"No Gun Left Behind" by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, interesting

[GuyWithQuestions]

I found an interesting article from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence about firearms, handguns, and AK-47s in schools http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/no-gun-left-behind.pdf
If that link doesn't work go to http://www.bradycenter.org/gunindustrywatch/
and click on "No Gun Left Behind".

However, I wouldn't want to give up my semi-automatic handgun when going onto campus. I live in Utah and always carry cocked and unlocked on campus, I intentionally bought a handgun without any manual safety and with single-action, because otherwise it's an offensive weapon rather than a defensive one (Springfield XDs are quite safe too). The other day a campus police officer was teasing me about carrying it but since I had a permit it was all good. Having an AK-47 for self-defense would be good too.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

I also don't know how people with concealed carry permits who have their defensive piece concealed are interfering with others' ability to learn? What others don't see won't make them nervous?

 

[Ed Ames]

I also don't know how people with ... their defensive piece concealed are interfering with others' ability to learn?

The knowledge that something is, or even could be, happening can actually be a distraction.

Imagine you are in a classroom that happens to have a closet. As the teacher is explaining <subjct> to the class two people walk into the room, go to the closet, and close themselves inside together. They never interfered with the teacher, never said anything, they were very discrete... they don't come out of the room at all. You just saw it happen and that's it. You can't see or hear anything else.

Distracting? Most people would find it so. Most people would spend a fair amount of the rest of that class, and perhaps the next few classes, trying to figure out who the people were, what they were doing, and why.

 

[green-grizzly]

Concealed carry in schools has been legal in Utah for several years now, and I have not heard of a single incident of misuse here. So far, the halls of academia are not running with blood as promised.

I always carry when I go to my kids' school, and hope other parents do so as well.

My church on the other hand ...

 

[MakAttak]

The knowledge that something is, or even could be, happening can actually be a distraction.

Imagine you are in a classroom that happens to have a closet. As the teacher is explaining <subjct> to the class two people walk into the room, go to the closet, and close themselves inside together. They never interfered with the teacher, never said anything, they were very discrete... they don't come out of the room at all. You just saw it happen and that's it. You can't see or hear anything else.

Distracting? Most people would find it so. Most people would spend a fair amount of the rest of that class, and perhaps the next few classes, trying to figure out who the people were, what they were doing, and why.

Suuuuuuuuure.....


Except you have an INDICATION that something IS happening.

Try this.

You walk into a classroom and the teacher starts lecturing. Halfway through, you notice a closet in the back of the room.

The entire rest of the class you sit there wondering what is going on in that closet...

Distracting? Yes.

Is the person certifiable? Also, yes.

 

[ArmedBear]

The knowledge that something could be there?

I think that many kids are aware that someone could come into their classrooms and shoot them all, unless they've never seen a TV. As likely as not, the awareness that someone who isn't evil might have a gun to save them is reassuring, not distracting.

The point is, if kids are thinking about this stuff at all, it's distracting. Open carry of an AK-47 might distract them, but concealed carry they don't know about can't distract them any more than the world around them already does.

Open carry of an AK would have fascinated me and my friends. We kinda liked guns when we were kids. We never hurt anyone, nor would we have. It would have been a distraction, but it might not have scared us any.

I went to school with John Wayne's youngest daughter. We were in the same class in several grades. It wouldn't have bothered me in the least if The Duke came swaggering down the hall with a large loop lever carbine. He was a tall man, and while he was not ostentatious and drove carpool in an old blue station wagon, just his presence was "larger than life" somehow, even more so than in the movies. He knew how to carry himself, I guess.

 

[Ed Ames]

Except you have an INDICATION that something IS happening.

You mean like someone saying, "Did you hear they passed a law and now people can bring GUNS to class?!" Or, "I heard someone saying he was going to start bringing a GUN to class! I wonder who else is?"

Seems like changing the law would be an indication. The fact that people work to change the law is pretty strong indication that they intend to start doing what the new law they are working for allows. Otherwise what's the point of trying to change the law? So they do have INDICATION that someone IS carrying a gun.

Beyond that... yeah, it's all in their mind. That's the point isn't it?

 

[MakAttak]

You mean like someone saying, "Did you hear they passed a law and now people can bring GUNS to class?!" Or, "I heard someone saying he was going to start bringing a GUN to class! I wonder who else is?"

...and what's stopping this from happening now?...

Unless you happen to be IN CLASS with someone who has worked to get this law passed AND they have told you this... why would you be distracted unless you are LOOKING for a means of becoming distracted.
This, of course, means that those who want to be distracted will find their own distractions.

 

[ArmedBear]

We should never change any laws, because children may spend a few minutes being distracted by the change.

 

[Ed Ames]

Mak, do you really think that people can only be distracted if they know someone involved? So the only people who found 9/11 distracting were the people who knew one of the terrorists? That might be true except we have news, we have discussions, we have many ways of conveying information so that people who didn't directly see an event can know that it happened... and be distracted by it.


ArmedBear is closer to the right answer: Of course it's distracting. Anyone with any common sense can see it's distracting. So are fire drills. Doesn't mean we should stop having fire drills and it doesn't mean we should stop passing good laws.

 

[3/325]

Scenario #1
I'm sitting in class (at a school that allows CCW) a few minutes early; I'm the first one there. A person walks in who could be carrying a weapon, but I can't be sure because the possible weapon could be concealed. Then another person walks in who could also be carrying a weapon, but I can't be sure because the possible weapon could be concealed.

Then another person walks in who could also be carrying a weapon, but I can't be sure because the possible weapon could be concealed.

On and on. All because it is legal to carry concealed at my school. Very distracting.

Scenario #2
I'm sitting in class (at a "weapons-free" school) a few minutes early; I'm the first one there. A person walks in who could be carrying a weapon, but I can't be sure because the possible weapon could be concealed. Then another person walks in who could also be carrying a weapon, but I can't be sure because the possible weapon could be concealed.

Then another person walks in who could also be carrying a weapon, but I can't be sure because the possible weapon could be concealed.

On and on. Equally distracting because CRIMINALS HIDE THEIR INTENT UNTIL THEY'RE READY TO ACT.


The difference here is that in Scenario #1 I'm carrying legally, and the distraction, if any, is short lived and chalked up to situational awareness. In Scenario #2 when the shooting starts *I'm* the one who's f****d because this institution of "higher learning" has stripped me of an effective defense.

At VaTech, Cho had a good "indication" that NOBODY was carrying. Look how that turned out? Once a change is made across all schools the notion that somebody *might* be carrying will eventually become about as exciting as chili-mac being served in the cafeteria on Fridays. As it is right now, some kid is distracted by thinking "My God, what if somebody starts shooting?!"

 

[thexrayboy]

The subject of guns carried by students on campus is an issue reserved for
post high school persons. As such these students are of an age where
they are old enough to vote, jon the military, buy longarms, and for many
drink and buy handguns.

To say we should not change laws or consider changing laws to allow legal carry on college campuses for students because it might be distracting is facetious at best and for many an insult. If a student is distracted to the point of failing a class because the law has changed to allow a citizen who is
permitted and entitled to legally carry in class that student has no one to blame for their failure but themselves.

Blame shifting for the failures of adult behavior is a hallmark of the gun banning socialist misfits that are derided on a regular basis by people who
believe in the Second Amendment and personal responsibility.

 

[Kingcreek]

I read most of that piece and followed some of the references. It was so slanted I think I hurt my neck.
typical Brady Bunch babble.

 

[TAB]

While we are at it... lets ban short skirts from colleges... I can tell you from personal EXP that they are way more distracting then some guy next to you be armed.

 

[Deavis]

The knowledge that something is, or even could be, happening can actually be a distraction.

The starving children of Africa are certainly a great example. I know I can't bring myself to eat the dinner I worked hard to buy because I know those poor children's parents are too weak to take up arms against those who oppress them.

 

[ArmedBear]

Deavis, have you ever heard of G G Allin?

He did a song as an answer to the atrocity "We Are the World" written by Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie and performed by a bunch of other attention-starved artists who sang about food-starved children in Africa.

He was a sick bastard. It was a sick song. But it's still catchy.

 

[Ed Ames]

Starving children in Africa/eating dinner isn't an example of distraction at all. Even if you were serious it wouldn't be an example of distraction unless you say forgot to buy dinner because you got to thinking about their plight.

Distraction avoidance is a legitimate goal in a school or workplace. Students are paying to learn and learning requires, amongst other things, concentration. If something legitimately disrupts the learning process by interfering with concentration it should be examined and, if unreasonable, eliminated.

Someone brings a TV into the classroom and watches Friends reruns. Distracting? Yes. Reasonable? Possibly (e.g. if they were completing an assignment that required watching Friends reruns). Desirable? Absolutely not.

Some people will find the knowledge that others around them may have a concealed firearm distracting. 50 years ago some people found the presence of a black student in the classroom distracting.

In the case of black students, it was correctly decided that the short term distraction -- and the reduction in education quality that unquestionably went with it -- was a reasonable cost to pay in striving for a more important goal. The price was paid, a few people got a worse education, other people got better educations, and today a student would be rightly offended if you suggested that the presence of black students in the classroom distracted them.

Same argument must be used for guns. You can't deny there is distraction. You will lose that argument as surely as you'll lose an argument by claiming that guns aren't weapons. Instead you must convincingly argue that the distraction is better than having students die because a mentally disturbed young adult acted irrationally, or having students raped because men are in fact stronger than women and some men will commit rape if given opportunity. Set beside those outcomes a little bit of distraction, while regrettable, is very reasonable.

 

[ArmedBear]

Some people will find the knowledge that others around them may have a concealed firearm distracting. 50 years ago some people found the presence of a black student in the classroom distracting.

That was the simile I thought of, also.

 

[goon]

Even if did cause a distraction, that distraction would be short lived.
Like everything else, there would be a news report and people would talk about it for a few days.
Then Britney or Paris would do something new and everyone would forget all about that story and move on to more Hollywood drama.

As far as distractions go, I think the Brady bunch would be better off targeting cell phones.
Perhaps they should also target attractive young women. They are very capable of distracting you from your studies.
Or maybe they should just ban anyone under the age of 21 from attending college.
That would cut down on the distractions...

Then again, who am I to advocate telling people where they can go and what they can go when they get there?
As long as they aren't harming me I don't really have any business trying to dictate what they can or can't do.

It's called Liberty. They should get used to it.

 

[MechAg94]

The hot blond in the 2nd row is much more of a distraction than worrying about whether someone might be armed.

If you get that distracted and disturbed by things you can't control, you really need to think about your state of mind a little.

College students have tons of distractions already. This one is very minor if that.

 

[Gingerbreadman]

I tried to read it all. I really did. All it did was inspire me to make anti gun-control posters...

With a policy that tightly controls guns or bans them altogether, colleges and schools can ensure that the only people carrying guns are their security guards and the police. This is the way it has likely always been, and schools are safer because of it. For maximum safety and security, this is the way it should always be.

I can't even start a sentence in response that conforms to "Art's Grammaw" regs. I just can't.

Schools should have the authority to decide how to fulfill their legal dutyto provide a safe environment

I go to school five times a week, and at two different campuses. I don't see a single thing that actually provides a safe environment.

Okay, now I'm done commenting on this drivel.

 

[Six O'clock Tactical]

Simple steps to not being distracted:

1) pay attention to what youre learning
2) dont pass notes in class
3) stop thinking about what might happen to you if you wound up like virginia tech.

Simple steps to ensure these measures:

1) eat a healthy breakfast
2) dont sit next to troublemakers
3) allow people to pack heat.

 

[mekender]

I intentionally bought a handgun without any manual safety and with single-action, because otherwise it's an offensive weapon rather than a defensive one

so a weapon that has a manual safety is offensive how? sorry, but having that extra step doesnt mean squat... you just tried to classify every 1911, most CZs and most rugers as offensive weapons... im pretty sure that a good number of forum members here would take serious exception to that...

basically that is another form of anti argument... that we are somehow looking for trouble because we buy a weapon that has a safety or a DA... im confused

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

cocked and unlocked

so a weapon that has a manual safety is offensive how? sorry, but having that extra step doesnt mean squat... you just tried to classify every 1911, most CZs and most rugers as offensive weapons... im pretty sure that a good number of forum members here would take serious exception to that...

basically that is another form of anti argument... that we are somehow looking for trouble because we buy a weapon that has a safety or a DA... im confused

Well when I went to several gun stores to do handgun shopping, I found that my fingers aren't as long as some hands and that the manual safeties just added an extra 1/4 of a second to my handling of the firearms. Since someone can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds or so, I figured that the manual safety wouldn't be the best for me, in the same way that carrying it around with an empty chamber wouldn't work for me because of reaction time. Different people have different methods that work best for them. I figured that my best safety was my finger and to keep it in the holster with a good cover for the trigger guard. I know that it's different for different people. Some don't mind the safeties. Many prefer having an empty chamber and are really skilled at pulling the slide back and releasing really quickly without much time. There's different ways of carrying that are more effective for different people. Some don't want to think about complexities during extreme life or death stress. My preference is "cocked and unlocked". I don't want to one time have the safety not on and then another time find out that the safety is actually on, especially in a life or death situation. Different people have different ways that work well for them. There's no right or wrong way to carry a firearm as long as it works right for the right person and they become efficient and consistent with whatever way they decide to carry. I wasn't saying that your way of having a manual safety is bad.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

I always carry when I go to my kids' school, and hope other parents do so as well.

My church on the other hand ...

I know people that bring air tasers with them to church. It may not be as useful as a handgun if you're in a deadly situation, but better than being weaponless or just with only pepper spray. If only tasers were cheaper