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.
“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.
Idaho 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.
My latest from JPFO explores so-called “civility.”
Have you ever noticed how gun grabbers belittle, vilify and berate those of us who vocally support and defend the Second Amendment as “paranoid,” “irrational” and “extremist,” while hypocritically demanding “civility” when we begin to push back?
We are supposed to bow to their recently-invented, unreasonable “right to feel safe,” (which must be in the Constitution right between the right to a pony and the right to your very own leprechaun with a pot of gold) as justification for relieving us of our fundamental right to defend ourselves against violence. We are supposed to show respect for their hoplophobia, even if it harms us and destroys our freedoms in the long run. We’re supposed to be polite and civil, even as they berate us for merely wishing to freely exercise our rights. We’re supposed to subordinate very real basic freedoms to their irrational whims.
The great Dave Kopel reports that just minutes ago California’s Ninth Circuit Court has affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.
The Court decided, according to Kopel, that the requirement to show the authorities “good cause” in order to carry one’s tool of self defense in public was in violation of the Second Amendment. Prior to this decision, San Diego County interpreted this phrase to mean that anyone who wishes to exercise their Second Amendment rights in public must face current specific threats and claimed that “one’s personal safety alone is not considered ‘good cause’.”
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The opinion is here.
The Court specifically says that the Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arm but also to “bear” them – a verb the meaning of which, according to the 2008 Heller decision means “to carry.” It meant “to carry” at the time of the creation of the Constitution, and it means the same thing now. And no, it doesn’t mean just “to transport,” but to “wear, bear or carry upon the person for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of a conflict with another person. The Court also points out that anyone with half a brain and knowledge of the English language understands that carrying or “bearing” is not limited to the home, and it cites several cases, including Heller, to point out that it’s quite obvious that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to carry their arms outside the home.
The Court made it clear that they’re not saying Heller requires every state to permit concealed carry, but rather it requires that states permit “some form” of carry for self defense outside the home.
Score for the Second Amendment!
“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” and San Diego County’s insistence that anyone wishing to carry outside the home show that they’re somehow in immediate danger and present proof that their life is threatened was quite obviously an infringement.
To be sure, my own opinion is that “shall not be infringed” means just that, and while background checks and training requirements are all well and good, they’re certainly not going to stop gang bangers and other thuglets from carrying wherever and whenever they want – without a license or a permit. Meanwhile, those Californians who abide by the law, will be waiting around for their permits to arrive and for the county to perform their background check, making them vulnerable prey for predators wanting to victimize them.
So, do I think the decision in Peruta v. San Diego is optimal?
Do I think the battle is over?
Far from it.
Do I think this is a step in the right direction?
Let’s keep fighting!
I know you’re shocked to learn that a politician is dancing in the blood of innocents and using families of victims of gun violence to infringe on Second Amendment rights.
I’ll wait until you wipe that look of surprise off your face.
Illinois governor Pat Quinn on Tuesday vetoed parts of a gun bill that would have allowed people to carry more than one gun, carry guns into some places that serve alcohol, and carry a partly exposed gun.
Flanked by parents of gun violence victims, Democrat Quinn said at a press conference that he objected to at least nine provisions of the new Illinois concealed carry measure that was passed by the legislature.
Which provisions does Pat Quinn not like?
He wants to ban firearms from any establishment (including restaurants) that serves alcohol, which makes me wonder if he would also ban establishments that serve alcohol from having parking lots, since thousands more people are killed by drunk drivers than they are by gun violence each year. Hey, if you can’t park your car in the lot, you won’t drink and drive, right Pat?
He also favors reinstating “home-rule” communities’ authority to institute assault weapons bans, proving once again that if the representatives of the people actually represent the views of their constituents in the state legislature, and if said representation clashes with the political agenda of the gun grabbers, the laws must be changed to allow petty local tyrants to infringe on the rights of the citizens.
He also doesn’t like requiring business owners to post signs if they want to ban firearms on their property. Get a load at this douchery:
Under this bill, loaded guns would be allowed in stores, restaurants, churches, children’s entertainment venues, movie theaters and other private properties, unless the owner visibly displays a sign prohibiting guns. As written, this provision would lead to the unfair and unduly burdensome presumption that—without private property owners’ specific actions to the contrary—guns are welcome.
It’s “unduly burdensome” for a business owner to make it clear to his or her customers what they will or will not allow on their property, so we must make the assumption that every business owner is a hoplophobic asshat like Pat Quinn. Unduly burdensome to post a sign. Right.
Other Quinn douchery includes limiting the number of guns and ammunition “clips” (They’re MAGAZINES, jackhole! If you don’t know what they are, you shouldn’t have the right to ban them.) and requiring a weapon to be completely — not just “mostly” — concealed and allowing employers to ban weapons in their workplaces (the latter is something with which I actually agree – unless employer receives taxpayer support in any way). Apparently Quinn is crapping his Depends over open carry, because OMGOHNOESELEVENTY!!11!!1!!!!1 someone might know that a citizen is carrying a firearm and get scared or something! I’m not a huge fan of open carry, but the way – it’s not tactical, and frankly it allows a potential assailant a peek into your ability to defend yourself and make a counter plan if needed – but I’m not soiling myself at the thought either!
None of this is particularly surprising, given that it’s Quinn and it’s Illinois. It’s not even all that shocking that he would use families affected by violence as props to advance his insane agenda. I’m not even all that amazed that some people would use their tragedy as a club to bludgeon the rest of us into giving up our rights.
It’s just irritating, that’s all.