California bans lawful concealed carry on campuses – that should work
Leaving law-abiding students and faculty sitting ducks for people who don’t give a damn about your laws and rules.
There is not a single campus where the failure to ban lawfully-possessed concealed guns caused a mass shooting.
In fact, almost all places where mass shootings have taken place are “gun-free zones.”
The results are predictable, as I explained in my viral column at USA Today, Time to talk about gun free zones:
In almost all mass shooting situations, particularly at schools, the common theme is a gun-free zone, with the shooter being the only one armed person in the building for minutes or longer. And in each case, the shooter couldn’t care less about the gun-free nature of the building, and if anything, was drawn to such a location.
Gun-free zones presume the good intentions of those entering the zone. And the overwhelming majority have such good intentions. But for those who have bad intentions, gun-free zones turn schools and other locations into shooting galleries. The good people are unarmed, the evil person is armed.
…
So, to double down on a stupid policy that does nothing to stop criminals, California Governor Jerry Brown just signed legislation banning concealed weapons on all California campuses, as reported by the L.A. Times:
A week after a gunman killed nine people at an Oregon college, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Saturday that will ban the carrying of concealed guns on school and university campuses in this state.
Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) said the bill she introduced several months ago is needed to close a loophole that allows people with concealed-weapons permits to carry firearms onto school grounds. The bill prohibits that practice, unless school officials grant permission or the carrier is retired from law enforcement.
The bill is supported by Peggy McCrum, president of the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
“California’s college campuses and K-12 schools should be sanctuaries for learning, free from the fear of gun violence,” McCrum said, adding the new law “will make schools safer and decrease students’ risk of being injured or killed.”
Let’s put it another way. California has just made campuses prime targets for criminal shooters, who alone will be armed. Not just vulneralbe to the mass shooters — but common criminals and gang-bangers as well.
It has left otherwise law-abiding students and faculty sitting ducks for people who don’t give a damn about your laws and rules.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Killers choose gun free zones cuz their lives matter to them; the lives of others don’t.
It’s like the liberals want to create “bait” zones where terrorists and/or crazies can safely massacre the innocent to provide them with talking points for gun control.
Precisely. See Branco’s cartoon earlier this week: https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/10/branco-cartoon-advantage/
Prof. Jacobson has it right: “California has just made campuses prime targets for criminal shooters, who alone will be armed.”
Like most everything Gov. Moonbeam does, this will be a disaster. I much prefer Bill Whittle’s take on this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwLjFm6GMBM
Eligible victims should at least avoid advertising they are low risk targets. It is peculiar to paint a target on your own back, and immoral to paint a target on other people.
Liberals are delusional. All that matters to them is their Utopian intentions. The costs are paid by the victims who live in reality.
The fact that criminals do not obey laws (only the good people do) is a concept that can be grasped by anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature. Are liberals really that mentally ill? Or, are they trying to set up a crisis that they will not let go to waste (the victims blood notwithstanding)?
I think they’re so desperate to disarm the populace that lives lost in that process mean nothing to them.
It’s not that they’re ignorant, it’s that they’re angry that this country has a free people, who are allowed to defend themselves and not be dependent on the nobility (government political class) for their very lives.
Why anyone would attend those schools just to be sitting ducks…
Magical thinking. Unutterably stupid.
Something like this gives liberals the warm fuzzies, just thinking about it.
That’s all that matters to them.
There’s really no such thing as a “gun-free zone”. All there are is gun suppression zones. If you’re willing to defend yourself at the risk of violating a stupid and rights-violating law, you can.
And a lot of us are.
A letter writer to the New York Times today says an adult student told a TV interviewer that he was carrying a giun at the time of the Rosemont shooting, but he didn’t use it because he figured that a SWAT team would be on the scene pretty soon and they wouldn’t know he was a good guy and the other person was a bad guy if they found him shooting at someone.
He argues that was the right decision and that’s why it’s not a good idea for private citizens to be carrying guns (or at least take them out and start shooting, I suppose.)
Smart kid….the primary reason to carry is to protect yourself (or your loved ones)….
Everybody is a threat to the po-po, until the po-po determines you are not a threat…..
Which helps make the point that if one person, in that classroom(s) (other than the murderer) would have been armed with a gun, there would’ve been a fighting chance for the students to live.
Does it bother anyone else that he was more afraid of the police than an active shooter?
Not only that, but he allowed that fear to stop him from attempting to save people’s lives.
Not a banner moment for that guy and certainly not a testament to the work done by law enforcement.
He SAID he was more afraid. It sounds like leftist BS to me.
A shooter killing innocent people.
Police arrive.
I am now more afraid.
I do not believe it.
Another example of “the modern man.” What a pussy!
I don’t even believe that story.
No one sitting in a classroom with an armed assailant intent on killing people, (remember he immediately killed the professor, who was Jewish, BEFORE he started asking people about their faith beliefs) would have sat there believing that a SWAT team was coming to the rescue.
Bogus story, perfectly nuanced for the New York Times to use as propaganda.
and they wouldn’t know he was a good guy and the other person was a bad guy if they found him shooting at someone.
Sounds like a planted story. Only a group like Brady Bunch could come up with such a dumbnuts rationale; any individual competent to walk and breathe at the same time would know better.
The arrival of a SWAT team is hardly a subtle event. So, when the SWAT guys arrive, put your own gun away—back into concealment, or drop it. Then let the SWAT guys attack the real villain. They won’t pay any attention to you at all.
I agree. If I am armed, I am taking action until the police arrive at which time I stop taking action. Also, it takes a while for SWAT to arrive — quite a while. The street cops get there first.Any good guy packing will have done what he/she can do in the first minute or two.
Any plain clothes cop from an assisting agency may be unknown to some cops on the scene. The SWAT team does not shoot first. They challenge and you simply respond as directed.
This guy on the news does sound like a setup. The left makes up “news” to further the agenda. Dishonesty is a core principle.
I conceal carry with a small caliber revolver. I am not a trained Law Enforcement Officer and it is not my job to actively confront a person intent on committing a criminal act. I carry for MY OWN protection. I am trained as a former military pilot where the weapon is just an aid for Escape and Evasion. I intend to use my weapon in that manner. My 22 magnum will kill at short range and if necessary I will attempt to use the weapons considering it’s advantages and disadvantages. If the weapon will give me the advantage to cut and run, it has served it’s purpose.
If you need protection get your own and use it according to your philosophy. If you are depending on someone else to protect you, wait for the SWAT.
This clearly illustrates the biggest problem with an armed populous, a lack of training. I’m not speaking of the Times letter writer, but of some of the people on this forum who commented on it.
A properly trained person with a pistol stands a good chance of stopping an active shooter. Notice I said “properly trained”. An untrained shooter can end up being just as much a liability as the active shooter, in a crowded venue. If an untrained, possibly panicked, shooter decides to engage the active shooter, that person has to deal with several liabilities, both external and internal. Internally, there is stress bordering upon panic, if not already there. This causes a lapse of cognitive ability, a reduction of sensory function and a loss of fine motor skills. Many trained and experienced people have learned to control these responses and compensate for the residual effects. Unfortunately most civilian carriers have not. So the armed response, of such a person, is probably going to be chaotic. Externally, the responder controls nothing, in the immediate environment other than him or herself. The other people in the room may, and probably are, moving about, governed strictly by their own thoughts and desires. This complicates a shooting situation immensely. And, being killed by friendly fire leaves one no less dead. There is the active shooter to consider. First of all, what is his plan? How will he act, move and shoot? How is he dressed? He could be armored like the bank robbers in the North Hollywood shootout in 1997 or he could be wearing an explosive vest made with dynamite. In the first case, rounds directed to the body could be ineffectual, giving the shooter time to react and neutralize the defender. In the second, a round striking the explosive could well end the active shooting incident right there, for everyone in the room. Then, of course there are the emergency responders, police and security. What information do they have? Probably just an unidentified shooter in a classroom. They may have a gender or other identifiers, but it is just as likely that they do not. So they come upon a person in normal civilian attire who is carrying a gun. If they follow procedure, they will cover the person and demand that he drop the gun. If he does, that may well end the threat that they pose to him. However, people, who are not specifically trained on how to deal with armed uniformed responders, have atendency to try to explain that they are not the threat, before doing anything else. And, they have a tendency to turn to face the person that they intend to speak to, with gun in hand. This often leads to the person being shot. This is still a relatively common occurrence among plain clothes and undercover LEOs, even though most large departments attempt to train them in how to respond to contacts with uniformed personnel.
This is not to suggest that a total ban on lawfully carried firearms should automatically be imposed on every school or university campus. I am merely pointing out the potential dangers that exist when largely untrained and inexperienced people confront active shooters bent on killing as many people as possible.
As to the effectiveness of concealed carry on campuses, many people embrace the idea that the shooters choose such places based upon a desire for self preservation. This is not necessarily true. In most of these situations, there is no attempt, by the shooter, to escape the responding police. In many cases, the shooter commits suicide, by his own hand. It is much more likely that most active shooters, who choose schools, do so because it provides a target rich environment, will generate widespread public and media outcry and because the shooter has some attachment to the facility [student, teacher, relative or friend of someone who works at or attends the facility]. The second is that the shooter will have to enter the facility and a building to commit the crime. Again this is not true. A man, armed with a high powered rifle and situated two or three blocks away, can run up a staggering body count, in just a few minutes AND still escape. And, possession of a handgun would be largely futile, in such a situation. Also, in the case of most schools, including colleges and universities in states where a person has to be 21 years of age to carry a firearm in public, the vast majority of people on the campus, the students, will not be able to be lawfully armed. And, finally, there is the potential problem of a person, lawfully entitled to possess a firearm on campus, who suddenly uses it against students, faculty and other employees.
The whole point here, is that this is not a simple matter and simply allowing every Tom, Dick and Jane, who has a carry permit, to carry a firearm on campus will not, automatically, increase the safety of those who attend that school. Bans on possession of firearms on campus, by people who have an ordinary carry permit, does not make the campus any safer. But, allowing such people unfettered access to the campus does not make it any safer either. Any reaction to a shooting incident, such as occurred in Oregon, has to be well thought out and planned, not a knee-jerk reaction which favors the preconceived notions of the person proposing the reaction.
The best contingency is for me and others like me to practice with my firearms every other week, as I have. Prep and perp talk is wishful thinking.
Talk does not hit the mark.
Good points.
I’d be in favor of allowing teachers to qualify for concealed permit licenses if they took an advanced training course that prepared them for the stress of a real time shooting confrontation. But it would still be a statical long shot for that to make any difference unless thousands of teacher qualified in each state.
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/10/02/vet-with-concealed-weapon-explains-why-he-didnt-shoot-in-umpqua
This is the video interview with the student who was armed with permit to carry, detailing what happened.
The cultish stupidity of the liberals knows absolutely no bounds. None at all.
This is a brilliant idea. The cause of crime is the mere presence of guns. So the solution to bank robberies is to make banks “gun free zones,” and have unarmed bank guards.
I guess a “gun free zone” is a kind of force field that allows people to pass through but not guns. Can someone explain the physics of how this works?
Something like the emancipation grid from Portal?
Not sure I’d really want to be going through something run by a deranged AI that apparently stuffs people into boxes and randomly disintegrates them…
Oh, but that’s different. Banks have to protect the money!
Liberals want to turn everyone into victims. The more people who are injured or die, the more liberal politicians demand even more government control over our lives.
Brilliant. Ban the ONE group of people that have not engaged in mass shootings.
Stupidity often has no cure. Feel sorry for her.
Stamp collectors. An estimated 5 million of them in the US. Not yet one report of a philatelist mass shooter.
NFL fans. 20 million at least, watching games on a Sunday. So far, not one 6-victim touchdown by a disgruntled pig-skin aficionado – unless some bookie’s parlor was surreptitiously taken out.
or the carrier is retired from law enforcement.
Interesting that even in the land of Fruits & Nuts they have to toss this standard sop to the police unions.
That they continue to do this in the face of the facts indicates that Gun Control advocates are either not arguing in good faith or are completely irrational.
No sane person could claim to believe that having a law against anyone carrying a weapon on campus will somehow cause criminals who don’t obey laws to suddenly obey laws therefore any one claiming that that will happen is either insane or is purposefully lying for the advancement of an agenda.
I personally believe that those in the top tiers of this movement understand fully what they are doing (setting up shooting galleries) in the hopes that after enough innocent people get shot that they will be able to force a repeal of the 2nd amendment and the confiscation of all weapons held by law abiding citizens. (Because once again, criminals will not comply with any confiscation laws).
This is vile and vicious and you will very likely not see this discussed on mainstream TV.
Onerous gun laws are made, not for those they pretend to protect, but for patronage. The delicate insecurities of the hopeless and hapless materialists must be protected: “To protect our little fiefdoms we must give government all power and authority and take it away from the individual, unless we’re talking sexuality.”
Now, in gun law context, is what we need more dealers and drug users on the street dealing smack? (Is this 2016 vote pandering?)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/07/justice-department-to-release-6000-inmates-from-federal-prisons-beginning-oct/
My son attends SDSU (grad school). He has an LTC from his home state, but that is useless in CA. What parent would want his child to be unequipped to defend himself against the type of nut job we saw in OR?
Well tell your son to get his ass out on the Pacific Ocean:
This is the best Tuna fishing they’ve had in years!
http://www.sportfishingreport.com/pages/docktotals.php
(SD marinas at bottom)
Also, SDSC has its own police force, near 30 fully accredited armed officers who regularly patrol the university. And if history is any guide, he has more to worry about from drunk classmates then crazed shooters.
Odd. I just reread the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.”
It does not conclude with the words “… except in government designated gin-free zones”.
There are no reasonable restrictions – “infringed” is “infringed”.
The revised Californis gun law allows members of ‘well regulated militias’ to carry guns on California school grounds, Ed.
In modern times those would be members of police forces, active and retired, who are permitted to carry their weapons on California campuses.
Make that “government designated gun-free zones”, because I really do not want to consider “government designated gin-free zones”.
There’s an old saying… “Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.”
We’re not preparing for the worst.