Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Posted below so we don't give this site a lot of unwarranted hits. No reason to make them think it is a popular opinion.

Editorial: Concealed weapons pose a threat to campus
By Editorial Board on 05 October 2009
Tags: Concealed Weapons, Guns

The College Republicans are hosting fundraisers Oct. 7-8 in which club members and guests will pay to be guided through the process of gaining a concealed weapons permit. Trainers certified by the NRA will take those who sign up through the entire process, save only licking the stamp and mailing off the papers.

The UVU Review editorial board wishes to question this fundraiser and address what we consider to be some serious issues with its taking place on this campus.
First, any attempt to put more weapons into people’s hands can only make the risk of violent crime worse. Our school is no safer for having 30 more concealed weapons on it at any given time. Precisely the opposite is true.

The more guns, the more opportunity for accidents, for misuse, for intentional crime in our halls and for the unimaginable catastrophes which have unfortunately befallen too many schools in the recent past.

Further, the College Republicans are raising money by putting more guns into this school. Given the problems, are you comfortable with this? We certainly are not.
While we cannot deny the legal right to those who wish to get concealed carry permits, we can question using the resources of the university to do so. There is something perverse in using our own campus’ resources, for which all students pay, to put those same students at risk. Regardless of the legality of concealed carry permits, there is an ethical contradiction here and another venue should have been found.

We must acknowledge that those who will attend this fundraiser are likely to be those who are responsible in the use of firearms, as they are clearly seeking to obtain permits through the appropriate legal means and with the right training. However, we do not feel this diminishes the problems we point out.

Here are some Center for Disease Control statistics on gun deaths from the year 2001:

* Suicide 16,869
* Homicide 11,348
* Accident 802
* Legal Intervention 323
* Undetermined 231
* Total 29,573

Guns, far more than making us safer, make it easier to kill either ourselves or kill others.

We also wish to ask this question: For what reason would someone wish to carry a firearm? Of course, it is only too obvious to respond, “Because it is my right.” That is entirely true, but it is at best a partial answer.

We feel that beyond the simple right to bear arms, there exists a tendency toward mistrust and fear in their use and ownership – the use of firearms to create a sense of safety based not on their capacity to protect, but rather the capacity to cause terror in others. If others are afraid, perhaps they will leave you alone.

This is simply too easy, and does nothing to engage other people in the real forum where safety is created – civil society and community. Provo and Orem are not safe because there are more guns, they are safe because by and large we understand, relate, and communicate with each other better than other places do. Getting to know your neighbors does more than any weapon will ever do to prevent the need for having to brandish a weapon.

Given all of the above, we can only condemn this fundraiser taking place on our campus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts
classic b.s. argument i love the stats from the "Center for Disease Control statistics on gun deaths from the year 2001" how about we pull up the ones involving car accidents and then ban cars from campus?

When i was in college I didn't worry about a CHL holder accidentally shooting me... I worried about walking/riding my bike across campus and some idiot hitting me with his car. Some people just don't get it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
50,585 Posts
Simply put...
:bs2::bs2::bs2:
:bs2::bs2::bs2:
:bs2::bs2::bs2:
:bs2::bs2::bs2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
420 Posts
We feel that beyond the simple right to bear arms, there exists a tendency toward mistrust and fear in their use and ownership – the use of firearms to create a sense of safety based not on their capacity to protect, but rather the capacity to cause terror in others. If others are afraid, perhaps they will leave you alone.
Of all their arguments, this one is the most bizarre. They are seeking concealed permits. Those who carry concealed take great pains to, oh, I don't know, CONCEAL the fact that they have a gun. Causing terror in others doesn't enter the equation. Good lord, what a stupid argument.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,939 Posts
Of all their arguments, this one is the most bizarre. They are seeking concealed permits. Those who carry concealed take great pains to, oh, I don't know, CONCEAL the fact that they have a gun. Causing terror in others doesn't enter the equation. Good lord, what a stupid argument.
Agreed. I was going to quote the exact paragraph.

I don't carry a firearm to cause terror in others so they will leave me alone, I carry to have a chance at surviving an armed attack.

Plus, like you said, torgo, it's usually concealed, so I can't "cause terror in others" unless that person is an active threat to me. In that case, it's reasonable for me to "cause terror" among other things.


And the quotes from 2001...
Suicides: so if no gun was available, those people couldn't have found another way??? Yeh, right.

Homicides: proves the point of concealed carry to me. If those 11,348 murder victims had been armed, there wouldn't have been 11,348 of them.

What a waste of time to try and reason with someone like the author of that piece.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
160 Posts
Incredibly naive.
The only effective communication that a little old lady can have with the monster that plans to rape and kill her is "click, boom" .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,142 Posts
10 to 1 this person is an Out of Stater and see what happends when you let Out of Staters go to your schools, they write BS. If you don't like how they do it in Utah, don't got there, keep your a$$ in California. JMHO:scratchchin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Posted below so we don't give this site a lot of unwarranted hits. No reason to make them think it is a popular opinion.
Excellent idea, thanks!

This is simply too easy, and does nothing to engage other people in the real forum where safety is created – civil society and community. Provo and Orem are not safe because there are more guns, they are safe because by and large we understand, relate, and communicate with each other better than other places do. Getting to know your neighbors does more than any weapon will ever do to prevent the need for having to brandish a weapon.
Provo and Orem are safe because there are "more guns". Utah County is the most conservative county in the nation, with the city of Provo taking the title for the most conservative city in the US.
Another source.

An armed society is a polite society!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
"The more guns, the more opportunity for accidents, for misuse, for intentional crime in our halls and for the unimaginable catastrophes which have unfortunately befallen too many schools in the recent past."

So someone with a legal CCW will all of a sudden decide, hey, I'm going to commit a crime today? They don't point out the "catastrophes" in schools were not comitted by CCW holders, and were able to kill at will until people with guns(police) showed up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,939 Posts
They don't point out the "catastrophes" in schools were not comitted by CCW holders, and were able to kill at will until people with guns(police) showed up.
Of course not... that would require a little research or common sense on their part... nor would it support their faulty logic.

Good point, though, which those with even minimal reasoning can understand (the author obviously excluded from that group).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Student papers are funny things. I wrote for a fraternity newsletter when I was a lower classman and for the school paper when I was a senior.

It will be interesting to see what kind of response the paper gets and prints.

Students are trying lots of new ideas. I wrote an anti-gun paper my freshman year. Held my own debating it too. Wrote a paper against animal testing too. Still on the fence on that one. Some of what they do is just cruel and unnecessary but that's a topic for another board.

My point is that there aren't a lot of people who take student papers seriously. It's a good opportunity to rebut his points with legitimate statistics and logic in a polite well argued letter to the editor. A good debate in the editorial section can change people's minds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,001 Posts
Although this article is genuine b.s., Utah has one of the best policies for carrying guns in schools. If a school or university in Utah receives public money, it is defined as 'public'. Therefore, state preemption laws take effect and guarantee the right of CCW permit holders to carry in said 'public' schools. An example of that is that many students at the University of Utah carry concealed, whether or not the student body likes it. On the other hand, Brigham Young University, a private university, bans concealed carry; it being a private entity, it can do so. I don't know if UVU is considered 'public' or not, by state definitions .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I don't know if UVU is considered 'public' or not, by state definitions .
UVU is 'public'. It's plainly obvious whoever wrote the paper is a knee-jerk reactionary "coward" who focused on LAW-ABIDING CC licensees, ignoring the unpredictability of criminal element on campus that prefers unarmed victims. The "coward" is probably from a restricted "liberal" state like California or "politically liberal" areas Salt Lake City/Park City. Naivete equals stupidity and narrow-minded, as the laughable and infuriating editorial proves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
We feel that beyond the simple right to bear arms, there exists a tendency toward mistrust and fear in their use and ownership – the use of firearms to create a sense of safety based not on their capacity to protect, but rather the capacity to cause terror in others. If others are afraid, perhaps they will leave you alone.
Looks to me like he make the arument FOR us..... nipplehead.......
BG's WANT to brandish weapons because it does just what he says it does..... cause terror!! The BG sure as hell is not gonna go around threatning other persons WITH guns, they want to threaten persons WITHOUT guns........ what an a-clown!! :hand1:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Students are trying lots of new ideas. I wrote an anti-gun paper my freshman year. Held my own debating it too. QUOTE]


Wait. What? You got some 'splainin to do Lucy. Rebellious, convert, shock value? Just curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Well, those pretty numbers we pulled from the CDC web site a couple weeks back ended up somewhere. Downside is, they ended up fueling this sod's poor logic in that anti-gun article. Sad. You put good numbers out there for good cause, then they're twisted and viewed differently for a different purpose. Typical human naivete and stupidity, I suppose.

Here are some Center for Disease Control statistics on gun deaths from the year 2001:
  • Suicide 16,869
  • Homicide 11,348
  • Legal Intervention 323
    [*]Accident 802
    [*]Undetermined 231
  • TOTAL = 29,573
In the hands of upstanding people, the sort who go after CHL's for concealed carry amongst us, the Accidental and Undetermined areas, above, are really the only two areas that apply to the additional risks of acknowledging the right of citizens to carry the means of their own defense.

Let's eliminate those portions of the table of numbers that have nothing whatsoever to do with concealed-carry or open-carry of defensive weapons by upstanding citizens:
  • Suicides -- Sadly for everyone else, but good for suicides, people who want to end their lives will find some method of doing so, whether we wish them to fail in their attempts or not. Their ability to find a firearm might fail, but then they'll simply fling themselves off the nearest overpass into an oncoming Peterbilt, or whatever. Irrelevant for evaluating the risk of CHL.
  • Homicides -- In reality, THIS category is exactly what upstanding citizens are seeking to defend against. THIS number represents the number of murderers out there who are tearing our civilization apart via their heinous actions. Upstanding citizens seek to defend against such people. That's a good thing.
  • Legal Intervention -- This is the category of police capturing criminals, not due to accident. That's a good thing.

The ONLY additional risk posed by acknowledging the right of citizens to carry defensive firearms is reflected in the Accident and Unintended categories.

From 1999-2006 (an 8yr period), there were 1.2M injuries due to all causes, in the USA. Of these 1.2M injuries, less than 8K were due to Accidental or Unintentional firearms discharge. That's 0.6%, or six-tenths of one percent. About three times that number get killed via mistreatment from their own doctors. About four times that number drown. This 0.6% number is 1/25th as many who poison themselves each year, via sucking on bottles of Drano or Ajax.

Let's keep things in perspective, instead of going off the deep end like the poor sod who wrote that tear-jerker in the student rag.

What he's really suggesting is that upstanding people should, for the supposed good of everyone else, refuse to be able to defend themselves against crime. There is no real rational reason for doing so, other than folks feel better with them unable to defend. That should be sufficient, right? Right?? :aargh4:

Gads. What possible good can come of that, from people being wholly unable to defend against attack by violent criminals? None, so far as I can tell, other than a few knee-jerk folks feeling a bit better that we're all in things together, that we're all equally incapable of putting up a defense against crime. For whatever that's worth. :rolleyes:

In a threatening world, threatened by murders, rapists, robbers and other criminals, it is about as nearly an absolute GOOD to have upstanding people carrying the means of their own defense as can be contrived.

Yes, there is a small added risk of a few people who will go bonkers by failing to properly handle and control their new tools (~0.6%), but this will add hundreds of thousands (or millions) more people who are carrying defensive, life-saving tools. That can only help to reduce the number of people who are ultimately victimized by criminals.

In almost every way that can be measured, that's a good thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,209 Posts
10 to 1 this person is an Out of Stater and see what happends when you let Out of Staters go to your schools, they write BS. If you don't like how they do it in Utah, don't got there, keep your a$$ in California. JMHO:scratchchin:
AGREE 100% :yup: GO HOME OR :ziplip: H/D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
At least at UVU the person who wrote this crap will be in the minority opinion. I went there when it was still Utah Valley State College.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
UVU already allows students to carry concealed firearms, doesn't it? I know Utah state law allows it, but I'm asking about UVU specifically. I'm currently taking courses online from them and want to transfer to the campus to study Forensic Science (there's no online program for Forensic Science, but I am allowed to take some of the general education prerequisites online.) Just want to know if I should continue to give them my $$ or not.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top