rebeccmeister: (Default)
rebeccmeister ([personal profile] rebeccmeister) wrote2008-03-29 08:00 pm

Ugh, I can't believe this bill has made it this far.

Here's text from an e-mail going around among grad students at ASU:

The Arizona State Legislature is about to vote on the Concealed Weapons Bill!

Senate Bill 1214 concealed weapons; school grounds
would allow a person with a valid concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit to possess a concealed firearm on the grounds of a community college or university.

Currently, the bill has passed the the judiciary committee and both caucuses in the Senate. It is now awaiting a full vote in the Senate. Once it passes the Senate, it will go to the House! If it passes the House, then it will be sent up to the Governor for her to sign! We need graduate students to help spread the word that this bill is not good for Arizona Colleges and Universities!!

Please join us in contacting your legislators and let them know that Arizona Students DO NOT support Senate Bill 1214!!!!

If you need help finding your legislator or need the contact information of your legislator, click on the link below: http://www.azleg.gov/alisStaticPages/HowToContactMember.asp

--

This bill frightens me. After the recent shootings on the U of Illinois campus, I've spent a lot of time thinking about safety on campus, and about what I would do if such a thing were to happen at ASU. I definitely think that more guns are not the correct answer--they just create the potential for escalation. Instead, what we really need are much better social support systems (i.e. a way to actually address concerns about mental/emotional problems instead of just documenting their existence), and at the very most we need better self-defense training/preparation. NOT more guns. The whole thing has gotten to the point where I've considered leading a discussion in my lab sections about safety and community--because if I don't talk about it with my students, who will? Who will they go to when they really, desperately need help? Enormous, anonymous campuses are what really create the potential for such disasters, in the same way that anonymity in large cities can promote violence.

Ugh. You are a fool!

(Anonymous) 2008-03-30 03:31 am (UTC)(link)
Pray for the sheep among us.

Re: Ugh. You are a fool!

[identity profile] faisdodo.livejournal.com 2008-03-30 05:16 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, because it's sooooo foolish to think about and discuss fixing a problem at the source. Let's all just ignore the potential for disaster and then have knee-jerk reactions to the consequences instead!

Talk about sheep. "Let's all carry guns, we'll be so much safer!! The NRA says so! Baaa! Baaaa!"

I'm generally all for gun rights. But I feel lines need to be drawn, and stuff like this is poorly thought-out. Just like the the national park gun ban repeal bill. Apparently national parks are just crawling with criminals, and it's too much to ask that people unload and store their guns before entering a national park.

(Anonymous) 2008-03-30 09:02 am (UTC)(link)
Addressing the issues of the emotional trauma caused by such violence is not a bad thing, but people are still going to die in these spree shootings. They must be stopped at the source. The only two people guaranteed to be in a classroom with a shooter are the students and the shooter. Police simply cannot have the response times necessary when guns are involved.

Also, keep in mind that you are surrounded by people carrying concealed everyday, just not on campus. The problem here is that when a 21+ year old is on campus we as a society address them as "kids", however everywhere else around town they qualify as adults.

The problem with the opponents of SB1214 is that they are really arguing against the rights of the 2nd amendment, which is not the issue here (and the courts have ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment repeatedly). This is not the issue here. The issue is that adults should not be discriminated against once they step foot on a university campus.

The goal with SB1214 is not really to have adults (I will refrain from addressing them as students) start a gun fight when the SHTF. The idea posed is the same that actually works to fight crime rates. That is, the sheer fact that there *may* be a student that will take a gunman down will hopefully prevent the gunmen from even attempting his feat. I believe psychologically that gunmen want to go down in history -- to set records -- and the thought alone that they may not even get one kill will scare them enough not to even attempt it.

Try this, ask criminals what they fear most. I guarantee that most will say an armed citizen, not the police. A school shooter is no different -- they both have criminal mindsets.

I think you should watch this video from 20/20 as it pertains to gun control myths in general, and then figure how this is any different than a university setting. Also, realize that every day you encounter armed citizens carrying concealed and don't even know it. I bet that thought hasn't bothered you till now when you actually thought about it, did it?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

[identity profile] faisdodo.livejournal.com 2008-03-30 03:36 pm (UTC)(link)
"Addressing the issues of the emotional trauma caused by such violence is not a bad thing, but people are still going to die in these spree shootings. They must be stopped at the source. The only two people guaranteed to be in a classroom with a shooter are the students and the shooter."

You don't understand what the SOURCE of the problem IS. We're not talking about addressing the issues of emotional trauma caused BY the shootings, we're talking about addressing the mental/emotional problems that CAUSE the shootings in the first place.

If a gunman is mentally ill, the fact that other students are carrying weapons will not deter them.

"Also, realize that every day you encounter armed citizens carrying concealed and don't even know it. I bet that thought hasn't bothered you till now when you actually thought about it, did it?"

Actually, I have been aware of this for a while, and it doesn't bother me. I'd rather have someone carrying a concealed weapon than some idiot wandering into a McDonald's with a handgun dangling out back of his pants (which I have seen before). I'm not concerned about the everyday concealed weapons. I'm concerned about using school shootings to justify carrying firearms on campus. It is just like trying to put a crappy band-aid over a profusely bleeding neck wound.

[identity profile] faisdodo.livejournal.com 2008-03-30 03:37 pm (UTC)(link)
P.S., Rebecca, sorry for turning your comments into a warzone. ;)

[identity profile] rebeccmeister.livejournal.com 2008-03-30 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Not a problem, J. I'd like for my blog to be a place that at least occasionally inspires discussion, even if it's heated and I'm not in agreement with all positions held.

Please note: eventually, I simply tire of semantic arguments.

[identity profile] rebeccmeister.livejournal.com 2008-03-30 10:15 pm (UTC)(link)
I am well aware that people carry concealed weapons elsewhere, and am not opposed to the second-amendment right to bear arms. OTOH, I am also a pacifist, and as [livejournal.com profile] faisdodo states, I'm more interested in preventing violent acts through nonviolent (or *less* violent) means.

I also find it quite interesting how divisive gun control issues are in the United States, one of the most violent countries on the planet. And I blame the media for fueling the problem at least in part, so I'm not convinced that the media will provide a useful perspective on the issue.

I also find it interesting how, o Anonymous, you describe the persons committing such acts as criminals. Do they have to be criminals in the first place, if we can help them adjust socially before they act out in such extreme ways?

(Anonymous) 2008-03-31 02:43 am (UTC)(link)
I believe you are now attempting to "profile" potential gunmen. However, if you look into the previous cases of gun violence at schools, it is actually quite difficult to pinpoint who might need counseling. If you read the media's interviews with friends and family of the shooters, they all seem to repeat the same thing: a good kid with a smart head on their shoulders. The idea that even a trained counselor could identify a potential gunman is no different than me, an average citizen, not getting on an airplane with a "creepy" looking middle-eastern. I, nor a counselor, could predict someone as a potential gunman, and that thought alone is quite along the line's of the movie "Minority Report". The problem here is that the term "crime prevention" is actually quite oxymoronic in that crime is something that must *have* already been committed (post-tense) while prevention is something that is *to be* stopped (pre-tense). You can't prevent someone from committing an act before it occurs since it is not a crime until that action is enacted upon.

Basically, even if you were to profile an individual as a potential gunman, that stigma alone will not necessarily prevent him from committing an act of violence. In addition, someone does not necessarily have to pose mentally ill signs for them to commit an act of horror. On the contrary, people who are labeled as mentally unstable does not necessary mean that they will go on a rampage.

My point is, although it would be nice to think that we could "see" the future and prevent the actions from transpiring in the first place, this is an impossible feat.

As for your notion that this is a poor bandaid approach, I agree with you...BUT, do you have a better alternative? Do you have a method that is fool proof and will prevent this from ever happening again? Do you have the money to install metal-detectors at all school entrances across the country and have the man-power to function? I doubt it, and this bill puts an ALREADY EFFECTIVE measure into place into school environments. Look at crime statistics regarding shootings in general. MOST happen in "gun free zones". Maybe we should teach pre-criminals how to read because they obviously fail to read these signs!!!

[identity profile] faisdodo.livejournal.com 2008-03-31 03:12 am (UTC)(link)
However, if you look into the previous cases of gun violence at schools, it is actually quite difficult to pinpoint who might need counseling. If you read the media's interviews with friends and family of the shooters, they all seem to repeat the same thing: a good kid with a smart head on their shoulders.

I think this is true in some cases, but obviously not all. The Virginia Tech shooter had a troubled past and his teachers had raised warning flags before. Have you read the final investigation report?

I also think there's a problem of "wanting to know" the perpetrator. People are so eager to come forward and say "They seemed so normal!" When they only encountered a person once or twice, was just a casual acquaintance, or didn't really know them well at all (this can definitely include family).

Basically, even if you were to profile an individual as a potential gunman, that stigma alone will not necessarily prevent him from committing an act of violence. In addition, someone does not necessarily have to pose mentally ill signs for them to commit an act of horror. On the contrary, people who are labeled as mentally unstable does not necessary mean that they will go on a rampage.

It's not about profiling them. It's about seeing the warning signs and attempting to help an individual overcome whatever they're struggling with, whether it's just a high amount of stress or mental illness. Even if they're not homicidal, a lot of people need help, and they can't/don't know how to ask for it, or they feel that their problems are 'trivial' and they don't deserve help. Obviously this is not going to completely prevent shootings. But a combination of this and other measures could help reduce the chances.

As for your notion that this is a poor bandaid approach, I agree with you...BUT, do you have a better alternative?

Better background checks that look into a person's psychiatric history? What if buying a gun required references? If Seung-Hui Cho had to provide references in order to purchase his firearms, and his teachers/friends/doctors/family members suddenly got calls to let them know he was acquiring said firearms, don't you think someone might have thought about his mental health issues and said "Hey, wait a minute, I don't think this feels right?"

If students/teachers had to provide proof of experience, pass some kind of test, and then declare to the administration and security that they are carrying firearms on school grounds, I'd feel -slightly- more comfortable about it, but I still think it doesn't really minimize the potential for disaster...sure, they could shoot a gunman before he kills more people, but they could also break down in such a high-stress situation and accidentally shoot a bystander/get shot themselves (and then just provide the gunman with an additional firearm).

(Anonymous) 2008-04-01 06:04 am (UTC)(link)
I agree that it would be great to identify a "potential" before they inact on their violence. However, I do not feel that a psychological background would help. I am sure Cho could have had numerous people provide a positive recommendation. Also, would you sign a recommendation for someone if they asked you? Would you possibly expose yourself to the liability involved? Imagine the media saying that Cho commit these acts, however he purchased the gun with psychological recommendations from Rebecca. I sure in hell wouldn't want to pose that kind of liability on someone else, nor would I want to feel obligated to provide a recommendation to a friend.

In addition, Cho was 21. He has every legal right to purchase a firearm. If they required a specific relative (i.e. a parent/spouse) to sign the consent form, what if that individual didn't want their parents to know? What if that individual felt the need to carry for personal security reasons, but their spouse was against the 2nd amendment? I should not have to inform anyone that I own a firearm.

Also, I purchase guns at a high rate, quite a few per month. I have quite a collection that I am very proud of. I can't imagine having to go through an intensive process to obtain these firearms each and every time.

The idea that my school would be aware that I was carrying has me nervous. If someone on campus were held up at gunpoint and they described the gun as PINK, for example, and I owned a PINK firearm, I would not want them to have the power to investigate me. With probable cause and a reasonable suspicion they could obtain a warrant to do just that. Also, how secure would this database be? What if a gunman had access to these records and cross referenced them with the class schedule? They would be able to target classrooms where a known CCW-licensee was not present.

I simply think that gun free zones are actually defenseless victim zones and that needs to change. School's are a place to learn, not a criminal's playground.

[identity profile] faisdodo.livejournal.com 2008-04-01 02:50 pm (UTC)(link)
I am sure Cho could have had numerous people provide a positive recommendation.

You can't be sure of this at all!

I would be a reference for someone if I knew them to be a hobbyist or someone who just wanted a firearm for self-protection. I would not be a reference for someone I felt was mentally unstable or wanted a firearm for dubious purposes. Just an idea.

what if that individual didn't want their parents to know?

...uh, then don't put your parents down a references?

What if that individual felt the need to carry for personal security reasons, but their spouse was against the 2nd amendment?

That's a personal disagreement in their marriage that needs to be sorted out, has nothing to do with the effectiveness of requiring references to purchase guns.

I should not have to inform anyone that I own a firearm.

You already have to inform someone when you register it, correct?

Also, I purchase guns at a high rate, quite a few per month. I have quite a collection that I am very proud of. I can't imagine having to go through an intensive process to obtain these firearms each and every time.

Why not, if it could prevent shootings and reduce the amount of anti-gun backlash, perhaps even reduce the stigma associated with carrying a concealed weapon?

Also, how secure would this database be? What if a gunman had access to these records and cross referenced them with the class schedule?

As secure as possible, I would think, but you're starting to get into a slippery slope now. And doesn't this counter your original argument that a gunman would be deterred from shooting up a school that they know to have armed students/staff? Are you saying now that they'd specifically target the armed students?

School's are a place to learn, not a criminal's playground.

I am impervious to this appeal to my emotions. :)

(Anonymous) 2008-04-05 03:58 am (UTC)(link)
The idea was that if the law were to say that certain references had to be provided, such as parents, siblings, and spouses. I guess if they allowed you to be endorsed by anyone then it would be quite easy to pay people (just like people do know to purchase guns illegally) to provide these positive recommendations. And then do those recommenders subject themselves to background checks?

The only two people that know I own a firearm are me and the store it was purchased from. These records are kept in their possession unless they release their license, then they must turn them over to BATFE. Also, in Arizona since I have a CCW, they do not need to call my information into BATFE, so the process takes all of 10 minutes.

I am not concerned at all with the "anti-gun" backlash since it really doesn't effect me. The NRA is a much more powerful organization than you can possibly imagine and gets the majority of their ideas passed. My issue now is my ability to carry on a college campus, which, I believe will go through now that SB1214 has been amended once again. I disagree with the notion that their is a "stigma" against those who have CCWs. Maybe with your friends, but that's exactly why they are your friends and not my own. None of my friends, family, or any one else that knows me personally (and knows I carry -- that's the beauty of CCW!) has a problem with it.

Let me ask you this: If we had a class together and a gunman started shooting at the front row in a lecture hall, and we were sitting next to each other, would you not want me to draw my gun on him while you reach for your cell phone?


[identity profile] faisdodo.livejournal.com 2008-04-05 05:23 am (UTC)(link)
So, you don't need to register a firearm in Arizona? That's messed up.

Let me ask you this: If we had a class together and a gunman started shooting at the front row in a lecture hall, and we were sitting next to each other, would you not want me to draw my gun on him while you reach for your cell phone?

Guns and cellphones be damned, I'd be ducking, diving and running like hell, especially if my classmates are about to open fire as well. You could stay and do whatever you want! ;)

(Anonymous) 2008-04-06 09:33 am (UTC)(link)
If it were as easy as performing the "duck and run", our country would not be mourning the loss of 33 lives recently, of all the past massacres, and the more sure to come.

Here's the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings

Add it up and tell me that the "duck and run" is working. I guess it didn't work for the 172 lives on that list.

[identity profile] faisdodo.livejournal.com 2008-04-06 03:37 pm (UTC)(link)
Sorry, instead of trying to end the discussion vaguely (cause I guess it didn't come across) maybe I should just say in plain english: I think it is time to end this discussion. We both have our opinions and they're not going to change

I just hope that since you admitted that carrying firearms on campus is a band-aid solution, you will actively try to find and lobby for additional measures of prevention that don't just require the distribution of more firearms, and perhaps try to understand the mental and psychological reasons behind the sociopathic meltdowns that lead to shootings (because it usually is much more than "just trying to be famous").

In general, it seems like gun-carrying people only seriously consider the opinions of other gun-carrying people.

Thanks!