C-Span covers forum on college campus conceled carry

[jimpeel]

Yesterday, C-Span posted to their archive the discussion that SAF and SCCC had on student concealed carry on campus. The video is at the link and runs three hours and thirty-two minutes.

The "Related Resources" list has some interesting things also for those so interested.

VIDEO LINK

Washington, DC
Monday, August 8, 2011

Two groups that support giving college students the ability to carry a concealed weapon on campus held a discussion on the issue today in Washington.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) argue that colleges would be safer if students were allowed to possess firearms.

[C0untZer0]

Just remembering my college days and all the very stupid things that my fellow college students did (not me of course).

[Hardcase]

Just remembering my college days and all the very stupid things that my fellow college students did (not me of course).

That happens to be a very good point, and one that was, I thought, addressed very succinctly when a bill was debated in the Idaho legislature.

One of the opponents suggested that drunken college students would be shooting the dickens out of each other. A supporter countered that even though most of the students ought not to be drinking since they're under 21, for that same reason, most of them would not be legally carrying concealed weapons.

If I recall correctly, the bill passed the House but was tabled in the Senate.

There is a similar situation playing out in the court with a University of Idaho student who is fighting the ban on any firearms in married student housing on campus. I believe that it's covered in its own thread in this forum.

[Sefner]

Just remembering my college days and all the very stupid things that my fellow college students did

Yeah, and adults never do stupid things like rob drug stores, rape people, invade homes... oh wait.

That argument is tired. Stupidity does not discriminate based on age. There is no data to support it.

There is data to support the opposite, though. There are, if I'm remembering this correctly, 70 campuses that allow students to carry on them. They have never had an incident. Not even one of a "stupid drunk frat boy". Now many colleges that ban carrying on campus have had incidents with drunk stupid frat boys and guns, but those colleges ban guns so they don't have incidents of drunk stupid frat boys and guns (an astute reader should see that that previous sentence is a little funny).

[jimpeel]

Originally Posted by Sefner

(an astute reader should see that that previous sentence is a little funny).

A circular argument. Read from the beginning and repeat to infinity.

[jimpeel]

John Lott gave the politically correct rebuttal to this man. That is why firearms proponents are in such disarray. No one wants to tell the antis the truth lest they hurt their feelings.

My rebuttal to this man.

Sir, in your opening statement you said that you were glad that no one in this room is allowed to carry a concealed weapon. What you fail to realize, in your zeal, is if there is a person in this room who is carrying a concealed firearm, that person is a criminal who may decide to commit a heinous crime in our presence here today. In that event, there would be no more assistance in stopping him today than you had on the day you were injured; and you celebrate that fact. You exist very comfortably in this no firearms zone just as you did on that horrible day. You have learned nothing from your experience.

You state that the teacher went to the door and saw the carnage and told everyone to take cover. You stated that you had no time to react as the shooter entered the room several seconds later. Yet had there been an armed CCW holder in the room with you they would have taken those few seconds to arm themselves and cover the door prior to the entry of the shooter. Instead, all of you cowered under your desks while the shooter nonchalantly walked through the classroom shooting helpless victims at will -- completely unopposed. This is what you now advocate for everyone. He would not have been able to do what he did if he were under attack, wounded, or dead.

I am sure that you felt sheer terror on that day. You felt totally helpless and you were grievously injured. Now, knowing what you know, you desire that everyone feel as terrorized and helpless as you did and they should be willing -- no, they should have a duty -- to be injured like you were. You, Sir, are the epitome of the adage "Misery loves company." You and your organization want equal opportunity for all as long as that opportunity is terrorism, helplessness, and death.

You are a professional victim and a recruiter for additional professional victims. Your organization needs victims such as yourself. Their entire existence is dependent on victims. Without victims they would cease to exist; and you would be out of a job.

If you were to stand before two doors knowing behind each there were 100 people -- one of which has 100 armed law abiding people such as those in this room, and one of which has one armed criminal with an extensive record of violence -- I believe you would, driven by your misguided principles, choose the door with the one criminal; because you are a professional victim. I believe that you could not bring yourself to enter the room with so many armed people due to your inane fear of anyone who possesses a firearm. You would see the law abiding as the greater threat.

I leave you to wallow in your pathos.