Campus Carry is making the news, especially after the remarks of one Nevada Lawmaker who suggested that women shooting rapists would have a deterrence effect:
The sponsor of a bill in Nevada, Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, said in a telephone interview: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.” (source)
Naturally the first reaction to this is a bunch of handwringing nonsense, strawman arguments and panic.
Opponents contend that university campuses should remain havens from the gun-related risks that exist elsewhere, and that college students, with high rates of binge drinking and other recklessness, would be particularly prone to gun accidents.
First and foremost, campuses certainly aren’t havens from gun-related risks that exist elsewhere – Virginia Tech & other school shootings are ample proof of that.
Second, the ‘drinking’ argument is completely incorrect for one simple reason: most states require that a CCW applicant has to be over the age of 21. This is going to eliminate 90%+ of the student population immediately. Instead, this bill is going to allow people to effectively defend themselves against attackers when they commute in from their homes or off campus apartments. There’s no shortage of crimes that occur on campuses, such as:
These are just the first few results from Google. But even more than that, we already know that “no guns” policies have created victims, because we know about Amanda Collins. You may remember her name if you followed the Colorado firearms testimony during the last election season – Democrat Senator Evie Hudak made this callous remark to her after her testimony:
I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you na possibly use it against you …
It seems that when it comes to the issue of self defense, progressives are not pro-choice at all.
Naturally the media response to this issue has been almost uniformly negative. The Houston Chronicle opines that
Allowing concealed handgun license holders to tote pistols on college campuses could cost tens of millions of dollars, a burden that could be ultimately passed on to students or siphoned away from education and research programs at Texas universities. (source)
Riiiiiiiiiiight. Or it could cost nothing at all and just allow the same level of day to day activities that normal CCW use does.
The LA Times wrote:
What’s the dumbest idea of the season? Backed by the National Rifle Assn., state legislators across the country have been pushing laws to let students carry concealed weapons on college campuses.
What’s the lame excuse? Gun-toting young women would be armed to defend themselves in the event of sexual assaults.
We shouldn’t be surprised by this. These are the same crackpots who argued in favor of more guns on campuses after the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. And who held out the 2012 massacre of 26 students and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School as an argument in favor of arming teachers. Of course they’re cynically twisting the latest painful, high-profile issue into an argument for more guns. (source)
Wow. I must have imagined the media outcry for more gun control after each and every possible opportunity.
As usual, this issue highlights the hypocrisy of the antigun movement.