No right or need to bear firearms on college campuses

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jun/06132004/commenta/174698.asp ^

[bert]

.....a Georgia law school...

Perhaps Grundy, Virginia?

[D Rider]

When everyone dives for the floor, look for the one standing.

The major benefit from concealed carry, is the deterrent effect. For some jerk to even attempt this kind of thing.

[ExSoldier]

"The decision to open fire in a complex, rapidly evolving situation requires exhaustive training and skill. It is the kind of intensive training and experience that we require of our law-enforcement officers and military personnel. And it is precisely the kind of training a teacher, janitor or the vast majority of people with concealed weapon permits are unlikely to have."

What a load of crap. My IDPA Club so often cleaned the clocks of local law enforcement that they quit competing. Cops have absolutely the worst shooting scores of any part of the populace. Due to department limitations to fund practice ammo, they don't get to shoot (unless they buy their own ammo) except for semi-annual shooting qualifications and those are now pass/fail for liability reasons. My IDPA Club has teachers, lawyers, judges, grandmothers and yes, janitors who compete every month sometimes multiple times in a month. Day AND night courses of fire. Assault rifle and assault shotgun and even "select fire" courses are often run.

BTW, it's easily possible to disarm or kill a shooter in the close confines of a school as long as he or they have little real training. School buildings like my inner city high school are full of close quarters blind corners. Unless the shooter/s know exactly how to move tactically and go around those corners, one of us (the half dozen military guys at my school) could easily disarm and kill in relative silence. After Colombine, we six got together and agreed it would NOT happen that way at our school! Some punk goes postal at my school and we've agreed to meet at a pre-arranged "rally point" and carry out the "four F" doctrine: FIND'em, FIX 'em, FIGHT 'em and FINISH 'em.

[dbwz]

A police officer dedicated to either a school or a school district.

Oh, so that would be one of those folks with the "intensive training and experience."

Gotcha.

Maybe some day these intellectual giants will actually go see exactly what training and maintenance is required for a police officer to carry a firearm, instead of talking out of their collective rear ends.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

I protest! What if a student wants to shoot his/her tree-huggin', homo-lovin', Buddhist-chantin', Fonda lovin', America-hatin' professor?

[Double Tap]

I've read that several times, and every time I want to go vomit. I can not imagine the hell on earth she lived after that, knowing she could have stopped it.

[lowbridge]

An armed citizen would have to evaluate such a rapidly changing scenario in a split second, and be incredibly accurate in discharging a weapon to avoid accidentally shooting an innocent person near or behind the attacker.

So what do they expect an unarmed person to do in the same situation?

[Eaker]

Excellent, sir.

[El Gato]

David R. Keller is director of the Center for the Study of Ethics

IOW, a sucker at the public teat. A useless, but oh so politically correct drone.

One wonders just what is so ethical about forcing people to be defenseless in the face of criminals, crazies (including terrorists perhaps). Sure doesn't sound very ethical to me. Statist, but not ethical.

[dirtboy]

He did reply:

You'll be even more appalled to learn that I went to Franklin and Marshall College, and was on the Deans List every semester!

Anyway, your attacks on my credibility aside, I did my research. Wasn't the problem at Columbine that there were no armed law enforcement officials on campus? We have armed police on our campus. I would rather have armed police on campus instead of armed janitors or armed students.

Here is what a political scientist said about my editorial:

You hit the nail on the head. The second amendment was drafted for just the reasons you cited. Not so some introverted idiot with a flawed thought process can get there concealed carry permit. The NRA wants the populace to believe that not only is our right to brandish weapons but our obligation to do so. That attitude and opinion scares me more than the deranged people who commit the heinous crimes in the first place.

And my colleague who disagrees with me and wrote this letter to the editor:

Dear Editor:

Although my political views are generally on the left, I was one of the minority of UVSC professors (and the only one in my department) to oppose the University of Utah's ban on concealed weapons. My argument for disagreeing with my esteemed colleague David Keller is based on two premises.

First, the government and other institutions in society should not prohibit behavior unless there is substantial reason to believe that the said behavior poses a significant threat to the public good. This puts the burden of proof on those who would prohibit a particular behavior. So, contrary to Professor Keller's reasoning, it is not up to the advocates of the right to bear arms to prove that guns make the world safer. Gun rights advocates must only fend off arguments that guns make the world more dangerous.

Second, in my view there is not good reason to believe that the presence of licensed guns in society increases the quantity of violent crime. Indeed, the evidence on this issue is hotly disputed. I believe it is more likely that the high rate of violence in the U.S. is related to its weak welfare state. Western European countries with very low rates of violence tend to have very good social safety nets. And as Michael Moore points out in his acclaimed documentary film "Bowling for Columbine," western Canada has a high rate of gun ownership while having a low rate of violence. What's the difference between us and them? They have a robust and successful welfare state. We have ghettos.

As an instructor on a college campus, I will not feel any safer if guns are banned. As a citizen of the U.S., I would more secure if we took a humane approach to economics. In lieu of focusing on epiphenomenal and potentially divisive issues such as the presence of firearms, we should tend to the root of the problem: poverty.

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

This is the part I really liked:

"Anyway, your attacks on my credibility aside, I did my research. Wasn't the problem at Columbine that there were no armed law enforcement officials on campus? "

Especially since I had included a partial Columbine timeline in my initial email to him that included this line:

11:24 a.m. — School resource officer Neal Gardner responds to a report of trouble and later trades gunshots with Harris.

So not only did he fail to do any research, he couldn't even read the research I provided him.

I spanked him around on a couple of other issues, and then shot down the notion postulated by his colleague that it's all about a social network - after all, Britain has an elaborate social net, but their crime has skyrocketed since they not only outlawed guns but self-defense in general.

[CSM]

Interesting response. It really highlights his lack of intellectual fortitude. I have been contemplating writing him a note with one simple question: "Should we treat all Constitutional Ammendments the way he would like to see the 2nd treated? If so, how would he like all editorials and all newspapers banned from the campus?"

If I actually send it I'll let you know.

[dirtboy]

Well, the nancy boy never responded to my second email. I imagine he'd just not rather address the fact that his initial premise was proven false because he did not know the history of Columbine. Typical liberal - runs away in the face of facts rather than addressing their contradictions. But, then again, if he addressed his contradictions, he would eventually cease to be a liberal.