Now that it is permissible to carry firearms privately on public ways on campuses across this state, let’s pause to reflect on what if anything this new law accomplishes. Where before, campus police could charge with a misdemeanor anyone caught carrying a weapon anywhere on campus, now they cannot charge those whose carrying is limited to “public ways.” Certainly outside sidewalks and fields, perhaps even football stadiums, are public ways.
So how many shootings have occurred over the years on campuses in such public ways? None. All shootings have been indoors, in classrooms, likely, but one in a conference room or auditorium and maybe even a hallway. And if “public way” does not include hallways, there may be total restrictions indoors. But if not, who enters a hallway but then does not enter a room? For that matter, who, when possessed with some insane motive to do harm to others on a campus, pauses even momentarily to consider some threat of a misdemeanor? We may not know how to deter such violence, but certainly this new law accomplishes absolutely nothing for anyone, certainly not for the potential victim and certainly not for 2nd Amendment advocates who imagine themselves as carrying a firearm in some defensive mode. So who does this new law serve if not the politicians who passed it? No one. Just who do our politicians think they are fooling? Us! And that is precisely what this new law was meant to accomplish.
Dale Whiting
Chandler
Cerulean posted at 10:35 am on Fri, Apr 15, 2011.
Yup, guns on campus and happy meal toys, these are the things Arizona Republicans are made of.
Oh, and increased spending for prisons while they decrease spending for public education, that's what else Republicans are made of.
Accuracy posted at 12:52 pm on Fri, Apr 15, 2011.
“New gun law accomplishes nothing?” Well, look again.
Gun rights supporters say that prohibiting gun possession on college campuses is a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. That the measure, the Arizona House of Representatives passed, will make colleges safer by letting people licensed to carry handguns defend themselves in emergencies like the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
While, Democrats say the campus gun bill is inexplicable, and it will encourage more people to carry guns in a state.
Gun control critic, Mexico President Felipe Calderon urged the U.S. Congress to restore a ban on assault weapons in a speech he gave to the joint session of Congress, May 20, 2010 in Washington, D.C.
If Gov. Jan Brewer signs the gun law bill, Arizona will become the second state permitting guns on school property. Arming the faculty on university and community college campuses and allowing guns on campus as in the state of Utah, lawmakers are debating a similar proposal in Texas.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:18 pm on Fri, Apr 15, 2011.
Accuracy, Quoting Wikipedia on the Virginia Tech massacre,
“The incident reignited the gun politics debate in the United States, with proponents of gun control legislation arguing that guns are too accessible, citing that Cho, a mentally unsound individual, was able to purchase two semi-automatic pistols despite state laws which should have prevented such purchase. Opponents of gun control argued that Virginia Tech's gun-free "safe zone" policy ensured that none of the other students or faculty would be armed and that as a result they were unable to stop Cho. “
“During the two attacks, Cho killed five faculty members and 27 students before committing suicide.”
But none of those attacked were outdoors or in any public assess areas. So, with two possible exceptions, if other students or faculty would have been armed and potentially able to stop Cho, they would have had to violate the law by stepping into publically inaccessible ways, i.e. dormitory rooms or class rooms. The two exceptions were a student and a teacher who both were shot through a classroom door which the teacher was holding closed. Cho was firing from an arguably public way, but if and only if halways are considered public ways.
Cho had been denied entry or re-entry to three classrooms, doors having been barricaded. Provide metal doors with inside locks and these two men would have been kept safe!
A gun toting faculty member or student in the hallway outside these three class room could have drawn down on Cho. But understanding that he was armed with “a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun, nineteen 10- and 15-round magazines, and almost 400 rounds of ammunition” how many Guardian Angels carrying handguns in hall ways, but not planning to enter any classrooms because to enter surely would violate the law, would have had the courage to draw down on Cho? None of any sound mind! Sorry Accuracy, you missed your target once again!
Slabside, care to step up to the firing line and take your best shot?
EmperorSmith posted at 2:46 pm on Fri, Apr 15, 2011.
Bit off subject but was there a big T chastising slab about baiting.
On the other note, I do not thinks guns should be aloud in places where tempers can flair! like a court room.
Personally carrying is something I do not often do, depends on where I go. When you have a gun on you it is always there in your mind and at times I do not like to have to consider it there.
Sometimes instance happen and you think if this went bad and I could not defend myself I would be dead.
I give a recent (3 weeks) example, went to my center east mesa post office with a friend so they could check the mail box. I'm sitting in my truck looking at this guy acting strange out front so I am watching him. He sees me and walks by my truck kind of a like a what the f=== are you looking at glance. I stared away and played cool. It could have went bad. I think the guy was on Meth
It was 10 in the morning in a normal neighborhood so I did not feel the need to carry.
Moral of this true story I have reconsidered where I need to carry and when to not.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:13 am on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
EXCUSE ME......................HAVE THE CAMPUS POLICE STOPPED ANY OF THESE MASSACRES ON OUR UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE CAMPUSES.............HELL NO.
HAVE YOU SEEN MOST OF THEM....OVERWEIGHT, WAY PAST MIDDLE AGE....I WON'T EVEN GET INTO THE ...."GENDER" ISSUE.......BUT LET'S SAY THAT MOST .."KAMPUS KOPS" ....WOULDN'T BE HIRED FOR EVEN ......VICE-PRESIDENT JOE "BITE ME" BIDEN'S SECRET SERVICE DETAIL.
k33j88 posted at 7:13 am on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
I support gun control-----using both hand and hitting the target with 1 shot----don't need 19 round magazines. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:14 am on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
Smitty,
Nice way to totally avoid the issue!
What you think about the right to carry a weapon for personal defense, while interesting, it not relevant to this discussion. What do you think about Arizona's new law expanding [at first glance] the right to bear arms on college campuses? Does this law have teeth in it? Does it make meaningful changes or is it just fluff? I argue that it is just fluff, designed to fool you and Slabside.
Looks like you and Slabside have been fooled once again!
EmperorSmith posted at 2:10 pm on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
Alright straight up I do not think guns should be allowed on campus, it is meant as a place of learning, one which I have spent years on.
Now is that going to stop some physco (I need not mention most recent) from taking a gun onto a campus?
There in lies this sort of conundrum, catch 22, what do you do?
If I where a elected member to the AZ house I would have voted against the bill.
Slabside posted at 3:17 pm on Sat, Apr 16, 2011.
It's the law now... get used to it.
wdgnas posted at 6:03 am on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
slabside: it is the law now. i will remember that phrase and throw it back at you each time i see a whiney comment...
Dale Whiting posted at 10:39 am on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
Smitty,
So finally you agree, do you? This new law changes nothing.
Looks like Slabside has yet to wake up and smell the roses. There is nothing to "get used to." Even he cannot carry on campus while on his way to class, unless of course he would propose a "check your guns at the cloakroom sort of valet service!
Slabside posted at 2:19 pm on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
wdgnas, you won't see whiney comments from me. From faux conservatives yes, but not me.
EmperorSmith posted at 8:51 pm on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
Well first off keep it to smith or is this user staff a Hypocritic?
I obey laws may bend a one at a time Slab. When I have commented on here it is has sort of idealistic, like maybe someone in a fist fight.
I know very well the reality of things.
Slabside posted at 9:40 pm on Sun, Apr 17, 2011.
Right on Emp!
Dale Whiting posted at 6:39 am on Mon, Apr 18, 2011.
Absolutely nothing in the above comments addresses much less challenges the hypothesis I proposed.
"certainly this new law accomplishes absolutely nothing for anyone, certainly not for the potential victim and certainly not for 2nd Amendment advocates who imagine themselves as carrying a firearm in some defensive mode. So who does this new law serve if not the politicians who passed it? No one. Just who do our politicians think they are fooling? Us! And that is precisely what this new law was meant to accomplish."
Slabside posted at 3:25 pm on Tue, Apr 19, 2011.
Take the above comments as the poster's concerns over your hypothesis.