I have written two columns to date on the topic of concealed carry of firearms on-campus. Today marks the third and if Tony Frank makes the correct decision, the series will end as a trilogy.
I took part in two remarkable events this week, Humans vs. Zombies and ASCSU’s meeting Wednesday night. Bizarrely enough there was a common thread.
No, I am not referring to the brainless creature attempting to steal your soul as you wander the grounds of CSU—the faculty was not present.
I refer to the ability of students to protect themselves and others. You see CSU; the faculty board and the president’s cabinet do not think concealed carry permit holders should carry on-campus. The board does not trust you as a student nor those authorized by the state to carry.
The “public safety team” evaluated the risk of legally concealed firearms on campus as a liability. The team apparently believes concealed carry leads to gun violence. Such logic indicates the reproductive organs of women cause prostitution and men are rapists waiting to happen.
I have so many deep-rooted conflicts with this type of self-titled, “enlightened thinking,” it makes me crave medicinal marijuana just to escape the idiocy if only for a moment.
The issue at hand Wednesday night was ASCSU’s response to the “public safety team” recommendation to strip the rights of concealed carry permit holders from carrying a concealed weapon on campus.
Re-read that sentence, you as a reader, an undergraduate or graduate student, need to understand the details of the argument.
It is a violation of Colorado law to conceal a firearm on your person without a county issued state permit. The faculty wants to ensure only those with no regard for the law will have the ability to conceal a firearm. Ensuring a gunman may walk into their class and open fire on you the student with nothing to stop the attacker apart from limited ammunition supply and eventually CSUPD.
The faculty board members and the cabinet members who advocate this type of maneuver refuse to accept the reality that gun-free zone means nothing to a gun-wielding psychopath intent on ending as many lives as possible before ending their own.
The same type of person who sees the presence of firearms as a threat are the same people who said secure storage laws would prevent negligent discharges from killing children. The reality? We found out the people responsible for negligent discharges were the same people who would not follow secure storage requirements. Oops.
Even those of you philosophically opposed to the use of firearms for any reason should set aside your ideological instincts and accept reality in this case. We know without a doubt how far an armed attacker will go without armed resistance. They kill as many as they can before using the gun on themselves.
Why don’t we hear more often the several situations in which armed gunmen met armed resistance that immediately terminated the situation without a shot fired? Unfortunately, the news media demonstrates a bias. Although they constantly claim otherwise, in the last 12 months alone they’ve largely ignored the ACORN scandal and the downplayed the exposure of the idiotically nicknamed “climategate.”
Something else about the team’s request disturbs me. Despite the obvious power play to ensure they demonstrate academia still revolves around the desires of administration rather than the needs and desires of students, why are they asking now?
I would like to call out the faculty behind this partisan hackery. I sense you folks got together and decided you witnessed enough of a political realignment last year that you could get away with your ideological power play unopposed.
Well if so, you were wrong. You are seeing an elected leadership of a student body who understands, at least to some level, that government will not and is incapable of taking care of you better than you can take care of yourself.
We already know from sociological studies of disasters neighbors, family members and friends, are more likely to rescue you than a government agency. The situation here mirrors those findings.
I hope many of you are starting to realize this fact. The Supreme Court has found repeatedly that police have no duty or liability to protect citizens from violent crime, so ironically enough their only liability is to protect you from violence perpetrated by their officers.
When you get time Google Warren v. District of Columbia. In this specific case, two women called police when armed men broke into their home and attacked their roommate downstairs. When their roommate stopped screaming and they heard nothing, they assumed the police had arrived and went downstairs to check. For the next 14 hours, the men who had beaten their roommate into submission raped and beat the three of them. The police were not liable.
I e-mailed Professor Richard Eykholt after reading some disturbing comments attributed to him by The Denver Post on Wednesday. I asked the professor several questions:
What brought about this concern among the faculty?
Why is the faculty seeking a change to a policy that hasn’t caused a single problem yet?
Why do you want to remove the legally trained and competent individual’s ability to potentially stop an active shooter?
Why is it better for an active shooter to have uncontested freedom to carry out their actions than to have someone recognized and trained to state standards and authorized to carry by state law to at least return fire?
I received no response from the professor; sadly, the exact response I expected. His comments according to The Post follow. Take what you will from his comments, but my interpretation follows each quote.
“If you have a classroom situation where somebody starts shooting and other people are shooting back, there is a real opportunity there for more bystanders to be injured.”
The professor is saying he would rather have an active shooter run out of bullets, than have a permitted student return fire and injure a so-called “bystander.” Does anyone actually swallow this drivel?
Tell me Gilligan, how many people are going to be standing by during an active shooter situation? The true irony here is the professor teaches physics, a fundamental law of which says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Apparently the professor does not count being shot at as an action calling for a reaction. These theoretical “bystanders” are in all reality probable victims of the active shooter.
“I don’t think they’d [perpetrators of school shootings] be deterred by threats of anyone having a gun.”
I do not care if it might deter them; I care if someone has the means to stop them. The point of carrying concealed is not so the bad people think twice before trying to kill you; it is so you may have some chance of stopping them first.
Furthermore, in several incidences around the country, a legally concealed firearm in the hands of a licensed individual stopped active shooters without the licensee firing a single shot. Not police, not security but an armed citizen and potential victim.
The recommendation fails to address one key concern. Why even consider changing a policy which thus far has caused exactly zero problems? The board alleges students carrying concealed firearms may lead to an incident when a professor challenges a student’s beliefs and triggers that student somehow losing so much composure they draw their weapon and open fire.
If that is truly a concern professor, I recommend you find a more reasoned method of debate. By the way, paranoia is extremely unhealthy and is one of the symptoms of heavy marijuana use.
You have to be a responsible adult, pass a background check and take a state-certified course to earn a concealed carry permit in Colorado. How many students do you board and cabinet members really believe are carrying?
21 years old disqualifies 6,000 students minimum, legal resident of Colorado disqualifies a full 20 percent. You people are making a plea to President Tony Frank so you can control something you presently do not.
While the public safety team is making this recommendation I have to ask; is every member of the team willing to take on liability for your recommendation should an active shooter enter the school once you have disarmed the law abiding?
This of course is exactly why the faculty and cabinet are willing to make such a request; they get the opportunity to impose their ideology with no perceived risk to their professional careers.
President Frank, I urge you with every fiber of my admittedly inferior beard, do not take away this distinct right that makes CSU significantly better than the institution located in the People’s Republic of Berkeley-lite. I’m proud to be a CSU Ram, I don’t want to live where the Buffalo roam unprotected. I want to live where Rams will protect the herd even if it means attacking a crazed wolf.