noises that the policy should be changed to sharply restrict weapons to "security officials guarding high-profile visitors". Professor Richard Eykholt, chairman of CSU’s Faculty Council, supports the change stating: "Most uses of weapons are in the heat of the moment where the person later regrets it." I must admit, during a murderous attack it is a heated moment. He automatically assumes that any regular person carrying a gun will shoot the wrong target and make the situation worse.
What makes this newsworthy is that the students are for keeping the current policy. Student-government spokesman Matt Strauch was surprised. He said "I honestly thought students would be against guns on campus, and we just haven’t heard that. The majority of the comments we’ve received from students is that they are in support of having concealed-carry remain permitted on campus." Indeed, from the comments on the first article I have found on this issue, the students understand perfectly what the issues are. They know that disarming legal carriers will leave them more vulnerable than they are now. They know that in a crisis such as happened at Virginia Tech, their best hope for stopping the killing is a normal person who is also armed on site with them. As one commenter put it, "An armed campus is a polite campus."
A fundamental divide I see between those who support the right to keep and bear arms and those who seek to remove all guns from our society (a very tall order, I might observe) is that most people assume that the guy next to them is a basically sane person. While he may have funny hair or ill fitting clothing, he knows the difference between right and wrong, and in most circumstances will do the right thing. The anti-gunners truly believe that only they can be trusted to understand the whole nuanced situation and they must prescribe the proper action to be taken. They believe that likely as not, the person next to them is a blithering idiot who can't tie their own shoes, let alone be trusted to carry a deadly weapon around without shooting someone over a cup of coffee. I have been encouraged by the diminution of the hue of cry for more gun control as each new murder is splashed across the headlines. Disarming the lawful public has been tried for decades and the proof is in. Our Austin Gun Rights Examiner Howard Nemerov has done a compelling job of demonstrating that the cities with the least access to lawful arms are the ones with the highest violent crime. By now, most Americans get it.
At CSU, we still don't know how if the policy will be reversed to better reflect the mentality of Virginia Tech's administration, or if the student body will have any influence on the decision. It reminds me of the United States Congress. They know better than we do about gun control and gun rights. Like the students, we had better make our preferences very clear each and every time further gun control legislation bubbles to the top.
UPDATE: Late this afternoon the students at CSU had a vote. 21 out of 29 members of the Associated Students of CSU Senate voted in favor of keeping concealed carry on the campus. Five members abstained or were absent, leaving only three members voting to remove that protection and right from the student body. Is the university administration listening?
UPDATE: Nope! The administration is not listening to their clients, the students. The UNC Board of Governors voted 7-0 Friday, December 4th, to require gun bans on its campuses in Fort Collins and Pueblo. Welcome to the turkey shoot.
Comments
"Indeed, from the comments on the first article I have found on this issue, the students understand perfectly what the issues are."
That is indeed encouraging. (I lived in CO until just last year, and a number of family including my wife are CSU grads.) But...we all know that such policies are neither about protecting students nor about honoring their wishes, as even a casual assessment of "gun-free-zone" history will attest. Chances are that CSU will see such a ban whether they want it or not, because the disarmament freaks are never--EVER--"just asking".
Recently at UAA there was an admirable protest on a similar, arbitrary policy, and I tried to help spread the word to UAA students that "Alaska may trust you, but University regents do not." Because that's what it boils down to.
"Professor Richard Eykholt, chairman of CSU’s Faculty Council, supports the change stating: "Most uses of weapons are in the heat of the moment where the person later regrets it.""
Silly me . . . here I would have thought that more guns are fired at target ranges than "in the heat of the moment." Well . . . if he's a "professor," I guess he would know better . . .
Most of us that carry, either openly or otherwise, have a certain obligation to fulfill. People that carry know what it is they are holding, a very deadly weapon. We all have atleast taken a fairly expensive training class for that as well. You NEVER want to kill a person. However, with in seconds of a life or death situation, the police will be there in minutes. Carry your weapon proudly, Do NOT let them take this right away!!!
Kevin Wilmeth wrote:
"But...we all know that such policies are neither about protecting students nor about honoring their wishes, as even a casual assessment of "gun-free-zone" history will attest."
Substitute "citizen" for "student" and you've just described the whole country's history of one failed gun control scheme after another. If the FDA were running the show, proponents of gun control would have to prove their "prescriptions" for criminal misuse of firearms were "safe and effective". Good luck with that.
If they instate the ban... BOYCOTT! These maniacal polocy whores are no better than the maniacal campus shooters themselves. If a business will not let me enjoy my rights on premises then they simply do not get to enjoy my business. We pay exorbinant amounts to learn thier cookie cutter point of view yet, we can't be citizens on campus????? "F" that!
It's important that students DO understand the issues. From their first year in school up until they graduate high school, they are fed a non-stop torrent of anti-gun rhetoric.
Shooting ranges can do much to counter this, though, if they simply reach out to their local collegiate institutions through activities such as "College Day at the Range" where volunteer range members bring firearms and ammo and instruct students in small groups regarding firearms: Safety, disassembly, cleaning, assembly, shooting technique, politics... and more safety!
Not only can we educate these future leaders of our Country, but we can directly influence the attitudes towards firearms on campus.
Such CDARs can waive range fees, provide ammunition at reduced cost and provide direct supervision and instruction of the people who not only vote today on gun policy, but in a few years, will be framing it.
SOUNDS LIKE THE STUDENTS HAVE ALREADY GOT MORE SENSE THAN THE PROFESSOR.
I think this quote says it all "The faculty has made noises that the policy should be changed to sharply restrict weapons to "security officials guarding high-profile visitors".
Kevin likened their position to who they trust. Kevin doesn't usually miss, but this time, though what he said is true, he missed the real point. The quote above actually displays their stance on whom they value. they have inadverently stated that they do not care if students lose their lives on campus ao long as "important" people are protected.
So students there now know that the faculty holds their lives as their lives as worthless. The students should bat that drum loudly and long.
Please forgive my poor typing. Having extra trouble with rowdy fingers today.
As far as I know, they haven't had any problems so far. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It sounds to me like some crybaby left-wingers are, once again, assuming that every private citizen will behave like a Crip, Blood, MS13, Aryan Brotherhood member, or other criminal. Maybe, they are projecting their own character flaws on all of us. Perhaps, we should all send the anti-gun folks on that campus some tinfoil hats to protect them from the "evil murder rays" that the weapons of lawful CHL holders have on campus.
Educated Idiots. That's the only term needed to describe these people.
Once again straightarrow got it right. "High profile visitors". Day to day, seems like that's what we need less of, high profile anyone. A professors, politicians, or actors life is NOT worth more than the life of the average, everyday individual. If anything, they are worth less.
Clint's comment reminded me of a quote from William F. Buckley who said he would rather be governed by 50 names pulled randomly from the Boston phone directory than by the faculty at Harvard.
Rather be judge by twelve than carried by six.
"the policy should be changed to sharply restrict weapons to "security officials guarding high-profile visitors"."
Does this mean that only public servants can have weapons when guarding a more important public servant, one that thinks he is more important than you?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!