"soft target" terrorists concerns

[carguychris]

I think it's pretty clear to me that the terrorists know that these gun free zones are "soft targets" and that's why they have attacked them. Just look at all the attacks and attempted attacks in the states with the strictest gun laws, like New York City vs places where citizens are allowed to be armed.

I don't get the connection.

To suggest that the 9/11 attackers chose NYC because it's "gun-free" is such a huge logical stretch that it's simply absurd. How could a group of citizens with S&W J frames and Ruger LCPs stop terrorists armed with Boeing 767's?

OTOH if you're talking about school shootings in general, IMHO three facts are clear.

1) They're so rare that it's almost impossible to conclude whether the rate of gun ownership amongst the nearby populace has anything to do with the event.

2) One of the few things that can be proven conclusively regarding school shootings is that most of the perpetrators are seriously emotionally disturbed and suicidal.

3) Most school shootings have taken place at a location that is near the shooter's home, either because of a personal connection between the shooter and the institution, or simply because it was convenient.

Assuming that emotionally disturbed individuals are more or less evenly distributed amongst the population, it stands to reason that more school shootings would take place in populated areas, simply because there are more people there. NYC has a larger population than several Western states combined, therefore the number of emotionally disturbed potential shooters is higher in NYC.

[WW2]

The 9/11 hijackers chose airplanes as there weapon because they knew two critical pieces of information:

1. Airplanes are gun-free zones. In fact, are weapon free zones; so a person armed with a box cutter (razor knife) is better armed than the passengers and crew of any American aircraft.

2. Americans had (note, past tense) been trained to passively comply with hijackers. This changed over Pennsylvania.

So, the soft target wasn't the World Trade Center. It was the airplanes at the Boston Airport. Once they obtained more formidable weapons, they were able to use their stealth missles (airplanes) against an unguarded target.

[Sefner]

How about a compromise for college campuses? If you live off campus and have a valid CCH permit then you can carry. However, guns are not allowed in college dorms, or college controlled housing.

Emphasis added. 95% of students in dorms are under 21 and thus can't own a pistol anyways (in most states). Those are are over 21 are RAs (resident assistants). Maybe make it illegal to store a firearm in a dorm but allow carry in the dorm is a better solution. We could maybe tie this into not being able to store a pistol in a place that a minor could easily access it. Pretty much every square inch of a dorm qualifies as this

At many campuses, graduate students and families with students (grad families) live in a separate part of campus in apartments with their families. I see no reason to deny them their right to self defense.

Remember, the proposed regulation must be the least restrictive means possible to achieve the desired result.

Other than that I think this proposal is a definite step in the right direction and I think is even the mythical "low hanging fruit", especially for students like me (I live off campus and drive). I am denied my right to self defense even when I'm not on school grounds because I can't have my firearm on school grounds, so I can't have it on the trip over there. Driving to school does not make me immune to crime. Is this the least restrictive means? I can't even have my firearm in my car if I'm on college property, so if I'm even driving through campus, I'm breaking the law if I am armed.

[MikeNice81]

Sefner, I agree with you, but I don't think college's want to be that nuanced in their rules. If you look at most college rules they are rather broadly written. There is a lot of zero tolerance stuff in college rule books. It makes it easier to avoid confusion, and more importantly, the accusation of biased discipline.

I don't think you could get carry allowed unless you ban it in all college controlled housing. Remember you have to chip away at these type of things to get what you want. That is how anti-gunners and anti-smokers have been able to go as far as they have.

[Sefner]

Mike, you're absolutely right. That's why I like the idea of the "low hanging fruit" tactic, because we "chip away" at these things. I was just commenting on how pretty much every aspect of PFZs is pretty irrational and right-depriving.

You're definitely right that when it comes to things like this, we need to find one very specific issue that we can definitely win, and that's why I liked your suggestion of off-campus students so much, it wasn't even something that I had thought about and I even live off campus!

[smince]

so a person armed with a box cutter (razor knife) is better armed than the passengers and crew of any American aircraft.

While this does relate to your point #2 about passive compliance, I think there are improvised weapons that could have been very effective against the hijackers and their box cutters.

It's just that few know what and how to use them.

[teumessian_fox]

a person armed with a box cutter (razor knife) is better armed than the passengers and crew of any American aircraft.

On 9/11 those people thought they were merely going to be forced to fly to a foreign territory. I suppose they were docile because they thought everything was going to be ok? As in, no need to fight back?

But the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, the passengers had determined to fight back once they heard of the other crashes.

I think there are improvised weapons that could have been very effective against the hijackers and their box cutters.

Somebody improvised some kind of weapons on that fourth flight.

[Tom-C]

Smince

No one thought to try and use improvised weapons, because we had been told that if we give them what they want no one will get hurt. As someone said earlier, that all changed over Pennsylvania.

Tom

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by Sefner

95% of students in dorms are under 21 and thus can't own a pistol anyways (in most states). Those are are over 21 are RAs (resident assistants). Maybe make it illegal to store a firearm in a dorm but allow carry in the dorm is a better solution. We could maybe tie this into not being able to store a pistol in a place that a minor could easily access it. Pretty much every square inch of a dorm qualifies as this.

Similar to provisions many states have for CCW permit holders to retain their holstered firearms in their vehicles when they're dropping the kids off in the parking lot of Anytown Elementary...

[Sefner]

Originally Posted by Tamara

Similar to provisions many states have for CCW permit holders to retain their holstered firearms in their vehicles when they're dropping the kids off in the parking lot of Anytown Elementary...

I know it's not perfect, but we are going for the "low hanging fruits" here and we have to phrase things in a manner that won't create talking points against us.

I, too, would rather eliminate all PFZs but like Mike said, I think we have to take baby steps.

Legislation to allow carry in dorms will be a much easier argument to make than to allow firearm storage in dorms. Because then we aren't talking about kids having Glocks in their closets, we are talking about State licensed people who can already carry every where else, who don't live in the dorms and thus can't store it where "some kid could get it and". At least here in MI, CPL holders must be 21, and college kids of that age generally don't live in dorms, they live in places where you can already legally own and carry a firearm. So not allowing storage in dorms doesn't really affect anyone too much (which isn't an excuse for it, it's just a "concession" we can make).

It eliminates part of the day-time-TV crowd's "GUNS IN DORMS SOME KID COULD" argument.

[RastaMan]

There is a big difference between an 18-22 year old soldier and an 18-22 year old college student.

The soldier has at least 8 weeks of training. The military conducted at least a basic background check on them. During the 8 weeks of training, the folks doing the training are observing and closely monitoring the soldiers. The soldiers carry weapons in an environment with other people supervising and managing them closely. The soldier only carries their weapon in an environment where there is a threat. During times where there is not a threat, the weapons are placed in secured arms rooms only taken out for training and cleaning.

Another thing to consider is carrying a weapon on a college campus or in any public place is a vastly different situation then carrying a weapon in Afghanistan. There are obvious differences. I would say carrying a weapon around in any public place in America requires a greater amount of responsibility and due diligence then carrying around a weapon in Afghanistan.

Therefore, I believe that in order for an individual to carry a weapon in public (concealed or otherwise) would require a greater amount of maturity and training then in the military. My opinion is that for an individual to have a CCW they should be able to meet a certain standard in regards to training and be able to pass a qualification test. The age to get such a permit should be at least 23 and it should be required that no alcohol or drugs be consumed while they are carrying. Another requirement I would like to see is an opinion letter from a psychologist and the person who trained the individual stating if the person seems worthy of carrying the weapon. Something where they talked and observed the person and would have no issues with that particular person carrying a weapon. Soldiers do go through batteries of psychological testing and their trainers do observe them closely for 8 weeks of time dont forget.

To let an 18 year old carry a firearm around a college campus without training, qualification and observation would be irresponsible.

[Sefner]

I don't normally do this, but...

Originally Posted by RastaMan

There are obvious differences. I would say carrying a weapon around in any public place in America requires a greater amount of responsibility and due diligence then carrying around a weapon in Afghanistan.

What? So carrying a select fire carbine in a war zone allows the user to be less diligent than carrying an 8+1 1911 a suburban mall?

Originally Posted by RastaMan

Therefore, I believe that in order for an individual to carry a weapon in public (concealed or otherwise) would require a greater amount of maturity and training then in the military. My opinion is that for an individual to have a CCW they should be able to meet a certain standard in regards to training and be able to pass a qualification test. The age to get such a permit should be at least 23 and it should be required that no alcohol or drugs be consumed while they are carrying. Another requirement I would like to see is an opinion letter from a psychologist and the person who trained the individual stating if the person seems worthy of carrying the weapon. Something where they talked and observed the person and would have no issues with that particular person carrying a weapon. Soldiers do go through batteries of psychological testing and their trainers do observe them closely for 8 weeks of time dont forget.

What kind of psychologist? Only a government licensed psychologist? Is one of the questions "have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" or "Have you ever plotted to overthrow the government?" or "Who did you vote for in the last election?" or "Do you believe in God?" or "Do you think that if you kill someone in self-defense that you are sinning?"... I think you see the dangers of this. How does one define "worthy"? Is it some elite-club, CPL holders? Where you have to be deemed worthy? How long must this observation go on and how much does the carrying have to pay the psychologist in order to exercise his fundamental right to self defense? 6 months? That's pretty expensive. 8 weeks like in the military (even though you said the general public needs more training than the average soldier)? The mean salary of a psychologist is $83,000 in America. 8 weeks of pay at that rate is $12,800. Pretty expensive for the single mom who wants protection for her and her children while they are out at McDonalds. Also, this psychologist makes a personal decision on whether or not they want that person to carry a firearm? Does that same psychologist also decide whether or not someone can exercise their right to petition or practice religion? What if that psychologist doesn't like guns? Fundamental rights are not up to the discretion of a psychologist.

Why 23? Why not 22 and 364 days? 22 and 363 days? 22 and 6 months? You see where I'm going with this. What is so different about someone when they wake up on their 23rd birthday that they now have more diligence, responsibility, and psychological stability than a combat veteran in Iraq?

Felons won't go through all of that in order to carry. They will still do it. It's the already normal, already law abiding, already psychologically stable people that will go through all of that in order to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

To let an 18 year old carry a firearm around a college campus without training, qualification and observation would be irresponsible.

I'd rather let any random 18 year old carry a firearm onto a college campus then a felon who does it everyday because he doesn't care about the laws. Also, I thought your minimum age to handle the training and psychological challenges of carrying a concealed weapon was 23, not 18. It is also already illegal for 18 year olds to carry on college campuses anywhere in America. Also, no one is arguing for that. We are arguing that people who have already been deemed by the State (you like that, right?) to carry everywhere else to be able to defend themselves when they walk across the street onto a college campus.

[pax]

Sefner,

Good post!

One (minor) quibble:

It is also already illegal for 18 year olds to carry on college campuses anywhere in America.

Not so. In Vermont, people over the age of 16 can carry without a permit or permission from the state (although as long as they are minors, their parents must authorize them to carry or possess the firearm). However, Vermont law does prohibit carry in schools, but I can't find the statutory definition of "school" -- whether it's talking about K-12, or whether it includes colleges and universities.

Utah already allows carry on college campuses, by the way. "Blood running in the streets!" "Drunk people shooting each other in the hallways!" "College co-eds killing each other over parking spaces!" ... None of that has happened there, either. But their minimum-age law for carry is 21, in line with most other states.

Oregon allows people with a carry permit to carry into public schools -- all public schools. But they fire employees who do it. Again, minimum age for a permit there is 21. (Interestingly, Oregon also allows carry in bars. No big deal there either, no blood running in the streets.)

Indiana issues permits to people age 18 or over. It does prohibit carry in "schools," defining schools to include preschools, but does not (apparently) define whether or not colleges & universities fall under that statute. Again, however, we have 18 year olds walking around legally armed, without blood running in the streets. Also, Indiana has a strong parking lot law which specifically allows people to leave firearms locked in their vehicles when they park.

Anyway, the point here is that allowing firearms on campus is only scary & frightening to people who haven't looked at the actual facts and what some states are already doing. Allowing private individuals to exercise their freedom to carry necessary tools to protect themselves and their communities against outside dangers (such as "terrorism") was the entire design intent of the 2nd Amendment. To claim to support the 2nd Amendment, but then turn around and say you're against people carrying in government-owned areas specifically thought to be "more dangerous" than the surrounding environs actually defeats the original intent of the Bill of Rights.

pax

[Sefner]

Thanks for the correction, pax! I knew that at least one state allowed campus carry but I didn't think that they issued permits to 18 year olds.

Here in MI you can open carry into a school (not college campus, that's very different) as long as you have a CPL (which you need to be 21 to get). If you do not have a CPL you cannot open carry into the school. Any concealed carry is illegal. I know it sounds backwards, but the law is written funny and cities have been successfully sued for arresting people for doing just that. And like you, I've never heard of an open carrier carrying into a school and having a shootout over their kids' grades during parent-teacher conferences.

Colorado also have a university allow concealed carry on campus but that was struck down.

And here in MI, Michigan State University allows people with CPLs to carry on campus but not into buildings. The vote for this was 7-1 and the single vote against was not on the gun issue but rather on the issue that the trustee was afraid the State would infringe on MSU's independence.

Here is a great story on that: http://www.statenews.com/index.php/a...arms_on_campus

Incidentally and possibly related, MSU has the best Crim. Just. program in MI. Lots of police go there for their degrees.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by RastaMan

My opinion is that for an individual to have a CCW they should be able to meet a certain standard in regards to training and be able to pass a qualification test. The age to get such a permit should be at least 23 and it should be required that no alcohol or drugs be consumed while they are carrying. Another requirement I would like to see is an opinion letter from a psychologist and the person who trained the individual stating if the person seems worthy of carrying the weapon.

Thankfully, most state legislatures seem to think your opinion is pretty bogus.

Here in Indiana, an 18-year-old with a clean record can get a carry permit, no mandatory training or psychological eval required. It's been that way since before WWII, and yet the Hoosier state seems remarkably devoid of the "blood in the streets" that is always hand-wringingly predicted by anti-civil rights types.

[RastaMan]

"What? So carrying a select fire carbine in a war zone allows the user to be less diligent than carrying an 8+1 1911 a suburban mall? "

The soldier carrying the carbine would probably along with a greater unit and chain of command. There would be several layers of supervision and control of that person carrying the carbine. There would also be rules of engagement and other things that would control the situation. The Private or Specialist has access to their Sgts. who have a greater level of training and experience.

The person carrying the 1911 operates without any supervision or control. Thus, the person carrying the 1911 has to be more responsible, diligent and better trained.


"How does one define "worthy"? Is it some elite-club, CPL holders? Where you have to be deemed worthy? How long must this observation go on and how much does the carrying have to pay the psychologist in order to exercise his fundamental right to self defense?"

I think at a bare minimum there should be some psychological testing done (written testing like the Army or police departments have) and a 15-minute face-to-face sitdown with a psychologist where some basic questions are asked. This would be to make sure the person is an obviously coherent individual who has the basic mental skills to handle a deadly weapon.

As for defining exactly would be a "worthy" individual then it would be on a case by case basis. If someone is not worthy, then the facts could be articulated as to why and then that person could always appeal the decision. In some states, when a CCW is denied then the matter goes up in front of a judge for appeal. So if a person is denied by a psychologist then I would say the matter should then be sent to a judge who will decide to appeal it or not...

[Tamara]

RastaMan,

Constitutional issues aside, the facts show that your fears are groundless.

CCW has been in place for decades, sometimes many decades, without all the contrived folderol you propose, and still we are unplagued by a rash of unstable, untrained permit holders shooting up the town. Go figure.

If it would make you feel more "worthy" to get the blessing of a psych major, then by all means, have at it, but don't try and burden me with all that unnecessary twaddle.

[Sefner]

Originally Posted by RastaMan

The person carrying the 1911 operates without any supervision or control.

Your verbiage belies your intent, I think. It seems you're mildly frustrated that civilians are able to do things without, as you put it, "control". And if they aren't controlled then we need to subject them to testing in order to make sure that, while they are uncontrolled, that they won't do anything the government wouldn't want them to do. I'm not a tin foil hat type but this is not how government should operate when it comes to basic civil rights. Privileges, such as driving, are a different matter. But this is a fundamental right we are talking about.

I think at a bare minimum there should be some psychological testing done (written testing like the Army or police departments have) and a 15-minute face-to-face sitdown with a psychologist where some basic questions are asked. This would be to make sure the person is an obviously coherent individual who has the basic mental skills to handle a deadly weapon.

I will again restate my point here. What kind of psychologist and what kind of questions are being asked? It is not a very large logical leap from "Have you ever plotted to overthrow the government" to "Have you ever been a member of the Hutaree" to "What are your political beliefs?". Again, not a tin-foil-hat type, but this is the government we are talking about.

Also, and this is the more important point, if a person is not mentally capable of passing this test they will be able to get a gun anyways, via illegal means such as robbery or buying one off the black market. This kind of regulation does not prevent mentally incompetent people from acquiring guns, at best it gives false-positives to normal and law abiding people (and thus wrongly depriving them of their rights) and at worst it's government control of who is armed and who is not.

As for defining exactly would be a "worthy" individual then it would be on a case by case basis.

This can NOT be a "case-by-case" basis. the Due Process and P&I Clauses and recent SCOTUS rulings that self-defense is a fundamental right prevent that.

[smince]

Rastaman (and sliponby);

Despite the misgivings the two of you have, my own state of Alabama has no training requirement or psych eval. We also have a very low fee (depending on county, from as low as $7 to a high of $35) for a permit. Took me a grand total of 10 minutes to get my first one and less to renew it (no, I'm not friends with the Sheriff either).

With a permit, we can carry in K-12 as long as it is 'without intent to do bodily harm'.

As Tamara and pax say, no blood running in our streets...

[HotShot.444]

Exalted Seniors, please let us neophytes gather information day-to-day sans your erudite direction and extremely expert and self-vaunted supervising. You know who you are. If a noobie begins to stray or rant, please be mature enough to realize this, and admonish said posting, but not ban us all forthwith. Here is a scenario I hope we never see (a la Beslan's perfect storm): innumerable school-buses, all across the nation, could easily be commandeered by one or two terrorists on each bus. The terrorists could get on the bus at any stop along the bus's route, take it to school, and begin the terror. Or they could jump on, just as the busses were leaving the schools to take kids home. Wearing a police uniform, etc. could make this SOOoo easy. Take all the buses to an abandoned Car Sales business, or other corral and launch the mayhem. After posing this post-Beslanario, I ask, "How would you prevent it?"

[BGutzman]

I think at a bare minimum there should be some psychological testing done (written testing like the Army or police departments have) and a 15-minute face-to-face sitdown with a psychologist where some basic questions are asked. This would be to make sure the person is an obviously coherent individual who has the basic mental skills to handle a deadly weapon.

As for defining exactly would be a "worthy" individual then it would be on a case by case basis. If someone is not worthy, then the facts could be articulated as to why and then that person could always appeal the decision. In some states, when a CCW is denied then the matter goes up in front of a judge for appeal. So if a person is denied by a psychologist then I would say the matter should then be sent to a judge who will decide to appeal it or not...

So do you think you should also have psychological testing before using your freedom of speech, or freedom of religion? Rights are not subject to review for approval by a doctor. Rights are inherent and you are born with them.

Should Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion be subject to some sort of testing?

What soldier or sailor who swore to uphold the constitution would even consider such a thing?

Freedom is a RIGHT and if it is not then we live under tyranny.

[RastaMan]

The Supreme Court has ruled that all of these rights can be regulated for the good of public safety and national security. For example, free speech does not extend to threatening the President, being a public nuisance, making a crank phonecall to 911, yelling fire when there is no fire, etc. Free speech also does not extend to defamatory statements against private citizens...Most of these rights are also not extended to certain members of the public such as prisoners, persons deemed to be insane and children for public safety reasons.

Lets say John Smith accidentally shoots someone or himself with his concealed weapon as a result of not being trained or qualified. Lets say John Smith was not a coherent individual and the Sheriff decided to just hand him the permit after he submitted his 7 bucks. Then what would happen? Well, then the anti-gun lobby would use that to further restrict our rights. I want to prevent guys like John Smith from making a case for the anti-gun lobby. Therefore, I support training, testing, screening and qualification when it comes to these CCW permits. I want guys carrying concealed weapons around that know how to use their pistols, can pass a 15 minute sitdown with a psychologist, pass rudimentary tests at a range, pass a written test and then only after some classroom instruction.

My opinion...I believe in the right to bear arms, but I only want those carrying them that can represent the gun owning population in a positive and responsible manner.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Since I'm a psychologist, I can assure that the suggestion that such a limited interview or test is worth anything is ridiculous. The literature on predicting performance and violence is pretty clear that such instruments exist.

So it's a silly idea.

[raimius]

RastaMan, you "believe in the right," but demand restrictions that have shown little to no improvement in injury and crime rates. Do you really belive in the "right" or only the PRIVILEGE of the elite? (those who have the time and money to jump through whatever hoops you deem "necessary")

[Sefner]

Originally Posted by RastaMan

My opinion...I believe in the right to bear arms, but I only want those carrying them that can represent the gun owning population in a positive and responsible manner.

At this point I wonder if we are dealing with a troll. This statement is ridiculous.

Well, then the anti-gun lobby would use that to further restrict our rights... I support training, testing, screening and qualification ... pass a 15 minute sitdown with a psychologist, pass rudimentary tests at a range, pass a written test and then only after some classroom instruction.

You want to prevent the anti-gun lobby from restricting our rights by restricting our rights for them? That's not really how this works.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Since I'm a psychologist, I can assure that the suggestion that such a limited interview or test is worth anything is ridiculous. The literature on predicting performance and violence is pretty clear that such instruments exist.

But it would make people feel safer by giving the illusion that mentally ill people couldn't legally carry around guns, they would just have to do it illegally!