Please help me to compose a response to the anti-campus-carry resolution

[bztian]

I am a UW faculty member and want to go to the faculty senate meeting on Nov 10 to voice my opinion. The senate chair won't even consider doing a survey among all faculty members and she said she will ask the campus police about their opinion! English is not my first language so I need some help in wording.
Below is the proposed resolution:
---------------------
RESOLUTION on CONCEALED CARRY IN CAMPUS BUILDINGS
____________________________________________________________________________
A STATEMENT BY FACULTY AND STAFF AT UW-PLATTEVILL IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CONCEALED CARRY OF FIREARMS BILL ON CAMPUS ____________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the current proposed legislation (LRB-2653/1) in the Wisconsin Legislature would 1) exempt any college or university in the UW System and any technical college from the law that allows a university or college to prohibit a person from carrying a firearm in any building on its grounds if the person holds a license to carry a concealed weapon; 2) Repeal the provision in the administrative code in which the UW System generally prohibits persons from carrying, possessing, or using any dangerous weapon on university property or in university buildings or facilities, and
WHEREAS, allowing concealed carry permit holders to bring firearms on university grounds, buildings, or into classrooms threatens the progress of education and the expression of ideas and makes the university less safe, and
WHEREAS, law enforcement professionals believe that prohibiting firearms on college campuses, except by campus police and trained security officers, is an essential element of those schools’ safety plans, and
WHEREAS, the Faculty Senate of UW-Platteville is responsible for being a voice for students, faculty, and staff on issues relating to campus safety and general well-being, and
WHEREAS, all students, faculty, and staff at the UW Colleges have the right to learn and work in a safe environment free from concealed firearms, and
THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate at UW-Platteville strongly opposes any bill put forth by the State of Wisconsin that could prohibit universities from banning the carrying of firearms by non-law enforcement officials in any building on our campus, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate at UW-Platteville strongly encourages legislators to give high priority to campus safety, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Senate at UW-Platteville urges legislators to vote against any such legislation.
Adapted from a similar statement by the faculty and staff at the UW Colleges.
References
● Act to amend 943.13 (1m)(c) to allow for concealed carry of firearms in university buildings.
● "Joint Statement: UW System President Ray Cross and UW System Chancellors on Campus Concealed Carry Bill." UW System. 29 May 2015.
● Lovicott, Marc. "UWPD Statement Regarding Campus Carry Act Legislation." UW- Madison Police Department. 13 October 2015.
-------------------
Thank you.

 

[Jim K]

Here are some ideas - feel free to use as you see fit, no attribution needed.

A sensible person might ask on what basis, other than prejudice and hatred, the assertion is made that allowing a person duly licensed by the state to carry a handgun on campus will "...threaten the progress of education and the expression of ideas and make the university less safe..."

We all are aware of campus tragedies involving firearms, but I am unaware of any in which the shooter had a state permit to carry the weapon.

If we assume, as the petition does, that any and all firearms on campus will be used to murder, then we must wonder why an exception is to be made for police and security personnel. Is not a deranged person with a badge just as dangerous as one without a symbol of authority?

One might also wonder whether a deranged person, determined to kill, would go to the trouble and expense to first obtain a license to carry his gun. It would seem to a rational person that the proposal attacks a strawman - the raging killer who obeys all the laws and will resort to violence only if there is no law against it.

And how would such a ban be enforced? Will campus security strip search everyone on campus? Will police throw students to the ground and beat them because they might have a gun? Or will the law be like most proposals, to be enforced after the fact, so that an insane killer will be not only be charged with murder, but really punished by ... what? Expulsion? Being given a lower grade in social studies? Being banned from class projects? Told to seek counseling? Being dropped from the Dean's list?

Jim

 

[splattergun]

Their assertions that CCW holders carrying on campus threaten the progress of learning, the expression of ideas, and make the university less safe are without basis in fact, and are nothing short of fearful conjecture and personal opinion. that is where you respond, with cited facts countering each of their hand-wringing statement.

 

[Turftech1]

I have a few thoughts.

The university is controlled by the legislature. This resolution has been prepared by a debate teacher, it carries about as much legal weight as a dog fart.

I would consider bypassing the university all together. My guess is that the bulk of the faculty have digested enough anti-gun propaganda, that they would not believe the data if shown it. The fact that 92% of mass shootings have occurred in "gun free" zones, or that there are states like Utah, where CCW holders have been allowed to carry now on public university/college and k-12 campuses for 10 years without incident would not even compute in their brains.

I would write a letter and email it to all the members of the legislature stating that their resolution does not represent the views of all the faculty, just an anti-gun faction.

When school/college concealed carry was passed here in Utah, the liberal element of the university faculties all went nuts, some refused to enter their classrooms, but eventually they all had to come back, and they did, none of them were actually willing to risk their jobs.

 

[IlikeSA]

A good point of attack may be against the anti's projection against gun owners. The comment that "sir/ma'am, just because you possessing a gun may make you psychologically unstable does not mean that I or those licensed have the same issues." Make them defend their sanity, just like they are trying to make you and other gun owners defend yours.

Do put them on their heels. The police response time is estimated at 3 minutes. Ask for a moment to count what 3 minutes is like. Ask if a lot can happen in 3 minutes. The FBI statistics state that a citizen with a firearm is twice as likely to stop a mass shooter as the police. Granted, it is still a low percentage (3.1% vs. 1.3%) but it is still double.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

http://www.policeforum.org/assets/d...response to active shooter incidents 2014.pdf


Some things not to do in the debate:

Don't let it go the training route. While there are a lot of citizens with good training, the perception is that the police and security officers get more training. If you lose this, a potential way to offset this is to find a professional shooter and discuss how many rounds per year he shoots. Then ask the campus safety representative or campus officer how many rounds he shoots per year. Ask what a safe number is. I can guarantee you he shoots less than most professional shooters. Ask if he is unsafe with his firearm and why only they should be trusted.

 

[JTHunter]

Would it be possible to hold out the possibility that the university would lose funds because some students would choose to take their tuition money elsewhere?

 

[Milt1]

My advice would be to contact the NRA and have them put together something for you.

 

[hso]

Students shouldn't be expected to "vote with their wallets" unless there's a convenient alternative locally. Since they have to be admitted to university they can't set aside their college progress over this issue unless it is convenient to transfer locally. It that opportunity exists they could ask for transfers, but there are very few situations where that sort of option exists since the state isn't inclined to fund multiple institutions in the same immediate area unlike grocery stores, banks, department stores, etc. where voting with your wallet is practical.

 

[IlikeSA]

concealedcampus.org has some good info.

 

[Jim K]

I doubt there is anything spontaneous about that kind of action. Bloomberg and his money are all over college campuses as in the cities, and as a general rule college professors are abysmally ignorant of anything outside their own little narrow fields, so are prone to fall for fad ideas and utter nonsense.

I well remember when professors by the thousands fell for the Immanuel Velikovsky "Worlds in Collision" nonsense. Real scientists knew it was laughable, but "illiberal arts" professors swallowed it whole and many flunked students who failed to worship at the shrine. (No, academic bias and idiotic "academics" are not new phenomena.)

Jim

 

[bztian]

Can someone compose some reply point by point please? I need your help. Thank you.

 

[bztian]

Ok, here is the first draft quoting some previous posts and ideas from some web pages.
==============================
A sensible person might ask on what basis, other than prejudice and hatred, the assertion is made that allowing a person duly licensed by the state to carry a handgun on campus will "...threaten the progress of education and the expression of ideas and make the university less safe..."

We all are aware of campus tragedies involving firearms, but I am unaware of any in which the shooter had a state permit to carry the weapon.

If we assume, as the petition does, that any and all firearms on campus will be used to murder, then we must wonder why an exception is to be made for police and security personnel. Is not a deranged person with a badge just as dangerous as one without a symbol of authority?

One might also wonder whether a deranged person, determined to kill, would go to the trouble and expense to first obtain a license to carry his gun. It would seem to a rational person that the proposal attacks a strawman - the raging killer who obeys all the laws and will resort to violence only if there is no law against it.

The assertions that CCW holders carrying on campus threaten the progress of learning, the expression of ideas, and make the university less safe are without basis in fact, and are nothing short of fearful conjecture and personal opinion.

We see communities of healthy, intelligent people choosing to be sitting ducks for murderous psychopaths. Aren’t universities supposed to be gathering places for smart people? So how do you conclude that it’s a good idea to insist the guy with the murder-and-death wish the cozy security of knowing he’ll be the only one around with a firearm?
Gun control and gun-free zones don’t hamper violent madmen. Instead, they only encourage them. Gun-free zones are the softest of soft targets, and there’s nothing more a violent terrorist desires more than the ability to inflict the greatest amount of harm with the least amount of resistance.

It’s important to remember that concealed carry is about personal protection, not public protection. The fact that someone might not enjoy all of the benefits of concealed carry on campus doesn’t mean that everyone should be denied the means to protect themselves on campus.