Campus Carry: Thoughts

Inside the Fight Over Guns on Campus - Rolling Stone: How a group of students teamed up with the gun lobby to get firearms in the classroom at over 200 colleges – and counting.

Living (as I do) in a "college town", it seems both appropriate and significant that college students are becoming more aware of certain significant facts:

• If you are disarmed in a kill zone, you are a statistic
• If you are armed in a kill zone, you are less likely to be (a statistic).
• Yielding to the demand of a "mass killer" is not a "friendly gesture"; it is volunteerism in a venue where a willing killer seeks victims

Significant quote:

Shortly after the Virginia Tech shooting, in 2007, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson suggested the massacre might have been averted had other students been armed. The comment was met with national ridicule; even the NRA's Wayne LaPierre disavowed the idea. But for a small group of conservative college students, mostly in the South and West, it was a rallying cry. One of them, an undergrad at the University of North Texas, launched a Facebook group: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, or SCCC (later shortened to SCC). 

"... the massacre might have been averted had other students been armed. "

What a concept.  
Someone besides me should have voted for Fred.   
Sure, he is an oddball ... but what have we now?

Kansas U's reluctantly accept new Concealed Carry Laws. Miami, too!

Students voice concerns over concealed carry on college campuses | Myinforms:

 On Jan. 20, the Kansas Board Regents approved a revised policy that states, “Beginning July 1, 2017, any individual who is 21 years of age or older and who is lawfully eligible to carry a concealed handgun in Kansas shall not be precluded from doing so on state university campuses except in buildings and areas of buildings for which adequate security measures are provided, and except as otherwise prohibited by law.”
 [paraphrased]: This policy will still prohibit the open carry of firearms "anywhere on campus".

Also, the liberal professors/staff aren't comfortable with using their didactic teaching styles on armed citizens:

This debate isn't specific to Kansas. After Texas recently passed a similar law, Fritz Steiner, the dean of the architecture school at the University of Texas at Austin, announced he was leaving for a similar post at the University of Pennsylvania. His reason: the new law allowing guns in his classroom.

Texas is the eighth state to allow concealed weapons on its public, post-secondary campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The other states are Mississippi, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Wisconsin, Utah and Kansas. [sic]

It's hard to force draconian solutions on free citizens.

Perhaps the Universities may end up learning more from their students, than their students learn from them.


[MIAMI]

GUN-WALK PROMPTS COUNTER PROTESTS:

“I have no clue why they would want to carry a gun through our campus,” said Froehlich. “Maybe to somehow make us safe.”

Maybe these folks have something going for them.  

The key may be common courtesy.

Student busted for "Packin' Leather"

It's that time of the year again.  Spring, when a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of protesting abrogation of his constitutional rights.

Alabama college student cited for wearing empty gun holster on campus | Fox News:

 A University of South Alabama student was charged with violating the school’s code of conduct after campus police caught him on campus wearing an empty gun holster, in an incident recorded on video.

After realizing that the student was not carrying a firearm, charges were dismissed.
That's not good enough.

The student didn't need being referred to as "being a smart-ass" by investigating police.

"We're gonna check you out.  You don't want to be investigated?  You don't want to be checked out?  Don't do this kind of stuff."

See "Students for Concealed Carry"

Toto, we ain't in Kansas any more!

Kansas is considering 'allowing' students, staff and faculty to exercise their constitutional rights on campus.  And the Administration of the Kansas University System are squirming.

Next summer, in addition to textbooks, laptops and double-strength coffee, Kansas college students will be able to bring something else to class: guns.
Actually, it's not the fear of 'campus violence' which generates this whitey-tighty moment:

Mike Williams, president of the University of Kansas Faculty Senate, says his colleagues are less worried about the possibility of an active shooter and more about accidents and simple disagreements escalating between armed students. 

They're not REALLY citing concerns of an inter-student conflict eruption on the campus:

It's not that a Lover's Quarrel on the Quad might erupt into a firefight, or worry that the campus drug-dealers may start "packing" to defend their 'turf, or even the possibility that there might be an "Accidental Discharge" in the school cafeteria which concerns the university leadership.

No, it's the fear of faculty members that their locked-and-loaded students might take exception to a low grade or a snide comment from their professor during a class-room discussion which soils their BVDs.

A THOUGHTFUL DEBATE:
Oh, to be sure the article addresses the mythical aphorism that "... fear of violence could discourage civil discourse, with students afraid to speak their minds "because of their worry that someone might react with armed violence instead of thoughtful debate." x

That's right.  The faculty has expressed little or no worries about a Gunfight at the OK Corral; they just don't want to get SHOT because they gave a student a lower grade than expected, or because the students feel as if they are being disrespected by the Professorial Ubermenchen.
(As if THAT ever happens in a University Environment!)

Can't blame them for feeling that way, except that:
 (a) folks who want to shoot them will do so whether or not they have a CHL, and
 (b) if "folks who want to shoot them" are in their class, the faculty and staff will be safer with a CHL licensed person in their class, and
 (c) they always have the option to get their own CHL.  But then ... who knows if they are qualified?
 (We do.)  
 (d) and after all, aren't gun-carriers dangerous people?  Why would they want to carry a gun on campus if they didn't want to shoot people?
(Statics show that CHL people are less likely to  commit violent crimes than 'others': see this Texas report of CHL crime statistics.)

Most University websites include the phrase "... our priority is to provide a quality learning environment for our students ..." (or words to that effect).

But really, it's all about the faculty.  And tenure.

Still, fear exists, even if the fearful have "options":

University of Delaware Agrees to Pay for Ammunition for Student Gun Group | NBC 10 Philadelphia

University of Delaware Agrees to Pay for Ammunition for Student Gun Group | NBC 10 Philadelphia:

The University of Delaware is giving money to a Second Amendment student group for shooting practice ammunition. NBC10's Tim Furlong speaks to one of the founding members of the group as well as UDel students about the school's decision.

UD funds many student groups, and they were understandably nonplussed when a student gun group applied for university funding to support the chosen student activity .... shooting.

Although the U eventually determined that they had no legal justification for rejecting the application, they specified that they ammunition purchased with these University funds NOT be stored on campus!

The student who initiated the request has agreed to store the ammunition on his own non-campus housing location.

Film at 11.


(NOTE: okay, it's not "Campus Carry", but I didn't have a better label except for GOOD THINGS!)

Well, this makes a lot of sense

Gov. Jerry Brown signs bill banning concealed guns from California schools | Fox News:
Published October 11, 2015

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill banning concealed weapons from California schools and universities, a measure that drew renewed attention after a recent massacre at an Oregon community college. SB707 by Democratic Sen. Lois Wolk of Davis will prohibit people with concealed weapons permits from carrying firearms on school and college campuses. People who have concealed carry permits would be allowed to carry firearms within 1,000 feet of a public or private K-12 school, but not on the grounds.

SO ...  the only people who are certified to have a life-long established record of NOT being "gun-violent" are denied the right to defend themselves in another of the Gun Free Zones ... which are notorious only for being hunting grounds for maniacs.

That's going to help.

Apparently, Governor Jerry (what a simp name ... Jerry!) has decided that he has to do SOMETHING, so he picks on the single group which has never posed a threat to public safety.

Let me see ... searching, searching. searching for statistics to support his thesis that people licensed to carry a concealed handgun have been a threat to college students.

Nope.  Not finding anything.

Concealed Carry allowed at Kansas Universities? I'll believe it when I see it!

Kansas regents prepare to open universities to guns under new law | The Kansas City Star:
- October 05, 2015

BY DION LEFLER

The Wichita Eagle

As the nation mourns those killed in last week’s mass shooting at an Oregon community college, Kansas universities are preparing to implement a law that will allow most people to carry concealed firearms without a permit on campus. Kansas public universities have authority to ban guns on campus. That will change on July 1, 2017, when they’ll be required to open their institutions to concealed weapons. The Kansas Board of Regents, which sets policy for the state university system, is studying where and how guns can be controlled without violating the law, said board chairman Shane Bangerter.

Wow, THIS one caught me by surprise!

Not that they will listen ....

Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage | New York Post:

 A former president of the college said that it has only one unarmed security officer and that the community decided against armed guards last year. “I suspect this is going to start a discussion across the country about how community colleges prepare themselves for events like this,” Joe Olson told CBS.

(emphasis added)

College and University Administrators are scrambling for a safe place in the face of an oncoming firestorm of protest against collegiate rules forbidding self-defense on campus, and at least one former Oregon Administrator has pulled his head out of his Academia to ask:  "Is this going to hurt my career?"

Dear Joe, and all the oh-so-Academic-Joes who have been making life-altering decisions for your students for the past century:

Well ... yes.   There probably will be a 'discussion across the country' about this.  Except that the discussion has been going on for DECADES!  This is merely the first indication that someone in Academia might notice it.   (You sanctimonious bastards!)

Oregonians died today. And it's my fault. And yours.

Oregon shooting: Gunman dead at Umpqua Community College - CNN.com:

Is anyone surprised that this happened in a "Gun Free Zone"?    Anyone?

U.S. President Barack Obama was briefed on the situation and will continue to receive updates throughout the day. He pushed for a change in gun laws when he spoke to reporters about the shooting Thursday. "Our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It's not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel, and it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America -- next week, or a couple months from now," he said.

(Presidential statement here)

__________________________________________________________________
at about 2:17 on the statement video, The President says:

It cannot be this easy for anyone who wants to inflict harm on another person to get his or her hands on a gun!

Easy?

EASY

Firearms are the most restricted, legislated-against, controlled commercial product in American history.  And yet Obama bemoans that it's to EASY?
Well, for someone who has no history of mental disease, or felonious actions, it's easy.  That's in keeping with the Second Amendment.  But the issue isn't about guns, it's about people.  As soon as we get technology which allows us to predict how people can act in unpredictable ways, we can stop this unpredictable activity. (re: Minority Report)

_____________________________________________________________

(Local sheriff statement here ... the sheriff refused to name the shooter, and rightly so)

(This current piece in REASON has a few things to say which  I wish I had said first):

What's important in regards to the politics of Obama's speech right now is that neither you nor I nor Obama knows anything about what sort of weapon was used and how it was obtained or the shooter's background. I don't even know his name as I type. 

Thus, he is undoubtedly overreaching beyond the facts when he speaks over and over about how apparently easy and simple gun-safety laws would have prevented this, or future tragedies like this

The arrogance of our current president surpasses understanding.

I read the news about the massacre at Umpqua Community College (which by the way is pronounced "UMP" as in "Umpire" and "QUA" as in "QUALITY"), and I'm appalled once again by the societal influences which bring a person to the decision that they only way he can be made whole is to cause the slaughter of innocents.

Usually, this sort of tragedy is ended when the shooter commits suicide, and I wonder:   "why the HELL didn't he just shoot himself first?"

UPDATE:  May have posted his intentions on Social Media

Today, the police in Roseburg, Oregon (nice town, I've been there many times, it's only 120 miles away from my home) were both pro-active and timely.  They responded to the calls quickly,  found-and-fixed their target, and resolved the situation as expediently as possible.   But they were too late to stop that asshole before too many people were slaughtered like lambs.

Unfortunate that there were no CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders on the scene; they could have minimized the death toll, which was far too many innocents.  I often wonder why America is so plentifully staffed with innocent lambs, and so understaffed with the sheep-dogs that a proper flock requires.   We need to pay more attention to the needs of our sheep-dogs local police departments.

And we need to revisit the collegiate rules which mandate no CHL on campus in Oregon.  The state laws allow CHL, but (as I've said so many times before) the colleges can make their own rules about no guns on campus, and enforce them by firing an employee who violates them, or by terminating a student who legally has the temerity to carry a firearm on campus.

... and this most recent tragedy is my fault because I am vehemently against Gun Free Zones, because that's the Happy Hunting Ground for mad men.

Campus Carry: Another First Person Perspective

Guest commentary: Do you support campus carry or do you support rape? - Naples Daily News:
(September 15, 2015)

Opinion from a woman who objects to limitations on concealed carry on college campus.

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center reports 20-25 percent of female college students are victimized by rape, that is 1 in 5. Further, one third of the rapes occur on college campuses. Those facts are being swept under the rug by colleges and universities. If gun-free-zones and whistles worked, why are so many women still being raped? As a woman licensed to carry a firearm for protection, I can defend myself off campus, but the second I step on campus, I no longer have the right to defend myself. I must surrender constitutional rights that guarantee my right to keep and bear arms and of self-defense to get a college education. Effectively, I become a ward of the university but the university has no legal duty or responsibility for my safety. In fact, they hide behind sovereign immunity that protects them from civil suits and criminal prosecution for failing to protect me.

I spent 20 years on college campus, both as a student and as an employee, and I agree with Rebekah that she is unfairly discriminated against when she is disallowed to protect herself in a "Gun Free Zone" ... which is typical of almost every college campus in America.

In fact, as a mature male employee, I was concerned with my right to carry on campus; I typically stayed late at night to complete my work, and found the lack of adequate lighting in EMPLOYEE parking lots to be intimidating.  When I was a student, I just ... tried to look tough.  (That was 50 years ago, and the situation has not improved!)

Rebekah doesn't have that 'looking tough' option; her concerns are legitimate.

College administrators are so worried about Virginia Tech type onslaughts, but they don't seem to understand that their 'campus carry' rules are not providing any protection to their students, staff OR faculty.

Of course, any college that suffers an 'incident' because they haven't rigorously imposed draconian no-gun rules will be held up as a college that "doesn't care about gun violence".  (As if they could stop it!)

This is another Gun Free Zone situation, and there is no good solution.  Armed attacks (or "merely" the common rape and assault patterns on a campus where testosterone rules) will continue, but the first time someone attempts to defend against assault, the store will not be about("ho hum, another boring news day") Campus Rape but about a college that has failed to protect its students against gunfire.

Well, Hell .. there's no good solution for the Joan or Jill who has to decide whether to defend herself against assault, or against both legal and COLLEGE ADMINISTRATIVE proscriptions.

Any student who decides to protect herself with a gun may perhaps protect her honor, but she will lose her scholarship, her enrollment, and the money she paid to enroll in this death-trap which is the American College Campus.

And she will never again be allowed to enroll in another institution of higher learning in her home state.

And even if she should fail to protect herself, and the story becomes public, she is not only a victim of assault but she is also unable to continue her education at the college level.  Because she tried to use a weapon to accomplish the same degree of self-defense which would be available to her if she was two blocks away from the college campus.

What kind of America is this?

NOTE: In Oregon .. as I have noted previously on this venue ... it is legal for persons with a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) to carry on campus.  If found in possession with a weapon, a CHL holder cannot be prosecuted.

But the college can take steps:  if an employee, the person will be fired 'with or without cause'.
If a student, the enrollment will terminate immediately.  The  fees and registration charges which the student has paid will not be returned.  There will be no option to re-enroll on any other campus within the State University System.