This is nutty, but probably not importantly harmful.
What's the distinction you're making between "nutty," "harmful," and "importantly harmful"?
As for the top bumper sticker, the gun nuts have always been with us on the anti-surveillance-state thing - for longer than the moderate left has been, certainly.
Your a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, Liz?
2: It's nutty to think that having more concealed weapons on campus will actually be affirmatively useful in situations like the ones she's thinking about; on the other hand odds are they won't do all that much harm.
3: Eh. The 9-11 sticker doesn't endorse an actual conspiracy theory; you could read it as addressing the real questions of preparedness.
It's nutty to think that having more concealed weapons on campus will actually be affirmatively useful in situations like the ones she's thinking about; on the other hand odds are they won't do all that much harm.
It would have done a lot of harm here.
; on the other hand odds are they won't do all that much harm.
I don't get that at all. Guns, youth, and alcohol: a recipe for harmless fun!
As for the top bumper sticker, the gun nuts have always been with us on the anti-surveillance-state thing - for longer than the moderate left has been, certainly.
Still, it's nice to see that some of them aren't kowtowing now that the surveilling administration is Republican. (That hasn't penetrated to the broader pro-gun population, I think.)
I don't get that at all. Guns, youth, and alcohol: a recipe for harmless fun
This is pretty much a good Saturday night in rural America.
4,6: Under her proposal, you'd have to be 21 and have a concealed carry permit in order to have a weapon on campus. How old is your average undergrad?
It would be stupid to have lots of gun on campus (for the reasons 6 points out), and it's stupid to think that arming just those over 21 will lead to millions of Jack Bauers taking down shooters. It's a very dumb law. In terms of actual harm, however, it's probably pretty low.
on the other hand odds are they won't do all that much harm.
I simply don't get this at all. I'm fairly pragmatic about the government's ability to "control" guns in the United States in the way that firearms are controlled and regulated in the UK, but seriously, we don't have to make it any easier to get guns, carry guns, and kill people with them.
This is a hot topic around here. (Disclosure - I teach a concealed handgun class.)
A couple of facts:
1. People with concealed handgun permit s are people who have taken the time to learn and be trained with firearms.
2. Anyone can walk around with a loaded gun that is visible. You do not need a permit or any training.
3. Drugs are illegal on college campuses too, but that doesnt stop anything.
According to a friend who studies military history and tactics, if we want to do something to make ourselves feel more prepared that might actually be useful in the event of a shooting, we need to teach students to rush a gunman en masse. Doesn't work if you singly rush a gunman, but according to him, infantry training says that if you are unarmed and there is a gunman, you go for the gun.
He envisions this as 'Stop, Drop and Roll' but with a different slogan. 'Gun, Group, and Go!" ?
Under her proposal, you'd have to be 21 and have a concealed carry permit in order to have a weapon on campus. How old is your average undergrad?
I don't know about the average undergrad, but I was 22 when I graduated.
A better use of resources would be to increase the training requirements to get a concealed handgun and make some kind of regular re-training.
10: Just in that the actual number of guns on campus probably doesn't increase much, and that the people that would be permitted to carry would be trained and licensed. In other words, probably a negative percentage of college students. It's a band-aid manuever, worth opposing on stupidity grounds.
13: Did you also have a carry permit? The age thing eliminates about 50% of undergrads at most schools.
Part of the theory is this:
If I know that there are 5 police officers for the entire campus, then I know that I can use my gun to rob people on campus with impunity.
Are campuses attractive nuisances because the bad people know that there are not any guns on campus?
Hard to say. Certainly non-university areas immediately around universities tend to be targets, but IMX the campuses themselves tend to be pretty safe.
Are campuses attractive nuisances because the bad people know that there are not any guns on campus?
I don't think there's any evidence that 'bad people' are rationally selecting campuses as soft targets, and would be knocking over convenience stores otherwise. Campus shootings have been about lunatics with grudges, not rational evasion of retaliation for a crime that might have happened anywhere.
I don't know about the average undergrad, but I was 22 when I graduated.
I think college now averages between four and six years, so the range runs up to 24. I suspect more guns on campus means easier access to guns for even those who are not licensed. But fuck it: maybe it's supportable on "thin the herd" grounds.
Campus shootings have been about lunatics with grudges, not rational evasion of retaliation for a crime that might have happened anywhere.
Just like the only kids who get abducted are pretty, blonde white girls.
Campus shootings have been about lunatics with grudges
Yeah, like that dude in the Wendy's recently. 300 hundred million people in the country. Bound to be a few that aren't wired right.
Nah, it's not supportable largely because in the best case scenario, it does absolutely fuck-all to count as real protection in the case of another mass shooter (the motivation for the legislation) with little residual harm, and in the worst case scenario, we still have one mass shooting per year, but we have more kids committing suicide/shooting their girlfriends for breaking up with them/threatening a prof. Minor little tragedies that probably don't make the national news, but equal more dead undergrads.
Where is gswift. I am pretty sure that students in Utah can carry concealed on campus.
but we have more kids committing suicide/shooting their girlfriends for breaking up with them/threatening a prof.
This is where we're disagreeing. That's why it is supportable: fewer emos in total population.
Please remember that the concealed handgun process is partially a screening process.
You have an opportunity to train them. You run record checks.
They learn about when not to shoot.
It would be encouraging, but that's her target practice filing drawer.
For gun nuts of some varieties, the word "surveillance" connotes things that "we," for some common-sense value of "we," would deplore, like fantasies about one-world government, the Zionist Occupation Government, race war, etc., etc.
Choose your allies wisely.
I'm a senior in college, and I'm 22. Most people turn 21 during their junior years. I'm pretty sure relatively few students would start carrying because of this, since getting a concealed-carry permit is a AFAIK a long-ish process (not to mention that you need a pistol permit in some places.) Will, I'm pretty sure that the laws on open carry vary a lot by state, just like the other gun laws do.
I agree that the law probably won't make a huge amount of difference, but it seems like an OK idea. The prospect of allowing people to keep guns in dorms gives me hives--close quarters, drinking and drugs, general college-age idiocy and thin walls do not mix will with firearms--but allowing people with CCW permits to come onto campus with their guns doesn't seem like a terrible idea.
OT: Cala, has your sister had a chance to check her registration and stuff?
Choose your allies wisely.
Recognizing bits of common ground isn't blind endorsement. I just liked seeing the 'bring the troops home' sticker on a right-wing wacko's filing cabinet.
Where is gswift. I am pretty sure that students in Utah can carry concealed on campus.
Yep. And there's a bill pushing for permit holders to be able to do "open carry" as well. Old West style!
They learn about when not to shoot.
Also better aim, so fewer non-emo deaths.
Recognizing bits of common ground isn't blind endorsement.
If you were me and I were my father, this would be an opportunity for the traditional father-son discussion about mistaking the map for the territory.
26: As someone who has a department-wide reputation for getting the 'schizo' students, I'd rather they not have access to handguns because it's frightening enough when they insist they're the Ubermensch.
27: Indeed. But college students live in dorms. (Those who live off-campus can already have a gun, and most of them don't.) Dorms are not terribly well-secured. Nice, clean-cut, all-American concealed carry boy or girl probably has a roommate, shares a shower, has people over for a party, goes to the gym, and doesn't have complete control over the lock to their room.
I'm not worried about the clean-cut, all-American kid who has taken time to get certified and trained and screened. I'm worried that her roommate's depressed friend now has much easier access to a gun.
I'm pretty sure relatively few students would start carrying because of this, since getting a concealed-carry permit is a AFAIK a long-ish process (not to mention that you need a pistol permit in some places.)
And I think you usually need some proof of ties to the community or residence, depending on the state and the area.
35 You have students who think they're the ubermensch and they're not getting counselling? Gaaah!!!
I'd rather they not have access to handguns because it's frightening enough when they insist they're the Ubermensch.
It'll be OK as long as you have even numbers of such people, and can set them against each other.
27: But it's not just about screening a particular individual to see if they're too crazy to carry a gun. It's about the fact that the more people you have carrying guns, the more guns there are in the general population, and the more guns there are, the easier it is to get access to one, and the easier it becomes to circumvent the procedures that've been set up to screen out the crazies.
39: Aren't there already so many privately-owned firearms in the United States that every man, woman and child could own slightly less than 1.00x firearms>
Anyone can walk around with a loaded gun that is visible. You do not need a permit or any training.
I always forget this bit; she's talking about concealed firearms because you can *already* carry them slung round yer neck like Rambo.
Arguably, consistent Republicans should reject concealed carry; what, are you ASHAMED of your guns or something? Don't you want to demonstrate PRIDE in the Second Amendment? Wouldn't it be safer if THOSE PEOPLE could SEE you were armed to the teeth?
I always forget this bit; she's talking about concealed firearms because you can *already* carry them slung round yer neck like Rambo.
"Open carry" is a state by state thing, with not all states having it, some having it with restrictions, legal under state law but can be preempted by local law, etc.
41: consistent Republicans should reject concealed carry
Reagan passed an open-carry ban in California (IIRC because of the Black Panthers' propensity for carrying openly.) Mmmm, irony.
Again, open carry laws vary a whole lot by state, just like all the other gun laws (did you know that you need a permit to have a rifle in MA?).
So...how can you have no open carry and only conditional concealed carry? Do you have to "carry your gun in such a way that it's obvious you're packing but without actually having it on view"?
44: What do you mean by conditional concealed carry? As far as I know, there aren't any requirements about having to carry so "that it's obvious you're packing"--concealed is concealed.
40: But it's not like they're evenly distributed in every home. College campuses aren't a hotspot of gun ownership; upping the number of guns there is a bad idea, just as upping the number of guns anywhere is a bad idea.
Do you have to "carry your gun in such a way that it's obvious you're packing but without actually having it on view"?
More like, "open carry is legal, but only for people with a concealed carry permit", or "open carry is legal in some counties, but not others".
#41: Wouldn't it be safer if THOSE PEOPLE could SEE you were armed to the teeth?
Not necessarily. With concealed carry in effect, the bad guys can't be sure whether their targets are helpless vicitms-to-be or card-carrying NRA disciples. Even if you're unarmed, a crazed would-be shooter has to assume you might be packing. Thus, concealed carry has a deterrent effect even if no one actually takes advantage of it.
Campus shootings are fairly rare - so even if this plan works as intended, it won't actually stop that many murders. Following Sen. Johnson's logic, it would be much better to pursue a program of arming the inhabitants of, say, inner-city Baltimore, which has a much higher murder rate. Perhaps through subsidised handgun purchases?
Funny how they never want to arm the places that actually have gun violence. It's all about arming the suburbs with unlocked doors.
even if you're unarmed, a crazed would-be shooter has to assume you might be packing.
GB; you're assuming that the Republican mindset includes the notion of deterrence by strategic ambiguity. It's actually quite a subtle concept. After all, these guys believe that if anyone at all does anything bad or even just unwise or unfortunate, it's because they DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO BE EVIL. It's not three maniacs with a few kilos of bathtub explosive, it's Teh Eurabia. It's not a smackhead looking to fence a VCR for twenty quid before midnight, it's Teh Superpredators. So they won't spare ANYONE and the only answer is to shoot first.
Further, if you accept that they are crazy, then they won't care who's got a gun.
50: arming the inhabitants of, say, inner-city Baltimore, which has a much higher murder rate. Perhaps through subsidised handgun purchases?
What? Some of them have granite countertops. Why should we subsidize their gun purchases?
Following Sen. Johnson's logic, it would be much better to pursue a program of arming the inhabitants of, say, inner-city Baltimore, which has a much higher murder rate. Perhaps through subsidised handgun purchases?
This policy is actually being tried, in Baghdad.
a crazed would-be shooter has to assume
Relying on rational game theory behavior from "crazed would-be shooters" is not a comforting argument.
54: Yeah, but they don't have granite countertops. They deserve our help with gun purchases.
Funny how they never want to arm the places that actually have gun violence.
Actually, the gun nuts are loving the possibility of the Supremes affirming the 2nd in the Heller case.
Sure, but if you wanted to protect yourself from evil people in Calahometown, you could start by, say, locking your front door. Maybe if you're really paranoid, lock some of the windows, too.
But still, the argument's straight to 'the handgun protects the family.'
I'm generally sympathetic to responsible gun ownership, but the personal-safety-in-the-general-absence-of-regard-for-non-violent-safety-measures cracks me up.
Wandering into this thread in the middle, but Liz, I know gun nuts like these, and you wouldn't actually like them. These are the people I talk about in Kansas that make it politically unpredictable. They're "nice people" who teach high school or work at the video store and go fishing with their dogs on the weekend. They want the war over because they're absolute isolationists. They would ideally like to abolish government, not so that corporations could take over, a la regular libertarianism, but so that all individuals will be forced to live in small patriarchal clans in the woods. They have shooting galleries in their basements, and sometimes they have a real hoot of a laugh when the gun goes off and shoots up through the kitchen floor three inches from their wives. They keep handguns literally velcroed to the insides of their closets, "for when They come for me." They're not against higher education for anti-snobbery reasons; they hate educated people for ideological ones. We should all be fighting a fair fight against one another all the time, with guns and crossbows, in the woods. No brains allowed, just instincts.
I see bumper stickers like these and my first thought isn't "Oh, a friend!" It's "I wonder if she'd shoot me for fun."
Now I am picturing AWB as the most precious girl-child of a patriarchal clan in the woods.
According to a friend who studies military history and tactics, if we want to do something to make ourselves feel more prepared that might actually be useful in the event of a shooting, we need to teach students to rush a gunman en masse.
This makes absolute and total sense, but would not be featured in an action movie. Which is probably why it's too boring for anyone to notice.
Think about it, which would cause more deaths: uncontrolled crossfire as two or three armed kids engage in a firefight with a school shooter, or a crowd rush?
Yeah, 59 is true. There's this "A Country Boy Can Survive" Hank Williams Junior Junior The Tenth thing going on, where the ultimate currency is your ability to live off the land and shoot the Fuzzy Invader when he steps foot on your property.
I get pigeon-holed as a Liberal Yankee in about two seconds down here, and people love, in a friendly tone of voice, to inform me about how hardscrabble they are. (It has slightly insulting undertones, as though my grandparents were really wealthy and never had to boil a chicken with their bare hands. Which they never had to, but they could have had to, if they hadn't been really wealthy.)
(Seriously, people go out of their way to be like, "I bet Heebie's never been in a pick-up truck" and lord over me these fake-back-to-basics truisms.)
59, 62: People have a funny way of taking what power they can.
I'm generally sympathetic to responsible gun ownership, but the personal-safety-in-the-general-absence-of-regard-for-non-violent-safety-measures cracks me up.
No. That is important too. But, they let Lowe's and Home Depot stress those topics.
The overwhelming majority of people with guns are extremely safety conscious.
62: Yes that was part of my Texas experience as well (during the "Drive 70, Freeze a Yankee" days). And there really was part of it (for some of the folks) that was quite genuine; but then another big part was exemplified by the experience of finding out that "longnecks", which they were sure I would not be familiar with, were ... standard bottles of beer.
62: my mother spent her early childhood in a Stalinist slave labor camp in Siberia. Fuck your fake-"hardscrabble" background, immigrants always have you beat.
64: owning a handgun is itself not safety conscious, because it almost certainly increases the total amount of risk in your life without much if any corresponding safety benefit. But I understand that they are fun to play with.
"I bet Heebie's never been in a pick-up truck"
What's really weird is how I've started getting this shit from my own dad---my dad who owns a pick-up truck and raised me to fish and swim and gut animals for food and listen to country music. Now that I represent the effete east-coast vegetarian liberal to him, he uses almost every opportunity to ask me if I'm ashamed of riding in the truck with him, or going fishing with him, or having been raised Christian or whatever. I'm like, really, Dad? And he's actually personally quite afraid of guns, though he feels the need, as a man, to keep a shotgun in the house as a symbol of something. But it's his friends who have the shooting galleries and whatnot. He's scared of them, but admires their ideological commitment. They're aspirational figures to him, and he's ashamed of not being one of them.
My dad's big secret, around his friends, is that he cannot imagine shooting a deer. He thinks they're the most beautiful creatures in the world, and gifts from God. He won't even eat venison, but just claims it's "not good meat."
67: that sounds sad -- you make it sound like he's a gentle, thoughtful person who can't let himself relax into who he is. I wonder if there's some unconscious envy in his questioning of you, a feeling he might have been happier in a different culture himself.
Fuck your fake-"hardscrabble" background, immigrants always have you beat.
Amusingly, even our immigrant family stories are effete and Yankee: my great-grandparents in the Old Country were street-side math tutors.
68: Yeah, his dad was a really tough old dude, the genuinely fucked-up rural Southern American male, and he beat the shit out of my dad as often as possible, thought he was faggy for liking baseball instead of football, etc. So I'm pretty sure this is all old-school Daddy Issues stuff for him.
They keep handguns literally velcroed to the insides of their closets, "for when They come for me."
Surely that's only any good if you spend most of your time in the closet? As it were.
owning a handgun is itself not safety conscious, because it almost certainly increases the total amount of risk in your life without much if any corresponding safety benefit.
Obviously, this statement is filled with assumptions that are not necessarily correct.
What's the point of the internet if you can't spew a whole bunch of incorrect assumptions?
Still, in all seriousness, I'd be curious as to what the safety benefit of owning a handgun is. Is it really that common or safe to fight off a criminal with a handgun?
69: streetside math tutors? Like Herbert Kornfeld, who learned his mad accounting skillz On Da Street, and has been keepin' it real ever since?
What kills me about gun nuts is that if they were serious about "protecting their families" from real risks, as opposed to what they imagine the Bad People might do, they would all be driving around in Volvo stations wagons that are known for their impressive safety record. Car accidents, are, after all, a far bigger threat to the safety of one's family. But why you drive by the local gun range, what do you see in the parking lot? A bunch of F-150s with their crappy safety ratings and NRA stickers on the bumper.
75: Yeah, these guys aren't into "preventative care." They also tend not to lock the doors of their homes, because they should "have the right" to leave their houses open. Bloodlust much?
74: It's true. Great Gramma used to say, "I'm not a teacha, I just differentiate a lot."
74: You didn't hear that Herbert Kornfeld became the tragic victim of white-on-white violence? It was probably those punks in Accounts Payable.
Is it really that common or safe to fight off a criminal with a handgun?
This is discussed in the NAS study, specifically on pages 103 and 115
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=103
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=115
I used to live in Johnson's district. She's nuttier than squirrel crap, though that's not uncommon among Arizona state legislators. Example: despite a serious lack of foster parents available in the state, she successfully led the charge to ban gay couples to act as foster parents because of their inherently anti-family qualities. The issue of her own thrice-divorced status and the impact thereof on her children, strangely, never came up during the debate.
#55: Relying on rational game theory behavior from "crazed would-be shooters" is not a comforting argument.
There are many different kinds of crazy. You can think the voices in your head are telling you to kill, and yet at the same time be concerned for your own personal safety.
For example, in criminal law, you can be found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, despite your having taken a number of very logical and well-thought-out steps in the commission of the crime. The key is, did your craziness prevent you from realizing that you were about to do something morally wrong, and stopping yourself from doing it?