This morning (April 25, 2009), the Indianapolis Star ran an article that outlined the push by the NRA to force college campuses to allow the carrying of concealed firearms. Now, I have spent a good part of the last thirty-five years of my life on college campuses. I have had more or less daily contact with college students and faculty.
College students are America's best and brightest young people. They are energetic, hard working, intelligent and fun to be around. But there also is one other thing that they are. College students today, like most of us when we were in our late teens or early 20s, are immature. They will, as most of us did, develop maturity in a few years, but now they are immature. So the thought of a couple of hundred (maybe more) immature, and uninstructed in the use of firearms, young people in a stressful situation (and believe me college is stressful) packing iron is intensely frightening.
One of the arguments for allowing guns on campus is that in the event of a college shooting, they will be able to defend themselves. First, college shootings do not occur very often. Arming a number of immature and untrained people to defend something that rarely occurs seems to me to be a formula for producing some very negative unintended consequences, that being immature college students using their weapons in an irresponsible manner. If they should be faced with a college shooter, can you imagine the carnage if 20 or 30 immature and untrained students go for their guns and start shooting at anything that moves? They are not trained to deal with the pressure of a shootout, and will likely add to the confusion of the event as it unfolds. Finally, if the police arrive while the shootout is in progress and they see a person with a gun, how are they to know who is the good guy and who they should shoot.
In is also argued that persons contemplating going on campus to shoot people will hesitate if they know students are armed. Let me point out that persons who might be planning such an activity intend to die. If they are not killed by authorities they will do it themselves. They will not be frightened off one bit by the fact that someone on the campus might have a gun.
Still another argument is that concealed firearms are allowed in other public places such as malls, so they should be allowed on campuses. To me the fact that immature and untrained individuals might be walking around shopping malls with concealed firearms is also intensely frightening. Why add another bad idea to the ones we already have.
The most compelling reason for not allowing firearms on campus, is the one I alluded to earlier. The vast majority of college students are youths who have not developed psychological maturity and may very well be untrained in the use of guns. All a person needs do to obtain a deadly firearm is go to a store that sells them, pass a perfunctory background check, pay the price and take the weapon home. Alternatively, that person can go to a gun show and skip the background check. That person need have no knowledge whatever about how to aim and fire the weapon safely or employ it intelligently.
I like college student a great deal, but they are kids and thirty-five years of dealing with them had taught me that they are rash, often careless, and orientated toward instant gratification. These are not the people you want walking around any part of our society carrying a concealed deadly weapon.
Let me end this by repeating what I have said over and over. I believe the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows that people should be able to own a firearm. It does not mean that the right is unlimited. We can have sensible restrictions on firearms and still support the second amendment. Keeping guns off campuses is, in my view, one of those sensible restrictions.
I have to agree with you drbob! I don't think having guns on college campuses would be a smart idea at all!!
Hello Kimmi... Thanks for the comment.
drbob: As a long-time NRA member, I find points of agreement AND disagreement in your post. Firstly, I must break ranks with the NRA (as I occasionally do) and agree with you that allowing underclassmen to go armed is probably not a good idea; although I'd like to point out that Indiana law precludes the (legal) purchase and concealed carry of handguns by individuals under the age of 21. As one close to the source, I'm sure you could name some grad students and staff members whose lawful carry would cause you no trepidation, as well as some whom the thought of carrying loaded weapons would be a source of nightmares! Me too -- speaking of the public in general. Secondly, regardless of where you stand on the liberal-conservative scale, I'm sure that you would agree with me that law-abiding citizens do indeed have the right to defend themselves, their families, and their property from predators who would abuse the same. That's not a fanatic's ravings, it's just common sense. Lastly, as one who receives and reads thoroughly the NRA's monthly magazine, I must say that while the organization does in fact favor legal carry on campuses, and will offer its support to groups seeking to initiate such a movement on their campus, I have NEVER construed anything I've read in the "American Rifleman" to indicate that the NRA ever meant to FORCE colleges to submit to such a program. That decision must ultimately be made by the governing board of each individual college in its turn. Some may; most will not permit guns on campus.
As an afterthought, please let me stress that while those camoflage-wearing gun shop commandos and snaggle-toothed survivalists may make you sit up and take notice when they are interviewed on newscasts, they do NOT NOT NOT accurately represent the membership of the NRA. Most of us are middle (or higher) class, tax-paying, law abiding, voting, concerned and caring citizens; hopefully like the people who live on your street and mine. The kind of people I want to be recognized as real Americans. Pa
Hello Ma and Pa... Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
I have few problems with anyone who has the psychological maturity and the skill to aim and fire a gun and the knowledge that enables them to handle the gun with safety. I do believe, however, that people should demonstrate those abilities before they are permitted to purchase a firearm.
Yes I agree that citizens do have a right to defend themselves from lawbreakers who might wish to harm them. However, (I don't really know this but I think a search of the data would support it...) if you took the number of citizens who defended themselves safely with a firearm and compared it to the number who were inadvertently wounded or killed by careless and unsafe use of a firearm, I'd guess that the later is the considerable larger number.
I don't know what you mean by "force." But the NRA (according to the Indy Star) wants to require (by law) colleges to lift their ban on carrying weapons on campus. To me that's force.
I won't disagree with your description of the average NRA member, but it is through the gun show loophole (which the NRA supports) that people that should not be allowed to carry deadly weapons often get them. I want to stress, I have no objection to mature, law-abiding, individuals who know how to handle weapons safely having a weapon for protection or sporting purposes. I don't know you, but from your writing, I suspect that you are very knowledgeable in the handling of firearms. If I'm correct about that, then you're having a weapon gives me little "trepidation."
I can see where having armed teachers might be a good thing but as for students I don't think so unless it would be the upperclassmen or older student and then I think it should come with conditions. Maybe the college could offer the underclassman a 1 semester course in the proper handling of firearms and also require they go to a shooting range and should have to make a certain score before carrying a gun.
drbob: I appreciate your objective approach to a touchy subject; I believe that, though we probably wouldn't agree on every aspect of gun ownership, you, "me", and I (that's confusing!) are all walking down the same path.
Let me touch on the "gun show loophole", if I may. Licensed dealers must, regardless of the point of sale, perform the necessary paperwork and background checks before a sale or trade may be finalized. However, private citizens are not under the same constraints: firearms are property, and Americans have always had the right to dispose of their own posessions as they see fit. If you are inclined to sell your old shotgun, lawn mower, refrigerator, et al to another individual, and the terms of sale (price, warranty, etc.) can be agreed upon, a transaction is completed. Naturally, interested buyers and sellers gravitate to gun shows: that's where other buyers and sellers congregate -- it's a concentrated market. Some sales are made to dealers; others to individuals. It's not illegal, unless state or local ordinances prohibit such transactions. The real downside is that one doesn't always know to whom one is selling, or who might be offerring that "great deal"; it might be a criminal. Here lies the crux of the problem: in most gun control legislation, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Honest citizens conform to legislated procedures, while lawbreakers continue their normal activities... breaking laws. Of course, licensed dealers would LOVE to see the "loophole" closed; then all firearms transactions would have to go through them. With a nice little piece of change going into their pockets every time they put pencil to paper. To spin the concept a little, what if it were illegal for you to put a price tag on the old family sedan and park it out front in hopes of having some prospective customer fall in lust with your outmoded machine? What if you could only sell it to "Honest Al", or another of his ilk, at THEIR price, take it or leave it? I don't have the answers to all the problems which need to be worked out regarding this issue, among a host of others; smarter folks than I haven't come up with adequate solutions though, so I don't feel too overwhelmed with inadequacy! It's a pleasure to be able to have
a rational discussion of the issue with such an open-minded and interested individual as yourself, doc.
drbob: Please excuse me for the bad case of diarrhea of the keyboard I'm suffering from tonight, but there were a few things I wanted to address from your post of 12:30 this morning (Sunday AM):
1. If we were to compare the number of cases where citizens fired their weapons to successfully defend themselves to the number of cases where "the good guys" were killed or wounded by instances of unsafe gun handling, the number of unfortunate shootings might possibly outnumber the incidents where firearms were rightfully employed. I don't know; I don't have those statistics (and I'm not really a numbers kind of guy). HOWEVER, the number of cases where guns successfully were used to defend their owners absolutely must include those occasions where the gun was never fired, where the intimidation value of a loaded weapon in the hands of a determined gun owner saved the day without bloodshed. This scenario is the most overwhelmingly common, and when those figures are folded in with the statistics previously mentioned, (if they were available), the numbers would leave no room for the debate over the safety of private ownership. Remember, accidental shootings must, by definition, involve gunfire. Successful defense in no way demands that the gun be fired.
2. I do not subscribe to the "Indianapolis Star", so I can't make any references to statements made in their articles. However, let us agree that such "facts" as their reporter(s) gather have passed through that individual(s)' hands, as well as editors' and editorial board members' hands. Facts and intent therefore have possibly been manipulated -- for whatever reason-- by the time the articles arrive in readers' hands. Maybe so; maybe no.
3. You state that the NRA supports the "gun show loophole". I always put that in parentheses because it is a catch phrase (with ominous overtones) conjured up by the anti-gun, or pro-gun-control crowd to create a bogeyman on which to focus their emnity. There is no loophole. They refer only to the right of free men to dispose of their own property; a right which Americans have enjoyed since they threw off the yoke of the English monarchy. The NRA adamantly opposes further restrictions on legal gun ownership by law abiding citizens. If any legislator wishes to fight crime by attacking the perpetrators of said crimes, rather than the implements utilized by those miscreants, he or she will find no stauncher ally than the NRA. Some have done so, with my thanks. And thank you for allowing me to filibuster on your blog. :wink: Pa
Hello Ma and Pa... Thanks for your comment and the information. I learned some things by reading your post. I am grateful for that.
At one point in your discussion, you suggested that I would not like it if I was unable to sell to old family jalopy when I wanted and to whom I wished. That is, of course, an accurate observation, but my jalopy is was not manufactured specifically to be a deadly weapon. Although, many people do die from the misuse of automobiles, they are not designed specifically to kill people. Furthermore, I might purchase and automobile whenever I want, but before I can use it legally, I must demonstrate both my knowledge of the laws related to it use and the skill to use it safely. This is not true for the gun purchaser.
In any even, I want to say that I too appreciate your objectivity. It is a touchy subject. I learn from a good discussion, even when I don't agree with everything my partner says.
Good morning, doc. I have really enjoyed our discussion on gun ownership, as well. Wish we could look back thru the mists of time to understand the thinking of that crafty soul who initially realized that that smelly black powder concocted by the Chinese could be used to propel a hard object down some type of tubing, and that projectile would strike an intended target with considerable impact. Was he thinking of its utility as a weapon, or possibly as a means of killing animals to feed his family? Maybe he was thinking of the drinks he might be able to win from his pals down at the local saloon, or whatever they called it! Regardless of his intent, that tinkerer's discovery has been used both as a weapon and an implement of sport and entertainment for over 400 years, now, and will continue to be used thusly until something more lethal and efficient comes along. I don't see myself in the market for a laser death ray, or a Star Trek phaser, though! :wink: But I'd sure enjoy the opportunity to take you out back and share a couple hours popping balloons or plinking tin cans (NOT bottles!) with you; it's a great way to waste a little time and reconnect with our ancestors. Regards, Pa
Quote from: drbob on April 28, 2009, 11:14:42 AM
Hello Ma and Pa... Thanks for your comment and the information. I learned some things by reading your post. I am grateful for that.
At one point in your discussion, you suggested that I would not like it if I was unable to sell to old family jalopy when I wanted and to whom I wished. That is, of course, an accurate observation, but my jalopy is was not manufactured specifically to be a deadly weapon. Although, many people do die from the misuse of automobiles, they are not designed specifically to kill people. Furthermore, I might purchase and automobile whenever I want, but before I can use it legally, I must demonstrate both my knowledge of the laws related to it use and the skill to use it safely. This is not true for the gun purchaser.
In any even, I want to say that I too appreciate your objectivity. It is a touchy subject. I learn from a good discussion, even when I don't agree with everything my partner says.
Hmm...
By extension, apply the same logic to a bow and arrow.
Or a spear (w/ or w/out the atlatl).
Knife?
A rock?
Big ol' thigh bone?