This struck me as funny today, but did you know that according to the Supreme Court, Criminals don’t register their guns, nor are they legally required to do so.
FYI. A number of community gardens already exist out here on the west bench. Also more people than not have gardens in their yards. This article makes it sound as if we're stupid, uneducated, and in need of rescue by some north end koolaid drinker.
How about this... for reference, this refer's to Texas.
A statistician, found that concealed carry licensees had arrest rates far lower than the general population for every category of crime. For instance:
Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.
Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.
Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [ see Figure I ], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.
So tell me again, why does the College of Western Idaho need to do a study on how having licensed CCW people carrying guns on campus is such a threat to society and the learning atmosphere? Allow me to do the study for you please, and I won't even charge you for the time... because your study is a waste of time... you should be more concerned about other things that this.
Allow me to scare you with a startling fact about violent gun crime, police and CCW holders.
Concealed Carry Permit Holders are One Third as Likely to Commit Murder as Police Officers.
Yes you read that right... police officers kill more people than CCW holders... Now, how safe do you feel? How did we determine that, well we used the VPC (Violence Policy Center's) data on CCW holders and violent crimes... yeah, we used a gun control's statistics to make the case that CCW holders are safer than police officers with guns.
Rock your world yet? So, tell me Idaho, why are you so scared of a law abiding citizen, that has had training and background check's of walking around campus?
Oh, here's another one for people to think on...In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator as by a person with a concealed carry permit.
So tell me again, how allowing licensed concealed carry on campus is so dangerous?
Emily... interesting fact here... Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.
So you are scared of the 13,996 that have not committed a violent crime, because of why?
Emily Walton argues that: "Concealed weapons permit holders are not a holy class of law-abiding of people. Nearly anyone can get a concealed weapons permit;"
To which I fully agree. But let's ask the question, between the 2 groups of people... those WITH CCW permits and those WITHOUT... which group is more likely to obey the law than not?
Or to put it another way, which group of people, are more likely to break the law than the other?
Emily, what you are not saying is that those 2 students were not just students, they were 21 years old, and alcohol was involved. This was not a case of a person with a CCW trying to prevent a crime and killing the wrong person... this was a DRUNK, that was breaking the law by having a gun while he was drunk... (That right there, according to your logic of a law that says you can't carry on campus, should be enough to stop him from carrying a gun when he's drunk, right?) Then he killed someone. Again, that's illegal, and according to your logic, a law that stops someone from killing someone should prevent it from happening, just like a policy about having no guns on campus would prevent guns on campus.
This from a friend... interesting thought, so I bring it here.
"College presidents claim that now they will have to actually train and arm their campus police and invest in metal detectors. Why? If they are already capable of keeping illegal guns off campus (which they claim), why should a handful of law-abiding citizens with legal guns change things?"
The premise of the not having guns on campus is that it will cost too much, that by having a policy that is unenforceable by law that tells students and staff that they can't carry a gun on campus... where no metal detectors exist currently to enforce this policy... the campus is far safer than if someone that you still can't see carrying a gun is legally carrying a gun, because now we will have to enforce this law that says only legal people can carry guns, whereas right now we don't have to enforce this because we just "say" that nobody can carry.
Does that make sense to anyone?
Why do you keep dodging the question? My need has nothing to do with it, I don't have to prove anything, I am NOT a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty... except if I want to carry a gun, then I'm judged guilty until I can prove I'm innocent? Why is that?
You have not answered the question... why does a "policy" on not having a gun on campus makes YOU feel safer than a LAW that says that you can't be murdered.
I will answer your question, Why do I feel compelled to carry a gun... not only on campus, but everywhere I go... because bad things happen to good people, no matter what my intentions are. I WANT to protect myself, my family should the need arise. Because I CAN, it's my choice and it's protected by the 2nd amendment. If you don't want to carry a gun, that's ok, you don't have to, but why do I have to bow to you fear of a tool that is used to protect myself?
Now it's your turn... what is it about words that make you feel safe? You do know that criminals don't follow the law, that's why they are called a criminal?
Is anyone interested at all in the underling reasons everyone fills compelled to walk around with a gun on their person? I spent my entire growing up years with not even a mention of guns and no one would have ever dreamed of taking a gun on campus. If we have fallen into such a state that we have to arm our selves we are in a sorry state and even while you tote around your guns, it should be a priority to find out why there would be this need, otherwise this country will continue to go down the tubes.
As a summary to this conversation, here is what we learned:
1. Anti Gun people don't know the current law
2. Anti Gun people feel that words on paper protect them more than anything else.
3. Anti Gun people like to pile more words on paper to protect them from people who don't understand words on paper.
4. Anti Gun people are incredibly mis-informed about what you can do with a firearm
5. This newspaper reporters should learn how to write a NEWS article, do some research and see if what they are printing is actually news.
In short... legally allowing guns on campus in several other states have NOT, let me repeat that, NOT lead to ANY of the issues that Chicken Little's screaming about how the sky is falling, are "concerned" about.
And we still have yet to hear from anyone, why they feel more safe about a "policy" about not have a gun on campus makes them feel safer than a LAW that says you can't murder them.
I'm not protecting anyone outside my direct personal area.
I'm not paid to go busting down doors, clearing rooms and putting my life on the line to protect people I don't know... that's what cops are for.
I'm interested in one thing, and one thing only... MY SURVIVAL... the rest of you better stand close to me.
That's another little myth that those opposed to guns seem to have, that I want to save their life if they get in trouble... I don't. I'm not a cop, I'm not a vigilante, I'm not a wanna be security guard... I'm a private citizen that wants to go home to my family at night. If you don't want to protect yourself... then fine by me... you go stand in front of the door.
Good. Don't worry, armed students will protect your unarmed kids. It's not their fault they were raised to be naive and ignorant to the reality of society.
If it is against the law right now to do the following:
Carry CCW if your under 21
be drunk and CCW at the same time
threaten someone with a gun or otherwise
kill someone with a gun or otherwise
brandish a gun
What is it about this new law, that people think that any of the above would be legal, because that's what the emotional argument is that I hear... if people are allowed to carry legally on campus then...
Everyone will be armed
you can be drunk and have a gun
you could kill someone if you got mad at them
you could assault someone easier with a gun
you would brandish a gun in a threatening manner because you can
you would have all the students on campus carrying
Do you any of you that are against the law, even know what the current laws are for carrying a gun? It would appear that you don't.
Call the governor and ask for veto!!! 208-334-2100 This isn't over.
Ms. Walton, Sen. Davis' son was succumbed by a drunken student's actions. Yet, you present it as a seeming matter-of-fact element that a defensive weapon, of its own accord, did cause itself to become an offensive weapon and, then, cause a sound-minded person to use it as such.
SB1254 factors that in; that of being 'under the influence' and brandishing/using a weapon or other more serious crimes with a defensive weapon they turn into a harmful offensive weapon. In short, the issue was that of alcohol driving the situation to such the sad outcome, not that of an inanimate defensive weapon.
Be that as it may, no law will ever prevent an evil or drunk or high-on-drugs person from causing harm, from using an inanimate object, be it with a bat, knife, envelope opener or other potential or specifically designed defensive weapon they then turn into an offensive harmful weapon.
To the Reader (esp. "disappointed" and Carol Thacker Pullen):
A citizen from southern Idaho, who has a CWL (Concealed Weapons License) and does carry, was visiting Provo, UT, in April of 2012. Walking in the parking lot toward the entrance to a store (not unlike a Fred Meyer), he witnessed a person who, having just bought a larger kitchen knife from that same store, start stabbing people near the entrance 2 people were stabbed, 1 in the head, the other in the right-side. The Idaho man unholstered his defensive weapon, aimed it at the violent aggressor and commanded him to get on the ground. Fortunately, the aggressor wisely complied. Read the story here ~
An instance where more serious or fatal injuries were subverted.
Yet, most events wherein a person has a defensive weapon (be it CC/OC, a knife or other such defensive item) and has stopped a crime because of having such are never reported. It is estimated that between 1.8 and 2.3 million violent crimes are yearly averted when the victim (or someone nearby to defend the victim) has a defensive weapon.
Here are 2 such "unreported" local instances within the last 24 months right here in the Meridian/Boise area ~
In April, 2012, I was at a nearby city pond fishing with my 2 daughters (9 & 12). Another Dad and his 2 kids were just feet away, fishing as well. Two 18~22 year old males dressed in clear gang-like clothing (of which I noticed them some 3 minutes earlier when they were quite farther away headed in our general direction) started speaking loud as they were approaching closer, stating how they'd like to "pound on someone," with one of them quasi-pointing my general direction. I didn't know if they were pointing at me or the other Dad and his 2 kids next to me. The other Dad clearly didn't know them, either. I was open carrying (OC) that day, but was turned such that the two males could not see my OC. I immediately turned my "strong-side" (the side with my OC) toward them, never taking my eyes off them, stating loudly, "Hey! No *BAD* fishing today!" One male stated "Sh*t! He's packin!" and they both then quickly turned and walked hastily away. The Dad next to me stated, "I CC (conceal carry). Maybe I should OC more often." My kids, standing within 15-20 feet of me, had nar a clue what just transpired, with my younger daughter asking, "Are there bad fish here, Daddy?" "Sometimes, Honey. But we Daddy's will chase 'em away, Sweetie," as I nodded toward the other Dad, who nodded in reciprocal concurrence.
In June, 2012, I was walking in the a nearby city's WalMart parking lot to my car after shopping. I heard a loud and frantic scream. I came out from between a van and a car and saw a person having their arms & hands near the throat of another person; didn't see any actual choking. Again, I was OC'ing at this time. I quickly shouted "Hey! What's going on?!", this to draw the seeming aggressor's attention away from the possible victim. The seeming aggressor turned, stating, "Who the hell are ...[pause] Oh, f*ck..." when the seeming aggressor saw my OC. By that time, the Meridian police were pulling into the parking lot, so I started stepping back in-between the van & car and went on my way, as I concluded my presence wasn't necessary any longer. I later read in the paper it was a daughter that was arrested for assault and battery upon her mother; for what reason, I don't know. (If you notice, I qualify "seeming aggressor" and "potential victim" in relaying this account. This is because I didn't see/know who actually screamed, and couldn't [nor shouldn't] assume the person with their hands at another's throat is the aggressor. A reasonable person, though, would conclude of the person who first responded with expletive words as being the seeming aggressor. These things happen in seconds, though.)
I'm confident that, in both these instances (of which, both happened inside of 20~25 seconds total, with the 'intense' segments spanning mere seconds), the potential aggressors, having become fully aware of potential outcomes now that they realize a dynamic had just been introduced which they otherwise didn't factor in when they began pursing the option and/or the actual aggression, they then made more wise decisions to discontinue their purposed and/or actual aggressions. OK, that's a fancy way of saying: The potential and/or actual aggressors realized a person with a defensive weapon was now in the mix, of which immediately changed their disposition and course of action.
FYI ~ I've never unholstered or presented a defensive weapon for defense in all my 25 years of carrying such, nor handled upon them in the holster in public, even in these 2 instances noted. I'm just a plain ol' Joe private citizen wanting to enjoy the day with my family just like everyone else.
Above are 2 instances wherein either a potential crime was deterred or stopped, yet never 'reported'.
Thus, commenter "disappointed," of your "believe[ing that] most of the gun defenders have never been to a violent situation themselves" is partially misplaced.
To the commenter "disappointed", in regards to "violent situations" ~
I was cornered by 3 gang members in a central-California town. I have had 8 defensive weapons instantaneously turned to become offensive weapons and then pointed at me demanding my immediate allegiance to every command of police officers who mistook me for a wanted and armed robbery suspect. (And, finally, God chose to appoint my time on this earth to be during the Obama Administration; hypothetically prophetically speaking.)
Now, let's talk actual, factual statistics ~
Regarding 1,128 Enhanced Concealed Weapons Licenses in all of Idaho's 1.6 million people, that's 0.071% of the entire State's population.
Of the 6 people who are indicated has conceal carrying on the BSU campus, of the 22,000 students there, that's 0.025% of those on campus who conceal carry.
Of the 22,000 students there, 70% are under the age of 21. Thus, that makes only 6,600 students "eligible" to now lawfully conceal carry on the BSU campus come July 1, 2014.
Logically (and honestly), the statistical probability / likelihood of a person who CC's with a defensive weapon will actually be nearby when a violent crime occurs to then come to the defense of themselves or another is a mathematical percentage of, well … sorry, don't want to wear out my zero key trying to establish all the zeros to the right of the decimal point which would seemingly be necessarily to quantify such.
Of your leadership as Lt. Gov of Illinois from 1991 to 1998, and within the Illinois House and Senate in the 80's, of which the city of Chicago is recorded has having the highest murder rate in the country, please feel free to answer of your anti-defensive weapons disposition to the families of those violently raped, assaulted, or murdered throughout Chicago and/or Illinois, all the while, please keep such the disposition out of Idaho. This, to prevent such the increases of murder and/or violent crime rates from our humble State. [http://www.bet.com/news/health/2012/02/01/chicago-has-highest-murder-rate-in-the-u-s.html] Oh, and if you've not read our State of Idaho Constitution of late, please be confident in knowing that your say in legislative matters has no greater or lesser bearing (nor should have) than any other individual law-abiding Idaho citizen (Article 1, Section 10 ~ "the right to instruct our representatives").
The thing is, violence and terror do not schedule an appointment nor do they advertise when or where they will occur together.
Neither do car crashes, yet we have car insurance. Neither do house fires, yet we have fire extinguishers and homeowners insurance. Neither does cancer, yet we have (now forced...) health insurance. Neither does death, yet many carry a Bible (on my smartphone now, even.). (Yet, unfortunately, poor absence-of-fact emotions-driven and highly-biased reporting does seem to occur together, even advertising such, but I digress.)
Like I've noted in an earlier post, candidly, it'd be nice to not have to worry about bringing any kind of defensive weapon anywhere. Sadly, as history, and recently history at that, does show, we don't live in a perfect world.
As such, I'll still have my home, health, and car insurance, fire extinguishers and other defensive elements available, all of which are just that, 'defensive'. Very much needed, yet always praying I (nor anyone) ever have to use any of them.
Except for my Bible when giving testimony of my faith, which I'll gladly share any time.
Ms. Walton, should anyone state matter-of-factly that a spoon or fork is the sole cause in and of themselves, having done the action of their own inanimate object accord, to bring about someone's non-Miss America / non-supermodel figure, please feel free to shame them. For, of my rather pudgy-self / non-Mr. Universe figure, I'd love to blame the spoon or fork. Perhaps a grass-roots movement would be good toward seeking potential legislators willing to introduce legislation to ban spoons & forks such that it would bring about a wonderful abundance of Miss America or Mr. Universe figures.
Life is Precious.
I have no problem with someone carrying a concealed firearm. They have to go through training and know why and when to pull their weapon.
Wait, What? You mean I can legally carry a gun on campus now, and it's not illegal? Say it aint' so, it can't be... that's impossible, because I feel so safe right now knowing that it's against school policy that a student or staff cannot carry on campus. (sarcasm)
So, the current "policy" is not a "law" and carries no penalty? Hmm... tell me again, why all of you people on campus that don't want guns on campus feel so safe right now, but will feel threatened on July 1st... I'm really curious...
The current policies regarding weapons do not have the force of law.
However, that doesn't mean that you won't be harassed about it and possibly temporarily detained.
Ok, since I seem to have stumped those that oppose campus carry with my question about how safe you feel, let me ask another one, maybe it's a simpler matter.
What is the penalty, right now... if you carry a gun on campus? What law are you breaking, and how is it enforced?
© 2014 Boise Weekly
Website powered by Foundation