NPR program to examine CCW at colleges


PDA






michaelbane
April 20, 2007, 06:34 PM
On Monday, April 23, NPR's show Talk Of The Nation will have a discussion about allowing CCW on college campuses. The program airs at 2PM Eastern Time. They have a call-in portion! Check your local public radio station for details.

If you enjoyed reading about "NPR program to examine CCW at colleges" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Matt King
April 20, 2007, 06:44 PM
Sweet! I think I will call in.

hso
April 21, 2007, 02:20 AM
This is a great opportunity to present our position to a large group of undecided citizens. The same sort of guidance that has been handed out still applys to radio as it does in letters and email.

Prepare your question/comment ahead of time and write it down.

Make sure that it is well researched.

Make it brief and clear.

Avoid using gunny jargon.

KISS Keep It Super Simple. While the panel may have PhDs the majority of the audience doesn't and they're the ones we're trying to reach.

Use Bogie's "fellow traveler" approach. "As a member of the Democtratic Party..." or "As an independent voter..."

Be prepared for someone to ask, "Why do you want a XXX?", on the other end.

Should we work on a set of prepared questions or comments that we could select from ahead of time???

Thain
April 21, 2007, 10:25 AM
Pleae, avoid at all costs the gunnie cliches that will only hand us in the end:

"Better to be judge by twelve, then carried by six." :uhoh:

"Gun control means hitting your target." :scrutiny:

"Forget 9-1-1, I dial .375..." :rolleyes:

Matt King
April 21, 2007, 12:24 PM
Pleae, avoid at all costs the gunnie cliches that will only hand us in the end:

"Better to be judge by twelve, then carried by six."

"Gun control means hitting your target."

"Forget 9-1-1, I dial .375..."

Yes. Please. Whatever happens, we do not want to come off as ignorant, ranting right-wingers. That will win us no converts to our side. Try something along the lines of this:

Hello, as an Independent voter, with progressive economic principals, I don't think that gun control would have prevented this tragedy. In fact I can't help but wonder that if students and Professors were allowed to carry handguns with them, this might have been prevented . . . etc.

Something along the lines of that will be much more effective than ranting about your right to CCW, and how gun control is unconstitutional; Blah Blah Blah.

Keep It Super Simple.

TexasRifleman
April 21, 2007, 12:34 PM
The basic flaw in this whole thing is age. Most college students don't hit 21 til their junior or senior year and most states have a 21 minimum for CHL/CCW permits.

I'm all for it, but it's a limited audience at best. Still, it only takes one.

ClicStic
April 21, 2007, 01:40 PM
TexasRifleman wrote:

>The basic flaw in this whole thing is age. Most college students don't hit 21 til their junior >or senior year and most states have a 21 minimum for CHL/CCW permits.

I see efforts to extend CCW to "gun-free" zones as helpful to our cause for three reasons:

First, the potential presence of CCW holders in formerly gun-free zones can act as a curb to evil losers who want to ensure they have eternal notoriety by introducing a significant risk to their plans where none existed before.

Next, the potential presence of CCW holders undercuts the anti-gun crowd's persistant lie that guns make people irrational because CCW holders are among the most stable and law-abiding people around.

Third, under-21 students still benefit from elimination of anti-CCW policies and laws applied to campuses. Almost any college classroom you might enter has teachers and a significant sprinkling of older students who might be carrying concealed handguns.

I believe that campus shooters are just like home invaders and residential burglars in the sense that they do not attempt to accurately weigh the risk that their victims are armed and ready for them against any potential gain they perceive for themselves. Campus shooters are trying to make a name for themselves. Home invaders and burglars just want your money. Note the difference in rates of "hot" burglaries in the U.S. vs. Britain. The actual lifetime risk of a burglar being shot by a homeowner in the U.S. is fairly low ( I think - perhaps another THR'er can prove or disprove this thought ), but the rate of "hot" burglaries is much lower in the U.S.

American By Blood
April 21, 2007, 01:54 PM
As others have said, please avoid heated rhetoric, cliches, and gunny jargon.

If possible, the upper-middle class members of THR should call in. Though our working class members consistently make excellent contributions to the forum, the listenership of NPR consists largely of middle to upper-middle class urbanites who will likely respond better to ideas coming from speakers with accents that mark them as "People Like Us."

Changing the opinions of Joe and Jane NPR listener is a worthwhile, though uphill, battle. In the wake of the VTECH shooting the coverage on NPR's "The World" has mainly been outsourced to the BBC. Not surprisingly, the Beeb's correspondents have mentioned gun bans in just about every report and taken their efficacy for granted.

gcerbone
April 21, 2007, 03:52 PM
The basic flaw in this whole thing is age. Most college students don't hit 21 til their junior or senior year and most states have a 21 minimum for CHL/CCW permits.


True, but lots of schools have graduate programs with older students, and there is faculty, and even some older students, especially at state schools like VT.

Oh, and my favorite gunny rant:
"The second amendenment is the only carry permit I need."

Matt King
April 21, 2007, 04:01 PM
The second amendenment is the only carry permit I need."

This is exactly what will cause your average NPR listener to tune out.

hso
April 21, 2007, 07:11 PM
Faculty, staff, post doc students, grad students, returning adult students, former military students all are above the minimum CCW age. Many seniors are above minimum CCW age.

Remember that we're only talking about people with CCW permits. Folks that have passed the screenting and training to be approved by the state to carry a gun. Bringing up students that don't have permits is a red herring intended to distract from the real argument that adults that have been approved by the State should be allowed to carry their legal firearms anywhere they choose. Anything else is simple prejudicial fear that people that have undergone extraordinary screening for safe behavior (and proven over and over again to have fewer accidental or criminal firearms incidents) will act like irresponsible fools.

Also remember that we're not talking to the University community, but the larger voting community as a whole.

El Tejon
April 21, 2007, 07:33 PM
Texas, that 2d amendment argument works well with this NPR listener.:D As to your concern regarding under 21s, I see it as an application of Kirk's First Law of the Internet (i.e., the law in Texas is the law everywhere). 21 is not the carry age everywhere. Up here in Yankeeland we carry at 18 (well, legally carry at 18 off private property).

I'll see if I can call in. I carried at undergrad. I ran the range under the student Union. I carried firearms, including long guns, openly to the range, including eeevil assault weapons of death (e.g., an HK93). The only "run ins" I had with the police was the time the not-so-bright officer begged me to let him shot his deer slug gun in the range (yeah, I know, I was 20) and the BPD and IUPD cops who begged me to let them try my guns.

No one was endangered by my lawful exercise of my constitutional rights. I fail to see how today's undergrad students are somehow not as responsible or trustworthy as El Tejon.

Geno
April 21, 2007, 08:29 PM
Students' ages aside, professors are 21+, right?!

I agree...avoid the immature statements. Focus on facts if you call in. Do not focus on the "...kill the perp". Focus common sense and legal "...stop the attack..."

cpaspr
April 21, 2007, 09:03 PM
Slightly off topic, but this actually could be an actual response by some antis, so I'll go ahead and say it.

Yes, you were a responsible undergrad. Probably moreso than most. And those over 21 who have proven themselves more responsible in getting their concealed carry permits are also (generally) quite responsible.

However, I remember my college days, and there was way too much drinking by the underage students. Once they reached 21, when it was no big deal to drink, many of them eased up on the booze.

Letting potentially drunk or even slightly inebriated underage students [read: not thinking clearly] (many with surging hormones) have access to firearms while drinking is a recipe for potential disaster. All it takes is one idiot getting tossed from a party, for whatever reason, getting upset and coming back with a gun to reverse everything we're trying to get changed.

Matt King
April 21, 2007, 09:14 PM
Texas, that 2d amendment argument works well with this NPR listener.

As another NPR listener here, it works for me too. However I don't think that it would work with your average NPR listener.~ ;)

mkonops
April 21, 2007, 10:04 PM
I had a discussion about this subject with someone I consider to be an average npr listener last week. As expected they continually repeated two points over and over. They said that the teachers and students involved were too scared and confused to push a desk in front of the door, and if they couldn't even do that how could they expect to defend themselves with a firearm. They went on to say that the armed bystander would end up missing and killing someone else in the crossfire.

I'm sure you will all agree that these points are ridiculous, but we need to remember that most of these people listen to Kieth Olbermann and Al Franken on a daily basis and they only know how to repeat the talking points they have been brainwashed with.

K-Romulus
April 21, 2007, 10:35 PM
Another thing: expect to hear some version of the "if EVERYONE had a CCW then (insert horror here)" meme.

If you get on the show, counter that meme by mentioning that even in states that have shall-issue CCW most residents don't bother applying, and not everyone will apply if the law changes, so it's a fallacy that "everyone" will have a CCW - or that you are even advocating that "everyone" go out and get a CCW.

Point out, instead, that the ones that DO get the CCW tend to:

1) study up on the legal issues (re: knowing WHEN they can use the guns)
2) study up on the mental issues of a traumatic encounter (re: training to deal with HANDLING AND USING a gun in an encounter)
3) practice more often than many law enforcement officers are able to (re: PROFICIENCY if required to use a gun)

BayouTeche77
April 22, 2007, 12:37 AM
cpaspr,

I'll try to counter that one.

"While you have a valid point that guns and alcohol do not mix, about as well as alcohol and driving, I am not aware of any universities that currently sell alcohol on premises, except maybe during certain sporting events. Even at such an event, only those of legal drinking age are allowed to purchase alcohol.

The concern of underage individuals using an illegal, since they are under the legal carry age of 21, weapon to commit a crime, inherently illegal, while under the influence of alcohol, once again illegal for those under 21, is definitely a just concern, but the fact that this person has already broken three laws should show that another law, the prohibition of weapons on campus, would serve little to no purpose in controlling a determined individual from perpetrating a violent act on campus.

If your concern truly lies in the fact that an licensed concealled weapon carrier was to end up legally drunk, off campus, and use his legally concealed weapon in an unjustified violent act, the only response to this is that a bar is a mix of many people of varying age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc. Any of these individuals may perform such an act, wether a 55 year old man or a 21 year old woman. I understand your concern about the fact that many near campus bars are filled with young men desperately seeking the attention of the young women present, and hormones are raging at almost critical levels, but if one of these individuals had the maturity and responsibility to seek out and obtain a concealled carry permit, it would stand to reason that this individual would realize his/her responsibility to not drink when armed, or not carry when drinking.

I hope that this clarifies my logic for believing that the fact that colleges are known for the party atmosphere would be of little relevance in the argument of wether students should/should not be allowed to defend themselves in a classroom setting should the need to ever arise."

pictoblu
April 22, 2007, 01:30 AM
Thanks for the heads up, and the "talking points".

stevemis
April 22, 2007, 10:35 AM
Anyone calling in to this show should probably research and mention that Virginia allows open carry. If one can purchase (or possess) a handgun at 18, you can probably open carry at 18. I'm sure VT's 18+ population is over 99 percent.

Forgive my ignorance: I'm way over 18 and don't live in Virginia so I'm not up to speed on these regulations.

Steve

stellarpod
April 22, 2007, 11:56 AM
I listen to NPR regularly - "All Things Considered" in the evenings and "Morning Edition" in the morning. I find their news coverage to be head-and-shoulders better than anyone elses. It is their editorial that runs astray.

As stated previously, we must be level-headed and thoughtful in our dialog or it will turn into a train wreck in a hurry.

BTW - I find it interesting that, although most people won't argue that an 18-year old soldier is mature enough to carry an automatic weapon as well as perform his/her duty entrusted with multi-million dollar equipment, the thought of these 18-year olds having enough restraint to properly employ a concealed handgun is somehow concerning. Hmmm... Anyone else see the irony in this? :confused:

stellarpod

Matt King
April 22, 2007, 12:32 PM
BTW - I find it interesting that, although most people won't argue that an 18-year old soldier is mature enough to carry an automatic weapon as well as perform his/her duty entrusted with multi-million dollar equipment, the thought of these 18-year olds having enough restraint to properly employ a concealed handgun is somehow concerning. Hmmm... Anyone else see the irony in this?

Gun Control is full of irony. "Gun Free Zones" anyone?

armedandsafe
April 22, 2007, 03:07 PM
BTW - I find it interesting that, although most people won't argue that an 18-year old soldier is mature enough to carry an automatic weapon as well as perform his/her duty entrusted with multi-million dollar equipment, the thought of these 18-year olds having enough restraint to properly employ a concealed handgun is somehow concerning. Hmmm... Anyone else see the irony in this?

Those who feel this way will counter that the 18yo sprats will have older, wiser NCOs and Officers to control them at all times and civilians are not under that constant supervision. Whether this is a valid excuse for disarming all civilians is an argument in itself.

Pops

Danus ex
April 22, 2007, 03:28 PM
As a student who just might sometimes maybe possibly carry on campus despite the school policy, perhaps I should call in.

El Tejon
April 22, 2007, 03:37 PM
cpaspr, what makes you think that undergrad students who drink to excess do not have access to firearms right this minute? I live right across the river from a large university whose student body is filled with individuals raised around firearms. They have a good time over there, the last "gun incident" I know of was a murder in '96 where the murderer was completely sober.

I, like many undergrad students, had a good time my freshman and sophomore year. I had guns in my dorm room but never hurt myself or others, despite being kicked out a frat party over a girl (mistaken identity, I was wearing similar coats--broken finger and black eye, but I never went back and hurt anyone, I was happy to leave).

My junior and senior year I lived off campus and had something on the order of 3 dozen guns in my bedroom, plus the other guns I ordered for others on my FFL. After I came home from having a good time, the eeevil guns did not drive me to hurt anyone or myself.

We trust 18 to 20 year olds to carry handguns every day. I cannot fathom how university students are less trustworthy.

Shadan7
April 22, 2007, 03:53 PM
...comments and questions on the subject using their online form here:
http://www.npr.org/contact/totn.html

For some folks, it might be easier to send them a comment in advance.

7

Andrew Rothman
April 22, 2007, 05:20 PM
Here are some ideas for talking points:

http://www.madfi.org/post/postbulletin2.jpg

spocahp anar
April 22, 2007, 11:05 PM
Make sure to include this lingo: if someone was "properly trained" and permitted to CCW then......

Are there any statistics to compare range time and accuracy of LEO's v/s CCW holders.

metalmachine
April 22, 2007, 11:27 PM
Folks: Do call in but keep your point clear and short. For the most part it is a very (including my wife) highly educated crowd that has a liberal anti gun leaning at least in Cali.). Many have never been expossed to fire arms and just think they are evil. I can safely say many in KPFK audience are people that still don't believe that the exteremists in the "religion of peace" would like to kill you, me, and any inocent family member we may have, and don't understand there are just evil people out ther that will kill you. Again call in and keep it short and smart/simple. This is a great opportunity, lets not blow it.

Correia
April 23, 2007, 01:02 PM
The basic flaw in this whole thing is age. Most college students don't hit 21 til their junior or senior year and most states have a 21 minimum for CHL/CCW permits.

So, I'll take half the student body, all of the faculty, and staff, eligible to carry, rather than none.

michaelbane
April 23, 2007, 03:45 PM
They had an equal amount of pro and anti callers on. But the two university people they had as guests (one from Iowa and one from New York state) regurgitated the same rhetoric about how college students don't have the training to handle emergency situations.:barf:

jfh
April 23, 2007, 03:52 PM
This program was tightly edited, to say the least. I'll bet that not only the experts but also the call-ins were not only pre-screened, but pre-ordained / selected.

It represented a 'good,' rational discussion of the type that (non-) thinking NPR listeners want.

The undercurrent, of course, was in those two different cultural perspectives on how to live:

1. As a person of power, with privileges granted by employment, status, and under the control government regulation, and

2. As a person confronted with a lethal threat, and who is resolved to survive.

Nothing new, really--but who is Rebecca Roberts? Where was Neal Conan? (sp?)

Jim H.

jpk1md
April 23, 2007, 05:12 PM
A bunch of us called in recently to the Kojo show when Parker was announced and they selectively allowed folks on....the next day they gave Fenty an exclusive.

Your Tax Dollars at work to provide unbiased coverage

stellarpod
April 23, 2007, 06:07 PM
Frankly, I thought it was fairly well done. I expected the guest speakers to be typically academic and anti (and they were). But, the commentator was fairly objective. Also, the pro CCW callers generally came off as thoughtful, insightful and compelling. I believe it was as good as or better than we could have expected given the venue.

The student who claimed that he has a CCW and CHL and has to leave his gun in the car sounded very credible. The police officer from Ohio, although he wasn't as pro-civilian carry as I would have preferred, did take it straight to the Executive Director for the Board of Regents from Iowa for creating a terrible situation which leaves their officers unarmed. This clearly undermined the credibility of the Exec's argument, and frankly made his statement regarding "having weapons available at the president's discretion" sound ridiculous.

The ex-military woman sounded great and I believe came across very compelling as well. Even the gentleman who claimed to be a professor (who did not own a handgun) supported the right of a person who has been deemed capable by the State, to conceal-carry on campus like they would anywhere else. This is EXACTLY the kind of testimonial we need - non-shooters who nonetheless understand and support the argument of self-reliance in these situations.

All in all, I believe we got a credible cross-section of supporting players without a single perceived redneck in the mix. The opposition's debate was weak at best.

It could have been MUCH worse.

stellarpod

GEM
April 23, 2007, 06:20 PM
Sprry I missed this!

Some points:

It is not rare for schools to sell wine and beer to of age students in on campus pubs or restaurants

It is not the time to prattle about under 21s should carry - let's be pragmatic rather than absolutist

The emphasis should be on teachers and staff as responsible - again pragmatic - rather than stressing the armed student.

You need to make sure this applies to private schools. As I said elsewhere you have to break 'private property' old dinosaurs on this one. Otherwise, the State U. student drives over to Old Private U.

The Good
April 23, 2007, 06:36 PM
i havent had a single college class where everyone was under 21.
Even freshman year there were adults in my core classes.
I am 22 and still go to college and would certainly love to carry there.
Until then I guess i'll just keep fighting for the window seat

atek3
April 23, 2007, 06:42 PM
As I said elsewhere you have to break 'private property' old dinosaurs on this one

Speaking as an Old Dinosaur who's probably a good deal younger than you, I find it rather amusing that a gun forum poster doesn't understand the concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Your house is your castle, a business owners business is his castle, etc. etc.

Either you own your and have the ability to make rules governing it or you don't, I don't see what is so complicated. State schools are public property, of course CCW should be legal. But a private business (or school) is just that private.

If you don't like the rules, either work to change them via boycott, shop elsewhere, or break the rules and face the punishment if you're caught.

Don't go to the state legislature and demand that they override the judgement of the (misguided) people you disagree with.

And don't trot out the bullhocky of the "2nd amendment". The second amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms. But it doesn't protect my right to carry into your house without your permission... what is so hard about this issue!

atek3

PS Edited to add that I'm a College Student at a Private School with a dumb no-guns policy... that I respect. So if anything I have much more to lose than your average internet gun forum poster.

30 cal slob
April 23, 2007, 06:49 PM
atek3,

if you're in hangover ...

i didn't bother checking in my stuff with campus po. ever. as far as i was concerned NH was a free state and neither the Dean or the President of the college could tell me what to do with my stuff on non-College property (even if I was residing in a College-recognized organization).

when that bozo ed shanahan outlawed handguns on campus, i said f*ck it and slept with all my toys (pistols and EBR's) under my crib on webster ave for most of my four years there with nary a problem. they were locked up when not in use.

michaelbane
April 23, 2007, 06:59 PM
Here's my letter to Andrew Callisto, who is the interim Head of Public Safety at Syracuse, and was a guest on the program:

Dear Mr. Callisto,

I'm writing to take issue with your statement on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" that college students do not have the same extensive training as police officers to be able to handle emergencies.

The extensive training that police officers receive is necessary because their full time job is to intervene in situations, protect others and enforce the law. The only thing law-abiding citizens who carry weapons want is to have the ability to react in an emergency. It is not necessary for private citizens to have the same extensive training that police officers get in order to accomplish this.

Would you be opposed to people keeping fire extinguishers in their homes on the grounds that they did not graduate from the local fire academy?

Sincerely,
Michael L. Bane

If you missed the program, the audio of it should be posted on the NPR website this evening.

GEM
April 23, 2007, 07:53 PM
If your private property is your castle, then when a random shooter shows up at your castle - have the knights of the round table save your butt, not the police. Have PRIVATE security.

If you open your castle to the public for business, you give up some castle rights. You can't discriminate against folks on the basis of race and religion. If you think you can because you are a private property dinosaur, then I really don't respect you and think your rant on private property is more deeply flawed.

If you open for business, you have no right to deny others the right to protect themselves.

Thus, I understand the issue better than some dinosaur. If your castle is on fire, don't have part of my taxes put it out. Don't be a hypocrit. You want public help and then you deny the public their right to defend themselves when you opened yourself for business.

woo18
April 23, 2007, 08:23 PM
The last caller to call in indicated that he would feel more comfortable if his son (a college student at Iowa State) were allowed to carry a gun. He then rationalized that though the campus cops receive training in all sorts of exotic weaponry, it did no good to the students killed in Virginia Tech. The Chief security person on the show had no response. He basically said that it is a very emotional time right now, and we need to act with logic and reason. I agree, and the caller is right. It is also funny to note that if callers were calling in to say that all guns need to be banned, and that campus security should be issued more exotic weapons, he would not have the same response. He would probably agree with that.

Most of the victims died when the police were already on scene. The police have been trained in super-combat skills, but in the end. Those skills did no good.

I will agree that there is the potential for accidental shootings and the like. However, those can be prevented. Just require the training in order to obtain a CCW and allow CCW holders to carry on campus. That simple.

The guest on the show also talked about an armed civilian being mistaken for the shooter. I don't see that as a problem, just identify yourself to approaching LE, just as any other plain clothed officer would do.

With the advent of "Shall Issue" many individuals have applied and received CCW permits. I don't see an increase in gun crime, nor do I see CCW permit holders committing gun crimes (for the most part).

crebralfix
April 23, 2007, 11:03 PM
Well, gee...if you're going to die, I guess it's better to do so cowering under a desk. 'Victim status' is assured. This is the morally superior position and validates the power of the State.

Coronach
April 24, 2007, 12:01 AM
Please remember, this is the Activism forum. Posts are supposed to address ways to advance RKBA through action. Posts that are the functional equivalent of "+1" or the rehash of some Gunnie/RKBA/Libertarian rant are best placed in L&P.

Actually, they're not particularly useful there, either. But at least that is a choir that likes to be preached at. Here we're discussing how to reach the congregation.

Mike ;)

atek3
April 24, 2007, 12:02 AM
If your private property is your castle, then when a random shooter shows up at your castle - have the knights of the round table save your butt, not the police. Have PRIVATE security.

Under the GEM system of private property management what level of private security would be required for a business to set rules regarding weapon possession on their property? Or are you simply saying that businesses can not make rules regarding weapons on their property. If I lose business because some chest thumper from arfcom carries an AR-15 slung on my property can I ban rifles? Oh, I get it, I can regulate open carry, but not concealed carry. If I'm a swimming pool owner, can I ban pistols from the deck of the pool?

If you open your castle to the public for business, you give up some castle rights. You can't discriminate against folks on the basis of race and religion.

Nonsense, a) a private school is not a "public accommodation" and thus required to let anyone and everyone on their property b) Comparing racial discrimination to setting limitations on the level of ordinance carried on to your property is really a BS argument. If I rent out a spare bedroom can I or can I not decide who carries what on my property? What if I rent out two rooms... you see where I'm going with this one?


If you think you can because you are a private property dinosaur, then I really don't respect you and think your rant on private property is more deeply flawed.

If you think carrying a gun is the same being black or jewish, it's just something you "are" I think you need understand that "gun" rights are just a subset of property rights. You can't have the former without the latter.


If you open for business, you have no right to deny others the right to protect themselves.


NONSENSE! Suppose I operate a secured Vault. I have metal detectors, bomb sniffing dogs, and 4 armed guards per customer. I better have the ability to control who enters my property and what they carry. If you really feel that your "rights" as some person that managed to scrawl his name on some government piece of paper transend my rights as property owner please go back and re-read Locke, Black, Jefferson, and Blackstone.

Now on the other hand, if we're talking about a supermarket, with no armed guards, and no metal detectors, a "no-guns" policy is simply stupid posturing, and should be dealt with using boycotts, letters to management, and public relations.

Thus, I understand the issue better than some dinosaur.

Thus, you have the ability to argue on the internet, which makes you qualified for...

If your castle is on fire, don't have part of my taxes put it out. Don't be a hypocrit. You want public help and then you deny the public their right to defend themselves when you opened yourself for business.

So what you're arguing is that as long as we pay taxes to provide for government services, it's the government that should decide how any business can use its property. I pay taxes for the government to defend me and my property. I also say that I have the right to decide who carries what on my property. I don't understand why some "gun rights" advocates find this a major contradiction.

If letting the public onto my property destroys my property rights in the eyes of other gun owners, more than the second amendment is in jeopardy in the US.

atek3

atek3
April 24, 2007, 12:12 AM
sorry coronach, you hit the submit button before me :)

michaelbane
April 24, 2007, 03:00 PM
NPR's website has a blog to follow up on yesterday's show. The responses are heavily weighted against CCW. If you have the time, please surf on over to the following link and make your opinion known.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2007/04/target_guns.html#commentSection

jfh
April 24, 2007, 03:21 PM
Actually, Michael, if one considers the stereotypical NPR audience, the profile of responses is fairly 'balanced'--and much more so than it would have been five or ten years ago.

It is obvious that NPR is running a tightly-edited operation, from the show on down to the blog commentary. Now, if they were just located in the MW instead of on the EC, we might have a less-irrational perspective.

I haven't tried another post; I assume it will not be put up.

Jim H.

El Tejon
April 24, 2007, 03:27 PM
Does anyone have a link to the program? I cannot find it.:(

jfh
April 24, 2007, 03:42 PM
1. to the TOTN Blog: http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/index.html

and 2. to the comments themselves: http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2007/04/target_guns.html#commentSection

scroll to the bottom to get to the submission form.

Jim H.

El Tejon
April 25, 2007, 12:41 PM
jfh, thank you very much!

wqbang
April 25, 2007, 01:17 PM
I don't listen to most of their other programs, but I often listen to NPR news in the morning. I have found that not only is it fairly balanced, but it is absolutely non-sensational. VERY refreshing compared to FOX, CNN, etc. I have heard more positive stories about happenings in Iraq on NPR news than all of the other outlets combined. One of the things I like the most is that they usually dedicate more than the typical 25 seconds that all other outlets give to a story. A 2-3 minute spot is far more informative than a 15 second soundbite.

Now their other programs.... YMMV. Quite leftist IMHO.

I do like Car Talk though!

If you enjoyed reading about "NPR program to examine CCW at colleges" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!