A TTAG reader writes:
My spouse has ended up in a unique position to meet with the President of the University of a private school in Texas (name withheld) regarding Campus Carry. The meeting is not an open debate; only a few select Faculty, Staff, and Vice Presidents will attend. We need help coming up with a clear and concise bullet point argument list for allowing campus carry. This will be an uphill battle as much of the Faculty and Staff are against it based on their feelings and other misconceptions about CHL holders. Thanks for any feedback!
Generally a very difficult or impossible proposition as the only people they will listen to and respect are those that think exactly the way they do. (Read: Circle Jerk)
Those that claim open mindedness (as most liberals claim) are a exponential factor higher than those that actually are open minded.
Cut out a non-representational object out of wood. A rectangle of 1-by the size of a building brick. Appendix carry. At some point during the meeting…stand up and draw your board. Say a non-gun sound, “POINK POINK.”
Call campus police. “THIS IS A DRILL. THIS IS A DRILL. I NEED CAMPUS POLICE IN ROOM X IMMEDIATELY FOR AND ACTIVE SHOOTER. THIS IS A DRILL. THIS IS A DRILL. YOU WILL BE SCORED ON YOUR RESPONSE TIME.
Start your stopwatch. Ask everyone to wait, and to hold their breath (literally). See how long they can last, count the seconds. Have stats on duration time for all “mass shootings” they love to squeal about.
See everybody, how well a gun-free zone works? Now let’s talk reality.
I like this idea. Maybe use a 2×4 block of wood in a pocket. You really need too do this in a completely non threatening manner. Don’t even point, just pull it out and set it down, and have them call for security to come as a drill. Then go ponk every few seconds.
Actually, you could just use something you already have. Take a wallet or cell phone out of a backpack/purse/back pocket. Heck, you could mark the time/set a timer on the cell phone to ‘start the clock’ for the response.
Point out after the drill that based on the time, and the fact the private college now has established that response time to compare with the stats for how many people can die during the time from real world events–
Estimate the likelihood of being sued if an active shooter event happens; and the families/survivors knowing the campus denied carry while knowing the facts above.
This is actually a very good demonstration. I agree that you should do nothing that would give the crazies/antis reason to try to claim you were threatening them, so a block of wood and non-gun sounds are wise.
I would advise against any theatrics at all, if you want to do a demonstration, discuss it first, so everybody is calm, then maybe use a smartphone with a large visible timer that beeps every ten seconds or so, even though the average shooter may get off a round a second or so. Keep it on an intellectual level and very professional. No surprises!
Your time will have been better served enjoying a latte or other beverage of your choice. Estimate the time the meeting will take, and instead enjoy that time at your favorite, most picturesque local location. Or…go to the meeting,and at said meetings conclusion, poke oneself on the eye or similar, non-life threatening, self-inflicted assault. You’re welcome.
I think the ticket to selling this to a University is to make them feel as empowered as possible in making the decision and selecting the “qualified” candidates for campus carry.
Those who choose to carry will already be a self-selecting group–people who have gone through the necessary steps of obtaining a valid CCW permit.
The university could then establish whatever additional criteria it desires in order to feel like campus carry is limited to only the most select and appropriate candidates. Perhaps an annual mental evaluation with the College of Psychology. Maybe a shooting qualification for accuracy and speed under stress with the Campus Police? The University could also have strict policies in place for removing Campus Carry Permits for academic and behavioral infractions.
Those students, faculty and staff which complete the necessary steps will be the most well-prepared to respond immediately to an imminent threat on campus.
please tell me this is sarcasm.
It’s not.
To be very clear: I don’t support ANY of those criteria being applied to normal CCW holders. I personally think that the 2nd Amendment is the only “permit” anyone needs to keep and bear arms.
BUT the topic and question is how do you convince a University to allow concealed carry on campus. Like it or not, they have a right to restrict or ban the carry of firearms however they may choose.
If jumping through a few hoops is what it will take to get armed individuals on campus, in order to have even a chance at responding to the next spree killer, then so be it.
You realize those “hoops” aren’t going to be as grounded as you think. They’ll be trailing a 747 so as to keep it impossible to carry on the grounds.
I think you missed the part of their issue about NOT WANTING ANYONE TO HAVE A GUN.
1. Those with carry licenses are the most law-abiding demographic in the entire country, committing crime at rates lower than even law enforcement officers. (Come prepared with the Texas data; it is one of the two datasets, along with Florida, used to demonstrate the law-abiding nature of those with carry licenses.)
2. “No firearms” policies and signs will not deter criminals or others intent upon perpetrating violence. They merely disarm the law-abiding and render them defenseless.
3. On the other hand, the typical mass/spree shooter is deterred by the risk of armed resistance. Per John Lott (Crime Prevention Research Institute, More Guns, Less Crime), since 1950 all but two public mass shootings have happened in locations designated as “guns free”.
4. When seconds count, police are minutes away. Even a very good response time of 5 minutes gave the Umpqua Community College murderer enough time to kill 10 people and injure another 9 before police could engage and stop him.
These are all great and exactly what I was thinking. Good advice!
#1 is the best reason why CHL holders should be allowed to carry anywhere. We are simply the most law abiding large group of adult individuals in the U.S. As Chip said, provide the statistics of CHL holders vs. Cops.
For #2: give examples of all of the major recent mass shootings that have occurred, and where they have occurred at are gun free zones. Tell them that no sign or law prevented the bad person from bringing a firearm onto the supposed gun free zone.
Also make sure to point out other states that have had concealed carry on campus and their lack of issues with it in those locations.
“What exactly is stopping your students from bringing a gun to class now? If someone is unhinged enough that they think shooting up a classroom is an appropriate response to a bad grade, do you really think a no guns policy serves as a serious deterrent?”
Well, this is the best one by far. However, a more “seemingly” legitimate concern that might be brought up is accidents and accidental discharges.
In my conversations about UT campus carry, this is the last remaining point the other side is still trying to stand on and so far I haven’t found a short concise answer to it that I am happy with. I have plenty of answers to it, I just haven’t found a good sound bite answer to it yet.
UT-Austin is a research campus. Ask them if they are familiar with the academic research being done on campus by 20-somethings, and to what extent their campus actively monitors each lab for safety violations. Because at Austin you have research being done that uses highly toxic and/or flammable chemicals, biological agents, and radiation sources (there is actually an experimental reactor facility at UT-Austin), just to name a few of the potential hazards. The flippant answer is, “So if these people aren’t responsible enough to avoid a negligent discharge, why on earth are we allowing them in research laboratories to experiment with toxic chemicals, flammable and explosive materials, or radiation sources? If they aren’t responsible enough to handle a gun then they certainly can’t be expected to appropriately conduct experiments that could wipe out an entire lab if done improperly.” They can’t have it both ways …
By the way, if they think that this is hyperbole, point them here:
http://www.csb.gov/csb-releases-new-video-on-laboratory-safety-at-academic-institutions/
Law enforcement officers have more negligent discharges than licensed carriers. Does this private school eschew police presence due to the risk of negligent discharges by those officers?
How many negligent discharges have happened in schools that currently allow school carry. I have heard of maybe one? See if you can find statistics, but there’s got to be a way to spin it. This is essentially the tame version of “there will be blood in the streets!” and has not been born out in reality.
+1. Default answer to just about every argument against campus carry: Show me where X has, in fact, happened (where X is “increased accidental discharges,” “students with CHL’s shooting up a place,” etc.)
Ultimately this is the answer. I have never seen a closed campus with metal detectors and strip searches at the gate.
Stay positive. Be firm. Know your facts. Do not raise your voice or belittle the opposition. Do not quibble about terms (if they say “gun violence” or call a magazine a “clip,” let it go). Use intellectual jiu-jitsu: (“You say ‘if it saves one life.’ Well, people use personal guns to save 1 to 3 million lives a year.) Point out that you must be 21 to legally carry a gun (if that’s true). Point out the barriers to entry (cost and training) already in place. If they bring up the immaturity of young people, ask if they should be allowed to vote, serve, and have jobs. If they bring up alcohol, point out that it is already to drink and carry (if it is).
And when someone shouts at you because they’re frustrated by your logic, let everyone else see it.
Indeed the 21 years of age requirement in most places means we’re only talking about some seniors, grad students, faculty, staff, and older students hoping to start a second career or just out of the military.
Of that group, only the subset of these people on campus that have taken the steps to get their permit, including training requirements, classes, fees, background checks….. and the financial wherewithal to buy a firearm/ammo, not to mention the expense of renting a space at a range. Is it any wonder that CCP holders are more law-abiding on average than the police? (And we won’t even mention shooting accuracy as compared to the police.)
Will it be just the spouse? Or will he have an assistant?
In any event, a discreetly concealed airsoft pistol with prominent orange blaze should be part of the presentation. “Hi! I’m a disgruntled individual, possibly insane, who’s here to kill you. The gun laws on the books have not stopped me. The gun free zone signs out front have not stopped me. Now what do you do?”
If an assistant is present, they can stop the spouse using another discreetly carried airsoft pistol, If not, just go on with the lecture, the initial point having been made.
🙂
Are you nuts?
I don’t have the research at my fingertips, but you might start with the proven statistic that licensed carriers are less likely to commit a crime or have a negligent discharge than the average police officer.
Then a list of the spree killers or potential ones that have been stopped by legal carriers or armed security. sorry I don’t have the cites, but they’re out there.
The fact that all but two or three of these spree shootings has occurred in a posted “Gun free zone”. Merely changing the signs to state that lawful carry is allowed on campus will go along way in discouraging any potential shooter.
One point I’ve been making a lot lately to people is that in almost every instance where a spree killer has commenced shooting, the ONLY thing that has stopped them is either being shot by a carrier or a LEO, or the perceived threat of that happening prompting them to commit suicide. There have been one or two physically tackled and restrained as well I believe, but it’s rare. The five minutes or more it takes the LEOs to arrive is the kill zone.
Good luck from Oregon, 85 miles from UCC.
Starts with an open mind on both sides. Otherwise, it’s like convincing Chicken Little the sky’s not falling.
To be a concealed weapon permit holder you must submit to a very stringent background check.
CWP holders cannot have a history of violent crime.
CWP holders represent a segment of society that have chosen to be a pro active part of their health and welfare.
States, cities, and towns that have allowed CWP holders to carry have seen a reduction in violent crime.
Law enforcement officers are a reactionary force not preventative.
There is no pleading for your life when confronted with a violent criminal. If anything begging for mercy glorifies his or her anger.
None of us want more gun violence and none of us gets to choose when a mass shooting will happen. At least give law abiding citizens the choice to defend themselves and others around them.
Concealed means nobody else will see of know about the weapon a person may be carrying. The truth is we are all around CCW holders everyday.
Maybe some of those can be used.
How Do You Convince Academics to Support Campus Carry?
Mwahahahahahah! You’d have a better chance of converting ISIS to Judaism.
So…you’re saying there’s a chance?
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi becomes Sol Rabinowitz? I don’t think so.
There are plenty of academics that already do. They just are not found in the liberal arts portion of universities, so they actually have work to do rather than whine about non-existent problems.
Well, that makes life so much easier! We can’t win, so let’s not try. It’s so much easier to sit on our couch getting fat on potato chips and beer while getting angry at MSNBC. So much easier than to get out in the world and try to make a difference, to fight the good fight, even when the odds are against us.
Why is the pro-gun camp so full of defeatists?
(And yes, many of us “academics” ARE pro-gun and well-armed!)
Peter has part of an an excellent solution. Chip’s comment about CHL holders being the most law-abiding needs to lead the proposal.
The only thing I would add, is perhaps a swiftly developed campus course for those instructors. I mean, you have the whole faculty to create the lesson plan. There needs to be a short deadline to spur completion.That will give the nay-sayers a warm fuzzy and the proposal the best chance for success. Good luck!!
I am not optimistic that actual facts will have much effect on the professionally “open minded” [ read: hopelessly leftist lemming-brained] folks in academe. Still, among the other things suggested here, you might want to point to the actual, real-world experience of places that have had campus carry for years now.
All the facts, as we’ve seen on TTAG and in Lotts research, will make good back up data, but will not be convincing. The convicing needs to be on two levels – emotional, so that the school president will not be ostracised by his peers and will not feel as if he’s letting down his own life-long convictions. Secondly, there needs to be a personal benefit to the school president. A low-key pro gun policy may attract some parents due to the inherent safety of the campus (tying in with the fact that killings happen in advertised “gun free” zones), perhaps limiting liability in case of a shooting (preliminary data from an insurance company may help). Depending on the state and the general attitude in the area, perhaps bringing in ROTC students maybe financially beneficial for the school. No doubt, this is a challenge.
Try this:
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1
University offers to reimburse staff and faculty for one shooting lesson, and half the cost of a the CHL application and course.
Also point out that a far larger percentage of the staff and faculty will be eligible to apply for a CHL license than the student body due to age restrictions.
Also, point out that revoking the concealed carry ban for those with valid CHL does not affect the risk of a disgruntled student or crazed gun man bringing a firearm onto campus, nothing can prevent that. However, allowing licensed concealed carry does increase the odds someone will have the proper tools to oppose an illegally armed disgruntled student or crazed gunman.
In addition to the above usual and logical points to make I would bring to their attention that by the campus not following the law they are opening themselves to potentially expensive lawsuits. Particularly the kind the NRA would back.
Talking points right here:
http://www.tribtalk.org/2015/10/13/in-wake-of-oregon-tragedy-gun-control-activists-miss-the-point/
1. Lawful campus carry has proven to NOT be an issue in Utah for the last 120 years.
2. January 16, 2002, a school shooting was stopped by armed college students.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
3. August 1, 1966: armed citizens and LEOs return fire at the University of Texas school shooter. Virtually all of the killing took place before armed citizens began shooting at him. He was eventually shot and killed by Officer Houston McCoy, who was accompanied by two other officers and a 40 year old citizen in storming the tower and ending the massacre.
1. CCW holders are more law-abiding than the general public, and even more so than the police that so many can allegedly count on.
2. CCW holders have to be 21 years old, have no felonies or other disqualifying criminal or mental health records, and pass a state-mandated safety course. They are already vetted by the police.
3. CCW holders have proven themselves perfectly capable of stopping mass shootings if and when they are actually in a position to do so. This is very important to note, because on at least a dozen occasions, armed citizens have stepped in to stop madmen and even assist police officers. Good guys (and gals) with guns are not a myth, contrary to what the neo-liberal media and their lapdogs in academia desperately want us to believe.
[ http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/ ] [ http://deadlinelive.info/2012/08/07/armed-citizen-in-tx-stops-shooting-spree-and-saves-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/ ] [ http://bearingarms.com/armed-citizen-saves-officer-attack-oklahoma-city/ ]
4. So-called “Gun-Free” Zones clearly don’t work, as evidenced by the propensity for spree killers to chose them. Only two out of all the mass shootings in the last half-century have happened outside these areas. There is nothing to physically hinder anyone from carrying a gun into any so-called “Gun-Free” Zone unless and until there are physical barriers like metal detectors and armed security in place — sings don’t count, never have, and never will. Signs don’t ave lives, accurate return fire does.
5. The police do not have and have never had any moral or legal obligation to provide individual protection to citizens, with court precedent going as far back as 1855, and decided in the Supreme Court as recently as 2005 in Warren v. D.C. The average police response time, depending on whose figures you go by, sits at about 11 minutes. The UCC shooter in Oregon had finished his rampage well within that window, and committed suicide at the first sounds of the sirens. In areas like Detroit, the response time averages 45 minutes — if anyone even comes at all. In the more rural areas, where some still to this day don’t even have 9-1-1 service to begin with, that time is often measured in hours — again, if anyone even comes at all. To rely on police protection is a fool’s game where literally everyone loses except the next spree killer.
We have tried gun control for many decades. It clearly doesn’t work, can’t work, and will never work. It’s time to make a change: allow citizens to carry on campus — everywhere on campus.
You are incorrectly assuming (there’s that word again) that they care about listening to reason. The only reason they want is social conformity.
Yep. Their hatred of guns is as much about what guns represent as the guns themselves.
You aren’t dependent on their beloved Government for solutions to your problems or your personal safety. You think as an individual, not as a part of the collective. They really hate that.
For Public Universities… you won’t convince them. What can be done is pass legislation that removes funding for every day they violate state policy. Even then they’ll ignore it until they’re sued… See Florida Carry that sued UNF.
For the content of the post and not the headline… emphasize that it’s concealed and not open carry, age of 21+ that is a small percentage of the student body, and that carry permit holders are among the most law abiding.
How do you convince a bunch of lefty liberals to “allow” free speech? If they think it’s ok to limit free speech to a small obscure triangle patch of dirt and stifle it everywhere else then how can we even begin to discuss other liberties? These people don’t give a damn about liberty and freedom. They seek socialism and conformity.
So I guess the answer is, you don’t.
All of the comments above relate to the character of CCW holders, which has been demonstrated to be a cut above the rest of society as a whole and sworn officers in particular. That approach will gain no traction with “academics.”
They are afraid of guns, and it wouldn’t matter if Gandhi himself was the one carrying (although I do wonder how he could conceal a Glock 17 in that diaper thing he wore. Never mind — I don’t want to know).
You don’t bother trying to convince them. They either get with the program or they go away.
Well, what is their response plan for an “active shooter” scenario? Given that those who would participate in campus carry will be doing so for self-protection and possibly to protect others, what expectations does the University have for conduct of concealed-carriers?
The law is the law. Campus carry is coming. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all for the University to expect, for example, that guns will remain holstered and concealed (accidental printing notwithstanding) during normal school business. But if the unthinkable does happen, how can armed students and other concealed carriers act as part of the solution and avoid being part of the problem?
Maybe if you start them down that path you can encourage the University to feel empowered to set some guidelines that make the best of the situation instead of wringing their hands over all the negative what-ifs.
You’re going to have a hard, uphill slog in convincing academic and academic administrators of much that goes against their inbred and ingrained “conventional wisdom.”
See, the modern campus is a feminized environment, where much silliness and hysteria rules the day. For a great example, take the recent hysteria and resulting policies founded upon the non-existant “rape crisis” on college and university grounds. Increasing numbers of colleges and universities are perfectly happy to eject men from the campus and/or enrollment based upon a narrative that has no foundation in fact, statistics or anything else. All it takes now is some female student making a claim, and a young man is hauled into a star chamber.
Academics are perfectly happy to create kangaroo courts, run by social justice harridans, to comply with a “dear colleague” letter that isn’t even policy by the Department of Education – all because the lie that “one in five” women are raped in American colleges/universities in the four years they’re there. Never mind that the “one in five” myth was created by a bogus study, with a bogus survey of self-selecting respondents from a total of two schools. Never mind that rape is a felony in all 50 states already, and there are these people we call “police” who can come investigate rapes on a college campus, collect evidence (even against people’s wills – with the power of a warrant), arrest people, detain possible offenders until trial, then put said suspects on trial where there’s a little more on the line that merely losing one’s scholarship money and having to re-register at another school.
Nooooo…. all of that is moot. No, female academic administrators across the country now think that creating some whacky tribunal and merely kicking a rapist off campus (where he’s presumably free to go somewhere else and rape someone else) is an improvement over the criminal justice system we already have.
Even at the community college level, you find this sort of feminine mass hysteria is pervasive. Posters all over campus, decrying the “rape crisis” on a campus that has seen one (count ’em, one) reported rape in over five years. Many of the the female academics and staff think (honestly think and believe) that 20% of the young women on the campus are being raped before they graduate. They can hear the stat of “one in five years” directly from the chief of the college police, and there are women in the employ of the college who will still think that there’s a rapist lurking around every corner.
No matter how a man who knows numbers, stats, facts and law can try to frame this situation as absurd, the female academic administrative mind will not stop and think once said type of female goes to their “emotional place” inside their head. To be fair, they’ve got a cushy job, insulated from the real world, with highly generous pay and benefits for what little work they do: they know a good deal, and they’d like to keep the real world at bay for as long as they can pull it off.
Like an earlier commenter said, just point to Utah. we have had campus carry since forever. Im an engineering student at Utah State University, and I carry daily, and so do a lot of the people I know, including faculty and staff. This place is practically crawling with guns (at least the engineering department is) and we haven’t had a single problem (or school shooting).
SUE THEM for any malfeasance done on their campus due to gun-free zone. If gun-shop owners can be responsible for the use of the properly transacted legal product, you can break it off in them on legal fees, fines and incarceration for slinging other’s junk in the wind with their liberal bend-over-and-take-it attitudes.
We also allow people with CWP’s to carry in high schools, jr. high, and elementary schools. I personally know several of my high school teachers who carried on a daily basis, and the only incident we have ever had with that was last year when an elementy teacher ND’d the toilet she was sitting on.
We should be equating gun rights with woman’s health rights and gay rights. The war on guns is like the war on women. We are constantly reminded that Republicans shouldn’t be limiting a women’s right to an abortion even if it does ends a human life. Democrats shouldn’t be telling us what to do with our guns even if that means some people use guns to end a human life. The SCOTUS has ruled gay marriage is the law of the land and the lower courts have ruled that gays can’t be turned away from businesses. Why then can our government and businesses and colleges turn us away for carrying a gun, a natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected right?
There arguments that will convince them. Even if they were in an attempted mass shooting that got stopped by an armed citizen they would still oppose them.
You know what will convince them? Change the law so that posting a gun free zone makes them liable if there is a shooting. As I found out at my Minnesota carry class that I took at Gander Mountain in La Crosse, Wisconsin is the only state where this is the law. That’s why few places in the state post a legally binding warning.
+1000
Appeal to them on an academic basis. Quote some great minds on this topic. For example:
“Though defensive violence will always be ‘a sad necessity’ in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men.” – St. Augustine
Nah, they’ll just say “Well, we all say something we don’t mean once in a while”.
How dare you quote a Christian in the context of public education! Don’t you know about the “separation of church and state!?”
That’s actually a sanitized variant of what you’ll hear from an academic if you go around quoting someone with a “Saint” attached to their name these days.
That’s not as untrue as some may think. My last name is St.James.:)
It is difficult and sometimes impossible at most colleges for someone who is not a Democrat Party loyalist to have a long career in academia. Most people in academia are there because of their party affiliation. Democrat Party loyalist are 100% loyal to their party platform regardless what that party stands for, and you cannot change that. If the Democrat Party says that all puppies and kittens should be sent to the ovens, every loyalist will swear allegiance to that notion. We could try to get the Democrat Party to change their platform, but that is unlikely, since the 2nd amendment is an obstacle to their goal. Instead, we need to construct our own learning institutions that have an emphasis on truth, independent thought, data driven decision making, rugged individualism, blind justice, courage, charity, freedom, and all the other traits the Democrat Party has declared politically incorrect. This will give prospective students a choice between schools that sole purpose is indoctrination versus schools that offer a real education. This will also give students a choice between schools that truly value their safety versus schools that will deny them real safety in favor of a political platform that promises safety but delivers death.
I’d take this approach:
“First, let’s talk about who we’re NOT talking about. We’re NOT talking about the people who bring guns on campus to rob, rape, and otherwise break the law. Those people are here ALREADY, because they don’t pay attention to the campus no-guns policy. And nothing we do, short of building a wall around the campus and installing metal detectors at every entrance, is going to change that.”
“The people we ARE talking about are over 21, have gone through background checks, are trained in the safe use of firearms, and are CURRENTLY OBEYING the campus no-guns policy. Those are the ONLY people who will be affected by changing this policy.”
“Now, you may be personally uncomfortable with those people carrying guns on campus, and I can respect your discomfort. But objectively, the people we are talking about — those few CHL holders — are not the people you need to worry about. Statistically, CHL holders are LESS LIKELY to commit crimes THAN THE POLICE.”
“And in fact, there are many campuses that already allow CHL holders, both faculty, staff, and students, to carry on campus. [name some] So we already have real-world experience in allowing CHL holders to carry on campus, and it just doesn’t cause any problems.”
————–
Also, remember that you’re playing the “long game” here; your objective should be to plant the seed of doubt in the utility of their current no-guns policy without disrespecting their emotional dislike of guns or coming across as a radical whose opinions they can easily dismiss. If you’re successful in doing this, you may set the conditions for victory in the next battle, even if you lose this battle.
In academia they call it a thesis “defense.” They are adept at arguing from entrenched positions.
Your only hope is to flip it and make them make their argument.
The other hope is to address their real self-interest. Universities run on a money-flow from several directions. Help them understand how the wrong decision will impact their money flow.
How about you compare and contrast the qualifications and background checks (etc.) required for a police officer versus a concealed carrier, as it regards trustworthiness, background, firearms training, etc.
I’m sure it would be surprising to us all to see just how close those two are. (again, as it regards firearms, not as it regards all the other stuff a police officer has to train on and know.)
this is powerful because it pokes big holes in the typical statist argument about “how we have police for these things, why should we allow these “Cowboys” (i.e., CPL/CHP/CCW holders)?”
It’s hard to get antis to see the facts through their emotional haze of anti-gun, anti-Constitution hatred, but it might be helpful to point out that all these “mass” shootings have occurred in Gun Free Zones, and none really involved something spontaneously flipping out on an average day with a gun they were carrying legally. Each of these people were sociopaths who planned it ahead of time and followed a predetermined path.
I went to school on a campus that hod no prohibition regarding guns, and both myself and the professor I worked with carried every day. Campuses with legal carry are considerably safer than those that prohibit guns. Signs have zero effect on criminal actions.
1. There is nothing different today than yesterday. A person intent to commit a crime will do so no matter the law.
2. It is illogical to assert a lawful person will become a criminal.
3. Firearms exist in the world. In this so-called bad people will acquire and use them in a nefarious manner; reality.
4. It is a proven fact, you can easily source: A CC person has a greater responsibility to uphold a lawful behavior and consistently does so.
5. The greatest danger will be to an assailant.
6. The campus will not be so attractive as an easy mark, a safe zone to attack. Bring a seasoned and honest Psychiatrist into the discussion.
7. Educate people on how to scatter, take down a threat, charge them, don’t huddle in a corner and be easy to kill. Zig-zag, be a moving target. Educate on conflict resolution to help people become better adults. Understand rage, human behaviors.
8. Stop hiding from reality and sweeping reality under the rug as it only serves to endanger everyone.
9. Why would anyone choose to strengthen the power of an assailant by being unable to defend yourself or others?
10. Why would a faculty member feel as if someone wants to kill them? If this is the case there is a problem with this thinking, something is wrong. Is the member constantly finding students are angry with them? Why?
Point out that people are carrying concealed, all around them, every day. The only change proposed is that they will have to pull their heads out of the sand, or whatever.
You know, that was a great video, and I’m impressed it came out of GVSU, my old school. I really liked that part of Michigan.
If I missed this in the comments, why don’t you invite Nick and Robert to come and have an open discussion with them. They have the background and the data and the experience to support your interests. That would be an interesting follow up on the site.
I don’t have time to read several dozen comments. Excuse me if this has been said before.
You’re going to hear dozens of people talking about what could happen, what might happen, what will happen, how this will make something happen, etc. I call all of that the “what-if” arguments, and all of that is not supported by the facts.
WHY? Because just one fact trumps all their what-if arguments – None of those what-if scenarios that they’re talking about have actually happened, even though student carrying has been allowed on dozens of campuses around the country for several years now. None of those have actually happened. Since real life has shown that there is no problem, then there is no reason not to allow it.
And there is one very good reason to allow it – to allow your students the same rights they have off campus; the right to defend themselves from mass shootings and from hundreds of violent crimes against individuals.
The bottom line? There is no evidence that campus carry causes any problems, and strong evidence that it can prevent several types of crime on campus. No down side; and a strong up side.
1. Firearms ownership creates more responsible people “An armed society is a polite society” Robert A. Heinlein (Well known author)
2. Firearms carriers tend to drink less to none.
3. Ladies are able to protect themselves on campus. Lowers the assaults and sexual assault crimes.
Many schools have firearms teams, this leads to great discipline, concentration and character.
With the exception of the lone spree killers (mass killers no matter the weapon are spree killers they have no point or reason other than some vague reason of fame or the little man in my head said so) the majority of legal firearms owners are upstanding people that have no other wish for a firearm than target shooting, hunting or collecting firearms. Yet they ALL get the blame for the less than .1% of criminal use of a tool.
AAA or Ford does not get blamed for drunk drivers (they kill more than firearms) Craftsman Tools does not get blamed for deaths from tools (again more deaths than firearms). So why does the NRA, firearms manufactures or other firearms owners get blamed for illegal use of a firearm? Why do the attacks or deaths on college campuses (hazing, drugs, rapes, sexual assaults, alcohol or suicides) not get blamed on the Academics or the institution?
So Campus Carry would be a plus for any collage as to the Academic’s well you can lead an ass to water but they will still not go to the right (makes as much sense as most so called academics)
Lots of luck on your quest.
Yours in service
James Acerra
Excellent observations and suggestions on both strategy and tactics by pretty much everyone who has contributed so far. I find myself much reassured by the quality of the responses.
However, that does not ensure the probability of a positive outcome for the POTG. When engaging with Anti’s we must bear in mind that we are dealing with people who have one or more of the following qualities: 1/ malice (they actively work to undermine our ability to defend ourselves against predators), 2/ ignorance (they have failed to clearly think through the nature of their beliefs or choose instead to rely on emotion/faulty logic) and, 3/ apathy (they have either chosen not to formulate their own beliefs or have chosen to copy the beliefs of others).
My suggestion on how to engage with the academics/administrators? Turn the meeting into a dialectic (an exchange designed to discover the truth of a matter), and actively work to prevent it from turning into a debate (an exchange in which opposing arguments are presented on a topic). In a dialectic the speaker does not presume to know the truth or have a fixed position that they believe in, they are attempting to ascertain the truth. In a debate, the speaker has already established a position/belief on a topic and is attempting to defend their belief.
Why a dialectic? When you present yourself as a seeker of the truth it’s much easier to avoid being baited into an emotional or illogical response. The strongest response you have in your power is the word “Why?” Whenever the opposition presents an emotional or logically faulty argument (and trust me that most of these special academic snowflakes will be framing their part of the dialogue as a debate and not as a dialectic) you ask “Why?” (they believe their belief to be true) and then follow the trail of successive why’s to reach the opposition’s smallest and most granular belief. Once you’re at this stage you can easily determine the basis for their belief as one or more of the following: 1/ malice, 2/ ignorance or 3/ apathy.
The next step is to address the malice, the ignorance and the apathy. When you get tired of the repeated malice, ignorance and apathy on display; retire gracefully by turning to others at the gathering and asking them if they find the opposition’s beliefs to be true. Keep giving people opportunities to present their beliefs in a group setting. Keep giving them opportunities to reveal their malice, ignorance and apathy. Rinse, lather and repeat. If you have survived this far you will have revealed the willful idiocy of the anti’s in the gathering. This revelation alone will not win you any immediate prizes but will allow you to characterize the nature of the beliefs, the people who presented their beliefs and give you pointers on which of the three points listed above you can address.
As someone pointed out above, this is a long game we’re playing. Your spouse also has something to gain or lose in the academic environment. They should not present themselves as being entirely fixed in their beliefs. Sure, it may seem passive-aggressive to the rest of us; but we have to engage in a way that does not cause the engagement to degenerate into an emotional and illogical slangfest of epic proportions.
It’s always easier to start out soft and then to escalate than it is to start out aggressive and then to de-escalate.
My two bits (which is inflation-adjusted down to about a nickel and a dime by now).
Allowing CHL on campus has a psychological effect for potential mass murderer, because the potential mass murder does not know whether or not and how many people who are carrying on campus with CHL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Fort_Strategy.) The essence of the “Empty_Fort_Strategy” is to make the opponent (hence, in this case, potential mass murderer) wondering whether or not and how much force you have. I can see that the professors are probably concerned about what if CHL holders carrying a gun hinders teaching or posts a potential threat to them. First, it needs to be addressed to them that CHL holder is extremely law biding and will not post a threat what so ever (even a DWI can revoke CHL). Second, they don’t need to worry about CHL holders on campus, and just take it as no CHL holder on the campus(this will require a bit more responsibility on CHL holder on campus to be very discrete and have gun covered well). As long as potential mass murderer cannot confirm how many CHL holder on campus, then it greatly reduce his/her courage to harm people on campus. We know Gun-free-zone is not gonna stop mass murderer, if the professors are honest and rational, they will admit that too. Let them think in the other way around, as it will not be gun being every where on campus, posting threat, etc…, as they fantasize. But rather, not having the campus to be Gun-free-zone express a message and discourage potential mass murderer. The school can also decide specific extra requirement for CHL holder on campus. With that, there are CHL holders on campus for sure to bad guy, but it may not be a lot to raise people’s gun-phobia. There are some places that should be gun free on campus, such as laboratory(not computer lab), where gun can be a safety hazard, just like no smoking in the gas station. So students and faculty who are involved in these place on campus can only have their gun in car or a reinforced locker (school is not liable for stolen, etc…).
Myself and many other academics are more concerned with the lack of training (be honest here) that most CCW carriers have, especially those of college student age. Now if there was a special course that taught active shooter response, crowd density dynamics, etc., then the argument might hold water. But as it stands, many of those highly vocal supporters seem a little off kilter when it comes to serious discussion. Too much name calling. Not enough professional attitude given that any CCW response to a real situation will be very ugly no matter which way you slice it.
Given the number of states that issue carry licenses with no training requirements whatsoever, as well as the number of states that allow constitutional/unlicensed carry, compared to the number of states that include training requirements when issuing carry licenses, surely you have statistics to support your fears concerning licensed (or unlicensed) people carrying without demonstrating any particular training?
What do such courses have to do with an individual’s right to provide for his own means of self-defense? And where do such courses fit within shall not be infringed?
Again: surely you have statistics to support your claim that DGUs by licensed carriers are “very ugly”?
Chip Bennett’s question is a valid one.
My time in academia while completing my graduate degree, assisting in research and teaching classes was filled with literature reviews, peer reviewed journal articles and research findings to provide validation for assertions being made as theories or legitimate findings. There are numerous accounts daily published in the local media and compiled into monthly summaries of armed citizens saving lives, preventing abductions and carjackings and stopping crimes. These compilations always carry a citation of the original news report to validate them. Granted, some of these accounts involve injury to the armed citizen as well, but that’s hardly surprising in a shoot out, sometimes with multiple assailants. Nevertheless, the citizen exercised a Constitution and inalienable right to self defense.
Presumably you have citations of accounts where it got “very ugly?”
And my apologies for the multiple comments, but I would like to add one more thing.
I have many years in the military, law enforcement and corporate security. One of things I have done quite a bit of is provide training on responding to an active shooter, so I have to tell you that all the material from every credible source from local law enforcement ro DHS stresses a three step response:
1. Get out if you can.
2. Hide out somewhere if you can’t get out.
3. Take out the shooter if he finds you.
It’s this third step that is under discussion here. It is not always possible to get out or hide, so then what? Training for unarmed victims is to use whatever weapon you can find, and if nothing else try to overwhelm the shooter with numbers. I am open to your perspective, but in my opinion I would much prefer to be taking him out with a 250 grain hollow point bullet than a desk stapler or a pair of scissors.
This is going to be a challenge, as most “educators” are pretentious primadonnas, who surround themselves with sycophants. Free thought is not highly regarded in academia. You’ll have to appeal to their ego, so have them set themselves apart from the “average” educator, and lead the charge to recognize the need for students to be able to defend themselves, and in so doing, that person will achieve national recognition as a true leader. Maybe even garnering an award from the NEA! After appealing to their ego, I’d throw in the horror that a doomed student would feel, and how it could have all been avoided if just one was armed.
@AuperG
Very well put!
Question: “How Do You Convince Academics to Support Campus Carry?”
Answer: “(1) What is to prevent anyone from bringing guns on campus now and (2) how does it actively prevent shootings from happening? (3) Would this thing (that is supposedly stopping shootings now) be less effective with campus carry?”
School is for education and to deny the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as part of the academic requirement is hypocritical, unconstitutional and treasonous. Not to mention opening the door to the criminals that would do harm. Level the field and allow Freedom of choice to carry.
Thomas Jefferson’s letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787 have the last word: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government. No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS and take away their guns.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
Comments are closed.