Wednesday, February 20th, 2008...9:13 am
Guns Don’t Kill People; But Untrained People Who Carry Guns Can
As someone who comes from a family of gun owners, I suppose I should weigh in on the latest “Guns in inappropriate places” bill. In the past, such bills would have, for example, mandated that bar and restaurant owners would have to allow people to carry guns in their establishments. Meaning that the right of a property owner to keep his or her property secure in the way they saw fit was trumped by the rights of some żłób whose own inadequacies lead him to carry a firearm everywhere.
The latest incarnation of this bill is Karen Johnson’s that would mandate that universities and colleges would have to allow guns on their campuses. This has caused howls from law enforcement, you know, the guys that would have to clean up after whatever mess this would cause. What do they know, anyway?
I’m wondering why Johnson’s bill is so narrow in its application. What about students at high schools? Elementary school students? Clients at daycare centers? Obviously, she is not as much of a Second Amendment die hard as she allows her supporters to think.
For those who argue that this will make campuses safer, I’d point to this interesting tidbit in Tuesday’s Star about a Customs and Border Protection agent whose gun accidently discharged and wounded a contract worker. Think about that for a minute: there was a guy who was trained, competent and has to get tested to keep his badge, and there was still a problem. Johnson and company are arguing that it would be safe having a Walther PPK in the backpack of a hungover undeclared sophmore.
17 Comments
February 20th, 2008 at 9:20 am
C’mon Karen. Let’s stop screwing around.
This is Arizona, dammit.
Let’s pass a law requiring all God-fearing citizens to pack heat.
If ya ain’t packing, ya ain’t God-fearin’ and you deserve what ya’ll will get….a bullet where the sun don’t shine.
That’ll straighten out this-here state, and keep it in the red column!
February 20th, 2008 at 10:08 am
As a retired high school teacher, the thought of guns in the school, whether in students’ hands (though they would have to be over 21, which would only include those on the 7 year plan) or teachers’ hands sends a cold chill up my spine. Thirty-plus years of working with teachers, including gun owners, and understanding the constant distractions every teacher deals with on a minute-by-minute basis, I see guns in teachers’ hands to be a recipe for disaster. A student could get ahold of the gun, a teacher could use it at an inappropriate moment. The scenarios for tragedy are almost endless, far greater than the possibility that a teacher with a gun will be in exactly the right place at exactly the right moment when a student wields a gun.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Paula Aboud seems to have changed her stance on this position. She first came out in favor of allowing teachers to carry guns. I let it be known that I wanted her out of office, and voiced that opinion to two other area Legislators (including RRR’s insider). I e-mailed her asking her to explain her position.
No Reply, No Reply at All.
She now opposes the bill, after a hearing. (see Blog for Arizona: Aboud says no to Guns in Schools.
I still think she needs to go. Her initial stance is inexcusable.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
And then there is this classic example:
gun safety class
February 20th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Again, pointless legislation to satisfy gun lobbyists. There is no rational policy reason for this law change that is pragmatic. The police at UA, NAU, and ASU do not support this legislation, nor do the universities.
The thought that there is a deterrent effect on school shootings if people know others are armed is bunk…there is no proof whatsoever and remember that those who typically do this “off” themselves. To think that a person could draw a weapon in a lecture hall and gun down a suspect without hitting others or accidentally shooting an officer in plain clothes scares me too.
Finally, I hate to say it this way, but if a bar owner can restrict guns from her bar, a homeowner can restrict guns from their home, why can’t we let a place like a school or university choose to do the same?
February 20th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I’ve got to disagree with you on this one.
First of all, it’s my understanding that only people who have a CCW permit will be allowed to have a gun. So the ‘lack of training’ doesn’t apply here. If you are dissatisfied with the amount of training required to get a CCW permit then change the requirements to get one, but it’s not like the bill gives anyone carte blanche to scurry around with an AK-47.
As to young people being responsible with guns, consider the military. They are the same age as college students. But they don’t go off half-cocked (forgive the pun) and start shooting their guns off everywhere. They get hangovers sometimes too but they know how to stow their weapons. Are you saying that young people in the military are more responsible than young people in college?
Further, it is a fact that of less than 200 division 1 colleges we’ve seen mass shooting (at least three murders) at five of them since 1991: The University of Iowa (1991), San Diego State (1996), the University of Arizona College of Nursing (2002– remember that?), Virginia Tech (2007) and now NIU. So the odds that within the next generation any given college will experience something like this is about 1 in 40. This is more than the odds of a major fire killing the same number of people in an institution (but we wouldn’t think of sending people to colleges that didn’t provide fire escapes, fire extinguishers, fire alarms, etc.)
Here is the best argument in favor of Johnson’s bill though: After Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University developed a plan to deal with something like that, and it worked very well. Within three minutes, police were on the scene. The campus was in lockdown and messages were disseminated over campus computers. A model of efficiency. But it didn’t make any difference– Kaczmierczek finished his rampage in less than two minutes.
Krajmajales:
The thought that there is a deterrent effect on school shootings if people know others are armed is bunk…there is no proof whatsoever
Want proof? How many of these random gunfire events have there been in army barracks or police stations? Even if someone wants to ‘off’ themselves they want to do it on their own terms, not be gunned down like Matthew Murray was last month when he entered a church in Colorado practically bristling with guns, explosives and ammunition, and was shot by a member of the church who had volunteered as a security guard, thereby saving dozens of maybe even scores of lives.
As to your contention regarding bars and homeowners vs. Universities, there is a basic difference. A bar or a home is a private domain, and it isn’t up to the state to set up rules for whether the barowner or the homeowner allows weapons on the premises or not. But a University is a public entity, and as such it is within the purview of the state to regulate it as the state sees fit.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I’ve always been a liberal, but second amendment issues are where we are most likely to disagree.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I read a break down of the shooting that occured outside the Blair House with the attempt on President Truman’s life and it was a miracle that no one was killed.
While Eli has a good point about someone who shot a guy armed and carrying explosives-
There is nothing to give a guarantee that a person carrying a concealed weapon will have the presence of mind or even the ability to shoot back at a person who opens fire. The breakdown of the Truman scene had a good point about how officers were trained to handle shooting a suspect back then and how little help it was. How do we know that the CCW person is trained in handling street shooting? I may be mistaken in this but I do not think that the ability to handle street fighting is part of the CCW permit requirements.
Also once that second person opens fire, it increases the odds that an innocent bystander will be hurt. And this time by accident. It also prevents law enforcement from knowing who the bad guy is-they may shoot the guy being a hero unknowingly because he is armed with a gun and firing it.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Getting CCW just requires passing a class (open book test as I understand), shooting relatively straight, and passing a criminal background check. No psychological tests or checks.
a gun in a classroom even in the hands of someone with a CCW permit is just a disaster waiting to happen.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
On Monday I was at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for this bill. The Committee includes Sen. Johnson and one of my now personal favorites, Sen. Ron Gould who was wearing a fabulous tie with Republican elephants all over it and had a sticker on his laptop reading, “I love tax cuts.” It was also interesting to see many law enforcement agencies show up and speak in opposition to this bill. This will of course give Gov. Napolitano even more of a reason to veto the bill when it lands on her desk (and I think it will).
I for one would not be comfortable with anyone having a gun on a campus I was attending even if they had a CCW. The main thing I got out of Monday’s hearing was that there are too many “what ifs” to justify making this law. Do I have the end all answer to stopping school shootings? Of course not, and no one else does either. I do know that more guns does not equal more safety.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Appleblossom,
Actually, two people were killed during the assassination attempt on Truman: Griselio Torresola, one of the two assassins, and secret service agent Leslie Coffelt, who died in the line of duty and killed Torresola even though he was himself mortally wounded at the time. The person who was least able to handle himself in a street fight turned out to be Oscar Collazo, whose weapon jammed and in the end he only fired one shot that hit anybody and then it was a minor flesh wound.
As far as someone shooting back, keep in mind that you are talking about a situation where someone is already intentionally and maliciously gunning people down. Even if we concede there is the possibility of the person returning fire accidentally getting someone else, the number of people who might be shot accidentally is tiny compared to the number who the original shooter may be trying to shoot intentionally.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
In fact, following up on my last thought, to not return fire at someone who is targetting people and murdering them because of a fear of accidentally catching someone in the crossfire while preventing more murders seems irrational.
While not drawing a moral equivalency here it is logically a little like the decision that was made not to bomb Auschwitz for fear of killing some of the prisoners, before they were scheduled to be killed. In retrospect that was a ridiculous decision, and so would be a decision to let a campus gunman go on shooting people in cold blood out of fear that you might shoot one by accident before he shot them on purpose.
February 21st, 2008 at 6:21 am
Eli,
I have never, not once, had a gun pointed at me on campus by some deranged madman in the midst of a shooting spree.
I have, however, had a gun pointed at me on campus by an inebriated student who did have a concealed carry permit.
In the long run I would, in my opinion, be in far more danger from the proposed solution than I would be from the problem.
February 21st, 2008 at 6:24 am
As a follow-up, I should note your military comparison breaks down quite badly, in that members of the military, particularly those who might handle guns on a day-in, day-out basis, are generally subject to a level of ongoing discipline and training far greater than that of your average college student.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:23 am
You are correct Eli, I was wrong that no one was killed. However, none of the innocent bystanders were shot either by accident or on purpose. The street was not empty and there were plenty of people who could have been killed.
I also never said that the person returning fire would not be hesitant, just that adding another person firing increases the odds of innocent bystanders being shot and possibly killed. And it also does not address how the police would know who is the actual bad guy and who is just someone returning fire to stop him or her.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:29 am
Eli,
Respectfully, I disagree. First, yes it is a public place but it is a place of learning and not all public places are the same. A National Park maybe, a courthouse…no friggin way…we restrict entry because there have been people threaten and kill judges, police, and and others.
Similarly, distressed, stressed, mentally ill young people have been known to walk in and kill people…it happened, as you know, at the U. of A.
The truth is also that there is very little we can do about it. The law protects these young people and their privacy, they are difficult to expell, and to bar from campus.
I don’t know, I would support a debate on campus with public input on whether we should allow guns at our campuses. Let US decide. Just like a bar owner, a private citizen, or a frankly what the legislature has done with courthouses.
Rights such as these have limitations. I think this one is reasonable.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I teach at a community college and will seriously consider resigning if this bill becomes law. On more than one occasion I have felt threatened by students who were not happy with the way I graded them. Yes you have to pass a background check to get a permit to carry, but you do not have to be rational.
Leave a Reply