[SandRat]

NRA PING

[ravenwolf]

Sounds good to me, just so a business owner can say no guns.

[Tucsonican]

From the article:

Paul Allvin, a University of Arizona spokesman, said that even if a faculty member is carrying a weapon in a "concealed" manner, it's likely to become known that person has a gun under a jacket or in a fanny pack. He questioned what would happen if someone bent on violence were to try to get that weapon.

And Nelson said the proposal would create greater problems for police who respond to a call.

"The more people that have guns on campus, the harder it is to determine who the shooter is," she said.

Well, I suppose that's true. It IS much easier to tell who the shooter is when they're standing in the middle of a bunch of bodies that never had a chance at survival because nobody else was allowed to carry adequate defensive tools.

Holy S__t!! I can't believe that I trusted my education to people from this looney bin!

[FlyVet]

The last time this was suggested in AZ, the mediots trotted out the tenured, intelligent, distinguished U of A college professor, and all he could come up with was the same old mindless, lame, unthinking cliches, "This isn't the Wild West any more, we don't need gunfights at the O.K. Corral", blah, blah, blah.

Of course the "reporter" couldn't ask him where was his statistical evidence, that loosening gun restrictions on trained, background-checked, law-abiding citizens, has ever caused anything but a deterrent to crime.

We have people teaching us, and reporters reporting to us, who can't think. They are supposed to be thinking, curious, honest, investigative people.

But they can't do it.

[Still Thinking]

"It seems to me that the likelihood of having a deranged person walk into a specific classroom and pull out a gun and aim it at a faculty member or other people is quite low," he said, "although it gets a lot of coverage and, of course, generates a lot of passion."

So his "reasoning" is "There's little danger of someone shooting up the place, so consequently we want to abridge people's rights by not letting them carry." How can he justify limiting people's rights to prevent a danger that doesn't even exist?