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

[GuyWithQuestions]

I think that Ed Ames brings up some intelligent points; it's just that I still don't understand why it'd be a distraction. No one has ever been distracted from me carrying across campus except for that police officer who found out because you're supposed to tell officers in the state of Utah if they're on official business. People haven't been distracted because they don't know I'm carrying. It's also been a few years since the Utah Supreme Court ruled that public schools can't restrict concealed carry as long as they have a permit. That law has been around for a while and the schools in Utah aren't suffering. Similarly, after Virginia Tech happened, "some" people across the U.S. became nervous but quickly forgot. I don't even know if anyone except certain university administrations became nervous. What goon said helped people forget about Virginia Tech and is probably what would happen if they allowed concealed carry with a permit on every campus across America:

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.

 

[jrfoxx]

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.

Huh.So I guess all those school shootings weren't real...must have all just been a bad dream, cause the Brady Campaign said that if you ban guns, you can ensure that the only people who will have them will be police and security guards.Whew, I feel SO much safer now.Thank you Mrs. Brady!
:banghead:

 

[Picknlittle]

The gun lobby's real aim is to prohibit colleges and universities from keeping ANY policies or rules that restrict gun access o or use by students, regardless of whether the student is old enough to obtain a CCW license.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone is trying to allow anyone who does not qualify to carry a handgun. Am I wrong? I get that some like myself don't like registration, or restrictions on ANY law abiding citizen, but in as much as current laws dictate age as a qualifier for CCW, I'm thinking that only legal carry is being pursued.

 

[cambeul41]

I think people can learn not to be distracted, but . . .

Some years ago, on the first day of class, a student in a business suit asked if he might take off his jacket. I asked why he even bothered asking. Of course he could. He opened his jacket to show me his revolver in a shoulder holster and explained that he was a police detective sergeant. Okay, fine. I had had uniformed officers as students before and there had been no problem.

“No you don’t understand, people accept uniformed officers carrying guns. They react differently to people in street clothes carrying guns.” If he wanted to take off his jacket, he had my permission anyway. Then I would get to see the reactions of the other students.

Sure enough, he took off his jacket, the other students froze, and I had a hard time not laughing. By the end of the term, the rest of the class had relaxed to some extent, but still avoided looking directly at him.

When anyone says that people don’t notice open carry, I think of this detective and the way his classmates avoided looking at him, and I suspect that many people who “don’t notice” open carry are really concealing the fact that they have noticed.

 

[MakAttak]

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.

No, I did not say people would not be distracted, I said:

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.

Note I did not say it could not be distracting, I said people who want to be distracted will use whatever excuse.

The black student analogy from 40 years ago would only work if we encouraged OPEN CARRY in class. This is because it's fairly obvious when a black student is seated next to you; it is not fairly obvious (concealed is concealed) if the person next to you is carrying a concealed weapon.

Instead, it's more like: "Some people get distracted wondering if the students in the seat next to them might have (AIDS, Hepatitus, Herpes...)"

Yes, there is a chance (and in college, a GOOD chance) that the people around them have some form of STD. In fact, I would venture a guess that even if we allowed CCW in colleges that the chances of finding someone with an STD are higher than someone with a CCW. Somehow, however, classes go on without people spending the entire class wondering who's infected...

 

[ZeSpectre]

I can't believe we're worried about "distraction" here and that some would seriously consider PASSING or MAINTAINING laws that place the burden on the innocent and law abiding because someone else might find it distracting.

Isn't part of our lifelong education learning how to handle the day to day distractions of life (whatever form they take) and moving on?

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

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.

Yes, ever since "gun-free" school policies were enacted, no criminal has dared to go armed onto a campus.

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

This statement is more than inaccurate: it is a flat LIE, and I am certain the original Brady Bunch writer knows it is a lie. Warren v. District of Columbia and Gonzales v. Castle Rock have established that there is no duty to protect any individual.

The article is nothing more than sophistry (the Sophist school of philosophy holds that there is no standard other than whether or not one wins the argument), in accordance with the Brady playbook. It is evil. It is not misguided; it is evil.

 

[Mousegun]

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.

Not that great of an analogy. What if the people who went into the closet did so BEFORE anyone else came into the room. Like a student putting a concealed weapon on his person well before class.

Then the people in the closet were very discrete and made no noise or let anyone else know they were there. Like that same student sitting quietly in class saying nothing about his concealed weapon.

There would be no interference or a reason for anyone to be concerned about the concealed carry. All they could possibly worry about would be the possibility that someone MAY be concealed carrying and that could be the case in any and every classroom in the country, laws or not approving.

I would be more concerned about the "possibility" of a crazed gunman getting into my school and me not having the means to defend myself than I would about the "possibility" that the person next to me may be carrying and able to defend my classroom if something went down.

 

[rdhood]

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?

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

Much of the world is a nasty, dangerous, evil place. Kids know bad stuff is happening everywhere, all the time. "Dont talk to strangers", "Dont touch guns", "Dont go near that dog", "War in Iraq", "Nukes in North Korea", "Genocide in Darfar", "Its snowing outside"... you get my drift. This is all far more distracting than someone concealing something that no one else knows about. I doubt a true concealed carry would distract any student at all, regardless of the rules.

What would be distracting is if somehow the gun was "made". The onus is on the person carrying to make d**ned sure that it is concealed.

 

[thexrayboy]

Lets see.... the premise we are dealing with is that we should not allow an honest citizen with a CCW to legally carry on a college campus because of the POSSIBILITY that a person doing so MIGHT be a distraction to someone who has no way of knowing who is or is not actually carrying unless told specifically so by the person carrying. Yeah...I think that statement appears to cover the subject.

Oh and while we're at it lets ban all guns everywhere because one of them MIGHT fall into the wrong hands and MIGHT be used for criminal purposes.
I believe I have heard that rationale from the banners more than once.

Classic example of people crying for laws of prior restraint. And while we are at it lets ban McDonalds because I might go have a cheeseburger or a few and I might gain too much weight and I might have a heart attack.

Now that we've put cast the light of reason on this horse**** reasoning proposed by the Bradybunch and apparently favorably recieved by some lets
call it what it is. CRAP.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

Statistically, those with concealed firearms permits are much less likely to be convicted for felonies than those without a permit. Whenever we see some crazy on the news, we usually hear a background on the person that would say that they wouldn't pass a background check for a gun. In the fewer cases that they legally owned a gun, they usually took it to the place illegally where the shooting occurred (Cho from Virginia Tech had one legally but brought it illegally onto campus).

So from all of this, why not at least let those with valid legal concealed firearms permits bring concealed pieces onto campus, preschools, etc? I'm for allowing the AK-47s and machine guns too, just a long as they have a concealed permit. All those illegal shooters on the news seemed to have violated those rules that they couldn't carry in these places. So why not at least allow those with permits to carry? I'm not saying allow anyone with a gun to walk onto campus with it, but to honor concealed permits on campus, elementary schools, preschools. Allow teachers who have permits to carry, not just a select few who went through a thousand hours of training.

Some say that only those in military training on campus or those who have a specific reason should be allowed to have those permits on campus. However, most people who are murdered don't necessarily have a long background of people trying to murder them nor are military people, so it should be "shall issue" (as long as they don't have felonies on your record and have taken the time to learn the legal issues before getting the permit). If you have a concealed permit issued by the state, why can't you be allowed onto public campuses because those who run the campus are agents of the state and should follow the rules of the land (by letting you carry)?