Paco

Voted Yes.

Yes 645 68%
No 292 31%
Don't know 13 1%

As stated before gun free zones only mean easier targets. Guns are already on campuses, let the law abiding students defend themselves.

__________________
"Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt

If you are not willing to stand behind our Troops, feel free to stand in front of them!

-Paco

libertarian5

That is factually incorrect. CU regents have nothing to do with Boulder politics. They are selected statewide, and reflect the overall attitudes of the state.

https://www.cu.edu/regents/

BTW, I went to CU and I voted yes

__________________
A veteran, whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable
to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to and including my life." Author unknown

KenInColo

Perhaps I wasn't clear; I meant to point out that CU was based in Boulder, not the regents.

I would say that CU drives the politics of Boulder. Almost everyone in the state acknowledges that Boulder is Berkley East when it comes to political views. Can you say 'Ward Churchill'?

I have no way of knowing how the individual regents voted on the 'guns on campus' issue but nevertheless, they did vote to ban them. In the opinion of many others, including myself, if you are anti-gun, that qualifies you as, among other things, being an elitist.

BTW, I went to RUTGERS (also a pretty liberal school) and I too, voted YES.

__________________
An armed populace are called citizens.
An unarmed populace are called subjects.

libertarian5

CU to hear pitch for guns on campus : CU News : ColoradoDaily.com Boulder, CO

The last time the issue came up was 24 years and many regents ago. The current bunch has never voted on the issue. A lot of campus violence has occured since then. Wait and see...

__________________
A veteran, whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable
to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to and including my life." Author unknown

KenInColo

+1 I don't want to be a test case either.

OK, so it's been 24 years since and in spite of all the campus massacres they haven't reviewed the policy. Time to pull their heads out of the sand.


Last year a whacko former employee cut up a student w/a knife on the terrace outside the UMC on Euclid Ave. (see link below). I guess we can be thankful that the whacko was observing CU's no guns policy.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/321.html

No campus is immune from random attacks by whackos.

__________________
An armed populace are called citizens.
An unarmed populace are called subjects.

Desk Jockey

I haven't been following too closely, but I did see this editorial in yesterday's Springs Gazette:

August 24, 2008 - 8:14AM

Risky regent gun decision
Regents snub student for emotion

Members of the University of Colorado board of regents didn't want to hear it. Eric Mote, a spokesman for the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, University of Colorado-Colorado Springs chapter, showed up at a regents meeting Wednesday to pitch the case for reversing the regents' longstanding rule that precludes students from carrying weapons on any CU campus.

By all reports, Mote failed the diplomacy test. He showed up in a defensive mode, proclaiming: "You have disarmed us; that means our safety now lies in your hands. As far as I know, the board has done nothing or very little to address this issue since the Virginia Tech massacre."

That wasn't a good approach, as it turned out. Regent Steven Ludwig, an Aurora Democrat, said: "If you seek to change the policy of this board, I would strongly suggest you find some rhetoric that is based on sound logic rather than inflammatory statements. I'd be hard-pressed to ever support conceal and carry." Ludwig told The Gazette that students accused regents of "breaking the law" with the gun ban.

Even a supporter of concealed carry, Johnstown Republican Regent Tom Lucero, rejected Mote's plea, saying: "I admire your enthusiasm. I do support conceal and carry, but I think Regent Ludwig hit on a key theme. I know there are valuable resources out there that can provide statistical data and information instead of coming in front of the board with inflammatory rhetoric."

Mote's demeanor may have been inappropriate. It's difficult to believe that Ludwig or any other member of the board supports the gun ban with the intent of placing students in danger's way.

The problem with the regents' reaction, however, is that the "infiammatory rhetoric" is based in truth. This is an era in which violent, angry malcontents occasionally lash out by seeking crowds of victims in gun-free zones. Citizens with concealed carry permits are adults who have taken the time and spent the money to prepare for the unlikely possibility of coming under attack. Rules that disarm them clearly put students at risk.

Like universities and public schools, churches have become favorite targets of random action shooters. Pastors, however, have adopted security measures that include, in some instances, urging parishioners to obtain weapons training and concealed carry permits.

It's indisputable that gun-free zones are playgrounds for murderous gunmen. The examples are nearly endless: Columbine massacre, Pearl, Miss., school massacre; Virginia Tech massacre; Omaha mall massacre; University of Northern Illinois massacre; Cleveland public school massacre; Louisiana Technical College massacre; Nickel Mines, Penn., school massacre; etc.

School shootings involving two or more victims have become so common they barely make the news any more. Nearly all locations of massacres have one common trait: they're gun-free zones.

A survey of felons by the national Institute of Justice found that 74 percent agree that "one reasons burglars avoid houses when people are home is that they fear being shot during the crime." That's because nobody has declared houses "gun-free zones." Thirty-four percent of felons said they had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim." But not in "gun-free" zones. A full 70 percent knew a criminal colleague who had been "scared off," "shot at," "wounded" or "captured," by a victim with a gun. Victims with guns never lurk in "gun-free" zones.

Human Events magazine reports that a survey of 23,113 police chiefs and sheriffs found that 62 percent believe "a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime."

Israel, weary of school shootings, began requiring teachers to arm themselves in the 1970s. The policy ended school shootings, because the schools are no longer gun-free zones.

Yes, students should have given the regents a litany of anecdotal and statistical evidence to support their case. But regents should tell us just what they believe their campus gun ban might possibly achieve. Do they believe a dangerous criminal might obey it, choosing not to kill in order to avoid the misdemeanor of violating a gun ban? It would be great to hear the logic behind this ban.

With all due respect, Regent Lucero, as a conceal-and-carry supporter you must know about the data you mentioned. You had the authority to raise this as an issue for serious discussion and debate, and you should have. Though the student presentation fell ffat, this is a matter of public safety. It shouldn't be reduced to a polemical parlor game.

It's unfortunately that Mote and other students didn't give the regents some of the volumes of nearly irrefutable anecdotal and statistical evidence that indicate how concealed weapons save lives. Clearly they do. It's equally unfortunate that regents were so quick to dismiss a reasonable request, despite the amateurish presentation. One can only hope they won't have reason to regret the risky decision.

bandit383

Not sure I follow your logic: Elitist

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

I can see the anti-gun croud saying the same thing......

Emotion, albeit important, will never convince...only facts and figures that paint a picture. Even so called polls (especially one opened to the public) will not make a difference as those numbers (and questions), can be easily maniputated. They had one shot at it...sounds like they missed the mark.

Rick

KenInColo

Bandit, I agree w/your post. Too bad that CU student didn't have his stuff together. It sounds like he went in there in rant mode. Perhaps he isn't mature enough to be carrying. He probably set back his cause another five years. When the pot smokers spoke to Denver's authorities to get them to lighten up on marijuana offenses, they went before them in three-piece suits with 'all their ducks lined up' and got the ordinances changed.

I used the term elitist because liberal, anti-gunners very often espouse one set of rules for themselves and a different set of rules for the rest of us. i.e look at all the celebrities who are anti-gun but have armed body guards or have had CCWs handed out to them by elitist LE administrators. They get to exercise their 2A rights but not the rest of us.

I also use the term elitist, as in 'elitist anti-gunners' to offset the anti-gunners who refer to us as 'whacko pro-gunners'.

__________________
An armed populace are called citizens.
An unarmed populace are called subjects.