Interesting editorial in school paper...

[Gamera]

See what I have to put up with around here?

Concealed carry not a right
MAY 16, 2009

While the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, it does not guarantee them the right to do so in secret. This contentious issue is present on many campuses across the nation and has found its way to [the school], but will it gain a foothold here? Our campus isn’t a traditional campus, in fact, it doesn’t exist at all. We have nearly 80 buildings throughout the [city] area. Once a student steps out of a building they’re back in [the city], where the right to carry a concealed weapon does exist.

A previous article elicited many responses from students over the right to carry concealed weapons. A recent poll elicited even more responses. Of the 48 respondents, 37 voted against carrying guns, nine voted for it, and two didn’t know. One response to the article stated that “I’d rather die in a shootout than a massacre.” Well, we’d rather not die at all, so check your gun at the door.

[The school] does not have a history of violent crime in its buildings, why then some students feel the need to carry a weapon into the classroom to feel safe eludes us. An easy response to that statement might be that other schools that have experienced crime didn’t have a history of violent crime either. And that is true, however, since then they haven’t been carrying guns, and violence hasn’t returned. It’s almost as if the ratio of students legally carrying guns to students illegally carrying guns doesn’t mean anything at all. And it doesn’t.

If a person chooses to go into a building to intentionally kill as many people as possible, chances are, they are completely unconcerned about whether or not they’ll be killed themselves. Concealed guns wouldn’t be a deterrent at that point.

Students who suspect that another student might be plotting to harm others or themselves have other avenues to reconcile the situation that do not involve arming themselves. You can call [security or the police].

How does one even begin to respond to someone who thinks that "while the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, it does not guarantee them the right to do so in secret." Ugh. I really don't mind when people are against concealed carry at colleges, but it's this type of (willfull?) ignorance that really irks me...

 

[eight433]

The only part I care to comment about is as follows

If a person chooses to go into a building to intentionally kill as many people as possible, chances are, they are completely unconcerned about whether or not they’ll be killed themselves. Concealed guns wouldn’t be a deterrent at that point.

Concealed weapons are NOT a deterrent. What they are, in this situation, is damage control, as harsh as that sounds. As mentioned, the shooter may not expect to get out of the situation alive, so why not oblige him early in his career, hopefully before any innocent casualty, but definitely before multiple innocent casualties!

I can not understand how a person can be so against the finest of upstanding citizens, without so much as an unpaid parking ticket on their record, being armed for personal protection.

[The school] does not have a history of violent crime in its buildings, why then some students feel the need to carry a weapon into the classroom to feel safe eludes us.

Because something has not yet happened, does not mean it will not happen.
Consequently, after it has already happened, it is much less likely to happen again at the same school. Lightning never strikes twice, right? Ok, that may be a little extreme, but I would be extremely surprised to see two separate school shootings in the same school.

 

[ClayInTX]

You run into this in almost every academic environment. Now not every school teacher or professor is a flaming liberal, but it seems that most are.

It comes down to the fact they were never really in the real world. I wish I could say this is original with me, but it isn’t, an older fellow, older in relation to me at the time, explained it very well.

His explanation:
School teachers deal with children and grew up going to school being taught by teachers working in a world of children who had also grown up in the same way. So when it comes to academicians we are dealing with a separate culture steeped in the thinking of children. Therefore, if we let ourselves be guided by the academic culture we are allowing ourselves to be ruled by what are essentially children.

Quote from the OP:
One response to the article stated that “I’d rather die in a shootout than a massacre.” Well, we’d rather not die at all, so check your gun at the door.* * *

The responder nailed it. The academic came back with a childlike retort.

They never get it. Never will.

 

[Art Eatman]

I'll let this run for a while, if folks will avoid a bunch of snark and discuss options for polite rebuttal letters to the editor...

 

[Gamera]

Yes, my intention with this thread (which I suppose I should have clarified) wasn't to simply start a bash-fest (though it is inviting when one writes an editorial so out-of-touch with logic), but to seriously pose the question: how does one counter an argument like this?

[The school] does not have a history of violent crime in its buildings, why then some students feel the need to carry a weapon into the classroom to feel safe eludes us.

Though most here would say, "of course you never expect it", the author is correct to a certain extent. By that I mean, the chances of me and my fellow students being targeted in a school shooting is incredibly slim. Very slim. I'm more likely to be involved in a car crash, yet I don't wear a helmet whenever I drive, you know?

I think a good way to counter this point would be to express that I, for example, would rather be allowed to carry on campus to defend against the "usual" types of violent crime (for example there have been two carjackings and one armed robbery around campus in the past week). The secondary purpose for being armed could be to stop a school massacre, in the unlikely event that it does happen.

Also, since I did post this in legal, how can we disprove this statement:

While the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, it does not guarantee them the right to do so in secret.

It seems like such an obvious illogical conclusion that I'm not sure how to refute it with actual law.

 

[cambeul41]

Once a student steps out of a building they’re back in [the city], where the right to carry a concealed weapon does exist.

From one point of view, the answer is, "If once I step out of the school building, I'm right back on a city street where I choose to exercise my rights. If I am forbidden to carry in the school and am given nowhere to store my gun, I am being forbidden to exercise my right to carry.

 

[legaleagle_45]

It seems like such an obvious illogical conclusion that I'm not sure how to refute it with actual law.

The way this is being addressed by people such as Gura is quite straightforward. The right to bear arms may be subject to regulating the manner in which firearms are carried, but the law can not deny the underlying right itself. A regulation which prohibits concealed carry is valid so long as the law does not prohibit open carry... and vice versa.

 

[Deanimator]

1. I don't think VA Tech had a history of violent crime in its buildings either. Certainly it didn't have a history of mass shootings.

2. Actually having armed persons around frequently IS a deterrent. The mass shooters are usually people who want to kill and maim as many unarmed victims as possible, THEN commit suicide or die at the hands of the police. A guy once passed up the Holocaust Museum because he knew they had armed guards.

These guys want to KILL more than they want to die. Otherwise, they'd just stay home and put the gun in their own mouths. Getting popped in the back by a bystander BEFORE they can shoot a dozen people doesn't conform to that program.

 

[Phatty]

While the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, it does not guarantee them the right to do so in secret.

It seems like such an obvious illogical conclusion that I'm not sure how to refute it with actual law.

The reason you are having a problem refuting that statement is because it accurately states the law.
The following quote from Heller signals that the SC would almost certainly hold that bans on concealed carry are permitted by the 2A:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.

You didn't mention whether the school was public or private. If it's private, without a doubt they have the right to prevent anyone from carrying a weapon onto their private property. Remember that the 2A only limits government action.

Well, we’d rather not die at all, so check your gun at the door.

This statement in the editorial illustrates the biggest logical fallacy in the whole piece. Put in simple terms, their theory is that "If guns are not allowed in the building, nobody will be shot by a gun in the building." The multiple killing sprees in "gun free zones" demonstrate that theory is false. A school policy is nothing more than words on a paper. The policy isn't going to tackle a would-be shooter as he walks into the school building carrying a firearm. The policy isn't going to jump in front of and block a bullet that has been shot in your direction.

 

[calaverasslim]

Unfortunatlly the attitude that prevailed in the college/university circles is an off shoot of the radical uprising at UC Berekley in the early '60. Anything anti-establishment was embraced by the the young folks.

I am not saying that all they stood for was wrong, but some things were. Then we had some idiots do some stupid things with firearms the was a swing vote into the anti-gun crowd.

The killing of Bobby Kennedy, the shooting by the SLA in PRK are just 2 examples.

The young people that embraced the radical left ideas became leaders in our nation and acadamics.

No wonder we have such anti-gun feelings.

 

[Mainsail]

While the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, it does not guarantee them the right to do so in secret. This contentious issue is present on many campuses across the nation and…

It would seem that concealed carry, being the current paradigm, is a concept the author does not favor. Would he prefer openly carried firearms? Somehow I don’t think so.

 

[ClayInTX]

The Second Amendment is one of the most clear of all ten in the Bill of Rights. The phrase “...shall not be infringed” means that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be controlled and not even come close to being controlled.

An example is a flag with a tasseled fringed. If you shall not even touch the fringe it definitely means you shall not get close to touching the flag.

The statement:
While the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, it does not guarantee them the right to do so in secret.

Argues against itself, seemingly arguing for open carry. Something I’m certain the quoted did not intend.

The entire editorial is rife with illogic. I don’t believe any rebuttal to the editor of this will have any effect on his thinking.

Even pointing out that almost every mass shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone has no effect on liberal opinion.

Which brings up something I have wondered about: Which mass shooting has occurred outside of a gun-free zone? Does anyone know, and can list it here?

What we are dealing with here, editorials and thinking such as these, is the grass-roots opponent of the Second Amendment. Right here is where it all begins and only when we can change the thinking here can we really declare the Second Amendment safe.

I’m at a loss, right now, of how to effectively fight it.

 

[James T Thomas]

perception

The pseudo argument that there is no history of crime, presumes that things will therefore remain so.

Times, conditions, people all change and even the current situations are in a state of flux.

A "signature statement" here on THR declares: " I have never been killed by a bear since carrying a 22 Magnum." Similar logic.

To presume "just because" is irrational.

Waiting until there is a history is irresponsible.

 

[Phatty]

Would he prefer openly carried firearms? Somehow I don’t think so.

Yeah, this is what a lot of the anti's fail to grasp. As I said above, it's probably constitutional to ban concealed carry. But, you can't ban carry altogether. So, if you outlaw concealed carry, you have to allow open carry. The anti's are so reviled by the sight of an openly-carried firearm in public that they would clamor to allow concealed carry when faced with the alternative.

 

[Phatty]

Which mass shooting has occurred outside of a gun-free zone? Does anyone know, and can list it here?

Wasn't the UT shooting in '66 outside of a gun-free zone? I'm basing that on the fact that it was 1966 and because of news reports about civilians returning fire with their own weapons.

 

[Deanimator]

Wasn't the UT shooting in '66 outside of a gun-free zone? I'm basing that on the fact that it was 1966 and because of news reports about civilians returning fire with their own weapons.

Doubtless, they would reply that the UT students shooting back was "escalating the violence" and therefor "wrong".

Remember, to most anti-gunners, you have a DUTY to be a victim if the alternative is YOU effectively using violence to defend yourself.

 

[TCB in TN]

Unfortunately we are talking about logic in an argument where logic is not going to sway their side.

 

[Gamera]

While the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, it does not guarantee them the right to do so in secret.

On this point, I think it's interesting to note that yes: the 2A does not say you can carry them secretly. But it doesn't say you can't carry them secretly.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

While the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, it does not guarantee them the right to do so in secret.

The Second Amendment does not impose conditions upon the free exercise thereof. It imposes no restriction upon where or how one might exercise the right. Just like the other nine.*

[The school] does not have a history of violent crime in its buildings, why then some students feel the need to carry a weapon into the classroom to feel safe eludes us.

“Has not happened” does not equal “cannot happen.” “Unlikely to happen” does not mean “will never happen.”

Consider this: If NOT having such history is sufficient ground for denying concealed carry, such a policy would not have prevented the mass slaughter at, say, Virginia Tech. If such history IS sufficient ground for allowing concealed carry, then shouldn't VT and other such scenes of violence now allow concealed carry?

One does not carry a weapon to a place “because crime has happened here,” but because “it can happen here.” Those who wait until after the fact to decide what to do are too late to do anything about it. Those who prepare beforehand are not. Put another way, because you have no history of crashing your car does not mean you shouldn't wear your seatbelt. Waiting until you're in the midst of a crash is too late to worry about buckling up.

An easy response to that statement might be that other schools that have experienced crime didn’t have a history of violent crime either. And that is true, however, since then they haven’t been carrying guns, and violence hasn’t returned.

Certainly. And just as before, should such violence return, loads of students will likely be murdered again.

It’s almost as if the ratio of students legally carrying guns to students illegally carrying guns doesn’t mean anything at all. And it doesn’t.

Certainly. Because, as far as I know, no mass shooting has taken place on armed campuses, but unarmed ones. And here, yes, I'm ignoring the presence of armed campus police because they have neither been targeted by such shooters, nor effective at stopping them. Why haven't armed campus police been effective at stopping active shooters? Because they have not been on scene when the shooting started. On campus, yes. On scene, no.

If a person chooses to go into a building to intentionally kill as many people as possible, chances are, they are completely unconcerned about whether or not they’ll be killed themselves.

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

Concealed guns wouldn’t be a deterrent at that point.

In this case, shooting the perpetrator Dead Right There (DRT) is an excellent and effective deterrent that can save lives. Hiding under a desk or cowering in plain sight is not. (We have ample evidence for the latter.)
--- --- --- ---
* Such restrictions occur in other areas of the law, not the Bill of Rights.

 

[TexasRifleman]

While the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, it does not guarantee them the right to do so in secret.

So then the corollary is that the First Amendment requires me to wear a sign designating that I am Christian, Jewish, Atheist, etc?

The First Amendment does not allow for me to read a book of my choosing without informing everyone around me of it's content, lest they find it objectionable?

Am I not allowed to practice the religion of my choice or read a book in privacy?

Really?

I would think that alone would shut them up. But, there's no accounting for stupid.

 

[eight433]

I think one thing we can all agree on here is the article is very poorly written and was intended to make the writer and the target audience feel good, nothing more. It most certainly was not meant to be debated at any adult or professional level. The writing style seems sort of "all over the place" if you will. It speaks in very general terms with no real focus, likely because of it's length, granted. Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you wish to view it as so), you'll never make anybody think or feel any differently with a single article. Everyone is just as entitled to an opinion as we are. Luckily, we have the Constitution on our side!

 

[JellyJar]

Just tuck your shirt when you go in a building so all can see your firearm then untuck it when you leave.

I could live with that.