Arizona lawmakers OK bill allowing guns on campus

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Posted on Friday, 04.08.11
Arizona lawmakers OK bill allowing guns on campus
The Associated Press

PHOENIX -- A proposal to let people have guns while driving or walking through Arizona university and community college campuses has cleared its final legislative hurdle.

The Arizona House passed the bill on a 33-24 vote, sending the measure to Gov. Jan Brewer.

The Senate previously approved the measure, after watering it down to no longer allow guns inside campus buildings. But the bill still sparked sharp debate during Thursday's House vote.

State Rep. Bob Robson says guns on campuses are a bad idea, since students and others experience such emotional highs and lows due to grades, exams and other circumstances. Supporters say the bill would help people defend themselves from gun violence by someone who won't heed a campus's firearms ban.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/08/2156628/arizona-lawmakers-ok-bill-allowing.html

[FeelingBlue]

1. Like Arizona

hasn't experienced enough sorrow from violence already? What a mistake. I do consider concealed carry when I think about my daughter going off to college. I don't want her sitting in class with a loon who gets a lousy grade and then shoots everyone. What a nightmare.

[WatsonT]

38. Because gun free schools have thus far been free of gun violence

and CHL rates are perfectly correlated to gun violence rates.

:sarcasm:

[Tunkamerica]

61. Like making it easier will somehow remove the problem of people shooting each other.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: triple sarcasm

[WatsonT]

62. Are you aware of the scientific discipline known as "statistics"?

If so, have you realized that there is no statistical significant link between CHL rates and murder rates in the US?

Nor have gun free zones been proven to prevent violence (quite the opposite).

You can "feel" whatever you wish. But don't pretend your feelings have anything to do with reality.

[Tunkamerica]

70. And, conversely, you should feel free to feel the same.

Guns are an integral part of gun violence. Making it easier and easier to carry guns wherever and whenever a psychopath wants won't make anyone safer. Look at the incidence of shooting deaths here versus somewhere where guns are illegal. Like say, http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166. Obviously, it's some sort of anti-gun conspiracy. All the countries where guns are illegal are merely covering up their massive amounts of death by gun just to make the USA restrict it's freedoms. Couldn't possibly be a bunch of people believing their feelings above reality.

[WatsonT]

72. Many factors contribute to murder rates

which is why we can't compare between nations. We have this ridiculous drug war which as every thinking person realizes is pushing our murder rates far beyond what they should be.

But if you look within the US you get a different picture;


As you can see there is no positive correlation between gun ownership rates and murder.



And just for an international comparison:

[struggle4progress]

67. Almost all schools are gun-free, and the overall rate of campus gun-violence

is typically much lower than rates in the surrounding communities.

[WatsonT]

73. You'll need to cite that

also be sure to control for the fact that there is no money at a school and it is heavily monitored.

Mass shootings at gun ranges and police stations are also very rare.

[struggle4progress]

75. College and university campus crime data is available from .. the U.S. Department of Education

which under the "Jeanne Clery Act" collects statistics from more than 6,000 schools ... http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=97

... According to the latest available data from the U.S. Department of Education (2001-2004), there were 95 murders on college campuses in the six years from 1999-2004, an average of 16 per year. Since there are approximately 4,200 colleges in the United States, this means the average college can expect to experience a murder on campus about once every 265 years. If you include all 2,808 murders that occurred in the surrounding community--off campus as well as on campus--the rate is much higher: about once every 9 years. This is a reflection of the much higher rate of violence in the general community ... http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/collegecampus.html

... Between 1997 and 2007, the number of 18- to 24-year-olds increased from 25.5 million to 29.5 million ... and the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college remained relatively stable (37 percent in 1997 and 39 percent in 2007) ... http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

From the Wisqars CDC data, you may obtain the following data:

10 Leading Causes of Violence-Related Injury Deaths, United States
1999 - 2007, All Races, Both Sexes
Ages: 18-24
Homicide Firearm 33,067
use: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

So roughly, between 1998-2007, we have something like (0.38)*(27.5) = 10.5 million enrolled 18- to 24-year-olds students annually, with about 263 campus murders in the same decade (about 27 annually), which gives an annual homicide risk per student around 0.25 per 100 000. Total homicide firearm deaths for the same age group 1999 - 2007 amount to 33,067 (about 3670 annually), which gives an annual firearm homicide risk per young person around 13.0 per 100 000. Therefore, an 18- to 24-year-old is at least 50X more likely to be murdered (by gun) off campus than to be murdered (by gun or any other means) on campus

[primavera]

103. You know where shootings are rarer still?

In those countries that constitute the vast majority of the developed world where guns are either heavily regulated or outright banned.

[Zoeisright]

107. Plus one million.

But the gun porn crowd won't acknowledge that fact.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. A couple states allow this and it hasnt been a problem in those places.

Remember, the people still have to be over 21 and otherwise legally qualified to carry their firearm just like anyone else in the state. so it wont be a problem on campus as it's generally not a problem off campus.

[forty6]

56. All nutjobs that want to carry a gun to class will wait until their 21st...

birthday to do that! Sure!

[GreenStormCloud]

68. The bill does not allow guns in class. Only allows to drive or walk through..

...the campus. Can't take the gun into a building - yet.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

74. huh? can you clarrify your point?

It sounds to me like your saying people will carry concealed even if they are not qualified.

[msongs]

3. 3rd graders have an A2 right to keep and bear arms too you know nt

[PavePusher]

83. Cite to support your bullshit? n/t

[onehandle]

4. What could go wrong? nt

[classysassy]

5. Fire all the cops

Every man and women are responsible for their own safety.The NRA and their lunatic followers are insane,greedy and out of touch with reality.

[LAGC]

7. Uh, cops already AREN'T responsible for your safety.

Cops have no obligation to keep you safe. They are only there to respond to crime, AFTER it happens. On average, it takes 15 minutes for a cop to respond to a crime scene. A lot can happen in that time.

[MyrnaLoy]

8. love those NRA talking points

To Protect and Serve, wonder what that really means?

[LAGC]

12. See post #11. (n/t)

[Kolesar]

17. See post #11 where LAGC posts the same RW talking point for a second time! eom

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Facts really do get under your skin, son't they?

Law enforcement agencies have no specific duty to protect individuals. They "protect and serve" the group as a whole. Otherwise crime victims could sue the police for failure to protect. There have been some pretty harrowing court cases that covered this.

[MyrnaLoy]

51. do you

actually have a degree in anything?

[PavePusher]

101. What does that have to do with anything? n/t

[pipoman]

47. It means nothing if they aren't at the exact right place at the exact right time..

which they never are..

[PavePusher]

84. Not a damn thing under the law. n/t

[Kolesar]

9. More pernicious attacks on our public safety workers

Like hell the police don't prevent crime in our communities.

[LAGC]

11. If cops were really responsible for our safety...

Then why can't crime victims sue them in court for not preventing the crime against them in question?

How many robberies do cops prevent? How many murders?

Face it: for the most part, cops only respond AFTER THE FACT, except for petty things like traffic violations and sting operations which make up a very small fraction of law enforcement activity.

All they do is cruise around and wait for dispatch to tell them to respond when something happens.

They have no obligation to protect anyone.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Wow. "They have no obligation to protect anyone"

A DU gungeon classic.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Actually that is the legal principle and fact

The requirement to protect and serve is to the group, not an individual. Otherwise crime victims could sue the relevant law enforcement agencies if they are a victim of a crime for failure to meet their obligations.

[Kolesar]

15. "All they do is cruise around and wait for dispatch to tell them to respond when something happens."

Doubly-pernicious stall floor deposits.

Your characterizations are insulting to the profession. Police actually have programs and investigations to prevent crime.

Learn about them. Go to a city council meeting and tell them what to do. You seem more like the "sit at the PC and complain to everybody who you can bother" type, though.

[pipoman]

49. Yet you didn't answer any of the pertinent questions

either your English skills are horrible or your reading comprehension is abysmal or you are intentionally distorting what is being said in an effort to hide the truth..failure

[Kolesar]

57. skills are horrible comprehension is abysmal intentionally distorting hide the truth..failure

Were you the guy posting in the Energy/Environment forum until about a month ago?

[pipoman]

60. Uh, no?

I probably have at some time or other, I have never been a regular there.

[MadMaddie]

95. "To Server and Protect" that is the police motto

Many cops have lost their lives to trivial bullshit pulled by private citizens...

No, they do not just cruise and wait for dispatch, they observe and react when needed.

Here is a link, pick your state and see how many officers have died in the line of duty.

Officers risk their lives to pull drunk drivers off the roads so your family doesn't get killed.

Did you know that responding to Domestic Disturbances is one of the most dangerous calls to go on?

http://www.odmp.org/browse.php

Maybe you should sign up for your local police ride along program and see what officers actually have to do before you make sweeping statements about something you know nothing about.

While you are complaining you might want to see what your local department staff level is, if it's like the rest of the nation it's well below what it should be for the population. Officers in our area can't respond to petty theft anymore because they just don't have the manpower.

By the way, it's not you pulling up on a call and seeing the dead baby in the oven, or the wife beaten to death, or the elderly person starved to death. It's not you who walks in on child abuse that boggles the imagination and the culprits get out of jail on bond the next day. Be thankful it's not you, it's horrific.

[pipoman]

48. Who the hell said that "the police don't prevent crime in our communities"

link? post #?...making shit up again?

[melm00se]

55. the "talking point"

mirrors several court decisions that clearly state that the police are not responsible to protect an individual.

A police presence is a crime deterrent but for a community as a whole but not to protect "Bob".

to protect individuals would require far more police than we already have.

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection." astle Rock v. Gonzales

"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." - Warren v. District of Columbia

Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public - Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice

[chollybocker]

6. Well, thank goodness for that!

I'm sure Rep. Giffords would applaud if she could. Not to mention the little girl who dreamed of going to college, except for the part about being dead. Go AZ! Ugh.

[PavePusher]

85. And that had what to do with legal, licenced carriers stepping over an invisible line? n/t

[Kolesar]

10. I am sure that the students at the Giffords/Tucson memorial don't want this stupid policy

Arizona is attracting the worst of deluded RWer retirees and they get the attention of the legislature.

There is a long term demographic trend that Mexican Americans are going to dominate politics in the Southwest and move all of America to the left, helping Democrats. It is already happening in Colorado.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. But clearly the Arizona legislature believes that the people do and that it is the right thing.

Assuming that Hispanics and Mexican Americans are left leaning is foolish as well.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

27. Nobody is forcing them to carry guns

Choice is what it's all about, Kolesar.

[primavera]

76. So I'm told

Imho, what it ought to be all about is responsibility, but, of course, we don't like to talk about such things in this country where one is presumed to enjoy the freedom to choose to do anything and everything that takes one's fancy, no matter what its consequences to others might be.

[slackmaster]

77. Sounds like a deficiency in your moral upbringing

...we don't like to talk about such things in this country where one is presumed to enjoy the freedom to choose to do anything and everything that takes one's fancy, no matter what its consequences to others might be.

I was taught that what goes around comes around; to treat others as I would have them treat me, etc.

[primavera]

80. Funny, to my ears...

... it sounds a lot like people who insist that they have a sacred right to carry and use lethal weapons without being amenable to any sort of constraint or requirement that they demonstrate their ability to do so safely and responsibly.

[PavePusher]

87. How so? Cite please. n/t

[primavera]

96. And for what would you like a citation?

To how gun advocates sound to my ears personally? Astonishingly, no study has been conducted on my personal perception of gun advocate rhetoric. Or are you seeking a citation for the number of times that gun proponents have not advocated for regulation? I think that would be a statistical impossibility as no one records someone not saying something. If what you seek are references to those occasions when it would have been appropriate for gun proponents to show responsibility and advocate for proactively reducing gun-related deaths in the US through measures such as mandatory safety classes, requiring firearm owners to pass safety tests, to store their firearms and ammunition in separate places, embracing trigger locks, etc., and they declined to do so, well, for that, you can look to pretty much every piece published by a gun proponent throughout the history of the US. Happy reading.

[PavePusher]

98. Disingenuous dodge.

None of your requirements will do diddly to prevent crime or accidents. Well, maybe the manditory safety class, but every time it's proposed to put it in school cirriculums, where it would reach the most needed population, people like you scream hysterical protests. So you can't possibly be serious.

[primavera]

102. Fine, so think of something that will

If you don't like my ideas, fine, come up with better ones. You're the gun proponent, it's up to you to find ways to make their use safe. Me? I'd be only too happy to solve the problem, if you like - I'd ban every gun in existence and that would take care of that. But you want to keep your murderous toys, so the burden is on you to come up with a way to keep them from falling into the wrong hands and from being misused. Because, if you don't have a solution, I do.

I see no reason why I should have to waste my time in school taking classes on how to safely use an item I neither need, nor want, nor am legally obliged to use. If I wish to become a welder, is it appropriate that I should force every school child in the US to study welding? Again, you're the one who wants guns; the rest of us on the planet can and do live without them just fine. So if your best solution is to compel everyone to take gun safety classes so that you can enjoy your dangerous personal hobby, I prefer my solution. And, btw, that would be "curricula," not "cirriculums."

[PavePusher]

104. Umm, no. Gun accidents are fairly rare, and there is already training readily accessible....

to those who want it.

http://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseCatalog.aspx

http://www.nrainstructors.org/searchcourse.aspx

You're the one wanting to mandate training so that people can be "responsible". Will you help pay for it out of tax dollars?

[primavera]

108. Clearly this is some new definition of the word "rare"...

... with which I was previously unacquainted. 40,000 Americans dead by guns and twice as many again injured by guns each year doesn't strike me as anywhere near "rare" enough. Which is why I think that training being merely "accessible to those who want it" is obviously not good enough. That training and more needs to be mandatory for everyone who wishes to use a gun. As for whether I would support taxpayer funds being used for it, absolutely I would, in a heartbeat. Anything that has a chance at saving lives is money well spent as far as I'm concerned.

[ManiacJoe]

109. You seem to understand "rare".

You seem to be having problems with "accident". That number is around 800 per year. That definitely meets the "rare" definition. Still too high, but that is a different conversation.

[PavePusher]

113. My apology, you said "gun deaths" and I misconstrued it as "gun accidents".

Probably because your proposed ideas would only have an affect on accidents, if that.

Even with that, the number you cite is wrong. There are approx. 30K gun-related deaths per year. More than half are suicides. Only about 12K are homocides. I'm not sure what effect safety, or any other, training, or your other suggestions will have on those numbers, but I'm pretty sure the effect won't be noticable.

Lastly, to be consistent, what training should be manditory for access to the rest of our Civil Rights?

[PavePusher]

86. You seem to imply no responsibility will be required.

Explain, please...?

[GreenStormCloud]

69. But are Latinos anti-gun? Latinos may surprise you on that issue. N/T

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. *yawn*

More old west AZ.

[plumbob]

40. Actually, gun control was stricter in the "old west" AZ.

http://www.westernoutlaw.com/gun-control-was-tougher-in-wyatt-earps-tombstone-than-modern-arizona

.............And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. indeed, the American West’s most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

“You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff’s office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn’t pick it up again until you were leaving town,” said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of true West Magazine, which celebrates the old West. “It was an effort to control the violence.”................

more at link

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Self defense tools would be much more affordable if it were not for racist and classit gun laws

Elegible college students (over 21, not a convicted felon...) often live in some of the more dangerous areas of the community for reasons of cost.

Your racist comment is noted

[PavePusher]

88. Open bigotry... stay classy, eh? n/t

[E-Z-B]

18. This is why I don't vacation in red states anymore. Being in a bar/restaurant filled with drunks,

armed to the teeth.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Consuming alcohol while carrying is illegal in every jurisdiction that I am aware of

Next strawman?

[ProudDad]

33. "Consuming alcohol while carrying is illegal"

Right, and no one ever breaks the "law" :sarcasm:

[WatsonT]

39. Indeed people break the laws all the time

so the way to prevent them from shooting each other is to outlaw guns.

Think about that.

[PavePusher]

89. Another case of open bigotry. Are you sure you're at the correcgt website? n/t

[fascisthunter]

24. dumbasses

[PavePusher]

90. How so? n/t

[Zorra]

25. Meanwhile, they just cut the budget for our non-profit another 5%.

Arizona has the most incompetent, frivolous legislators in the history of humankind.

The state is irrevocably broke due to their chronic financial mismanagement.

[slackmaster]

26. Criminals have always been able to take guns on campus

Allowing good people to do the same makes perfect sense.

[Paladin]

30. Yeah, That's The One Thing I Missed Out On In College: Crossfire. (n/t)

[slackmaster]

31. Let me know if that every actually happens there or out in the rest of the world

Where concealed carry is permitted.

[PavePusher]

91. Cite to an instance? n/t

[PavePusher]

92. Cite to an instance? n/t

[kentauros]

28. Wait just a minute there!

Supporters say the bill would help people defend themselves from gun violence by someone who won't heed a campus's firearms ban.

If a campus has a firearms ban in place, then how can students defend themselves with firearms?

[pipoman]

50. This article is about removing the existing ban which has never,

not even once, stopped a campus shooter.

[MyrnaLoy]

53. and

a concealed weapons permit holder very, very seldom stops a mass shooting. Next.

[pipoman]

58. And concealed carry was never meant to "stop a mass shooting"

as has been stated repeatedly, you know full well it is and always has been about personal self defense.period....but at least you have mellowed your claim from it never has to it very seldom does...

[MyrnaLoy]

81. so stop using them as a reason

for concealed carry on campus.

[pipoman]

82. Why?

It is still about self defense...not stopping a "mass shooting"...a concealed carrier shouldn't run to the sound of gun fire, if however a shooter threatens to shoot the carrier or the carrier is close enough to fear becoming a victim of the shooter, then the carrier should act in self defense...what about that don't you understand?

[kentauros]

54. I kind of figured as much.

But that statement was such a contradiction, I had to point it out ;)

[pipoman]

59. Oh for the crucifixion of the English language in our professional media...

[last_texas_dem]

32. Legislation similar to this just got bogged down in the TX Senate due to lack of support...

Congratulations, AZ lege, you've got the TX lege beat when it comes to pointless pandering to the right-wing base- and that's a pretty impressive feat!

[ProudDad]

34. Oh, believe me, here in the New Mississippi, Arizona

our bat-shit crazy right-wing (Mormon) asshole Legislature and governor make Texas' look liberal...

It's truly amazing...

This is one of their more "rational" laws...

-------------

And their FIRST act was to cut taxes for rich people and corporations...

Then SLASH funding for Education by over a billion dollars to pay for it...

Cute, eh?

[last_texas_dem]

35. That sucks...

I know it may not help a lot for now, but here's hoping AZ's swing to the crazy is just a wild blip on an otherwise very gradual shift to the left.

After the somewhat close margin McCain pulled his home state by in '08, I kind of thought AZ might be moving into swing state territory (that is, if the closer margin wasn't due to diminished turnout by the pre-Teabagger crowd who didn't think McCain was enough of a wingnut!), but they really seem to have taken a swing to the far-right over the last couple of years.

I know that in TX the ongoing hope of the Democrats is that the demographics will finally make this a swing state (in four, eight, twenty, whatever years, etc.). I know that the same factors are likely in play in AZ-- but it does look like the ultra-right is doing their best to push the state back to the 19th century as hard as they can while they have the opportunity.

[ProudDad]

37. McShame's close margin was because there were a LOT of right-wingers

who couldn't vote for him...

'Cause he was too far to the left for them...

It's scary here...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. I applaud the move.

Nothing could possibly go wrong.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

41. How do the professors feel about this?

Is there going to be an informal strike?

Will the colleges lose students? Are out-of-state students going to transfer or will in-state students look to attend schools outside of Arizona?

I'm curious to know if these issues were raised, because Oklahoma is considering the same thing.

[abqmufc]

43. As a former teaching assistant @ NAU...

all I can say is WTF! Each AZ University (like most in the country) have a Safe Learning Environment Policy which promotes a safe and non-hositle environment for learning. This clearly has to violate that. Granted the bill doesn't allow a gun into the classroom, but someone will forget.

:wtf:

[WatsonT]

63. Virginia Tech had a similiar policy didn't they?

And they were officially gun free, right?

How did that work out?

[PavePusher]

100. Please, explain how legal exercise of a Civil Right....

violates a "Safe Learning Environment Policy"....

[boppers]

110. Fire in a crowded theater...

Interrupting class to pray....

"Civil Right" does not mean "entitlement to act like an ass".

[PavePusher]

114. Discretely wearing a gun in a legal, non-threatening manner.....

whether openly or concealed, does not equate to either of those things.

It would be the same as carrying a religous book, or stating your opinion/point during your time in a debate. Mere carry of an object does not equal "act like an ass".

[boppers]

118. "Discretely" being a key component of that perspective.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-18/politics/obama.protest.rifle_1_protester-assault-rifle-obama-event?_s=PM:POLITICS

[PavePusher]

119. Not sure what your point is.

"Discrete"=/="invisible".

He was not brandishing. He was not shouting (or quietly speaking) threats. He was not aiming it at anyone. It was not even loaded (per Arizona law, IIRC).

In fact, the MSM practically gave themselves a collective spinal injury in their contortions to avoid indicating that the carrier was African-American. They were quickly busted in their mendacious attempts to claim racism, it was comedy gold for several months in gun-rights circles.

I myself would not carry an AR-15 in public, simply because carrying a long-gun all day is a serious pain in the ass. (I've been USAF for 20+ years, so I know a little about the subject.) But when you want to make a quiet, but emphatic, political point, there is no substitute. And while I may not agree with his beliefs, I think he picked a stunningly imaginitive way to make them.

[boppers]

120. Simply:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discreet

I think reasonable people can disagree about whether carrying an AR-15 is discreet, indeed, I'm pretty sure his point was to draw as much attention as possible without risking injury.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. This professor is just fine with it

I already carry on campus whenever I choose.

[abqmufc]

42. WTF? Safe Learning Environment?

I was a teaching assistant at Northern Arizona University in the mid 90's. I taught in the political science and criminal justice departments. The discussion in my classes got heated as we talked about controversial issues. I often had to address situations that posed a threat to the Universities safe learning environment.

I cannot imagine what this law will do for a safe learning environment in the classroom. Yes, I know the law doesn't allow a student to carry a gun into a class, but I am realistic enough to realize that people will "forget" to leave their gun in the car. What if they walk to class where do they put their gun?

As a former instructor in an Arizona university I envision "Introduction to Political Theory" to become a potential shootout out at the OK Coral. This has to violate a safe learning environment which all Arizona Universities have policy on.

:wtf:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. The new law overrides policy

State that already allow this do not have problems many are wringing their hands over.

[WatsonT]

64. Every school that has had a shooting to date has been gun-free

and had a similar policy or at least intention of creating a safe-learning environment.

I can't think of any college that states "come to our university, we'll friggin murder your kids before they can get an education".

So you can set whatever policy you wish, that doesn't mean reality will necessarily comply.

Also, perhaps you should have taken a stats course or two if you believe this will lead to daily shootouts on campus.

/the "wild west" had a low murder rate we'd be envious of today. Despite the ubiquitous presence of guns.

[PavePusher]

93. Are licenced carriers a statistically significant threat in any other "heated" venue?

If not, why would being on a college campus make a difference?

If so, cite to evidence, please...

[StarburstClock]

44. They legalized guns in bars here, a month later a drunk guy had a shootout with police

that started at a bar and continued through the neighborhood. Whodda ever guessed?

[pipoman]

52. How about linking us up to the actual story?

Guessing the guy wasn't a licensed carrier, if not how would the lack of this law changed anything?

[slackmaster]

66. Cool story, Bro!

[Upton]

65. Good...

self defense is a fundamental right..

[GreenStormCloud]

71. THE SKY IS FALLING. THE SKY IS FALLING. - NOT.

Every time any place lossens their gun laws the anti-RKBA crowd starts sceaming in alarm and predicts wild shoot outs. Then the law goes into effect and nothing much happens. But that doesn't stop them from going into a panic over the next loosening.

[jmowreader]

78. This is a symptom of what's wrong with America today

No, not the fervent need to carry a gun wherever you go. And we can sit here and debate angels dancing on pinheads all day long--guns on campus will increase safety, they'll increase violence, whatever.

The problem is, the Republican Party campaigned in 2010 on the classic "put us in office and we'll fix the economy" platform. Now they're in office and they're screwing around with worthless bills like guns on campus, banning abortion at 20 weeks (the Idaho repukes did this one), union busting, fucking up the schools...and then there's the best one, which I'll go into in just a second.

They haven't created one job. The schemes they've advanced to fix the economy, all of which revolve around austerity budgeting and tax cuts, can only make things worse. When it comes to the schools, they act like they're Ben Tre, the Vietnamese provincial capital about which was said, "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

I have come to the conclusion that the quickest way to save the United States is to order every elected Republican to commit seppuku in front of his or her office building at noon on April 15.

Now as for the very best bill the Republicans, in ANY state or even in the US Congress, have advanced in this political season: In Idaho we have open primaries: you show up, take one party's ballot and vote your preference. The polling place has Democratic Party ballots and GOP ones, and a LOT of Democrats here vote on the GOP ballot because in a lot of places, there's no one on the Democrat's ballot. The GOP hates this because of the off chance someone who's not quite as far to the right as the GOP would like will get on the ballot for the general election. So...they sued the state to get permission to close their primary and won. That's not the bill in question...the GOP then decided the defendant in the case--the State of Idaho--was going to pay $100,000 to their legal team. The legislature whipped up a bill mandating the payment, both houses approved it and they sent it to Butch Otter for his almost certain signature. So...the state is too broke to afford education, too broke to afford poor people's medical bills, too poor to afford to fill in the potholes on US 95 up around Sandpoint, but they can afford to pay the Republicans a hundred large to close their primary. If the national Democratic Party can't figure out how to catalyze rage against the GOP with this bill, let me know and I'll send them written instructions on how to pour piss out of a boot.

[highplainsdem]

79. ALEC is behind much of this legislation. See the NRA story/video on Campus Carry

linked to in this topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x786003

and in reply 177 in the compilation topic on all the harmful legislation from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

[MadMaddie]

94. I will always ask this question

If individuals want to carry guns because they believe it makes them safer, what about the students that don't want to carry guns? What about their well being and feeling of safety?

Does this only go one way now in this country? If I want to go to a mall or a public place and since I don't carry a gun what about my safety? If I bump into someone by accident or a racist that is having a bad day...if I get wounded is it my fault for being in a public place.

And I go back to the Gabby Giffords shooting....if the one man that had a concealed weapon on him had pulled his weapon and fired upon the man that was holding the gun(he had disarmed the gunman) the concealed weapon guy would have killed the wrong man. The police would have arrived and shot him..

Let me ask you this...let's say the concealed weapons owner was black how do you think the police officers would react? Sorry if this offends anyone but this actually happened to a New York off duty police officer who happened to be in the area of a robbery and he responded and was shot dead.....

[ManiacJoe]

97. Your safety is your responsibility.

If individuals want to carry guns because they believe it makes them safer, what about the students that don't want to carry guns?
To carry or not to carry is a personal decision. Your choice governs what tools you have with you to defend yourself should the need arise. Pepper spray, knife, gun, walking-stick/cane - they are all options. Which combination do you choose?

What about their well being and feeling of safety?
Their safety is their responsibility. The self-defense tools they choose to carry are their choice. That choice has no effect on the weapons that the criminal(s) will have with them to use against you.

Does this only go one way now in this country? If I want to go to a mall or a public place and since I don't carry a gun what about my safety?
Your safety is your responsibility. Choosing to carry or not is a personal choice. Chances are you can play the odds and not need to carry a gun.

If I bump into someone by accident or a racist that is having a bad day...if I get wounded is it my fault for being in a public place.
Criminal actions against the victim are not the fault of the victim.

And I go back to the Gabby Giffords shooting....if the one man that had a concealed weapon on him had pulled his weapon and fired upon the man that was holding the gun(he had disarmed the gunman) the concealed weapon guy would have killed the wrong man.
Yes, he would have shot the wrong man, in your scenario. However, in reality, he analyzed the situation and did the correct thing.

The police would have arrived and shot him..
Unlikely but possible. Following the orders of the cops to drop your weapons tends to keep one from getting shot.

Let me ask you this...let's say the concealed weapons owner was black how do you think the police officers would react? Sorry if this offends anyone but this actually happened to a New York off duty police officer who happened to be in the area of a robbery and he responded and was shot dead.....
The cops would arrive, order everyone still holding weapon to drop it, and then deal with those not following orders. Unfortunately for plain-clothes cops, they often do not follow orders of the uniformed cops, but try to negotiate their identity as cops while still holding a weapon. That course of action often ends badly.

[PavePusher]

99. No, the circumstances were quite different....

and what you hypothesize is a reason for increased police training, not relinquishing my Civil Rights.

[ProudDad]

105. And that damn near happened

but the guy who had the gun chose NOT to use it...

Of course, Gabby is pro-gun -- how's that for irony?

[boppers]

111. Gabby *was* pro-gun.

She has not articulated a position on the matter since being shot by a loon "exercising a civil right".

Her position might have changed. For some reason or other.

[ProudDad]

117. We'll see... (n/t)

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[DiverDave]

112. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID

Gawd, these fuckers are STOOPID

[PavePusher]

115. Expound, please? n/t

[slackmaster]

116. Which fuckers are you referring to?

:shrug: