.

[beevul]

70. Strange bedfellows.

"But from the perspective of people who don't want guns on campus...it's pure fascism."

I'd wager that people that didnt want blacks and gays on campus felt the same way.


Strange bedfellows indeed.

Well, maybe not that strange.

[PavePusher]

77. Your apparent definition and usage of the word "fascism" are quite defficient. n/t

[Taitertots]

10. Where is the evidence to support his wild claims?

Concealed carry has swept across the nation and there has been no negative repercussions. There is nothing to support his assertion that students will in any way be negatively effected by concealed carry on campus.

[armueller2001]

11. Who needs evidence

when you've got FEELINGS?

[Starboard Tack]

26. Who needs either when you've got a gun?

[PavePusher]

79. Insinuated accusations are vile and dishonest.

You should take them... elsewhere.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Why are you being hostile? What insinuated accusations?

Why do you call me vile and dishonest? Were you offended by something I said? Were your "feelings" hurt by my words. They were only words in a conversation and yet you want me to take them elsewhere. Now you know how many people feel when they see some T-bagger toting his sidearm to make a political point, as you put it "vile and dishonest".
I hope my words didn't cause any collateral damage.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Maybe the country has reached a saturation point

Remember when NYC had a blackout in the 60's and the crime rate didn't change?
Concerning negative effects on students, you must be joking. They go to school to study. Now they have to worry about a bunch of freaks toting guns to class. I have kids in college. Trust me, they are not happy with the thought of armed classmates.

[Taitertots]

38. I don't believe that America is at saturation point for crime

We have reached the point where the common sense gun control laws that are already in place allow some individuals to carry concealed without having negative effects. The common sense gun control laws supported by the vast majority of gun owners; over 18 to purchase, no sales to mentally unfit, no sales to felons, strict limitations of automatic weapons, and strict dealer licensing. As far as I'm concerned the only new regulation should be allowing private sellers to anonymously check people on the NICS.

As a country we need common sense reforms that are unrelated to firearms to lower the crime rate. It is absurd to think that arbitrary restrictions will limit crime, when all the underlying causes remain unchanged.

As a group, people who concealed carry appear to have lower crime rates than the general population. Your children's concerns are without merit. Arbitrary restrictions have never stopped malevolent action.

[RSillsbee]

47. Your kids have armed classmate NOW

they just don't know it.

I remember sitting in class one day when it was reported that someone in the parking lot had a gun (horrors!!!) the school went into a low hover and locked down the campus, called the police and investigate and got everything cleared up and we went on w/ the day.

Long story short, I'm sitting in class the whole time w/ my legally permited fire arm on my hip and no one in class knew it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. That is in no way different from Robert Bork's theory of moral harm

Discussed last year:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=335098#335234

53. Looks like some gun control fans also like Robert Bork. Including some DUers, sadly
Yes, that Robert Bork. Today I bought the issue of Harper's Magazine that has Dan Baum's "Happiness is a Worn Gun: My Concealed Weapon and Me" (discussed earlier here:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x332576

I read the article, and one passage leapt to my attention. From page 36 of the print edition (emphasis added):

.....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....

That explains the delicate flowers that claim that somehow being around someone else who is carrying a handgun is harmful, the
notorious DUer that thinks guns cause crime, and the sheer bile and hatred that open carriers somehow produce from some people, including the author of article in the OP.

Now if you have some actual empirical evidence that being around guns causes harm (they don't give

off gamma rays, btw), now would be a really good time to produce it.

[rl6214]

129. I have one just graduated from college

One currently in college and one will be there in two years. Trust me none of them fear the thought of armed classmates or instructors carrying concealed to class.

[lawodevolution]

12. This is going to get signed

[Starboard Tack]

27. You're probably right

AZ likes to follow the law of devolution. Very progressive.

[Logical]

34. So, how would you ban guns and keep them away from criminals?? n-t

[Starboard Tack]

37. Which guns are you talking about?

[Logical]

41. If you think guns are an issue in society, how would you fix it? n-t

[Starboard Tack]

44. The proliferation of guns is an issue. Gun violence is a huge problem.

So first, let me ask you, do you think gun violence is a problem? If so, do you think the answer is to put more guns out there as a sort of social vaccine?

[RSillsbee]

48. Do you think gun violence is a problem?

I think criminal violence is a problem and criminals have shown themselves to be pretty damn ingenous when it comes to getting the tools to commit violent acts.

How do you propose to stop criminals from comitting violent acts by placing restrictions on my civil liberties?

[Starboard Tack]

51. It isn't about you. It's about everyone. Like seatbelt laws

Am I right in thinking you don't consider gun suicides and accidents problems?

[RSillsbee]

58. Gun accidents are at their lowest levels ever

and suicides are sucides no matter what the person uses to kill themselves. Do you consider suicide by carbon monoxide to be a problem?

Again I am asking a very specific question How do you propose to stop criminals from comitting violent acts by placing restrictions on my civil liberties?

Please answer specifically

TYPO

[RSillsbee]

63. Am I the only one that notices the prohis vanish when you press for specifics? NT

[oneshooter]

72. I too noticed that. They run and hide, only to drive by post in the dark. Then they run again. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

80. I am not discussing criminals here. I'm discussing the carrying of guns

Criminals are already prohibited under laws that you think are enough and should be enforced. I don't see why criminals shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else, once they've served their time. If you disagree with that, then I offer you the British solution. Get rid of them all. Guess what, it works pretty darned well. Oh, but you don't want it to interfere with your "civil liberties". Well you're just going to have to get over that aren't you? Don't worry, though, it really is no more difficult than potty training.

[RSillsbee]

100. You refuse to answer the question , noted NT

[Starboard Tack]

103. If I had an answer, I would have given it

I am not currently working in law enforcement. So have no mandate to protect you. I have no interest in supporting your so-called right to carry weapons around. I consider it uncivilized and unhealthy behavior which I think should be discouraged. Just because something is a right doesn't make it right. That's for you to decide. You have your own sense of integrity, don't come to me for answers.

[oneshooter]

106. You never had a" mandate to protect you" according to the SCOTUS. n/t

[rrneck]

107. "I think should be discouraged..."

Now you're getting somewhere. How would we go about discouraging it?

[gejohnston]

68. do you think

the fact that Japanese kill themselves more than we kill each other and ourselves combined a problem for them? Or is it a problem only they shoot themselves rather than jump in front of trains?

[Logical]

61. I do think gun violance is an issue........

If I could remove all guns from the USA tomorrow and stop people from obtaining them I would in a minute.

But you cannot go back at this point. There are 90 million hand guns at least in the USA. And you cannot make people turn them in. And the crooks would never turn them in.

So, if bad people are going to have handguns I also want to be able to have them.

I understand your side of this but can you see mine?

[WatsonT]

35. He should be fired

he obviously is not geared to think academically, but rather only with his emotions.

We don't need such people heading up universities.

"Well yes I know there is nothing to support homeopathy, but I really feel like this is something we should be teaching"

[Hoyt]

102. Sure, let the progunsinpubliccrowd determine who is best fit to lead a learning institution.

[WatsonT]

111. No, let those who are willing to dispassionately examine the facts

lead academia.

Anyone who claims more guns = more crime is clearly incapable of higher level thinking.

[PavePusher]

97. President Crow... I do hope he likes the taste of his namesake...

he's going to be choking on it soon.

[Remmah2]

122. I wonder if he has a brother "Jim"? nt

nt

[PavePusher]

133. A Hit, a Very Palpable Hit...

:toast:

[aikoaiko]

112. Coming to a campus near you someday....