Unsurprising news today. Just like dodo birds returning to their cliffs, Arizona legislators, committed to the notion that nothing is too farfetched or too dangerous for them to tackle, are trying to get students on our college campuses to be able to carry guns. In a scene akin to running around the decks of the sinking Titanic, handing out guns rather than lifejackets, these self-proclaimed ideological extremists, mostly Republicans, prefer to view the world down the barrel of a gun.
Lest the reader be mistaken, I am a fiscal conservative, an Independent voter, a gun owner, and a Vietnam combat veteran. However, I can also walk and chew gum at the same time, and therefore unlike these Fred Flintstones sound a likes in our state legislature, I agree with the university presidents, faculties, students, and the majority of sensible Arizona citizens, that guns have no place on a university or college campus, where academics — not marksmanship — should be the mission.
John W Greco
Scottsdale
Masterrogue666 posted at 11:07 am on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
John: You are certainly allowed your point of view. However, if I'm out in public, et al, and someone starts shooting everyone, I sure would like the ability to protect/defend myself (and perhaps others). I'm quite sure that those persons close to me would rather read about how I shot and killed someone that was killing others BEFORE he had the chance to do the same with me. The police and campus security can't always get there in a flash.
Also, you aren't allowed to carry weapons into the buildings. Which is easier: Make a building secure, or the entire campus surrounding said buildings?
Leon Ceniceros posted at 11:15 am on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
This new law would just give students the right to protect themselves on campus or let some crazy person maim or kill them.
Just like the choice that a woman has to protect themselves from an unwanted pregnancy or kill the unwanted baby through an abortion.
If a woman can kill an unwanted innocent baby, why can't students kill a murderous criminal ???
Why should college and university students not be given the same rights as women ???
geekette posted at 11:26 am on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
@Masterrogue666: Guns won't allowed in buildings only if the schools agree to install secure gun lockers in each building at a cost of $100-$300 each. With approximately 1600 buildings on each campus, that's $160000 to $480000 per campus that is NOT spent on students. That's also a waste of taxpayer money.
sockratties posted at 11:37 am on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
I’m not as concerned about the issue of guns as I am about the priority and posturing that goes along with it. I see the motivation for this legislation to be pandering for votes, not solving a problem. There little evidence but a lot of opinion about if safety would be enhanced or threatened by the proliferation of guns by students. The new bill will allow lockers for securing the guns upon entrance into buildings. These will cost up to $300 each (a university expense) and there will have to be an adequate number at each of over 1800 buildings. Assuming an arbitrary 50 lockers average per building that would come to about $30,000,000 plus installation and maintenance. I would like to see an accurate estimate of the cost and how it will be paid for. Perhaps those who will use them should pay a fee. There will also be the question of enforcement. Supporters of the bill say this is just a first step and that they will come back to achieve full access to buildings by gun carriers after this bill is passed. This is definitely an agenda item rather than a safety issue.
sockratties posted at 11:40 am on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
For better or for worse, here’s a little background on this legislation:
State Senator Karen S. Johnson, has sponsored a bill, which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last week, that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry guns on Arizona campuses. Currently University Administrations make that choice. Ms. Johnson acknowledges that her views come from the far right — she recently described herself, half-jokingly, as a “right-wing wacko.” Ms. Johnson, a Republican from Mesa, said she believed that recent carnage at Northern Illinois University may have been prevented or limited if an armed student or professor had intercepted the gunman.
Nearly 70 percent of Arizonans and 56 percent of gun owners do not want to expand gun rights on college campuses, according a February 2011 survey by American Viewpoint, a Republican-leaning research company.
Why has this issue taken precedence over those that are most important to Arizonans? Think special interests and NRA. The earlier bill would have allowed guns on campus roadways and adjacent walkways but not everywhere on the campus. That one was not actively supported by the NRA but the one to be introduced on January 9, 2012 will be.
Five of the eight co-sponsors of SB 1467, the previous bill which was vetoed by governor Brewer accepted campaign donations, ranging from $100 to $410, from the National Rifle Association in 2009. Five more House representatives who voted for the bill were also given campaign donations in 2009, although one returned the money.
A few hundred dollars is chump change compared to the $452,200 Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) received from gun rights groups during his presidential campaign. But "for the state legislature, a little bit of money goes a long way," said Hildy Saizow, president of Arizonans for Gun Safety, whose gun control advocacy group does not fund political candidates.
Slabside posted at 2:39 pm on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
How many students might have survived at Columbine or Virginia Tech had one teacher been allowed to legally carry a concealed firearm?
truth posted at 3:52 pm on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
Speaking as a gun owner, and someone with experience with caring a weapon. When shots are fired and during the confusion good guy with a gun are shot by the good guys. Example police officer out of uniform have been shot by police during a gun battle. Masterrogue666 have you been watching to many westerns or ganster movies, or have you ever dropped the hammer? Slabside how many students could have been shot by legally carry concealed firearms owners. If someone takes the necessary training of the laws and twice yearly firearms training, not a 30 day safety course then we can talk.
Slabside posted at 4:36 pm on Mon, Jan 2, 2012.
@truth, "Example police officer out of uniform have been shot by police during a gun battle."
Yes, it happens. Soldiers in battle have been killed by friendly fire as well. Do you have a point to this ignorant statement?
"Slabside how many students could have been shot by legally carry concealed firearms owners."
If this is a question it should have a (?) following it don't you think there slick?
Again, another ignorant retort from the site idiot.
"If someone takes the necessary training of the laws and twice yearly firearms training, not a 30 day safety course then we can talk."
We won't talk. Just go pound sand you doof.
sockratties posted at 6:09 am on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Are we a little cranky this year, Slabmore?
I think there should be some training before someone can carry a concealed weapon. Before the recent law letting anyone who can get a gun carry it concealed, there was a training requirement but it only consisted of classroom training regarding legal ramifications like laws and such. I haven’t heard of any 30 day safety course, what’s with that?
Cherry-picking situations will come up with a lot of what-ifs and examples both for and against carrying concealed weapons. The facts are that we will probably see this law pass and in the future it will be expanded. Assuming that is so, we need to acknowledge that even good people mess up all the time. It’s important that people who think they are safer with a gun aren’t more of a menace than a benefit.
If some student or teacher decides that they’re going to save my life by shooting the bad guy that’s okay with me. I’d like them to know which end of the barrel the bullet comes out of, how to keep the gun safe and available even when they’re not carrying it, and enough practice so the bullets usually hit the target. I don’t think such a requirement infringes on anyone’s rights and it might just save a few lives.
Anyone who is going to carry a gun should know how to use it and should pass some kind of test that proves it, kind of like driving a car. Just like a driver’s license, a person should be able to get a permit even if they don’t carry a gun, just in case they decide to. That way the government can’t use the list of gun carrying permits as gun control. And just like a driver’s license, the permit shouldn’t be a requirement for buying a gun but should be required for carrying it, concealed, in designated areas like campuses, government offices and the like. Also, like a driver’s license, checking for a permit should not be an excuse to stop someone without due cause.
When I was in the military I was issued a 30 cal. carbine and a .38 revolver. I had to be able to strip, clean and assemble each and pass an accuracy test (which was difficult with the 4” .38) from standing, lying and sitting on the ground. I’ve had several weapons since, including a sniper rifle, but that 1st training was most important because it made me (as Inspector Callahan said) realize my limitations.
Firearms training is inexpensive and available through gun dealers, like Bass-Pro. A comprehensive program with appropriate proficiency criteria would be easy to set up and only the user would pay for the cost of the program. I’m thinking a one day program. People who don’t need training would only have to pass the test. There are probably statistics to support or refute my belief, but I don’t see how it can hurt.
truth posted at 2:57 pm on Tue, Jan 3, 2012.
Slabside being called a idiot by you just proves I am right, and a compliment, thank you. answer the question have you ever dropped the hammer? you might want to buy some pampers first.
Andy Tefteller posted at 4:14 pm on Thu, Jan 5, 2012.
There has been a lot of banter on both sides of the issue over the past few years on the guns on campus controversy. Let's try and clear it up.
Within the past few years following V Tech, many states have considered passing legislation to allow CHL holders to keep their gun on them in class and on campus.
In my state, Texas has twice since 2007 floored a bill that would force Texas Colleges to allow CHL holders to bring their concealed weapon on campus, and both times it failed to pass muster. Texas is generally a very pro gun state, like Utah, and Arizona, and the fact that it failed to pass the bill twice shows just how controversial the topic is.
The debate over this issue is a heated one, as guns are generally considered by the majority of citizens as being dangerous devices (let's be honest: they aren't rubberbands, or staplers, they are devices designed to kill). Understandably, the idea of allowing such dangerous devices to be present on a college campus, or in a classroom full of students, (even by law-abiding CHL holders) seems to really scare a lot of people.
The question, however, is a pretty simple one, if not very easy to answer. Will allowing CHL students to carry their personal firearms on campus result in more violence (and presumably deaths) than the status quo? If so, then they should remain banned. Logically, if the opposite is true, however, all moderates on the issue (which is the majority) should agree that we should amend our current laws to allow a CHL holding student to carry his/her concealed firearm with him to class.
Duh right? Seems pretty easy.
Well, as some of the above have pointed out, not everyone can agree that the studies aimed at trying to answer this question on the issue are accurate. Some of believe that by continuing the current ban, we will have more Virginia Tech incidents, which is unacceptable and preventable. Others believe that by allowing CHL holders to carry their firearms on campus, more violence will naturally result.
We should remember, however, the goal is not just to prevent future V Tech type murder sprees by lone deranged killers. It is also to assess whether objectively, there will be more overall violence occurring on college campuses by allowing the presence of firearms on campus. That’s it. Will there or will there not be more violence? Will you, or your friends, or your family members, or any other person who happens to be in class or on a campuses, be more (or less likely) to be affected by violence as a result of the presence of firearms by CHL holding students or professors on campus?
Helpful questions to get your mind going:
1) Are college campuses currently safer than say your average restaurant, or office building, or parking lot? If so, is that because guns are banned? Or some other reason?
2) For those who oppose allowing guns on campuses, but not elsewhere, what is it specifically about allowing CHL holders to carry guns to class that seems more dangerous (or maybe is more dangerous) than allowing CHL holders to carry guns to your local restaurant, or office, or down the street or in a local parking lot, etc.?
Many people have talked about the high stress of the college environment on students and that effect on student decision making. How is that stress different than the infinite types of daily stresses we deal with everyday at places where CHL holders do bring their personal firearms... like at the office, or at restaurants, or walking the sidewalk?
Is there a big difference between the stress one feels from losing their job (and wanting revenge against their former employers for firing them), than the student who is in extreme student loan debt and fails college b/c of a bad grade given by a professor?
Assume in both scenarios that person is a CHL holder who carries his firearm on him at all times. Is the presence of a gun on that ex-employee or student when they get the bad news more or less likely to cause them to act violently with their weapon?
Is the student more likely than the ex-employee to use his gun violently?
Another scenario: Employee gets in heated argument with another coworker…fighting words are exchanged. Is the coworker with a CHL more likely to use his weapon a result than a non-CHL carrying employee subjected to the same heated situation? Is a student who gets in a heated argument with another student for any various reason…where fighting words are exchanged, more likely than a non-CHL carrying student to use his weapon as a result?
Think through all of the situations in your life where you have encountered violence. How many times have you seen, or heard, of CHL holders using firearms illegally while carrying them in public?
3) Compared to the average population (where CHL holders are currently in most states allowed to carry concealed weapons in most public places) are student populations on college campuses more or less educated, and intelligent, and violence prone, than the average state population? If they are more educated, more intelligent, and less violence prone (which I believe is probably well documented with regard to gun crimes), what is it about student populations and/or the college environment that makes students on campus more likely to be victims of gun violence/crimes than the average population if or when CHL holders are allowed to carry their guns on campus?