Links: Arizona votes to allow concealed weapons on college campuses, for safety obviously
By David WarnerApril 8th, 2011, 6:39 pmComments (19)
Now, Arizona is one of the more backward states in the union, but they've taken another giant step. Today the Arizona House passed a bill allowing guns (including concealed ones) on college campuses. Here's the truly ridiculous part: supporters said, in the case of a school shooting, this would make things safer. I must have missed the day in Logic & Reasoning when they taught that if one gun is unsafe, then thousands of guns are much safer.
Some clever soldiers, anticipating a government shutdown, took this opportunity to make a little extra cash selling their government rides on the internet. I'm thinking they can get a lot more than that on eBay Motors, though.
Have you ever listened to Nickelback and thought, "I so wish I could make music like that," but had no idea where to start? No worries. Here's the tutorial you've been looking for. Now you too can confuse the masses with your popularity.
Speaking of odd rockers: here's the official trailer for Hesher, an indie movie about a little kid befriending a young, metal-head bum played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Unfortunately, JGL's thinly veiled attempt at picking more macho roles probably isn't going to work. He kind of looks like a fifteen-year-old dressed up as Andrew W.K. for Halloween.
- 12 Hilarious Hookup Stories from People We Met in Bars
- True Stories: My Gay Ex-Boyfriend
- This Week in Sex: Tina Fey and Sasha Grey
- Sex Advice from Female Bartenders
- Tools of Attraction: Shoes
- 10 Underrated South Park Songs
- Five Stories: Unlikely First Meetings
- Ranked: Top Chef Seasons from Worst to Best
- Talking to Strangers: Washington D.C.
- Study: Wild, crazy sex increases fertility
Comments ( 19 )
Well, the crazy kid that shoots up the college is going to have a gun on campus regardless of whether or not it's legal. It's never the person with the carry permit you need to worry about. And I wish it was legal on my college campus, that way when I walk back to my car at 3:30 A.M. after a study session, I was a tad bit more safe.
Well said. The person who is going to decide to bring a gun to school and kill people is not going to be influenced by gun laws, and this isn't going to make a shooting any more likely.
What it will do (hopefully) is bring the casualty count down from 20 or 30 to one or two.
And this is why the US has the 4th highest gun crime rate in the world, and the highest in the developed world...
Do you not think that trying to improve college provided campus security is a slightly more constructive way of making you feel safe?
And not wanting to be too pessimistic on this, but if someone jumps you, the chances of you getting a shot off at them are slim at best - and if they see you have a gun, they might shoot/stab you in stead of (just) mugging you (which isn't to be taken lightly, but I'd rather be mugged than mugged and stabbed). If you raise the stakes, so will the would-be attackers.
"Improved campus security" doesn't mean shit when it comes to school shootings. The only way that would work would be to have armed security in each classroom or hallway, which is obviously not plausible.
@Tell
I'd rather not get mugged at all and there wouldn't be as many muggings if perps had to worry about their victims carrying. You walk around campus with a peace and love shirt and I'll wear a "protected by Glock" shirt. Let's see who the attacker decides to go after.
Yep, I don't understand why people get frightened of firearms. It's the criminals you have to worry about. Why would you want to force the law-abiding to be defenseless? Criminals carry guns anyway, when it's illegal to do so, because... they're criminals!
These are just some numbers to think about taken from the official State of Texas Department of Public Safety website (https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/08/citCh2.pdf). I figure if the author doesn't care to report facts, someone should point them out.
1994: 2,023 murders, 9,101 rapes, 37,639 robberies...year before concealed carry of firearms was allowed in Texas.
1995: 1,694 murders, 8,526 rapes, 33,666 robberies...the year concealed carry of firearms was allowed.
2008: 1,373 murders, 8,004 rapes, 37,757 robberies...13 years after concealed carry of firearms was allowed. Also, the state population increased by about 6M between 1994 and 2008.
Another example. Juarez, Mexico, "the most dangerous city in the world" had over 3,000 murders last year. This city of just over 1 million people more than doubled the murders for the entire state of Texas. Mexico does not allow private citizens to protect themselves with firearms. Instead, the Mexican government tells its people to wait for police should violence erupt in their neighborhoods. In America, we do not and should not have to rely on our government to protect us. They can't be with us at all times, but our firearms can.
In general and throughout history, the unequal distribution and availability of firearms amongst government officials and private citizens leads to corruption. Just ask the terrified citizens of Juarez. Most of their police are corrupt and are under the payroll of the drug cartels...no joke.
Yes, David Warner, thousands of guns are safer than one. Just ask the students at VT.
Well said.
The general fall in crime levels in all jurisdictions (with or without gun control) since the mid-90s is well-documented, and is usually attributed to the end of the crack cocaine 'epidemic'.
That's science is it?
First, yes college massacres will be less of a problem. However, accidental discharges and deaths will happen, and drunk people will happen. How long before the first drunken punchup turns into a shooting?
Second: Texas figures, great. Except DC is a no-issue state. 1995 saw 2661 violent crimes per 100,000 people. 2008 1437 violent crimes.
Violent crime is dropping everywhere. Fear of violent crime is rising.
2008: District of Columbia v. Heller
The United States Supreme Court essentially struck down the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, upholding the second amendment as a means for private citizens to own firearms for protection.
Science? No. Just facts. You can draw any conclusion you would like. The numbers suggest that the more responsible people there are with guns, the safer we are. There is no way to say for sure, but the numbers speak for themselves.
A general misconception about the concealed carry of firearms for protection on college campuses is that all students will have guns at all times. Not true. There is generally some form of licensing, extensive background checks, and proof of proficiency handling firearms before one can carry a concealed firearm. Not to mention the general requirements to purchase a firearm such as being 21 years of age (i.e. effectively eliminating 75% of the student population from carrying a concealed firearm).
Yes, accidental discharges and deaths will probably happen (although rare). However, this happens with police officers and law enforcement agencies as well. Should we not allow them to carry firearms?
Drunk people will happen. How long before the first drunken night at the pub turns into a vehicular homicide case? Automobile accidents and traffic deaths occur every minute of every day. Should we outlaw cars? Should we ban people from driving on campus?
I have a God-given right to protect my life. I have a God-given right to protect my life AND pursue an education. I am not a criminal for doing so.
More stats from Texas (https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/Conviction...).
Concealed Handgun License holders accounted for 0.1541% of criminal convictions in Texas in 2009. Again, this is just a statistic. I cannot help to draw the conclusion, however, that CHL holders are generally less "hot-headed" than Alex or David Warner make them out to be.
Glad to see the writers at Hooksexup have a write up on fucking gun control.
I'm more glad that Texas and Arizona haven't given into fearful bullying from the left, with illogical doomsday scenarios of college kids shooting each other constantly. Conceal Carry holders already carry everywhere else - they're among the most responsible and patriotic citizens the US has to offer. Finally giving them the right to carry while they're trying to better themselves through education was a sound decision.
5 years from now when nothing terrible has happened, you can bet the Brady campaign and their cronies will be totally silent when it comes to this issue.
I have to ask: what makes concealed carry holders so "responsible and patriotic?" Do they pay their taxes more than other Americans? Or are they career military personnel who just happen to carry during their infrequent leaves in the States? I'm not sure you reach the level of "patriot" just because you've chosen to hold a gun.
They've taken safety courses and in many jurisdictions had to face the personal scrutiny of a sherrif. They're knowledgeable of their firearm especially, and firearms in general. They deal with the stigma associated with carrying whenever someone discovers that they do. Civillians in general shoot much fewer innocent people than police officers (based on a rate of shootings, not absolutes). Patriotism is a bad word - I associate it with misguided nationalism, and shouldn't have said it. Conceal Carry holders are no doubt MUCH more responsible than the average citizen though, and that's been proven over and over again.
I really just can't stand the hypocrisy here, so I'll make one more comment.
Hooksexup has done nothing but sob about the neo-con agenda when it comes to birth control, and legislating what goes on in a bedroom. But they seem perfectly okay with being able to control my right to self defense. It's absolute insanity. Democrats and Republicans alike have sold me out for their own agendas, and this article was just more proof of the liberal "Smart enough to know what's best" mindset.
How is bashing "liberals" in one blanket statement any better than bashing "conservatives?" Conservatives can be just as uppity as liberals, from what I've seen. But that's not a lib or a con thing, that's a people thing.
Guess what? I'm a "liberal" but I'm also disgusted with attitudes from both parties, Democrat and Republican. Problem is, they've got us regular types fighting amongst ourselves over ideological differences, so we can forget about those at the top screwing us over ...but eh, whatever man, like, I gotta get back to Angry Birds/getting bad at Rebecca Black/libs suck/right-wingers suck!
I'm more than confortable with pointing out the flaws of both parties. In this case though, my "liberal" bashing is warranted. I'm on a sex blog for a reason - because that's what I want to read about. I'm glad that the writers at Hooksexup are able to express their opinion in the way they do, especially at a topic they excel at writing about. If the christian right had their way, this would be impossible.
But when I get on Hooksexup and see an obviously sobby post about how, god forbid, someone will be able to carry a gun, it makes me sick. They support our right to fuck whoever we want, however we want, but the right to protect your property and life isn't important? It's ridiculous. If any of these blog posters even bothered taking a second to look at the statistics associated with Conceal Carry, they'd find their position completely indefensible. They'd rather fear and stereotype carriers as rednecks out to shoot anyone they disagree with then really understand what it all means.
And of course, the suitability of this topic for a sex blog is questionable. I don't want to hear about Trump being a birther (idiot). I want to hear about sex and sexuality, I can get my biased news on MSNBC or Fox.
When only the government has guns, you get a country like Burma.
Better to have gun and not need it then need it and not have it.
If you are going to carry, you should only carry concealed in public. (Open carry make you the first target when criminals start shooting. Plus it makes the gun squeamish less nervous)
If you own a gun, know how to use it correctly and lock it up when you aren't.
Ok, I think this thread is dead....but I have one more piece of valuable information.
2007 (most recent data): https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/07/citch3.pdf pg. 20
In Texas, there were 88 justifiable homicides. 43 were felons killed by law enforcement. 45 were felons killed by private citizens. Stating the obvious, private citizens rightfully killed more people that deserved it than police officers.
jus·ti·fi·a·ble: that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted (dictionary.com).
i.e. the bad guy deserved it and the good guy had every right to do it.
What if those private citizens were not allowed to protect themselves? Would the total murders gone up by 45? Would the total number of rapes gone up by 45?
As hard as they work, police and law enforcement cannot be everywhere. They cannot protect all of us all of the time. The laws being what they are imply us to protect ourselves. It really is that simple. At least 45 people are alive today because they had enough self respect to prolong their own lives.
I think it's fairly naive to hear someone debate this subject by saying, "police are trained to protect us, let them worry about it. Let the police worry about my safety. I know that every time I need a police officer, one will magically appear at the precise moment I need him or her to save my life from a bad guy. They will be there when you need them, too. Therefore you do not need a gun."
Add a Comment