Tennessee's response to shootings: allow CCW in public places.

[theinvisibleheart]

That's just a bad idea on many levels. There are some places guns are better left at home but let's suppose it passes and students 21 or older get a carry permit and schools allow them to attend classes. Stats will be kept which they will make available to prospective students choosing a college who will wonder why anyone feels unsafe in that school without a gun so they enroll somewhere else. Just from an economic standpoint, it would be a bad idea not to mention accidents and spur of the momment shootings we'd be reading about. Everyone is acting like school shootings are an epidemic when they're not. They're the exception. Thirty-two people are probably shot everyday in homes and streets across the country. That's where guns belong. I would not attend a school where kids were toting guns unless it was a Montgomery College gunsmithing class.

hello, there.

1. there are actually several school shootings which were stopped, either by students or school officials/teachers grabbing their guns which were kept in their cars just outside of schools. You just don't hear about it because it's not considered newsworthy.

2. you don't restrict rights (natural right to self-defense which form the basis for most fundamental of all rights --- that is, the right to live, right to life itself) based on individual propensity for accidents.

If it would make you feel any better, statistics show that unjustified shootings/accidental shootings by CHL/CCW holders are less than that of police. Not only that, when concealed carry laws are enacted and people are allowed to arm themselves, personal crimes(rape, murder, assault, robbery, homicide, etc.) goes down, even when heat of the moment crimes are included.

3.

Just from an economic standpoint, it would be a bad idea not to mention accidents and spur of the momment shootings we'd be reading about.

People who commit "heat of the moment" violence, whether by gun or knives or any other force, usually don't do it when they know the victim(s) or potential victim are armed and/or stronger than they are.

I've seen very few cases where victim was physically much stronger than the assailant and the assailant intentionally attacked the victim in the heat of the moment.

It seems strange, but in most instances, even crazy or unbalanced people seem to understand pain or suffering that they are bound to incur on themselves if they attack someone who is much stronger than they are.

There was a study done last year(?) which found out that mass/public shootings tend to happen in places where people are unarmed....you can always count on academia to do studies on what is obvious. -)

4. I've known people who have seriously injured several people when they were attacked. I would have to say these people's ability to hurt or injure others is close to that of a normal person armed with a gun...should these people's right be restricted because of their physical ability to do harm to others?

Best regards.

--John

 

[junkpile]

Use Truth and Don't Lie.

Use Facts and Don't Distort.

Thanks Musketeer, two phrases that were good to hear from someone nowdays.

 

[targetshootr]

Those are good points but if schools are not required to allow students with guns, the whole idea is a non starter because few, if any, would. And all they'd have to do is cite economic reasons. Imo, it would be better to beef up campus police which is what schools will likely do asap. Not to my knowledge has there ever been a time when guns were allowed in schools, except maybe for show and tell.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Why muggers don't target NFL linebackers & police officers...

Those are good points but if schools are not required to allow students with guns, the whole idea is a non starter because few, if any, would. And all they'd have to do is cite economic reasons. Imo, it would be better to beef up campus police which is what schools will likely do asap. Not to my knowledge has there ever been a time when guns were allowed in schools, except maybe for show and tell.

I attended University of California as an undergraduate and University of North Texas as a graduate student. In both of these schools, while I was there, there were several incidents where students (usu. female) were attacked, either by other male students or outsiders. My understanding is that the actual number of personal crimes tend to be underreported, especially assault against female students.

When you have laws against CHL/CCW/guns on campus, it disarms all the law abiding people on campus, the very people who will be targeted by criminals. I hate to say it, but people who commit crimes such as rape or murder does not obey campus regulations and commit crimes usually when the police are not in immediate vicinity.

Unless you mandate 1:1 ratio for campus population and police(1 police officer for every staff, faculty, and student), it won't work because criminals commit crimes when victims are weak and police are not nearby to prevent it.

Now, there are laws against personal crimes(rape, murder, assault, robbery, etc.), but people who commit crimes ignore them any way. When people break these laws, they choose people who are either unarmed or weaker than themselves...to this day, I cannot recall one instance where an armed female police officer was targeted for assault while she was armed.

How come muggers and rapists don't target NFL linebackers and police officers instead of the weak, like children, women, and elderly?

--John

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Joel Myrick, an example of how allowing guns would have prevented a similar tragedy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham

Excerpt:

October 1: Shooting at Pearl High School

Woodham drove his mother's car to his high school. Wearing a blue denim jacket, he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he walked toward Lydia Dew and shot her thinking her to be his former girlfriend Christina Menefee, whom he also shot. Both girls died.

He went on to wound 7 others before Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham while he was trying to drive off campus.

When Myrick asked Woodham of his motive, he replied "Life has wronged me, sir". Woodham had been planning to drive to the Pearl Middle School to continue his murderous rampage, only Myrick's intervention prevented this.

Myrick, the assistant principal, is a former Marine and had a valid Concealed Pistol License, authorizing him to carry a handgun; however, due to the law, Myrick was not allowed to carry his pistol while on school property. When Woodham began shooting in the school, Myrick was forced to run over 1/4 mile to his truck to retrieve his weapon. He then had to sprint back to the school, where he confronted Woodham.

Suppose, targetshootr's vision of a school without gun held in the case of Woodham's rampage and Myrick was without a gun when he confronted Woodham...what would the outcome have being?

Why didn't Woodham commit his rampage in the immediate vicinity of police and other armed people?

How come most criminals commit crimes only when they are not in immediate vicinity of police?

If criminals don't commit crimes when police are there, how would strengthening the police forces help, unless you have 1 police for every law abiding citizen or student?

--John

 

[M14fan]

Does this mean Tennessee is overturning the 'no guns within 1000 feet of any school' law? I have always thought that was the height of stupidity as it merely creats an unarmed and target rich environment for villains. I am very glad to see the move towards expanding the legal carry environment to include government owned properties. It does sadden me that it takes an atrocity such as the one in VT to open the eyes of the various legislative bodies to their own stupidity.
It is sadder still to know that Virginia had before their legislature a bill that would have allowed staff and students the tools with which to stop this atrocity before so much damage was done. They rejected it.

 

[targetshootr]

I guess the first thing we have to agree on is that nothing in the history of mankind has kept bipeds from acting like animals. Or ever will. Crime will always be with us. But if it's such a great idea to allow guns in college, and college is were smart people get to go, why have they not insisted on it in 200 plus years. In fact a lot of very smart people have rejected the idea and suburban parents especially would not be happy to see it happen. I'd be willing to bet one of my flat tops it's not going to happen, so it might be a good idea to back up and punt this one.

 

[rhgunguy]

why have they not insisted on it in 200 plus years

Because less than 50 years ago there were likely no rules against it.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

College Faculties: A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds

I guess the first thing we have to agree on is that nothing in the history of mankind has kept bipeds from acting like animals. Or ever will. Crime will always be with us.

People respond to incentives. Criminals are people. The fact that allowing people to be armed raises the cost of personal crimes(rape, murder, assault, robbery, etc.), resulting in criminals being engaged in LESS PERSONAL CRIMES. I think this is good both for criminals and potential victims. How can anybody be against it, unless they are typical college faculty members or anti-gun?

Whether crimes are completely eradicated or not, I don't understand how anybody can be against less rape, murder, assault, robbery, and other personal crimes.

But if it's such a great idea to allow guns in college, and college is were smart people get to go, why have they not insisted on it in 200 plus years.

First of all, I'm not sure if being intelligent and educated and having college/graduate degree are one and the same thing. In fact, I've known many people who were smart and intelligent but didn't have college degree. I've also known people who were classically educated but didn't have college education.

I was in graduate school before getting a graduate degree, so I've known a fair number of graduate students and professors. In general, I've noticed that the more educated people were, more likely they were to hold far fetched and heavily opinionated beliefs outside the area of their expertise such as women and men were same, divorce was good, gun caused violence, etc.

Even in areas related to their area of expertise, highly educated people such as Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate in economic, held highly erroneous belief such as continuing prosperity of Soviet Union before its collapse.

About the last bastion of Communism outside of Cuba and North Korea is in American academia....I once knew a Harvard economist who told me that capitalism was morally wrong because owner of the firm didn't give excess profit back to the workers in form of wages/bonuses.

In fact a lot of very smart people have rejected the idea and suburban parents especially would not be happy to see it happen. I'd be willing to bet one of my flat tops it's not going to happen, so it might be a good idea to back up and punt this one.

If you ever read the book Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Peter Schweizer, most of the US academia didn't believe in the imminent collapse of Soviet Union, but Pres. Reagan did and it happened and millions and millions of people are better for it.

There is a very good book called Guns and Violence: The English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm. I read the rough draft several years ago...the book shows that statistically, increased gun control resulted in more violence. When more British people were armed, there was a deterrent effect against personal crimes.

If I went by your logic, CHL/CCW legislation would still be a dream, AW Ban would not have lapsed, and Soviet Union would still be around just like what most university faculty members thought.

--John


Article on why following college graduates/faculty might not be healthy.


College Faculties: A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page C01

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.
...
...
"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."
...
...

The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.
...
...
Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte find a leftward shift on campus over the past two decades. In the last major survey of college faculty, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984, 39 percent identified themselves as liberal.

In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.

The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection "even if it raises prices or costs jobs" (88 percent). What's more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.
(continued)

 

[theinvisibleheart]

hypothesis: anti-gun suburban parents=misinformed parents

In fact a lot of very smart people have rejected the idea and suburban parents especially would not be happy to see it happen. I'd be willing to bet one of my flat tops it's not going to happen, so it might be a good idea to back up and punt this one.

I get email from anti-gun groups and watch/read anti-gun movies/material/etc. regularly.

If suburban parents are against guns, it's because of misinformation by anti-gun people. Widespread legal ownership and carrying of guns help 3 groups of people the most: women, elderly, and the children...groups most likely to be victimized by criminals.

It's hard to believe how any parents can be against less personal crimes against women, elderly, and children unless they have being misinformed.

--John

 

[targetshootr]

All the things you listed are no doubt true and the amount of research is impressive. It would take me years to cite the kinds of things you can do in no time flat. I get a feel for things from watching lots of news, reading papers, being in business, dealing with renters. But I believe my points are still valid especially the ecomomic impact on a college, the reaction from suburban parents, the futility of trying to press the issue. In a perfect world it might even be tested on one or two campuses but they'd soon be out of business. This is one of those things no amount of research will affect the gut reaction of the people who write the checks and it is so extraordinary that it may well cause a backlash. I myself would not attend a college where everyone was armed and I own more guns than most shops.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

I'm glad that you own guns!

I'm glad you own guns and I'm sure I've made mistakes.

Lot of these things are intuitive if you grew up in a farm with guns and observed life, or in an inner city ghetto where you had to fend for yourself, watching the strong prey on the weak. You learn that being armed act as a deterrent.

As for these things becoming a reality, if a ban on CHL/CCW in prohibited place such as school gets lifted, it will come to pass automatically with some students carrying concealed and nobody knowing about it. And everybody will be safer for it.

Best wishes!

--John

 

[SecDef]

How come muggers and rapists don't target NFL linebackers and police officers instead of the weak, like children, women, and elderly?

Sounds more like an argument for open carry rather than concealed carry. . .

 

[Rangefinder]

Over this little piece of legislation, I have to admit I'm pleasantly shocked. Good-god, I hope it's the beginning of a major awakening.

 

[Big Don]

We will all be ice skating in the nether world before California pulls its collective head out and agrees to something like this. I have to believe there are evil people on the left that were secretly pleased with the VT shootings as it just (they think) bolsters their arguements for more hacking away at the Second Amendment. They love the old saw "If it saves just one life" :barf: but they'll sacrifice far more lives to push their agenda forward.
A pox on them all!

 

[Rangefinder]

with CCW allowed, you can assume the people in school are armed.

Funny, but I was discussing this very thing with one of my professors tuesday morning during some down-time. The university system in Utah has its plus sides in some respects--CCW rights upheld, for one. In the course of the conversation, my professor happened to ask "Do you carry?" So I said "Well, if what happened in VT came through our door, you'd find out in a hurry." His only reply was "I feel safer already..."

If only 10% of the campus there could carry, and only 10% of them DID carry, that would still leave a good chance of at least one person in every classroom that could have stopped that maniac before he took another life. That, all by itself is justification enough for me to take my carry into the classroom--and everywhere else.

 

[Al Norris]

Not to my knowledge has there ever been a time when guns were allowed in schools, except maybe for show and tell.

Sophomore year, South High School, Salt Lake City, UT. 1966-67. AJrROTC used M1 Garands for drill and target practice (had a range under the auditorium). Often brought my .22lr rifle to school and stored it in my locker.

Junior year, Woodrow Wilson High School, Long Beach, CA. 1967-68. NJrROTC used Springfields for drill. Rifle team used .22's at school range (again, under the auditorium) and the Springfields for inter-mural competition. Stored rifle(s) in school locker.

Never took a firearm for "show 'n tell" as what would be the point? Everybody had one! Had to bring my own ammo, as the schools wouldn't pay for that.

But if it's such a great idea to allow guns in college, and college is were smart people get to go, why have they not insisted on it in 200 plus years.

You really should study some US History. Guns were all too common in most of the US schools (lower and upper schools) for most of our history. As for insisting? Why would they? We didn't have this particular type of crime back when guns were a common object (ever wonder why?). People weren't scared of guns or other people with guns. Such thinking is a relatively modern mode of thought.

Back then, if I called you a name, I wouldn't have been scared that you would shoot me... If you were 6 inches taller and 50 lbs heavier, I might be scared you would bash my teeth in (assuming you could catch me!), but we didn't worry about someone shooting us for such stuff.

Nowadays, dis the wrong someone, and watch out!

 

[theinvisibleheart]

universal CHL/CCW is better than universal open carry

Quote:
How come muggers and rapists don't target NFL linebackers and police officers instead of the weak, like children, women, and elderly?

Sounds more like an argument for open carry rather than concealed carry. . .

Universal concealed carry is much more effective than universal open carry. The reason for it is that would be criminals can't tell who is armed and who is not armed so they have to assume that everybody is armed to be on the safe side.

The real effect of universal CHL/CCW is that even if only a small fraction of the population took advantage of it and carried, would be criminals cannot tell who is armed and who is not so even people who don't carry get the benefits.

You actually see this effect when apprehended burglars in US were asked why they burglarized the house during day time when the homeowners were out of the house (compared to UK where robbery is more common since they have less to fear from homeowners)...their answer was because they didn't want to get shot by homeowners.

If instead of universal CHL/CCW, universal open carry was the rule, only the people who actually openly carried would get the benefits (this is assuming that CHL/CCW was prohibited so that would be criminals know that only those people who openly carried (guns in visible sight) were armed).

Hope it's clear. Best regards.

--John

 

[Rangefinder]

Al>> What happened to the good ol' days?? My high school was the same way. Come fall, there wasn't a truck in the parking lot without a rifle in it (and some of us kept them in our lockers for safe keeping) to head out right after last period on a friday to get the last hours of legal light. Never had a problem--EVER. The school actually preferred they were kept in our lockers so they wouldn't get stolen out of our trucks. In fact, I remember several times there was an all-school announcement over the PA by the vice-principal to "unload your hunting rifles before putting them in your lockers--we don't want any holes in the ceiling"... Dished out and got back a few bumps and bruises, but any talk of shooting involved a monster rack and/or meat in the freezer. I packed several swords from class to class more than a few times because I had originals and my history teacher loved to have something for the class to see besides notes on a blackboard (yes, blackboard). I bumped into that same teacher at my last reunion several years ago (right before he retired) and he said now you can get expelled for even having a pocket knife. Hell, a hand forged hand-and-a-half broadsword was my senior project in metals... and I took the state competition in unique metals fabrication! Now, I'd be facing a felony charge...

 

[qlajlu]

targetshootr, I don't know if you have elected yourself to be the devil's advocate here or if you just don't get it. I will stop short of calling you a troll because I am relatively new to this board and have not read other posts by you outside of the ones on this thread.

Just to set the record straight, the University of Utah allows concealed carry and has for a while. The shootings at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City was cut short by a person that was CCW...the mall was posted as gun free zone...er, ah...guns prohibited zone. The State of Virginia had an incident not far from VT about four years ago that was brought to an abrupt halt by two people that had carry guns: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/..._zone_left_cho_seung-huis_victims_defenseless

Four years ago at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Va., a man who had killed the dean, a professor and a student was subdued by two students who ran to their cars and grabbed their guns. In 1997 an assistant principal at a public high school in Pearl, Miss., likewise retrieved a handgun from his car and used it to apprehend a student who had killed three people.

We do not know how much further these incidents would have continued if it were not for some people using their CCW to put a stop to them.

VT was never a "gun free zone", it was only a "gun prohibition zone"

Richard, I don't mean to pick bones or split hairs, but what is the difference? Unarmed is unarmed!

At present, one of the moderators on THR, who happens have a financial interest in a firearms store and is also a Utah State Certified CCW Instructor, is offering CCW classes FREE OF CHARGE for anyone who is a university student or professor.

Years ago kids, even elementary school aged kids, would carry their guns to school in hopes of picking up a cottontail, pheasant, or some other small game to help the family with their food. That is just the way it was. Every boy had a pocket knife in his pocket because he used it for cutting the twine on bales of hay during his chores or field dressing any small game he was lucky enough to harvest.

My, my, how things have changed.