The Senate bill to allow anyone with a concealed-weapon permit to carry a gun on campus advanced through the Senate Rules Committee this week.
University presidents and the Arizona Board of Regents oppose SB 1467. TW intern Jazmine Woodberry tells The Range:
UA President Robert Shelton doesn’t want to see guns on campus.
“I get my information from UAPD (the University Of Arizona Police Department), TPD (Tucson Police Department) and talking with colleges around the country,” said Shelton. “All of them, to a person, man, woman or child, say this bill, this opportunity to carry firearms on campus would create some serious hazards.”
Shelton said the classroom doesn’t qualify as a proper venue for firearms.
Arizona State University President Michael Crow was blunt when he spoke before the Arizona Board of Regents at their February meeting: “There is no other function for those devices other than to kill the person who is at the other end of their use.”
Robert Rosinski, a civil-engineering sophomore and president of Students for the Second Amendment, says the administration is overreacting to the idea of guns on campus.
“They aren’t evil dragons,” he says. “They are hunks of metal that shoot bullets.”
“We’re not going to have people running around shooting people,” Rosinski adds. “People are more comfortable having the opportunity to decide their own fate.”
Details on the legislation here.
This article appears in Feb 24 – Mar 2, 2011.
“UA President Robert Shelton doesn’t want to see guns on campus. “
Texas don’t either, we want them all “concealed” so they aren’t seen.
But one could do like Colin Goddard did and close his eyes while Cho shot him, reloaded several times, then came back and shot him some more if one wants to play possum and imagine that f you close your eyes the shooter can’t see you because you can’t see him, in the Ostrich “head in the sand” defense tactic. (Colin admits to this)
“There is no other function for those devices other than to stop the killing by an armed deranged person who is executing people one by one.”
“Shelton said the classroom doesn’t qualify as a proper venue for firearms.”
Fine. Then make the cops leave theirs in their cars, too. As it is, the only guns we ever “see” on campus are the ones mowing down unarmed, defenseless students and faculty. At bottom, your emotional opposition to logic enforces a foolish, fatal policy.
If this goes through, I’m sure dozens if not hundreds of professors and graduate students would protest and resign, and the reputations of UA and ASU would slide even more than they have already. Unfortunately, you cannot have a world class university in a state whose politicians continue to make it a laughing stock for passing laws that are seen as backwards, racist, and violent by everybody else in the civilized world. No more millions of grant dollars, since international scientists would be scared to come on to campus. The brain drain would continue, as academics could no longer justify working here, and fewer of any quality would come to replace them. Grad students would no longer come, and the quality of teaching would continue to decline, since you could only attract second and third rate teachers. Arizona’s universities would be less and less able to function as economic generators, since you can’t attract business to a state whose population can’t read or write at a level equal to the rest of the world.
If any of you radical first amendment lovers have any proof that an armed citizenry is safer than one that is not, show it, what are you waiting for. Bring it on, or keep your idiot legal interpretations to yourselves, and let places of education remain safe.
Oh my BHirsch, out of its closet demands facts, something pro-gun advocates have in large quantity, unlike the anti gun zealots.
First, such a law does not make it MANDATORY that everyone will have to carry concealed so save everyone that first little dramatic whine you are famous for.
Lets see, BHirsch is apparently a famous well known crime fighter eh? So where are you thousands, uh hundreds, uh ten’s, uh not even ONE assist to the police by identifying criminals who carry concealed already eh? You are so afraid of people carrying concealed, yet you can’t even identify a person who is carrying concealed, so please save your panty wringing melodramatic ka ka of being afraid of what you can’t see as that is the plea of the perpetually insane.
Lets see, how many people would you be exposed to.
US Census 2008 18.4 mil students, 42% age 21 or older, 4,300 schools
18.4 mil / 4,300 = 4,279 avg population per school
US Census 2008 approximately 186 mil people in US age 21 or older.
BATF 8 mil cpl licensee’s = 8 mil /186 mil = 4.3%
18.4 mil x 42% = 7.728 mil x 4.3% = 332,304 / 4,300 = 77.28 cpl licensee’s per school.
77 / 4,279 = 1.8% of the people you may be exposed to are carrying concealed. But hey since you are NOT an expert at identifying who is doing so to begin with, what again are you afraid of, oh thats right, your unsubstantiated fears of blood in the streets.
Yeah, we see anti gun zealots preaching such gloom and doom every time a useless gun control law is rescinded, Funny how you never have any of those bloodbaths to prove how unsafe people licensed to carry concealed are for oh what, like the millionth time. Your fear has no credibility, other than in your own internal hell of your own insanity.
Lets compare law abiding citizens licensed to conceal carry against someone safe, say a doctor, and we will not use a single NRA reference.
BATF Max 8 million CPL’s US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.
Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report last year, 137 or 45 per year equals .00000562 per concealed license holder. You can also review Florida’s data on CCW at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_… it says the same thing.
JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/… 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 98,000 by medical malpractice every year or .14 per physician.
Physician is .065 or .14 /.00000562 = 12,000 to 25,00 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.
So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren’t you antis crying to ban doctors?
We see from US Census, and an average of NSSF & PEW surveys, that in 2009 40% of households have a firearm. That is an increase since 1997 of 9 million households to 80 million law abiding gun owners as recognized by the BATF.
We see that since 1997 per FBI UCR, that violent crime has gone from 611 VCR (Violent Crime Reported) per 100k people to 429 VCR per 100k people in 2009.
That is a 30% reduction in violent crime. Did we forget to mention that the same data shows a 20% reduction in murders?
All while at the same time we see 12-15 more states implementing concealed carry to 48 states total, and 30 plus states implementing concealed carry in eateries that serve alcohol. All without the predicted and much cried about blood baths predicted by such pundits as BHirsch suggests for oh what, something like the millionth time, yep.
Of course there are other countries that have recently tried gun bans, what effect did that have on their violence?
1997 Australia, Canada, England
Australia 1997 629 VCR per 100k 2007 1,024 VCR per 100k, a 32 person reduction in murders by firearms, exactly replaced by murders with knives. Funny how that trend was mirrored in England (ref AIC.GOV)
Canada 1997 980 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,324 VCR per 100k people, murder rose from 560 to 610 (Ref Statcan)
Canada $2 billion dollar plus registry, that hasn’t solved one crime, such a common trend.
England 1997 820 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,667 VCR per 100k people, murders have reduced to 1997 levels after a 25% increase.
So much for less gun equals less violence, a trend found in every single gun ban country, prove otherwise. Oh, use government data to try if you want, the above references ARE their government databases.
Oh and any attempt to say this is irrelevant, sorry, it shows EXACTLY how useless gun control has been ANYWHERE! Or you could just go the FBI UCR database and show everyone the violent crime and murder rates for Chicago from 1982 to today, NYC from 1982 to today, Washington D.C. from 1982 to today, California from 1994 to today, and NJ from 1982 to today and show everyone how all those stringent gun controls and defacto bans except for the elitists have reduced violence and made people safer. See that is how academically intelligent people do a proper comparison, a beginning date to to today.
Lets review the following 9 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church.
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois UNiversity, 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded
Gun Free Zone 5 incidents
Defenseless victims murdered: 86
Defenseless victims injured: 117
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance 4 incidents
murdered: 7
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 13
Wow, where no resistance occurred 8 times higher body count.
Yep, a higher body count is morally superior to a lower body count based on BHirsch’s beliefs.
Yet here you are, placing a plea to the 80 million law abiding, when you should be talking to the two groups responsible for more than 95% of the deaths from use of firearms. The career criminals/gang members and the crazies who commit suicide.
The government acknowledges in USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2009 that 80% of all violent crimes committed in the US each year are committed by career criminals/gang members. http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/i…
Suicidal people kinda speak for themselves. CDC Database
Shall we review police studies in Chicago and MYC where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident. http://www.popcenter.org/problems/drive_by_shooti…, http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public…, http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_1…
So when are you going to address those two groups responsible for over 95% of all deaths using a firearm as frankly it is rather stupid not to address the largest reason for a problem, then again, we are talking about progressives here.
Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 1968, where the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Haynes that any law requiring a felon to self incriminate themselves and violate their 5th amendment rights was not enforceable as a charge for prosecution. Hence criminals don’t have to follow the laws that do so, e.g. your stolen weapons, registrations, etc…. oh covering 85% of current gun control laws that then don’t apply to felons.
Amazing how the criminals don’t have to obey these laws yet only law-abiding citizens do? This just validates the hypocrisy that laws affect only the felons! After all, 20,000 gun laws and we see how effective a piece of legislation is at stopping violence because if it did, there wouldn’t be ANY VIOLENT CRIME.
Of course we see from the USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/… Brady Check report that of the 99 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, since 1994. We see a total of 1.67 million valid rejections, a 68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons. We see that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted, or less than 1%.
By the way, has da gooberment fixed our broken legal system?
We of course see how the anti gun lobby claims such effectiveness of this pathetically useless law with the hard data they can present that the 1.66 million plus who weren’t prosecuted then didn’t go and buy from an unlicensed source?
We also see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows.
Then that 68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street buys at 95.52% in today’s numbers. 12% x .32% (remainder) = 3.84% from retail stores, 2% x .32% = .64% sum total = 4.48%. Oh darn forgot, the BATF and gooberment stooges don’t prosecute more than 1% to begin with. So reality is that the government, out of the on average 98,500 not prosecuted people who by law are committing a felony by attempting to buy a firearm, let loose 40,000 plus people who include the crazies you are so frightened of each and every year. So save us your melodramatic ka ka on that whine also!
Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbde….
Amazing how ineffective that poster child of futility is and this trend is similar with ALL gun control laws. Yet more laws will prevent criminals, psychos and terrorists from getting a firearm, ROTFLMFAO, uh yeah, right.
In ending, your facetious claim that a brain drain would occur applies only to those socialistic pariahs who believe that the only learning is what THEY want to program the kids with. Thats not learning, thats not learning to think for themselves, SOMETHING ANY SCHOOL OF HIGHER LEARNING SHOULD ASPIRE TO, TEACHING THE KIDS HOW TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!
So either counter all the facts presented and present your own government facts to support how unsafe people who choose to carry concealed, or shut the heck up as you are getting rather drole and boring with your incessant chicken little the sky is falling with no evidence to support it as frankly, we don’t give a tinkers damn what you believe. We care what you can prove, ROTFLMFAO, which to date is nothing. Sucks to be you!
@ jarhead — Your statistics are compelling evidence. Strong evidence if not outright proof of your point. But let me ask you – what’s your opinion on requiring concealed-carry permit holders (or even all gun owners) to complete some basic level training on how to safely use guns, including in circumstances like you mention – crowds, lone or few shooters, many innocent bystanders? Does that make sense to you?
A reasonable question Vic, but it has multiple factors, first and foremost is this nagging problem we humans have, freewill.
No matter how much sense it makes, someone is going to believe they know enough or know better, it is human nature, and it applies even to the police, they are human after all.
Now do I believe one should be trained at some level to handle a situation as you noted, yes I do. My training equals or exceeds the average police department in the US in this regard. Funny thing though, even though everyone is screaming about those states that do not require said permitting/training anymore, why are there not significant readily evident bloody results?
Not to mention that 30-35million former military personnel are in the civilian population. Good bet many of those compose a large portion of the 8 million licensed to carry concealed.
Now comes the first variable, what training covers this all effectively?
Every defense class I have ever reviewed and or attended, all stressed the first thing used, is your mind. That is as a rule the legal and tactical aspects of any situation, police or civilian.
The FBI UCR database shows in 2009 right around 411 justifiable homicides by the 700k to 800k police and around 245 by the 80 million law abiding gun owners.
One can argue endlessly how many defensive gun uses occur, but the number in all disputed statistics always seem to lie somewhere in the middle, in this case between 800k to 2.5 mill a year. By the evidence, civilians have less tendency to shoot during an incident.
Actual evidence that all the training is evident and affecting the results? No, just a natural tendency of people only having to shoot when they believe it is absolutely necessary, a very frustrating trend and fact the anti’s just can’t get around. Are there cowboys and morons, yeah. But like all fringe elements, few in number and they tend to weed themselves out, something about the Darwin awards come to mind.
Next variable, actually putting rounds into a target.
People who carry, are the people going to a range on a regular basis including the police and they do practice. Otherwise, there would be many, many collateral damage reports for the anti gun zealots to pounce on, which as a rule, are not common compared to the number of people carrying or the incidents that actually occur.
Qualifications for a concealed licensed vary from 50 to 100 rounds under the supervision of a trained instructor.
Police qualifications are actually not any more stringent, you can pull said qualifications up by doing a google search.
Next variable, how much is enough?
Even the police department with a reputation as shooters, the NYC police dept, the police when they actually have to shoot, only shoot 15% of the time and hit their target on avg 15% of the time. Google up Firearm discharge reports NYC or Virginia State police. This averages out what with the DOJ Felons Firearm Use Survey 1997 notes.
There are other variables to consider, how many situations are in public? How many situations are multi attacker? How many situations are mass shootings?
What is that real risk again?
When a person chooses to be armed, they are accepting the responsibility to be as prepared as they believe necessary. Just like a person buying fire, home, life or health insurance. Is everything perfect in any of those situations, no, never is.
Life and its results are never an absolute, no matter how much certain minorities wish it were.
I will trust to my own choice, abilities and awareness to be my personal insurance, it has indeed saved me and mine several times!
Whatever you choose Vic, take what you learn and choose what is best for you, that truly is all that I ask!
Uh BHirsch, pardon my old eyes from calling on you, it was JSR at whom I intended to direct my angst.