NPR program to examine CCW at colleges

[michaelbane]

On Monday, April 23, NPR's show Talk Of The Nation will have a discussion about allowing CCW on college campuses. The program airs at 2PM Eastern Time. They have a call-in portion! Check your local public radio station for details.

 

[Matt King]

Sweet! I think I will call in.

 

[hso]

This is a great opportunity to present our position to a large group of undecided citizens. The same sort of guidance that has been handed out still applys to radio as it does in letters and email.

Prepare your question/comment ahead of time and write it down.

Make sure that it is well researched.

Make it brief and clear.

Avoid using gunny jargon.

KISS Keep It Super Simple. While the panel may have PhDs the majority of the audience doesn't and they're the ones we're trying to reach.

Use Bogie's "fellow traveler" approach. "As a member of the Democtratic Party..." or "As an independent voter..."

Be prepared for someone to ask, "Why do you want a XXX?", on the other end.

Should we work on a set of prepared questions or comments that we could select from ahead of time???

 

[Thain]

Pleae, avoid at all costs the gunnie cliches that will only hand us in the end:

"Better to be judge by twelve, then carried by six."

"Gun control means hitting your target."

"Forget 9-1-1, I dial .375..."

 

[Matt King]

Pleae, avoid at all costs the gunnie cliches that will only hand us in the end:

"Better to be judge by twelve, then carried by six."

"Gun control means hitting your target."

"Forget 9-1-1, I dial .375..."

Yes. Please. Whatever happens, we do not want to come off as ignorant, ranting right-wingers. That will win us no converts to our side. Try something along the lines of this:

Hello, as an Independent voter, with progressive economic principals, I don't think that gun control would have prevented this tragedy. In fact I can't help but wonder that if students and Professors were allowed to carry handguns with them, this might have been prevented . . . etc.

Something along the lines of that will be much more effective than ranting about your right to CCW, and how gun control is unconstitutional; Blah Blah Blah.

Keep It Super Simple.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The basic flaw in this whole thing is age. Most college students don't hit 21 til their junior or senior year and most states have a 21 minimum for CHL/CCW permits.

I'm all for it, but it's a limited audience at best. Still, it only takes one.

 

[ClicStic]

TexasRifleman wrote:

>The basic flaw in this whole thing is age. Most college students don't hit 21 til their junior >or senior year and most states have a 21 minimum for CHL/CCW permits.

I see efforts to extend CCW to "gun-free" zones as helpful to our cause for three reasons:

First, the potential presence of CCW holders in formerly gun-free zones can act as a curb to evil losers who want to ensure they have eternal notoriety by introducing a significant risk to their plans where none existed before.

Next, the potential presence of CCW holders undercuts the anti-gun crowd's persistant lie that guns make people irrational because CCW holders are among the most stable and law-abiding people around.

Third, under-21 students still benefit from elimination of anti-CCW policies and laws applied to campuses. Almost any college classroom you might enter has teachers and a significant sprinkling of older students who might be carrying concealed handguns.

I believe that campus shooters are just like home invaders and residential burglars in the sense that they do not attempt to accurately weigh the risk that their victims are armed and ready for them against any potential gain they perceive for themselves. Campus shooters are trying to make a name for themselves. Home invaders and burglars just want your money. Note the difference in rates of "hot" burglaries in the U.S. vs. Britain. The actual lifetime risk of a burglar being shot by a homeowner in the U.S. is fairly low ( I think - perhaps another THR'er can prove or disprove this thought ), but the rate of "hot" burglaries is much lower in the U.S.

 

[American By Blood]

As others have said, please avoid heated rhetoric, cliches, and gunny jargon.

If possible, the upper-middle class members of THR should call in. Though our working class members consistently make excellent contributions to the forum, the listenership of NPR consists largely of middle to upper-middle class urbanites who will likely respond better to ideas coming from speakers with accents that mark them as "People Like Us."

Changing the opinions of Joe and Jane NPR listener is a worthwhile, though uphill, battle. In the wake of the VTECH shooting the coverage on NPR's "The World" has mainly been outsourced to the BBC. Not surprisingly, the Beeb's correspondents have mentioned gun bans in just about every report and taken their efficacy for granted.

 

[gcerbone]

The basic flaw in this whole thing is age. Most college students don't hit 21 til their junior or senior year and most states have a 21 minimum for CHL/CCW permits.

True, but lots of schools have graduate programs with older students, and there is faculty, and even some older students, especially at state schools like VT.

Oh, and my favorite gunny rant:
"The second amendenment is the only carry permit I need."

 

[Matt King]

The second amendenment is the only carry permit I need."

This is exactly what will cause your average NPR listener to tune out.

 

[hso]

Faculty, staff, post doc students, grad students, returning adult students, former military students all are above the minimum CCW age. Many seniors are above minimum CCW age.

Remember that we're only talking about people with CCW permits. Folks that have passed the screenting and training to be approved by the state to carry a gun. Bringing up students that don't have permits is a red herring intended to distract from the real argument that adults that have been approved by the State should be allowed to carry their legal firearms anywhere they choose. Anything else is simple prejudicial fear that people that have undergone extraordinary screening for safe behavior (and proven over and over again to have fewer accidental or criminal firearms incidents) will act like irresponsible fools.

Also remember that we're not talking to the University community, but the larger voting community as a whole.

 

[El Tejon]

Texas, that 2d amendment argument works well with this NPR listener. As to your concern regarding under 21s, I see it as an application of Kirk's First Law of the Internet (i.e., the law in Texas is the law everywhere). 21 is not the carry age everywhere. Up here in Yankeeland we carry at 18 (well, legally carry at 18 off private property).

I'll see if I can call in. I carried at undergrad. I ran the range under the student Union. I carried firearms, including long guns, openly to the range, including eeevil assault weapons of death (e.g., an HK93). The only "run ins" I had with the police was the time the not-so-bright officer begged me to let him shot his deer slug gun in the range (yeah, I know, I was 20) and the BPD and IUPD cops who begged me to let them try my guns.

No one was endangered by my lawful exercise of my constitutional rights. I fail to see how today's undergrad students are somehow not as responsible or trustworthy as El Tejon.

 

[Geno]

Students' ages aside, professors are 21+, right?!

I agree...avoid the immature statements. Focus on facts if you call in. Do not focus on the "...kill the perp". Focus common sense and legal "...stop the attack..."

 

[cpaspr]

El T -

Slightly off topic, but this actually could be an actual response by some antis, so I'll go ahead and say it.

Yes, you were a responsible undergrad. Probably moreso than most. And those over 21 who have proven themselves more responsible in getting their concealed carry permits are also (generally) quite responsible.

However, I remember my college days, and there was way too much drinking by the underage students. Once they reached 21, when it was no big deal to drink, many of them eased up on the booze.

Letting potentially drunk or even slightly inebriated underage students [read: not thinking clearly] (many with surging hormones) have access to firearms while drinking is a recipe for potential disaster. All it takes is one idiot getting tossed from a party, for whatever reason, getting upset and coming back with a gun to reverse everything we're trying to get changed.

 

[Matt King]

Texas, that 2d amendment argument works well with this NPR listener.

As another NPR listener here, it works for me too. However I don't think that it would work with your average NPR listener.~

 

[mkonops]

I had a discussion about this subject with someone I consider to be an average npr listener last week. As expected they continually repeated two points over and over. They said that the teachers and students involved were too scared and confused to push a desk in front of the door, and if they couldn't even do that how could they expect to defend themselves with a firearm. They went on to say that the armed bystander would end up missing and killing someone else in the crossfire.

I'm sure you will all agree that these points are ridiculous, but we need to remember that most of these people listen to Kieth Olbermann and Al Franken on a daily basis and they only know how to repeat the talking points they have been brainwashed with.

 

[K-Romulus]

Another thing: expect to hear some version of the "if EVERYONE had a CCW then (insert horror here)" meme.

If you get on the show, counter that meme by mentioning that even in states that have shall-issue CCW most residents don't bother applying, and not everyone will apply if the law changes, so it's a fallacy that "everyone" will have a CCW - or that you are even advocating that "everyone" go out and get a CCW.

Point out, instead, that the ones that DO get the CCW tend to:

1) study up on the legal issues (re: knowing WHEN they can use the guns)
2) study up on the mental issues of a traumatic encounter (re: training to deal with HANDLING AND USING a gun in an encounter)
3) practice more often than many law enforcement officers are able to (re: PROFICIENCY if required to use a gun)

 

[BayouTeche77]

cpaspr,

I'll try to counter that one.

"While you have a valid point that guns and alcohol do not mix, about as well as alcohol and driving, I am not aware of any universities that currently sell alcohol on premises, except maybe during certain sporting events. Even at such an event, only those of legal drinking age are allowed to purchase alcohol.

The concern of underage individuals using an illegal, since they are under the legal carry age of 21, weapon to commit a crime, inherently illegal, while under the influence of alcohol, once again illegal for those under 21, is definitely a just concern, but the fact that this person has already broken three laws should show that another law, the prohibition of weapons on campus, would serve little to no purpose in controlling a determined individual from perpetrating a violent act on campus.

If your concern truly lies in the fact that an licensed concealled weapon carrier was to end up legally drunk, off campus, and use his legally concealed weapon in an unjustified violent act, the only response to this is that a bar is a mix of many people of varying age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc. Any of these individuals may perform such an act, wether a 55 year old man or a 21 year old woman. I understand your concern about the fact that many near campus bars are filled with young men desperately seeking the attention of the young women present, and hormones are raging at almost critical levels, but if one of these individuals had the maturity and responsibility to seek out and obtain a concealled carry permit, it would stand to reason that this individual would realize his/her responsibility to not drink when armed, or not carry when drinking.

I hope that this clarifies my logic for believing that the fact that colleges are known for the party atmosphere would be of little relevance in the argument of wether students should/should not be allowed to defend themselves in a classroom setting should the need to ever arise."

 

[pictoblu]

Thanks for the heads up, and the "talking points".

 

[stevemis]

Anyone calling in to this show should probably research and mention that Virginia allows open carry. If one can purchase (or possess) a handgun at 18, you can probably open carry at 18. I'm sure VT's 18+ population is over 99 percent.

Forgive my ignorance: I'm way over 18 and don't live in Virginia so I'm not up to speed on these regulations.

Steve

 

[stellarpod]

I listen to NPR regularly - "All Things Considered" in the evenings and "Morning Edition" in the morning. I find their news coverage to be head-and-shoulders better than anyone elses. It is their editorial that runs astray.

As stated previously, we must be level-headed and thoughtful in our dialog or it will turn into a train wreck in a hurry.

BTW - I find it interesting that, although most people won't argue that an 18-year old soldier is mature enough to carry an automatic weapon as well as perform his/her duty entrusted with multi-million dollar equipment, the thought of these 18-year olds having enough restraint to properly employ a concealed handgun is somehow concerning. Hmmm... Anyone else see the irony in this?

stellarpod

 

[Matt King]

BTW - I find it interesting that, although most people won't argue that an 18-year old soldier is mature enough to carry an automatic weapon as well as perform his/her duty entrusted with multi-million dollar equipment, the thought of these 18-year olds having enough restraint to properly employ a concealed handgun is somehow concerning. Hmmm... Anyone else see the irony in this?

Gun Control is full of irony. "Gun Free Zones" anyone?

 

[armedandsafe]

BTW - I find it interesting that, although most people won't argue that an 18-year old soldier is mature enough to carry an automatic weapon as well as perform his/her duty entrusted with multi-million dollar equipment, the thought of these 18-year olds having enough restraint to properly employ a concealed handgun is somehow concerning. Hmmm... Anyone else see the irony in this?

Those who feel this way will counter that the 18yo sprats will have older, wiser NCOs and Officers to control them at all times and civilians are not under that constant supervision. Whether this is a valid excuse for disarming all civilians is an argument in itself.

Pops

 

[Danus ex]

As a student who just might sometimes maybe possibly carry on campus despite the school policy, perhaps I should call in.

 

[El Tejon]

cpaspr, what makes you think that undergrad students who drink to excess do not have access to firearms right this minute? I live right across the river from a large university whose student body is filled with individuals raised around firearms. They have a good time over there, the last "gun incident" I know of was a murder in '96 where the murderer was completely sober.

I, like many undergrad students, had a good time my freshman and sophomore year. I had guns in my dorm room but never hurt myself or others, despite being kicked out a frat party over a girl (mistaken identity, I was wearing similar coats--broken finger and black eye, but I never went back and hurt anyone, I was happy to leave).

My junior and senior year I lived off campus and had something on the order of 3 dozen guns in my bedroom, plus the other guns I ordered for others on my FFL. After I came home from having a good time, the eeevil guns did not drive me to hurt anyone or myself.

We trust 18 to 20 year olds to carry handguns every day. I cannot fathom how university students are less trustworthy.