Last week, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed legislation to allow concealed weapons in churches.
Next up is a measure that would allow guns on public college campuses.
The House Committee on Education is expected to soon discuss House Bill 1243 that would allow “trained and licensed staff and faculty to carry a concealed handgun” on campuses “under certain circumstances.”
Arkansas law currently states that, “No person in this state shall possess a handgun upon the property of any private institution of higher education or a publicly supported institution of higher education.”
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Charlie Collins R-Fayetteville, is similar to legislation Collins introduced in 2010 that died in house committee during the 88th General Assembly.
Collins recently told Talk Business he believes his bill will help to curb violence on campuses.
“My goal with this bill is to help us better deter killers from choosing college campuses, filled with our loved ones, as a place to turn into a killing field,” Collins said. “(The bill) will make college campuses safer by deterring bad guys with the presence of responsible, armed good guys. I believe my bill will deter killers from attacking our colleges because if we allow a professor to carry, campuses will no longer be as vulnerable as they are today.”
University of Arkansas professor Sidney Burris, who is circulating an online petition opposing the bill, disagrees with Collins’ logic.
“To allow faculty, staff, and eventually students to carry concealed handguns only strengthens the feelings of degradation, fear, and paranoia that give rise to the very culture of violence that we all work to dismantle in our classrooms every day,” wrote Burris in a statement on Monday. “And it quietly sanctions the notion that we are now authorized by the laws of the land, no less, to respond to violence with violence—a notion that, on a college campus, can only lead us to an unspeakable tragedy.”
The issue has been a hot topic at the UA lately.
Members of the Residents Interhall Congress, a group that develops residence hall policies on campus, last week passed a resolution in support for Collin’s plan, but voted against the idea of allowing weapons for students.
RIC president Onnissia Harries later vetoed the group’s original vote in favor of guns for faculty and staff.
Next week, the UA’s Associated Student Government will vote on three measures dealing with gun control on campus including a bill in support of the maintaining a gun-free campus.
Resolutions adopted by the governing bodies of the UA could be used on the House floor in arguments for or against Collins’ proposed changes to state legislation.
The committee’s next meeting is set for Tuesday, Feb. 12.
Residents can learn more about the bill, and other issues being discussed at the General Assembly at a legislative forum at 4 p.m. Friday, Feb. 8 at the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce.
If you agree that guns do NOT belong on our college campuses, like us on Facebook! We started out as Razorbacks Against Concealed Carry, and our little page has grown from there. We’ll keep you updated on how we can all help to keep firearms out of our schools. We’d love your support!
like you on facebook?? haha you going to show a gunman your facebook page and convince their a** to drop their firearm? More power to ya, im going put my trust in the good guy with the fire arm trying to save your silly butt.
How’d that work out for Chris Kyle last week?
are you trying to compare that to a mass shooting on un armed civilians???
Two alleged “good guys” with guns 0, one alleged “bad guy” with gun, 1.
Or how about Fort Hood? That was a place filled with good guys with guns and 13 people were killed and 29 injured.
It’s pretty simple: the more bullets there are flying around, the higher the odds someone is going to get hit, and it won’t always be the bad guy. So many people want to be the cowboy vigilante who saves the day, and none of them ever consider that it’s highly possible they’d end up being the cowboy vigilante who missed the bad guy and killed somebody’s friend or loved one.
No
This will be a great thing for Arkansas to pass. I am surprised more professors don’t carry a concealed on campus because of what has happened on other campuses in the past. I also think students should have the right to carry if they are properly licensed as well.
MOAR GUNZ!
How is this even a discussion after the recent shootings? I am appalled by our representative. Collins is a clown and should not have been re-elected for this very issue.
This is getting ridiculous. I can understand wanting protect yourself, but there comes a point when it gets taken too far. I’m a liberal democrat AND a gun owner, but I’m also an educator and this is just asking for trouble. What kind of country do we really want to live in? A country where everyone lives in constant fear of someone being out to get them? George Orwell would have a heyday writing about this society. I can see some of gun rights groups’ reasoning behind opposing certain restrictions. I don’t want my gun taken from me any more than the next person, but that’s not what this is about. What I can’t understand is how irrational people can be to not even want to TRY to keep criminals from getting guns, and instead just let everyone and their dog pack heat anywhere they choose and just wait and see what happens. We can’t live in a country of fear. There have been terrible, terrible things that have happened, but those instances are extremely rare. We are under constant threat of a million terrible things happening to us every single day that we don’t even consider. Some that we don’t even know about. You can’t possibly protect yourself from every single threat, and to be so paranoid to think that there is someone waiting around every bend to kill you is no way to live. And to turn this country into a place of fear is to give the despicable people who commit these heinous acts exactly what they want. The US as we know it will be gone. I’m a teacher, and I have zero desire to arm myself at my job. You want to heighten school security? Fine. I’m all for that. But the day guns get put in the hands of teachers will be the day I leave the profession. There’s a line and that crosses it. They make school seem enough like a prison these days as it is. There are plenty of college professors that are just as likely to lose it as a disgruntled college student, and that is taking a huge risk. And this guy also wants to put guns in the hands of STUDENTS? To think that students should be allowed to carry guns on campus is just stupid and reckless. There’s no kinder way to put it. Thank God I’m through with college. Sounds like it’s about to become a place I want nothing to do with. I’m curious to see what this does for the education success rate in our country if it goes through. My guess is that it won’t be pretty.
Cho was a student. How’d that work out?
This is no surprise. I mean, conservatives are always going on and on about how much they trust and respect college professors.
Awesome
+1
Bad guys bring guns on campus, why can’t the good guys?
It’s “completely legal”, but can I bring it on campus?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i2zGcMipD54
That’s why there’s a difference between “good guys” and “bad guys.” Good guys by definition don’t do the same things bad guys do. Bad guys do drugs, so why can’t good guys? Bad guys steal things, so why can’t good guys? It all goes back to everyone’s mom’s famous words, “If so-and-so jumped off a cliff would you do it too?” That just doesn’t bring a strong argument. And for that matter who’s to say who the “good guys” are? People who seem perfectly normal snap all the time when people never saw it coming. Allowing everyone to carry on a college campus is going to INCREASE the risk of an incident and likely cause more deaths, not deter it. What are we going to do, open up an all out war in the middle of Comp II? That many people with guns just further the risk of more people being killed accidentally. Unless the country is going to train every citizen to form their own little well-organized army on the fly (I say that facetiously, but nothing would surprise me at this point), that many guns is just going to cause more harm. I’d also be willing to bet good money that a lot of good professors will leave if this passes, and it will be much harder to attract quality professors to want to work there. The U of A will lose its luster extremely quickly. When these events are so rare, why take such a huge risk when it could cause much more harm that it’s likely to do good? Is it really worth altering an entire culture and taking our country in such an extreme, dark direction just on the chance something MIGHT, but most likely won’t happen? We should all just live in bubbles and never leave our houses and then we’ll be safe from everything–including having a quality life. The best answer to this problem is to increase security to lessen the risks. Not arm everybody and call for war.
And on different topic, I find it a bit ironic that the Christian Right, the ones supposedly governing on Christian principles are the ones wanting America to turn into a country of a bunch of gun slinging vigilantes. I mean, once you allow guns in churches, might as well allow them anywhere. Can’t help but wonder what Jesus is up there thinking about the whole thing. I don’t think it was ever his beliefs to fight fire with fire. I seem to remember “turn the other cheek” being a little closer to what he had in mind. It’s funny and sad at the same time that this is what we’ve become. It’s criminals’ faults for putting us in this situation, but it’s our fault if we let it define us.
Utah has allowed concealed carry by permit holders in all public and private schools K-12+ since 1996 with no shootings nor gun related incidents. Colorado allows colleges to decide for each campus. The criminals or mentally ill are going to ignore any laws anyway. It seems to me historically they go to places where there are many people that they know are unarmed. Why prevent law abiding permitted (background checked) citizens to carry a firearm? Firearms are a great equalizer for anyone against a stronger, larger, or gang of criminals. Please don’t prevent me from legally protecting myself and my family from those that wish to harm me, just because I am on the UofA campus. I know of two friends that were robbed, one on Dickson Street, the other on Campus. Allowing concealed carry in Arkansas did not result in mass shootings (or any) involving permit holders (i.e. Blood on the streets). Why would allowing concealed carry by permit holders on college campuses be any different?
Don’t bother with facts, the willfully ignorant anti-gun crowd doesn’t care about them.
Ouch, Michael. That really deep. Just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. I think your statement alone makes a strong argument on who is “ignorant.”
***That really CUT deep*** excuse me.
Yes, I am the ignorant one because I don’t think signs saying “Gun Free Zone” will actually prevent crime.
No, your ignorance is relevant by the fact that you make an overgeneralized, uneducated jab at those who disagree with your point of view. If that’s the best you can come up with, then yes, that’s ignorance. I know plenty of intelligent people who have different thoughts on gun control, and some of their ideas make sense in some ways, and their points are actually well thought out and explained. I’m open minded enough to listen to other sides while constructively explaining my own point of view rather than immediately jumping on the insult wagon. Your irrelevant response was no more informed than that of a two year old.
“Some of my best friends are intelligent people.”
The robbery of your two friends didn’t involve any shooting or blood in the streets either, did it? Would the likelihood of bloodshed decrease or increase if those victims had been carrying guns?
There are many cases of guns deterring crimes without shots fired (i.e. more violence). What if it was a woman preventing being raped? A resource for such stories is keepandbeararms. Now not all are non-violent examples, sorry.
If anyone is interested in more examples I am happy to provide more information, but I feel I have said my peace, thanks for reading.
Can you please clarify whether you think the appropriate defense against having your wallet ripped off is shooting someone? You would potentially kill or maim someone to protect your iPhone?
Yes. Sorry, but if a person is going to commit armed robbery they don’t get the benefit of the doubt. If I am walking down the street with my daughter and someone pulls a weapon on us and demands my wallet, I am going to assume they intend to kill/kidnap/or whatever else as well.
Wow. That’s truly sad, misinformed and tragic. Good luck to you.
Man, I just don’t get this. What is so tragic about wanting to defend my family & friends? This is getting into a different subject than the article, but it is the same as someone breaking into my house. Sorry, I’m not going to stop to ask if you’re only interested in taking my TV, especially if I think my little girl is in danger.
I disagree with most of my friends on this issue. I’m in the small group of gun-toting liberals. Actually I think my father would probably be one of the leaders of that group…..which might explain a lot.
I’m not generally a violent person, but I’m also not going to be a helpless victim.
No, you going to be one of two victims, shot.
“Allowing concealed carry in Arkansas did not result in mass shootings (or any) involving permit holders”
False. I’m not digging up references for you, (although it only took about 2.5 seconds for me to google it), but there have been multiple homicides in Arkansas committed by individuals with concealed carry permits. Why? Because they are mere humans, like all of us, and they do stupid things, like all of us.
My husband is a student on the U of A campus, as are many other people against this idea. Being against guns on campus is not about wanting to prevent people’s safety, and any rational person knows that. As I said, I’m a gun owner myself, and I intend to stay that way. Anyone breaking into my house will sorely regret it. That doesn’t mean we should just put guns everywhere we turn, especially without even bothering to first consider other options. There are several things that U of A could have done to help prevent your friend from being robbed. Heightened security, better lighting, and better surveillance are a few of them. Maybe this will make them consider taking some of the ungodly amount of funds that go into the precious athletic department and use it for something more worthwhile. This doesn’t call for jumping to extreme measures without even bothering to listen to other options first. America right now is in the “fight or flight” state of mind, and rather than thinking things through rationally, people are being influenced by emotions. Which is understandable to an extent, but we can’t let emotions determine our decisions. That’s where criminals come from. You can background check all you want, but it doesn’t make you any safer on a college campus if everyone is just walking around with a loaded gun waiting for something to happen. As I said, both college students AND professors (as well as elementary and secondary teachers) can snap at any time with no one seeing it coming. Imagine how a professor would feel grading tests knowing that if he pulls someone’s last straw by giving a failing grade that there are students everywhere armed and ready to go. Sure, they may seem perfectly normal, adjusted, rational… but you hit a nerve on the wrong person and you could be telling a totally different story. ESPECIALLY on a college campus.
As for the Dickson Street robbery, that place would be considered an easy target to anyone wanting to rob someone, at least at night when all the drunks are out. That’s the case for any bar strip in any state. So let’s just fix the problem by letting all of the law-abiding, clean background checked, and also stumbling drunks all pack heat to make sure nothing bad happens… Hmmm… Even if your friend was completely sober it doesn’t mean we should just let Dickson Street become a walking armory. That, even more so than on campus, would be welcoming trouble in with open arms. Guns can’t solve every problem, and in many cases (more than gun activists will admit) they make things worse.
But you’re right, criminals don’t abide by laws anyway. So then I guess why even bother with laws at all? If criminals are just going to break a law at their own free will, then let’s just make it legal. Seriously? We have to face facts–bad things are always going to happen. It’s terrible, but it’s true, and thankfully it’s rare. There is no humanly possible way to prevent every single tragic event from occurring. Sure, there will be situations when something might be prevented by your methods, but the same thing can be said for stricter gun laws that at least attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals rather than calling for guns everywhere. The “criminals don’t obey laws anyway” argument is just weak and illogical.
In 2003 the CDC was tasked and conducted a study to determine if gun control (laws) reduced crime. They were unable to find evidence to either prove of disprove it. (Such as the 1994 assault weapons ban). Gun control doesn’t work, can you show it does? The crime rate dropped after the DC gun ban was overturned (as an example). According to 2011 FBI crime statistics, there were more homicides with hammers than with rifles (which includes the incorrectly named “assault rifles”).
The SCOTUS has ruled that the police are not liable for their inaction in protecting you. Therefore, that responsibility (as an adult) is your own. Dialing 911 is only a part of the equation. I am innocent until proven guilty (I hope this is still true), so unless I prove otherwise I should be able to exercise my second amendment right as long as that right does not infringe on others. If I carry concealed, who else is to know. Unless I am faced with a legal situation where use of a firearm is permitted by law (self defense for example) I will not remove it from concealment. If I do so unlawfully, I will have to face the consequences. Also, I do not condone the flaming comments, everyone is entitled the their own opinion, it is not reason to put people down, that does not foster good relations. I prefer a calm discussion.
To the same point, it can not be proven that allowing professors and students to carry guns will reduce crime either. And I agree with you, partially, that you should be able to exercise your right to a concealed weapon as long as it does not infringe upon others. However, in a public university where students pay too much as it is, I would feel like my rights were infringed by being extremely uncomfortable knowing that any number of people in class could be carrying weapons and suddenly go nuts. If private schools want to allow guns, more power to them. People who go to private schools can afford to go somewhere else if they don’t like it. But some of us can’t afford that luxury and state schools are the only choices we’ve got.
I am also aware of carrying while drinking being illegal, but it may not stay that way. Once you put guns in churches and schools, who’s to say that won’t follow closely after? Especially considering it’s already being done:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04guns.html?_r=0
I also would like to point out that nowhere in any of the anti-campus guns commenters’ remarks, including my own, will you see anyone being “put down.” Unless you want to count my thinking an elected official’s ideas are stupid and reckless, which as a voter is perfectly reasonable (people do the same to Obama all the time), or my defending my right to my own opinion (as you say everyone should have) without being called ignorant, in which case I make no apologies. I believe that people who only say how stupid anti-gun people are without even attempting a decent argument are ignorant. Not because they are pro-guns. Because they act like children. Someone like yourself who discusses statistics is an entirely different story. And as I’ve said before, I am not against concealed weapons in general. While I do not wish to carry one myself for reasons stated above. I am not against the 2nd amendment. I am against guns on public funded school campuses unless it’s a hired security guard. I am more than willing to listen to someone else’s opinion and actually consider their side. I see where some people are coming from, even though I disagree. However, I haven’t seen a whole lot of the opposition doing the same.
Sorry, the put down comment was not directed at you, I was being vague on purpose so as not to be flamed by him.
Drinking while carry concealed is illegal BTW. Doing so would be a revocation of the license, as it should be on the first offense of a DWI IMO.
I don’t really see the problem. If a licensing and background check are involved, this seems to be a neutral proposal. I used to feel anti-gun, but I have changed my mind over the past couple of years. I’ve always read anti-gun people claiming conceal and carry permit-holders “would only make bad situations worse” in cases of mass-shootings. But they can’t point to a single instance where a conceal & carry permit holder actually DID make a mass shooting worse. There are people carrying all around us, and those who take the courses, get licensed, and pass background checks are of a very, very low risk to the rest of us. “Gun-free” zones don’t protect anybody. To claim otherwise is dishonest. I’d be more comfortable with this proposal if it was limited to professors.
Edit: I see this IS limited to faculty and staff. I had it confused with another recent proposal by the ASG that would have allowed students to carry.
IIRC it was the RIC not ASG that proposed allowing students to carry. But what’s the problem with allowing it?
To get your conceal carry permit you must be 21+, take a class covering the legalities of both carrying and using your gun and pass a background check. How is having a 21+ fac/staff member carrying any different than a 21+ student?
If UofA professors were allowed to carry a gun around just think how hard it would be to question them about your grade at the end of a semester when most UofA professors are one arguement away from losing it.
I might get my liberal card revoked for saying this, but I kind of think this is a good idea.
Professor Burris states, “it quietly sanctions the notion that we are now authorized by the laws of the land, no less, to respond to violence with violence.” The problem is that no amount of anti-gun laws or precautions can protect us from one crazy mofo with a gun. Our only defense is each other. It’s unfortunate, but true.
To quote Kevin Barnes, “Things could be different…..but they’re not.”
Good point George. It has become evident in recent years that the crazy/bad people who commit these crimes 1)have no regard for law, so more restrictive laws are not a deterrent and 2)even though they are crazy they are smart enough to select soft targets densely packed with victims and a low likelihood of return fire. Simple prudence would suggest we tilt those odds back in favor of the innocent.
Academic and utopian debates will not deter someone with mental issues or evil intent. Charlie Collins is a good man, and he is trying to protect against a dangerous, real-world problem.
“the crazy/bad people who commit these crimes…are smart enough to select soft targets densely packed with victims and a low likelihood of return fire”
This is an unfounded assumption, and personally I think it is dead wrong. Time and time again, when we hear about campus shootings, the shooter is targeting people they have a personal issue with. I don’t believe that people in this state of mind are typically considering whether or not they will receive return fire. They do not usually expect to survive the incident.
The campus shooters were targeting people they had a personal issue with? Which instance? My understanding is that the shooters have one objective, and that is a high body-count. They obviously do not single out particular people. Most of the shooters commit suicide when confrontation with law enforcement (i.e. people with weapons) seems imminent.
My understanding is In the aurora theater shooting, there were ~5 theaters closer, but the one he picked disallowed weapons (soft target). In the Clackamas mall shooting, when the shooter saw a permit holder aiming for him (who did not take the shot due to people behind the shooter), the shooter went to a stairwell and killed himself. In the CT school shooting, the shooter killed himself after armed officers arrived. Recent examples of how when shooter met with armed resistance, they ended it.
First of all, AC, I specifically said “campus” for a reason. Not malls and movie theaters.
I just reviewed a pretty exhaustive list of campus shootings. I didn’t actually tally them up, but my assertion that campus shootings are typically targeted at specific individuals is evidenced by history. Roughly 90% (if not more) fit the description.
Point being: a college campus is NOT an inherently dangerous place frequently targeted by raving gunmen. That type of rhetoric or implication helps no one.
I’ve watched same news and read the same articles as everybody about campus shootings. The high profile, body-count shootings did not involve a particular target.
A licensed, armed professor can’t stop a person from coming into a classroom and shooting a single person they have a grievance with. An armed professor might be able to prevent 20+ people being shot over several minutes. Va Tech happened over a 10 minute time span. Columbine took 20 minutes.
I don’t know if this is the answer, but I also don’t see the harm in allowing licensed, trained professors from exercising their right to carry.
Both sides of the debate seem rather inflexible.
No doubt, those very few random incidents were horrific, but they were so random and exceedingly rare that I don’t see them as justification for inviting guns onto campus. I believe that more guns equals a higher risk that someone gets shot. I know people with permits, I know many professors, and I know the requirements for getting a concealed carry permit, and none of this inspires the least bit of confidence in me. Just because a person has the barest amount of wherewithal that is needed to get a permit does not qualify nor prepare them for the type of situation we are discussing.
does no one remember the UofA professor John Locke who was shot to death a few years ago by a student specifically angry at him?
Professor Burris, whom I know tangentially but whom I greatly respect, is probably vomiting blood at the thought of students shooting each other on campus, either as offense or defense.
I worked on the UA campus every day and baby Jesus in heaven, I wouldn’t give 99% of those people a water gun, much less something with bullets.
Every cowboy thinks they can save the school with their concealed weapon. He deluded, ridiculous and terribly sad. This is a tragedy waiting to happen of innocent students being caught in the crossfire.
I hope the UA reconsiders this entire farce. We’re better than this.
Totally agree. I would be willing to bet that most people in favor of this idea (not gun activists in general, this specific proposal) are not closely associated with an educator. No educator or relative of one in their right minds would condone students carrying guns on campus. People talk about running good educators off because of the poor educational policies we’ve got, but imagine how many we’ll lose if this gets passed. While I’m strongly against professors carrying as well, I can at least see SOME reasoning behind that argument. Students however… these people either have no connection to education or have some sort of death wish for themselves or others if they do. Our country’s education system has been circling the drain for years, and this will probably flush it on down the pipes. Very sad.
MOAR GUNZ YEAH!
I know people who didn’t have guns and they never got shot. My anecdote has the same weight as others!
Two things:
1. RE: “And on different topic, I find it a bit ironic that the Christian Right, the ones supposedly governing on Christian principles are the ones wanting America to turn into a country of a bunch of gun slinging vigilantes.” No one is condoning vigilantism, or the act of hunting down an alleged perpetrator and executing them without benefit of trial. This is about protection.
2. What is the difference between me (yes, I have a permit, and yes I carry a concealed handgun) walking on the south side of Arkansas Avenue and walking on the north side? If I happen to be walking on the north side, and am carrying my weapon, and use it in self-defense, will I be prosecuted? I guess I should stick to the south side. Point being, if I have a permit to carry, it shouldn’t matter whether I’m on North Street or Stadium Drive. If we are so concerned about allowing permitted individuals to carry their weapons in certain locales, maybe we should make the permitting process much more stringent. Which, by the way, is a joke. It is so easy to get a CHCL I surprised we don’t have more people with them.
jmo
This whole ordeal started with the suggestion of better and more consistent background checks, but there are people who think even that is crazy. I’ve heard people claim that there should be no background check at all, and even no registration of their weapons. I totally disagree agree with letting guns be allowed anywhere and everywhere, but I am in total agreement with you on your last point.
One of the problems seems to be that those who promote carrying guns on campus, in church, etc. are the same people who oppose making the permitting process more stringent. more guns for everyone is better than fewer guns for everyone. that’s the logic.
And to your other point, shouldn’t we also be allowed to carry our guns into Razorback stadium? I mean, what if someone threatened you there too. And if guns should be allowed in all public places, then they certainly should be allowed in the court house. There is already security, and if everyone has a gun, then a shooter wouldn’t get very far. So what’s the difference?
The only thing that stops a bad student with a gun is a good professor with a gun.
I am very interested in the new liability insurance that the university would have to carry for teachers and staff carrying weapons. If one of these untrained individuals injures a by-stander in a shootout, could they not be sued and in turn, could the university not be sued for damages?
Other than the ROTC and Air Force ROTC instructors, there isn’t more than a handful of UA staff or professors who could competently handle a weapon under stress conditions. Worse, if students are allowed to carry weapons, they aren’t covered by any liability. If I get caught in the crossfire and am injured, I’d sue that person into kingdom come.
Before we go around playing Alamo, let’s consider the consequences of people who took a few hours of “class” feeling like they’re “protecting” us. I’d rather take my chances.
^ This. All these concealed carry proponents operate under the assumption that they’ll always hit their target. I swear to god, if me or one of my family members is ever winged or worse by some CC vigilante, I am going to sue that person into the ground and do everything in my power to make sure they go to prison.
Actually this is not true. When you get your CC they teach you that you are responsiable for your rounds and anything that you may hit. For example the mall shooter in Oregon, there was a man with his CC who actually pulled his gun and amied it at the shooter. He did it fire because he saw a woman behind the shooter and did not want to risk hitting her.
Good for them. I’m glad they teach CC folks that they’re responsible for anyone/anything they put a bullet into. But anyone who shoots me or a loved one will be sued into financial ruin and hopefully imprisoned.
Like this moron who shot at some fleeing bank robbers near a huge grocery store in the middle of the day and hit another car:
http://bit.ly/YXf9Eb
Thank god nobody was hurt of killed.
Actually you’re lying completely. Almost every state has very loose regulations. What is this “they teach you” crap?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
Sweet! More places to carry concealed weapons! Can’t wait til they open up the bars!
Naturally, the gun nuts don’t cite any actual research or facts. This is interesting: Indications are that concealed carry does NOT reduce crime. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html
So this just happened:
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/feb/08/accidental-gunshot-wound-kuaf/?news
Kinda relevant….
Awesome!
A work-study student employed at KUAF radio station accidentally wounded himself a little after 12:30 pm today when a handgun he had in his day pack discharged. The student was in the station’s breakroom, and no one else at the station was injured. University of Arkansas Police and first responders are on the scene.
Obama made him shoot himself so that he can take away our GUNZ. MOAR GUNZ!
Yesterday (Thursday, Feb. 8th) Ozarks at Large had a segment on gun control. Did the student have his firearm with him for that reason???
Anybody who totes a weapon around in a backpack knows they shouldnt have it at that time/location, or isnt properly trained to even handle such a weapon. Sounds like a gang banger.
Yes, he had visual props FOR A RADIO SHOW.
Good call.
As an Alum, I will not make any further donations to UA if this bill is not passed.
I would ask, if this was your decision, to take whatever funds you graciously gave, and instead form a group of likeminded alums who would also cease to donate and convince the U of A this is ludicrous.
Lol, this really speaks volumes about the quality of your education and alumni spirit, considering the fact that this bill is being proposed in the state House of Representatives and is not a UofA policy decision.
Just because it passes the House doesnt mean the Chancelor, Deans and Board of Directors adhere to it. Even if it does pass, keeping people from being able to carry firearms on campus would be…. illegal?? now who would enforce that?
No guns in public places.
Please see http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2013/02/08/man-accidentally-shoots-self-at-kuaf-campus-radio-station/.
I can actually see both sides of this. It is not a black & white issue by any means. But it seems like a lot of you are saying that if someone wants to walk into a public place and inflict mass casualties, be it a campus or wherever, we have absolutely no defense. We are conceding that we should simply lie down and hope we don’t get shot? I don’t like that idea.
I’m not saying we should arm everyone, but a few well trained professors or university staff (those willing of course) on campus would be okay with me.
We already have that. The university has a police department.
Who have no, none, zero, zilch, nada legal requirement to protect any individual student. And there are not enough officers to patrol every single area of campus at once (nor do I think that’s the answer).
Legal requirement? I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure they have a general professional mandate to protect everyone, unlike an individual who is carrying around their own gun (legal or not), who has no legal or professional obligation to protect anyone, and will do with their weapon whatever they feel is appropriate.
SCOTUS has ruled that police forces are to provide for the safety of a community at large, not individuals.
So police don’t fire their guns indiscriminately? Bet the two in Torrance are glad to know that!
Seriously?
Obviously, unjustified and irresponsible police shootings happen ALL THE TIME. This fact clearly comes into play when people talk about “trained and certified” weapon owners as if they were somehow immune to accidental or unjustified discharge of their weapons.
Yup, the gist of the ruling was that police are only required to provide for the general safety of the community at large. They’ve ruled similarly in regard to social service workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
Glad you acknowledge the fail-ability of the police; too many put them on a pedestal and free from error.
Deciding to carry a weapon for self defense (whether a knife, gun, mace, whatever) is not to be taken lightly or rushed into.
Why not poll faculty members and let them decide since their group historically is the victim of disgruntled murderous students. I do think women should be allowed carry permits however to make rapists think twice.
The vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults are perpetrated by men known to the woman. Rape-by-stranger is very rare.
This is also a classic case of putting the onus on the victim. I shouldn’t have to pack heat in my purse every time I go out on a date.
So if the guy is known then a woman shouldn’t use a gun to defend herself if he sexually assaults her?
There’s a long history around the UA campus of stranger rapes. I bet rape rates of all kinds would shrivel up so to speak if women started carrying.
Some folks don’t get it. How about this: Instead of making women have to defend themselves, howzabout you no rape, doods?
“That bank was just ASKING for it… flashing all that money around. Of course I had to rob it.”
A woman can defend her body any way she chooses. I’m just saying it’s a crazy society that implies that one must carry a weapon at all times in order to thwart bad behavior.
To your second point, that is 100% false and unsubstantiated. There is absolutely NOT a long history of stranger rapes on the UA campus. Most rapes and sexual assaults on campus are perpetrated by a person known to the victim and on college campuses specifically, there is typically alcohol involved. Here are actual facts: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf
RE “A woman can defend her body any way she chooses.”
My mother carried a blued-steel frog gig in her purse for years. It seemed to work.
We should create a program and require all students to become certified as non-rapists and non-killers.
I don’t know how long most of you have been here but I can say with 100% absolute and undeniable certainty that there has been such a history in the areas on and surrounding campus. The numbers may have changed in more recent times but the history remains. You do many women a disservice by rather aggressively tossing up a journal article, an article based only on official reports. Almost like calling anyone with the other experience a liar- normally a tactic reserved for police departments and the courts. Sure hope you’re not a counselor.
Would you prefer we use conjecture, rumors and hearsay to form our opinions? I didn’t say that stranger rape didn’t happen at the UA, just that it was very rare, as most stranger rapes are.
For you to deny that most rapes are perpetrated by men who are familiar to women is to deny reality.
You are permitted your own opinions, but you are not permitted your own facts. You don’t have “another experience”, you have unsubstantiated “truthiness”.
In fact, since most date-rapes go unreported, the disparity is even higher between those figures and the number of stranger-rapes.
idear, you are being overly sensitive. No-one is denying that stranger-assaults happen, and you really can’t argue with the well-established fact that most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim. Sexual assault is a hideous crime and it is far too common. But it is not accurate to portray our campus (and vicinity) as having an unchecked “rape problem”. That is just more fear-mongering. Awareness is one thing. Fear is another.
Just put saltpeter in the Mountain Dew supply.
Mountain Don’t
Ha!