Things That Are Hilarious About Students For Concealed Carry on Campus
I love many things in this life, two of which are the internet and guns. I freely admit to loving both of these things; there is nothing as satisfying as finding out exactly what you need to know exactly when you need to know it, nor is there anything as thrilling as blowing holes in inanimate objects. (Wikipedia and soda cans, be warned: I’m coming for you! OK, Wikipedia doesn’t need to be afraid of me, but soda cans are either getting recycled or sent directly to HELL!)
So yes, on a very basic level, I am pro gun, yet I am against automatic weapons and hunting. I also find that my views do not align with the agenda of Students For Concealed Carry on Campus. This group believes that licensed, legally-armed citizens should be able to carry guns on college campuses; I, however, do not. Here are a few things I find funny or illogical about the Students For Concealed Carry on Campus and a few of the statements on their website:
- Students For Concealed Carry on Campus is a pro gun group that doesn’t have the word ‘gun’ or ‘firearms’ anywhere in their name. That strikes me as strange.
- The site routinely mentions that the group is comprised of “over 42,000 college students, professors, college employees, parents of college students, and concerned citizens.” They like throwing that number around, which seems strange to me, because that’s not a lot of people. As of 2010, Wyoming was the least populated state in the union at 563,626 people while the United States population was at 308,143,815. In terms of a organizational comparison, PETA has millions of members… what I’m saying is, 42k is not a lot of people. And I’d love to know what percentage of their membership is made up of ‘concerned citizens.’ I’m just going to guess and say 90%.
- ‘Students for Concealed Carry does not advocate “arming students.”’ OK, I know this is a college student organization, so this is probably a dumb question, but are you on fucking drugs?!? But let me give you a chance to explain yourself: ‘Our proposals do not change who can carry, but where. We believe that professors, ROTC cadets, ex-Marines, evening students or anyone who already carries a concealed weapon under existing law is no different on campus than they are off-campus. After all, under current law, armed citizens can carry a concealed weapon into literally thousands of places throughout their state, including movie theaters, restaurants, banks, shopping malls, churches and grocery stores, and have done so responsibly for years.’ So you’re pro guns in church, then? Do we really need guns in movie theaters? I think this kind of rhetoric just creates more problems for their cause, as I’m guessing that the first thought that flies through the mind of the average person who reads this is, “You can bring a gun into a bank?”
- “History is clear, stickers on campus doors saying “no guns allowed” don’t stop criminal offenders. In fact, no law will ever affect criminal behavior because criminals, by their very nature, do not follow the law. What these signs actually do is create (and advertise!) a defense-free zone, removing legal guns and forcibly disarming victims. This is exactly what makes colleges most attractive to killers who seek easy targets.” First, they’ve taught us that a sticker is no match for a gun; that’s brilliant. Then: Criminals don’t follow the law – wow! That’s what makes them criminals in the first place though, right? Thanks for explaining that to me! And I guess ‘killers who seek easy targets’ (as opposed to the killers who are up for a challenge… but I thought man was the deadliest game of all…) are the sort of guys who sit around and think, “I want to kill people, but I’m not, like, willing to work at it or anything… Oh, I know! I’ll go to a college campus!” – is that what they’re saying? Without checking, I’ll say that I’m pretty sure that college shootings (sans Kent State) or any other school shooting is usually perpetrated by a student, not a criminal who is sitting around, thinking about ‘defense-free zones,’ which I’m pretty sure are protected by armed campus police – see point 5 for more.
- I also want to know what college these folks hang out at that doesn’t have armed campus police. Am I way off base, or do most college police officers not carry guns these days? I thought they all did. Otherwise, they’re just some person in a uniform with a badge – the gun is an important distinction between, “Hmm, I might be getting a ticket,” and “Oh shit, it’s the cops.”
- “Many students state they would not feel safe if concealed carry were allowed.” You folks need to take a marketing class. I know, I know; you go on to make a point, so rock on: “However, concealed carry at Virginia Tech was blocked with the specific goal of “feeling safe.” On April 16, 2007, it became clear that feeling safe isn’t the same as being safe.” Because what, if someone was carrying a concealed weapon that day, they could have stopped that kid (wasn’t he a student there, and not necessarily a ‘criminal’ looking for ‘a defense-free zone’?) by engaging him in a fire fight? Wouldn’t that have put many students in the middle of a dangerous cross fire? And you’re also assuming that the person responding to the shooter has good aim, isn’t scared out of their mind and shaking like a leaf… It’s hard to hit something with a hand gun, and the farther away you get, the harder it is… I would say that once you get passed six feet, you accuracy is going to start falling significantly. (Remember, I’m not talking out of my ass, I have shooting experience!)
- “crime rates on college campuses have risen in recent years, and statistics show that, nationwide, there are nine sexual assaults reported on college campuses each day. Furthermore, the low probability of becoming a victim doesn’t help the 47 victims at Virginia Tech, or the 27 victims at Northern Illinois University, or any of the other countless victims of crimes on campuses. Current policies give such victims the option of playing dead or huddling under desks.” Wouldn’t it be easier to educate the student community about sex, sexual assault and so on rather than telling everybody to buy a gun? Pardon the expression, but it sounds like overkill. Crime is up, huh? What kind of crime? If you catch somebody stealing your laptop or your iPod, should we just shoot that asshole? If you see someone committing a sexual assault, your plan is to shoot the perpetrator off the victim? That is NOT a good strategy. I know we see cops on TV hiding behind car doors from gun fire all the time, but I assure you, a bullet will pass through a car door unless the door has been specifically designed to repel bullets.
- Their final point under the heading ‘Colleges can’t protect students‘ refers to emergency text messaging systems, surveillance cameras and campus police as reactionary measures to college shooting incidents. I suppose that’s true, but if the alternative is arming everyone and having them shoot it out with the bad guy, I tend to think this is not a better idea than the aforementioned approaches. Ultimately, the organization doesn’t expect college campuses to provide much in the way of protection or, as they put it, “provide airport-grade security” because “few people want the nature of a college campus changed so radically.” I tend to agree; it’s impossible to provide a completely safe environment… pretty much anywhere. That’s because the kind of safety that this organization is advocating for is an illusion for pretty much everyone in almost every situation – arming people isn’t going to give us all secret service grade protection, and that’s what they’re really advocating for, isn’t it? If a bad guy pops up, some random citizen will jump up, whip out their 357 magnum (or better yet, the 44 Magnum, Dirty Harry style) and mow them down. Remember way back when toy guns used to look like real guns and every once in a while, it would get a kid killed? We didn’t arm the kids or take the cops guns away, we simply changed the toy guns to look more like toys and less like the real thing. If the group is so afraid of more innocents getting shot, wouldn’t it make more sense to simply have less guns around? I just can’t follow their logic.
In my view, Students For Concealed Carry on Campus has this idealized view of guns where everybody has great reaction time, Robin Hood like aim and a cool head under immense pressure. The idea that everyone is suddenly going to rise to the occasion like they’re Wyatt Earp is laughable to anyone with any gun experience and, you know, a functioning brain. Arming the population is just going to result in more people getting caught in the crossfire. I urge folks not to support this group; trust me, when you mess with the bull, you get the horns; or, if you like, if you pull a gun on somebody else with a gun, you’re probably going to get shot next and when you shoot back at the guy with the gun, you’re probably going to miss him.
Posted on March 10, 2011, in observations and tagged college, concealed gun, concealed weapon, gun control, guns on college campus, pro gun, Students For Concealed Carry on Campus. Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.