"Glock Blocking" - a Student News Editorial

[ZeSpectre]

EDITORIAL: Glock Blocking

Posted on September 8, 2008

SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS have long been a hot-button issue for social conservatives, military enthusiasts and hunters — and now, your average college student.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is primarily dedicated to striking down college gun-control policies, which restrict people from locking and loading before coming to campus.

Skirting the tiresome legal arguments and the idea of preventing a violent culture, SCCC focuses on the idea that, by carrying guns, we will never have to use them — like an arms race.

For a group that uses a massive amount of statistics in its arguments, it’s curious that SCCC finds its impetus in statistical outliers — though the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings were horrific, are they truly valid bases for widespread policy? The scenario SCCC paints is compelling: helpless students slaughtered because they cannot arm themselves. But how does that stack up against thousands of armed students and faculty on a daily basis?

Don’t forget that the ultimate reason to carry a gun is to be able to fire it.

Some are less than thrilled with our university’s current gun policy, which prohibits anyone from carrying a gun on campus. On the other hand, many are uncomfortable with the thought of allowing loaded, lethal weapons on campus.

If concealed carry were allowed on JMU’s campus, any student, faculty or staff member might very well be within firing range at any given point. Silence on this issue might be taken as consent.

Any thoughts?

SCCC’s “Answers to the Most Common Arguments” against its cause can be found on its Web site, concealedcampus.org.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Just when I think folks are starting to "get it" along comes something like this.

 

[wuchak]

"If concealed carry were allowed on JMU’s campus, any student, faculty or staff member might very well be within firing range at any given point. "

They already are. Only now they have no defense.

 

[Tribal]

Did you write that?

EDIT: Nevermind; had to re-read it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

On the other hand, many are uncomfortable with the thought of allowing loaded, lethal weapons on campus.

Of course they are, that's the whole point...

If they (guns) are gonna come on campus anyway they should be in the hands of law abiding citizens and not just the criminals.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Did you write that?

No, but I'm assembling a nice rebuttal that I hope to get printed.

 

[tinygnat219]

Interesting article.

Even after VA Tech, some idiot at that school still doesn't seem to get it.

Go for it Ze!

TJ

 

[CountGlockula]

Any thoughts?

How anti can you get?

 

[Halo]

Don’t forget that the ultimate reason to carry a gun is to be able to fire it.

The ultimate reason to carry a gun is for defense of life and limb. It's a case of "have to" rather than "able to". The author is repeating the tired notion that gun owners are, at some level, just itching for a chance to shoot someone.

 

[Zedo]

If concealed carry were allowed on JMU’s campus, any student, faculty or staff member might very well be within firing range at any given point. Silence on this issue might be taken as consent.

Concealed carry is lawful OFF CAMPUS. Students go off campus are are undoubtably in close proximity to concealed handguns. No one gets shot.

The "purpose" of a [defensive] firearm is deterrent. And it works.

 

[thebucket]

I don't understand it. We have seen over and over that gun-free zones DO NOT STOP AND HAVE NOT STOPPED the disturbed people that go on shooting sprees and yet people still believe that they're less endangered if no one has guns around.

If concealed carry were allowed on JMU’s campus, any student, faculty or staff member might very well be within firing range at any given point.

Everyone already is in firing range. The gun free zones DO NOTHING. Posting here is preaching to the choir, I know, and I think I will send an email to their opinion editor.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Anyone notice that there is no opinon bit or chance to contact the author of the article. Hmm bet the author would get a surprise for their arrogance.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Well it's been a BUSY day so far. Normally I could whip something like this out in a few minutes but I've had to piecemeal it together between job demands and at lunch.

So, here for critique and review before I submit it....

Insurance Policies
(a response to the Editorial “Glock Blocking”)
We are all familiar with insurance Policies, those contractual bets placed against the possibility of harm or damage coming to your property, your loved ones, or yourself. You know, the ones you invest heavily into, praying that you will never, EVER, need them.

I have several types of insurance policies in my life and without exception I find them all annoying. They constantly consume time, money, and space I would rather utilize in another manner and they are all utterly useless.

Useless, that is, unless the dice roll against you and they are needed.

When that happens you suddenly find yourself sending praises to the heights, thankful that you were prepared, that you were SMART enough and RESPONSIBLE enough to underwrite against such a possibility.

This mindset holds true if we are talking about health insurance or automobile insurance or fire insurance or renters insurance but here is something you may never have considered, we are also talking about the mindset of the typical concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holder.

I understand that this may be a stunning revelation to many people, but the typical CCW holder considers his or her personal sidearm yet another personal insurance policy, no more, no less.

In spite of this fact, the amount of misunderstanding, fear, and outright prejudice aimed at CCW holders is simply astonishing. One would think that the act of obtaining a CCW permit (with the personal dedication of time, money, energy involved) would clearly demonstrate that CCW permit holders are simply not the people you need to be worried about. They are the ones who are willing to be investigated, they are the ones who have been vetted, they are the ones who obey the laws.

If the act of obtaining this insurance policy (a CCW permit) were not enough “proof of credibility” then lets also look at behavioral history. Most CCW permit holders already carry off campus, some having done so for many years. The vast majority do not ever cause any problems in their day-to-day life off campus so it is absurd to simply assume they will suddenly become a threat once they cross over onto campus.

At this point someone generally loves to bring up Virginia Tech and the fact that Cho was able to legally purchase a handgun. Talk about finding “impetus in statistical outliers”. Does it make sense to set policy based on a fractional percentage of head-cases? Policy that leaves the criminal and the insane in power?

“Ah”, some will say, “but if it is such a statistically tiny occurrence then really, what is the chance of it happening here”? My only reply is that in situations such as this is really is not about the “odds”, but more about the consequences, the price you pay if you aren't ready to cope with such a situation if it arises.

We’ve seen those consequences clearly at University of Texas, and Lancaster County, and California State and Virginia Tech.

Personally, I’d rather have my insurance policy.

 

[thebucket]

Here it is, I just sent this to the opinion editor.

Shootings like Virginia Tech are committed by people who have no regard for human life, let alone regard for the law. College campuses are supposed to be gun free zones but that didn't stop the individuals at Columbine, Jonesboro, or Virginia Tech from killing their classmates. Continuing to keep guns off campus will only serve to disarm those who do have regard for the law and will only continue to provide a target rich environment for disturbed individuals like Seung-Hui Cho.
Thirty-nine states are shall-issue states which must deliver to a properly qualified a permit to carry a weapon. The indivduals who receive these permits are overwhelmingly dedicated to upholding the law and protecting themselves and others from those who would hurt them. Permit holders have a fantastic safety record and pose no danger to students, staff, or faculty. Preventing permit holders from carrying on campus does not make the students, staff, or faculty any safer nor does it stop an individual from going on a shooting spree. A handgun in the hands of a permit holder is a gun in the right hands. We have seen that gun free zones have not protected students and now we need to allow guns in the right hands on to campus.

 

[rc109a]

I like it!

 

[Athanasius]

I like that Zspectre. I couldn't say that better.

 

[Standing Wolf]

If concealed carry were allowed on JMU’s campus, any student, faculty or staff member might very well be within firing range at any given point. Silence on this issue might be taken as consent.

Seems to work elsewhere in the nation pretty well.

 

[TallPine]

For a group that uses a massive amount of statistics in its arguments, it’s curious that SCCC finds its impetus in statistical outliers — though the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings were horrific, are they truly valid bases for widespread policy?

How bizarre ... mass shootings are usually cited as reasons for more gun control laws, but when CCW for self defense is suggested, such incidents are "statistical outliers"

 

[Titan6]

Any thoughts?

Yeah, I got a couple.

SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS have long been a hot-button issue for social conservatives, military enthusiasts and hunters — and now, your average college student.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is primarily dedicated to striking down college gun-control policies, which restrict people from locking and loading before coming to campus.

Not yet... Currently they just want to restrict you from locking and loading on campus. Off campus comes later.

Skirting the tiresome legal arguments and the idea of preventing a violent culture, SCCC focuses on the idea that, by carrying guns, we will never have to use them — like an arms race.

If by skirting the legal argument you mean fighting for their legal civil rights and suing the schools then yeah, they sure are skirting alright. And getting tired too... We all know that by stopping guns we can stop that culture of violence. Just look at all the countries around the world where citizens are not allowed to carry guns and you can see just how safe and non-violent they are.

For a group that uses a massive amount of statistics in its arguments, it’s curious that SCCC finds its impetus in statistical outliers — though the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings were horrific, are they truly valid bases for widespread policy?

Only if preventing mass murder is important to you. Of course it seems like it is not.

The scenario SCCC paints is compelling: helpless students slaughtered because they cannot arm themselves. But how does that stack up against thousands of armed students and faculty on a daily basis?

Pretty nicely I would say. It is the only way to be sure.

Don’t forget that the ultimate reason to carry a gun is to be able to fire it.

Err? Kind of like the ultimate reason to own a car is to drive it? I guess you don't care where you are going or what you do when you get there.

Some are less than thrilled with our university’s current gun policy, which prohibits anyone from carrying a gun on campus. On the other hand, many are uncomfortable with the thought of allowing loaded, lethal weapons on campus.

What about the thought of not allowing and guns and it happening anyway. Just like in every other campus shooting. I bet when they think about that they really wet themselves.

If concealed carry were allowed on JMU’s campus, any student, faculty or staff member might very well be within firing range at any given point.

Believe it or not I think they already are within "firing range" (whatever that is) even without guns.

Silence on this issue might be taken as consent.

That is probably the only true thing in the whole article.

My response might be a wee bit much, but feel free to plagarize if you can find anything useful.

 

[carlrodd]

-How bizarre ... mass shootings are usually cited as reasons for more gun control laws, but when CCW for self defense is suggested, such incidents are "statistical outliers"

beat me to it. of course one could now legitimately conclude that such incidents are NOT "statistical outliers", given the increasing frequency of them. and why has the frequency been increasing? perhaps because of harmful legislation like "gun-free" zones such as many colleges/schools, which was passed as a knee-jerk response to incidents that once were truly statistical outliers. i remember a scene from 'john adams' where some sort of british trade representative is tarred and feathered for arrogantly insisting upon compliance with british law despite the fact that it was both wrong and against the will of pretty much all the people present. those were the days.

 

[Leif Runenritzer]

of course one could now legitimately conclude that such incidents are NOT "statistical outliers", given the increasing frequency of them. and why has the frequency been increasing?

I'd read that they were decreasing.

 

[lucky_fool]

Mass shootings are statistical outliers, and shouldn't necessarily be the basis of an argument for concealed carry on campus.

That said, there are plenty of other reasons that concealed carry should be allowed and many of them make a better argument. Rape, armed robbery, and assault and battery happen on college campuses every day. Don't let the argument be framed in terms of "we need concealed carry to stop mass murderers".

 

[Oana]

I think it bears repeating that a mass shooting isn't the only fate that can befall a college student. They're not immune to other types of crime. And people have a right to defend themselves.

SCCC focuses on the idea that, by carrying guns, we will never have to use them — like an arms race.

See, they're laboring under the delusion that if one party gives up the race, the other will too. That's fantasy. Attack that underlying presupposition.

 

[BADUNAME37]

When guns are outlawed, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

I think that's how the bumper sticker goes.

 

[Oana]

Good letter, ZeSpectre. I like the "insurance policy" angle.