RKBA Campus Watch # 12.1

Things sure have been busy while I was gone. In the past, my graduate Alma Mater, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, hasn't shown up on radar regarding gun issues. At least, not in its campus newspaper, The Daily Beacon.

But in running a search through its archives, I found that this month has seen a debate revolving around Concealed Carry among those whose blood runs orange and white.

Therefore, I dub this iteration of the RKBA Campus Watch

The Volunteer Edition

The debate seems to have started February 1, with an article entitled, "UT campus should allow permit-carrying people to have guns." Written by a Sophomore in Finance, he expresses some concern about recent recurring attacks on campus. The author, who holds a CCW permit, puts forth the suggestion that licensed individuals should be allowed to carry their guns on campus.

Now, I want everyone to be aware of his approach to presenting the issue. He's not acting on some emotional response to a past campus shooting elsewhere in the country. He's focused on local problems. And the solution he offers, he presents from the instruction he got from the class he had to take prior to applying for his permit.

His key argument:

My handgun carrying permit instructor pointed out something very eye-catching and that is the fact that a person is less likely to go to a place where he knows someone else has a gun. By not being able to carry on the campus with a permit, the campus then becomes a prime place to attack someone, because those people who are going to do the crime obviously do not follow the campus guidelines for guns.

I think he could have worded this a little better, by saying that people with ill intent are less likely to go into places were the potential victims may be armed.

He even went so far as to conduct his own personal survey on the matter, and found opinion to be almost evenly split.

Published reactions were also split. Two of them, no doubt printed side by side, appeared four days later in the Beacon. The negative reaction came from a graduate student in computer engineering, and exemplifies the Finance Sophomore's observations of closed-mindedness among the antis.

It's not so much of a rebuttal as it is a rant. "Let's make it an integral part of campus life--pop quizzes where you have to clean guns! Hey, why stop there--let's throw guns out to the homeless, too! That'll stop crime."

It's amazing the depth of analytical ability that manages to get into the graduate school nowadays. Sheesh.

The positive reaction comes from a fellow who recently graduated from the Political Science department--again, stressing the issue of the state of campus safety, with adding additional comment about the rights of the citizen. Note that he was not advocating everyone carrying a gun, unlike the overboard reaction of the grad student above. That wasn't the stance of the original author, for that matter--only those who had taken the time to educate themselves about the responsibilities of carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense.

He said that guns are already around campus--carried by punk gangsta wannabes. Why should the good guys--those who put their guns away when the authorities says so--suffer for obeying the law?

A freshman in chemistry counter-reacts to this with more fear over "what if?" scenarios. What the boy needs to do is look at the results of what is.

Fact: Gun Free Zones are ripe targets for crime.

Fact: Concealed Carry deters crime.

RKBA Campus Round-Up #12

Been away for six, seven months, and that means I have missed a whole semester's worth of Campus Editorials.

After doing the bit on Yale this morning, I figured I'd give the good 'ol Badger Herald a look-see. If ever there was a campus rag that regularly publishes gun-related student op-ed pieces, it's them.

And, so, I dedicate this edition of the RKBA Campus Watch to the Badgers, whose mascot's red sweater (I well remember the Cold War, despite the juxtaposition the MSM did with "Red" and "Blue" in 2004) and marching-to-the-left orientation is not lost on me.

Still, surprisingly, there was a pretty balanced representation of pro and con articles that were put out in the Fall semester of 2007. The leftists drone on with their stats to justify their fears. The gunners try their best to educate them. But the left keep coming back with the same tired, recycled points and figures that have been debunked for years.

Anyway, let's have a look at what the Herald put out since June 21, 2007, shall we?

First article...Sept. 27, 2007...starts off on a pretty positive note. For the President of UW's College Republicans put in a very sensible article about the right to Concealed Carry, and used an example that shows the sensibilities of the court system. Seems a pizza delivery fellow got robbed four times while at work. Twice he shot perps in self-defense. While he was cleared of any murder or assault charges because it was clearly evident he acted in self-defense, he nonetheless faced concealed weapons charges. It took the fourth mugging to get a ruling in his favor.

This isn't lost on the article's author. She quotes the state constitution, which allows for gun ownership specifically for the purposes of security and defense. But the way the courts see it, you have to survive violent attacks several times to show you have a security/defense need.

And, that, Mr. Xan White of Fail University, is the sort of death coming from a misinterpretation of law that I was talking about.

Good article, Sara. I hope your Dad got you a H&K for your 21st birthday, in at least .40, with 2 boxes of good practice ammo, and a box of Cor-Bon for carry.

I would that the rest of the articles were as reasonable, but unfortunately, Ivory Tower cluelessness reasserts itself the next month by a student who has wasted his academic career in that less-than-useful field of study known as Political Science (we'll see you behind the counter at the Chick-Fil-A come next September, bud).

His tack attempts to draw on "world opinion"via his travel experiences in Europe, which entails all the crime you could experience this side of the Atlantic, only without gun violence. Then he goes on to sing the praises of Europe, with its alleged lower gun crime rate than the United States, based on a 1998 study from an organization focusing on Epidemiology. Now, what germs and guns have in common is anyone's guess, apart from the title of a book by Jared Diamond, but then again, liberals have been known to make crazier connections in the not-too-distant past (Bush and Hurricanes, for example). But I digress.

But what about the rest of the crime you can enjoy in Europe, or the rest of the world, for that matter? The United States doesn't rank in the Top Ten as far as homicide is concerned. But according to GunFacts 4.2, p. 57 (hence the previous link), four European countries are in that list. And that comes from a U.N. study focusing on international crime.

Europe ain't safer--you'll get molested all sorts of ways, but hallelujah, it won't involve a gun!

T.S. Eliot said that April is the cruelest month, but it seems that October 2007 was the thoughtless-est month, at least in the town of Madison. A week after Mr. Europhile published his article, a Sophomore in English puts in her two cents' worth.

Her lament: that background checks are no guarantee of future mental stability.

Blink. Blink.

Twitch.

I don't think I have to say much more about that one. But I wonder if she would be as willing to be denied furthering her academic career on the grounds that her degree is no guarantee of future ignorance.

Fast-forward five days later to another Op-Ed by another Political Science major. Now, this guy seems a little smarter than the last one--he's backed up his hobby degree with something more practical--a degree in Sociology, which is something I can respect. Social workers are some of the more harder working, less-thanked selfless individuals I have ever known.

His article tends to reflect the sort of compassion you find in potential social workers--concern about children. Unfortunately, he makes the gross mistake of putting a lot of the blame on inanimate objects. And he isn't just talking about guns--he's talking about 2A as well, and how "accessible" it makes guns to kids.

However, there has been no correlation between gun availability and crime. Again, I turn you to GunFacts 4.2, page 19. As far as school shootings are concerned, it seems to be largely an urban phenomenon--rural areas have more ready access to guns, yet school shootings are nowhere near as common (pp. 17-18).

Personally, I'd blame it on a lack of supervision and parental involvement in the kids' lives. I had access to my Dad's guns (he kept a 1911 in the foyer closet), but had tasted enough discipline to know better than do something stupid or thoughtless with them.

It's kind of hard to tack down the next guy's position. A freshman in Computer Engineering points out the pros and cons of both sides, but swings towards the anti-side of Wisconsin's Concealed Carry debate. He shows some promise in that he has looked into what both sides have to say, but unfortunately, seems to have taken in too much of the assumptions that riddle the antis' thinking. Those assumptions all too often tend to be rooted in fear.

Take, for instance, his concern over the number of concealed guns making more guns accessible. Concealed carry in Wisconsin would be by license, and licensing is governed by certain criteria a person has to meet. It does not guarantee that everyone and their uncle would be carrying a gun. A right is not a requirement. You can easily decline to exercise it.

Then, there are concerns over "loopholes" in reciprocity. This, too, is taken into consideration by the powers that be.

But whatever his concerns are, most of them seemed to be based in the erroneous assumption that all guns will be used for criminal activity. And the overwhelming number of guns not used in crime simply does not justify that fear.

And, winding down 2007, a November article from another Political Science major--linked with History--which means that, unless he's going for a teacher position, going to grad school, or taking up a career writing books, he'll probably wind up behind the same Chick-Fil-A counter as Mr. Europhile, but as his shift manager.

Still, his training in history leads him to look deeper at the background of the Second Amendment--and unlike most of his other PoliSci compadres, and definitely most of his detractors in the comments section--finds it to assure individuals of the right to keep and bear arms.

No doubt there's lots more to dig up on other campuses elsewhere...watch this blog for more!

Warming back up on Campus Editorials

It's certainly been a while since I've reported on the state of the higher-level ideological puppy farms known as the University Campus.

This time, the victim of my scrutiny is none other than the prestigious Yale, which just happens to rhyme with:

The article's thesis? "Death is human cost of misreading 2nd Amendment," which I wholeheartedly agree with, although not in the way Mr. White, a junior at Yale, presents his argument.

From the very get-go, Mr. White's article attempts to connect two unrelated incidents (and to which he admits are unrelated), and this is rather telling of his mindset. For example, he blames the death of Sean Taylor on a particular interpretation of the Second Amendment--but somehow manages to miss the criminal connections of the incident.

He also tries to connect legislation with public safety--unaware that, historically speaking, an increase of ink on paper in the lawmaking chambers around this country have made absolutely no impact on crime. A shining example was the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

And, following true to form, Mr. Xan "Condition" White attempts to connect the number of guns in this country with blood running in the streets--totally unaware that the number of gun related crimes in this country amount to less than .15% of estimated total gun ownership in this country.

Finally, there is the attempt to connect White's narrative with serious research. The 36 comments given this article have found none.

Like Barbarossa from the Kyffhäuser...

OK, long enough of a hiatus for everyone? Yeah, me too.

A friend stopped by from Florida last month, and told me that everyone-- everyone--back where I used to live really missed my writing. He was given specific instructions to give me one word from everyone when he saw me--WRITE!

He was my boss at the computer consulting firm I worked for in South Florida, and I made my mark on the company writing articles and putting together advertisements for them. He said I had a gift in that area, and I shouldn't let it just fall by the wayside.

So...on the heels of a CPR class I took earlier this week, it's time to breathe some more life back into this beotch!

And just in time to vent about elections, too. Barbarossa has arisen, honks (even though my beard has more grey in it nowadays than red)! Phear the Southern Expatriate of the North with the HK on his hip!

February Surprise?
All the gunbloggers know about the Illinois shootings. Seems the cruel month of April came early this year. No known motive as of yet, although the gunman has been identified as a NIU alumnus.

To nobody's surprise--certainly not mine--the Left's instrument of propaganda and thought manipulation known as Big Media starts leading the bleating chorus about the evils of guns, republicans, and the NRA.

But, as the folks over at Hot Air point out, as can anyone with a few hundred brain cells not damaged thanks to the recreational pharmaceutical activity en vogue in the '60s and '70s, the article does not mention how the notion of Gun Free Zones fails once again!

Neither does it mention how the shooter was off some medication he was supposed to be taking. How convenient.

What's worse, said article from the NYT tries somehow to make a connection between campuses and national parks, but only succeeds in showing that they really don't pay attention to what they're reporting about.

The Idiotorial Board sees "Parks." They automatically assume "Ford's Theater." But there is ZERO mention of that sort of park in a December 14, 2007 Letter to Secretary Kempthorne. Mentions lands managed by Fish and Wildlife Service, even mentions National Wildlife Refuges. Maybe the National Mall falls under these sort of "Lands," but I highly doubt it.

Most letters to Interior Secretary Kempthorne that I am finding online have nothing to do with national monuments. A lot have to do with undeveloped areas. And that's only from a cursory online search by an amateur blogger. You'd think the "professionals" would have picked up on that--especially those given editorial responsibilities.

Speaking of editorials, in the process of looking at some of the reactions to the NIU shootings and the once-again revived gun debate (don't worry, folks, it will die down as soon as it loses its marketability. Remember, Big Media isn't about the truth--it's about what makes money), I'm seeing again how journalists are so ill-informed about the Second Amendment.

Take this editorial, for instance, which I also found in the Anchorage Daily News from about two days ago. It's the old individual rights vs. militia argument again. He takes the latter, saying, in effect, that this position has been "buttressed" by about 70 years' worth of legal rulings.

Well, if that were the case, and 2A has indeed been officially interpreted as being relevant only to militias, then could someone please explain to me how I managed to buy five guns--including a military-style "assault rifle"--since 1999? Seems like this guy needs to look at theory vs. the real world just a little more closely.

OK, but that's Big Media. We'd expect that sort of a reaction from them. What is really interesting to see is how a few people who stand the most to gain or lose from this will leverage this incident.

Obama: "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation"

Well, chalk one up for a proper interpretation of the Constitution, but his support for the DC ban on handguns shows a little too much inconsistency. Let me see your voting record, pretty boy.

Hitlary: recently slammed Obama for what she considered an about-face on the stereotypical gun-control stance. Yet, she mentioned "safeguarding and respecting our Second Amendment rights." Read that statement real carefully...what does she mean by "our?"

This is the same witch whose husband signed the AWB. Whatever she says, given her record on gun rights issues, I'm not that apt to believe it.


McCain: An article in the Sun puts him right of Bloomberg two days ago. However, this blogger says our memory needs to be longer than that.

Good to be writing again, guys. More to come, at varying paces, in the days to come!

As Above, So Below

While investigating the opinions of students regarding Gun issues, I came across what I thought was a trend among them...that journalism majors tended towards the left. I haven't done any solid statistical research on the matter, but if the apple stems from this sort of tree:

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Then it stands to reason that up and coming journalists would follow suit.

There IS hope for Hawaii, after all

While working at the park yesterday (and enjoying the company of another babe--helps take the edge off my recent disappointment), I saw a guy wandering through. He looked oriental, middle-aged, and was wearing a black NRA cap.

I thought to myself, "Huh...that's novel." I haven't seen too much in the way of pro-2A apparel worn among our tourists. Lots of other stuff, namely the usual Tourist fare (shirts with "Alaska," "Denali," "Tok," even "Chicken")--and at least one tourist wearing a button advertising Mazo Beach, which is a famous (or notorious, depending on your position) nude beach out in Wisconsin.

I kind of figured the guy just wore it for the novelty factor. But, I decided to ask him where he got it from anyway.

Turns out, the guy was from Hawaii, and is a NRA member.

Now, since I usually associate Hawaii with the Far Left, I asked him, "isn't Hawaii, like, very stringent on Gun Control policies." The guy rolled his eyes and said, "Is it ever! They've wanted to ban .50 cal handguns, put limits on personal ammo ownership..." you know the story. It's kind of like how California will look once the San Andreas Fault finally breaks the state from the rest of the mainland.

I didn't ask him what hardware he owned, but I showed off my H&K had I was wearing at the time, which he greatly appreciated. He also showed envy at my ownership of a Desert Eagle.

Feel sorry for you, man, but I'm happy that there are some reasonable folk still around, even in a place like Hawaii.

Speaking of California, today's Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Moment comes courtesy of something reported by the Liberty Belles by way of David Codrea at War on Guns:

How do you pass a gun registry law without attracting too much attention? Bury it in an ammunition bill. At least that's what the State of California is trying to do.

The wording of the Bill is downright Orwellian...

Threats to Freedom...via the Environmentalist Movement

This is a most thought-provoking article from Vaclav Klaus.

Excerpt:

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

Read the rest of it. I've always suspected something screwy with the tree-hugging, granola crowd, whether they be wearing a smelly bedsheet and Birkenstocks, or a three-piece suit. The more I read about them (in books like John Stossel's Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity), the more my suspicions seem to be confirmed.

I grew up during the last 20 years of the Cold War. I remember well the tensions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, but I found it interesting, that, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in '89, environmental concerns came quickly to the fore while the red armies sublimated away into relative irrelevance.

Even as a relatively clueless 20-year-old, I didn't think this was coincidental.

And now we have a survivor of communism speaking what has been going through the back of my mind for the past 17 years.