“It’s not going to prevent anything…” Except when it does

The debate about having guns on college campuses continues, and government bureaucrats seem to be getting more shrill about their belief that guns should be kept away from college campuses.

Yesterday, University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Chief Susan Riseling said she hopes a proposal to revoke a ban on guns in campus buildings doesn’t even get to the point where she would have to testify against it at a hearing.

Because REASONS!

“I hope the people of Wisconsin realize that college campuses are different and are unique,” Riseling said. “Where does this end? Do we then make sure that our school zones are not gun-free anymore? It just keeps going on and on. The proliferation of weapons in our society is actually leading to more problems, not fewer problems.”

Yes, college campuses are, in fact, different and unique. They’re much bigger than your average elementary school, where an armed resources officer can respond to an incident in a reasonable amount of time, and most of them forbid law-abiding adults – both students and professors – from carrying firearms on campus, rendering them and those around them defenseless. Even police will admit it takes them a few minutes to respond to a violent event. How many innocent people can an armed thug gun down in that time?

No. The best way to stop a violent attack is with immediate violent response. An armed, trained civilian is there at the onset of an event. Does Riseling honestly think this will create more problems than it will solve?

There are currently three states that allow concealed carry of firearms on campus: Idaho, Colorado, and Utah. passed legislation to allow concealed carry on its eight public colleges and universities in March 2014. Since then, there have been no mass shootings, no blood in the streets, and no incidents of students shooting one another on campus. There was one incident of a negligent discharge when a professor carrying his firearm in his pocket (REALLY?!) shot himself in the foot. Other than that, no incidents, no shootings, nothing.

In Utah, 13 universities and colleges permit concealed guns on campus. Again, nothing happened. No one has been shot on campus, accidentally or otherwise. Gun grabbing nuts will screech about the cancellation of feminist activist Anita Sarkeesian’s speech at Utah State University last year due to alleged “threats,” which authorities didn’t even think were credible. However, the cancellation was not the result of concealed carry being allowed on campus, but rather because Sarkeesian pitched a fit when the university refused to treat her like a VIP and spend time and money securing the venue against questionable threats.

Colorado has numerous colleges that allow concealed firearms on campus. In the 12 years that the state has allowed guns on campus there hasn’t been a single crime committed by permit holders. There have been no mass shootings, no blood running on campus streets, and only one negligent discharge by an employee resulting in no injuries and a firing of the employee in question.

But facts don’t matter to Riseling, who went on to claim that “In essence, it’s going to increase the likelihood of an accident, mistake, a fight that would have been settled with fists being settled by gunfire as we saw recently at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff.”

Of course, Riseling conveniently forgot to mention that students are prohibited from carrying guns on that college’s campus, and the shooter, who has been charged with one count of first degree murder and three counts of aggravated assault by the Northern Arizona University police department, wasn’t carrying that weapon legally on campus in the first place. But hey… anything to advance the narrative, right?

Riseling’s final point advocates mental health intervention and threat assessment teams as the best way to prevent campus shootings. “That’s the way to prevent these things from happening. It’s not the way to react by letting everyone be armed. That’s not going to solve any of our problems.” Here we see the typical gun grabber fallacy. Allowing trained, law-abiding individuals to defend themselves and others with a firearm in case of an armed attack is in no way equivalent to “letting everyone be armed.” Ultimately gun ownership and the will to carry is a choice that far from everyone will be willing to make. It’s a responsibility for others that many don’t want. And while mental health services and threat assessment teams are all well and good, when it comes to an active shooter incident, they have already failed.

“It’s not going to prevent anything,” Riseling ignorantly claims. Well, except when it did.

Like in the 1997 Pearl High School massacre that was stopped by vice principal Joel Myrick with his Colt .45, which he had to retrieve from his car

Like at the Parker Middle School dance in 1998 when 14-year-old Andrew Jerome Wurst Killed one person and wounded three others before being subdued by James Strand – the owner of the venue where the dance took place, who subdued Wurst with a shotgun and held him until police arrived.

Like the Appalachian School of Law shooting in 2002 where two armed students stopped an armed nutbag from committing more carnage.

It really boggles the mind that these spineless amoeba are so terrified of guns, that they don’t even think one should try to stop a violent offender! It’s not often that armed students or teachers on the scene stop a rampaging armed derelict (mostly thanks to the disarmament policies at schools and campuses), so therefore no one should even attempt it, according to these panty shitters.

These are the same invertebrates who claim that because the Warsaw Ghetto uprising still resulted in the deaths of thousands of Jews, arming victims does nothing, so why bother? Does that mean you just genuflect in front of your abusers? Does this mean you don’t try to resist? Does this mean you just give up your life without a fight?

They don’t want you to have even a fighting chance at survival! They’re cowards who would rather die on their knees and fight for their lives.


Probably because they believe that giving students on our college campuses an opportunity to fight back will reduce the need for armed authorities, bureaucrats, “threat assessment teams” and anything else that justifies their existence. After all, an armed individual is an independent human being, capable of taking immediate action should the situation warrant intervention. A priggish bureaucrat can’t possibly match that ability, making the bureaucrat as useless as Roseanne Barr at a gym.


7 responses

  1. A different take- I think the reason they don’t want to address the issue, is that they don’t want ANYTHING that upsets their perfect little version of utopia that the left is peddling to the (compliant) students. Giving the students options, like guns, could lead to ‘other’ options, like actually questioning the stances/garbage being spewed by some of the professors… Can’t have that. And no one never hears about the Ariz, Utah, Idaho, or Colorado schools allowing carry…


    1. I agree. If the colleges were to remind people that they are ultimately adults and therefore must provide for their own basic needs, it might get the students thinking about how best to provide for their future.

      Next thing you know, the underwater-basket-weaving department is having trouble recruiting students.


  2. Seems to me that the first order of business is to totally separate education from the state. There really isn’t much to work with in these “schools” anymore. The whiny, feminazi, PC co-dependents are not likely to take up personal responsibility no matter what “laws” are passed that would “allow” them to do so.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. All of these anti-gun screwballs are as nutty as squirrel-poop, Nicki. I would think that would be apparent to almost everyone by now.


  4. Well, reality actually is a problem for these people. In all seriousness, I’m beginning to think that as a group, they have some unexpressed death wish that will make them ‘heroes’ if they get shot during a mass shooting or something. Except it doesn’t work that way. The ‘hero’ is the person who tries to stop a shooter and may or may not succeed. The dead never know about it.

    I’m beginning to see something in these people who whine about guns all the time. I think they are desperate for the kind of attention that someone with real gumption gets. I may be wrong about that, but it comes from the SJWs, people like Maleficient Cyril (whatever her name is) and others who whimper and curl up in a corner and wait for death.

    As I said, I may be wrong, but this is the pattern that seems to be emerging: don’t do anything; curl up in a corner and hide your head; if you’re lucky, the police will get here to stop it, and you’ll get to be on TV news; if not, you’ll have a balloon release later on at your funeral. In other words, the victim mentality is quite pervasive in these people.


    1. “they have some unexpressed death wish that will make them ‘heroes’ if they get shot during a mass shooting or something. Except it doesn’t work that way.”

      Except when it does work that way. One of the last people shot at VT was Colin”the coward” Goddard. They knew the shooter was coming and instead of doing something, he chose to hid under a desk and got shot in the ass. Shortly after, he went to work for the Brady bunch and toured the country telling all thew other pantie wetters how horrible it was. His “Military training” turned out to be a hoax, he did 2 years of ROTC and dropped out before he had to sign a contract. Yet he’s one of the “Heroes” of VT because he submitted to his fate and was lucky enough to live through it.

      Colin the coward and several other sheep were in the last classroom that the shooter came to before he had the common decency to blow his brains out. They knew he was coming and had a couple minutes to do something. Yet they did nothing but cower under their desks. When you can hear the gunfire, a couple of minutes is a eternity. I would have been waiting behind the door with some kind of weapon. I might be able to clock the bastard with a chair, stopping or at least slowing the carnage, yet they did nothing. Nothing because they have been trained to be victims by the pantie wetters in charge. Submit and maybe they will kill you last.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. This brings to mind something said by Sir Robert Peel (the father of modern Law Enforcement principals) “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”

    Replace police efficiency with gun carry and it seems to me to still hold.

    Of course he also said “Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.” & “There seem to me to be very few facts, at least ascertainable facts, in politics.” Seems some things never change. 😉


%d bloggers like this: