Saturday, April 28, 2007

Shockingly, So Far, No Gun Battles Have Begun

The University of Utah is the only college that allows concealed carry on campus:

For decades, the University of Utah banned concealed weapons.

"Our view was that there was an increased risk of both accidental and intentional discharge of a firearm if more firearms are present," said spokesman Fred Esplin. "It was a matter of safety."

But in 2004 the Legislature passed a law expressly saying the university is covered by a state law that allows concealed weapons on state property. The university challenged the law, but the Utah Supreme Court upheld it last year.

Utah is easily one of the most conservative states, and the Legislature is dominated by Republicans, many of whom have a libertarian streak. Utah has no motorcycle helmet law, for example, and there is strong affection for the Second Amendment.

The carrying of guns at the university worries students like Timmy Allin, a freshman on the tennis team from Dallas who feels safe on the 28,000-student urban campus. Allin was not aware weapons were allowed on campus until told by a reporter. "I don't see the need for one up here, so that could only lead to trouble," he said.


So Timmy Allin was feeling all safe and cozy until some reporter told him about the danger that lurked at his university--law abiding citizens with guns. If the legislation for concealed carry passed in 2004 and there have been no shoot outs thus far since last year, when will the trouble begin? And now poor Timmy will spend his waking hours fearful not of the potential criminals who might do harm to students and others on campus, but of his fellow students and faculty who carry legally who "might be trouble." How troubling.

42 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The demographics at the Univ of Utah surely are not replicated across American campuses whose populations are less homogeneous are therefore more prone to strife.

Timmy didn't sound "fearful" at all to me. He's comfortable not carrying.

Why do you gun-supporting newcomers feel the need to hype the "fear factor" to convince of the need for concealed carry?? It makes you sound so insecure, and paranoid (in how you paint the kid overreacting, which he's not).

No offense but I think some of you are so insecure personally, thinking that all the world's a terrorist come to get you, that no stockpile of weapons can make you feel secure. Newsflash: Nobody is truly coming to take away your weapons, as some are hyping the threat on blogs elsewhere. Practice, relax, and understand that without continual media play, insane students with guns are not an everyday occurence, no matter how insecure and afraid you might be personally. Don't give attention to those few, and you'll see less copycats too.

In short, be sure in your support of sportsmen and gun owners that you don't make your point by overkill, using situations that don't hold up later. And leave poor Timmy alone. He doesn't make your point here, and it's sad to see a supposedly educated woman stooping to use the young man this way. I

suspect women like you are more about femmeing down young men in society with your "diagnoses" and overreactions than you know. You're part of it, and then you whine about those who expect young men to turn in their homework on time, and save the horseplay for outside, not on learning time. Maybe you could spend some time with real young men, and not lash out when their thoughts on gun control differ from yours. I don't want Timmy with a gun here; truth be told, I don't trust you either as you seem to see hostility hiding behind every quote and seem insecure in your rights.

9:11 AM, April 28, 2007  
Blogger knox said...

Anon, for all your condescension, you miss the point. It is in fact people like Timmy--and you--who are the needlessly paranoid ones.

You manage to be frightened of law-abiding citizens, with legal permits, exercising their right to carry a gun--yet, at the same time, you minimize any threat posed by people like Cho or, say, terrorists. You obviously want to totally discount the benefit of having armed "good guys" in those situations, however rarely they may occur.

I can't address any points you make in your last paragraph because it makes no sense. I will say, however that I think it's weird that you want so badly to make the law-abiding among us willing, waiting, unarmed victims. Just because you're a little uncomfortable with concealed carry. Talk about "femme"ing down.

9:38 AM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Anon, you are obviously new here. Do yourself a favor, before someone tears you several new ones about how ill informed and completely off target your post was, read the blog. You can just read what Helen has posted if you want. Take 15 minutes, then write back and male a post like: "Oops, never mind."

I usually do not support anon posters, but in your case, it is working for you. After you realize what a dithering idiot you looked like, pick a name and start posting. Once you learn the ropes you might enoy yourself and not look like such a clueless newbie.

Trey

9:44 AM, April 28, 2007  
Blogger pst314 said...

Anon, I second what tmink said. No offense, but you displayed zero reading comprehension and near-zero basic civility.

10:20 AM, April 28, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

The university of Utah isn't the only college that allows concealed handguns. There are many colleges/universities in Utah that do. Most of the schools allow concealed weapons (with a permit of course).

10:25 AM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Dr. Helen, for having the class not to use the tragedy at Virginia Tech to push your political views.

You are one classy, classy dame.

Quack, quack.

12:34 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

> The demographics at the Univ of
> Utah surely are not replicated
> across American campuses whose
> populations are less homogeneous
> are therefore more prone to strife.

I can't begin to say how much this statement infuriates me.

Why not say what you really mean:

Concealed weapons are OK for white, mormon kids from Utah, but don't let it happen where there are blacks or hispanics. And certainly don't let minorities pack heat.

12:36 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous reminds me of two points.

1) An old Sufi fable, a teaching tool for the young and inexperienced.

A scholar points out the wonders of the firmaments of the night sky. A fool finds fault with the finger.

2) I'm based in the metro-Washington area, where I advise national policy makers. I keep reminding folks of the importance of freedom of speech. It's easier to spot the Human sphincter valves that way.

3:56 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You manage to be frightened of law-abiding citizens, with legal permits, exercising their right to carry a gun--yet, at the same time, you minimize any threat posed by people like Cho or, say, terrorists. You obviously want to totally discount the benefit of having armed "good guys" in those situations, however rarely they may occur.

I can't address any points you make in your last paragraph because it makes no sense. I will say, however that I think it's weird that you want so badly to make the law-abiding among us willing, waiting, unarmed victims. Just because you're a little uncomfortable with concealed carry. Talk about "femme"ing down.


My point exactly, dummy.
I support concealed carry, but you see enemies hiding behind every word. That's paranoia.

Please shut up with the nonsense; again, you're really not helping the cause here.

5:20 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The demographics at the Univ of Utah surely are not replicated across American campuses whose populations are less homogeneous are therefore more prone to strife." anonymous 9:11

I guess Imus' mistake was that he just said it more bluntly.

5:22 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Concealed weapons are OK for white, mormon kids from Utah, but don't let it happen where there are blacks or hispanics. And certainly don't let minorities pack heat.

Talk about reading into something what you want to see. (poor Timmy!)

Think federalism concept. Some schools might want to allow guns on campus; some might not.

Some areas have ethnic, game and crime troubles in the neighborhood (Univ. of Chicago); some might not.

Just because something works for one, doesn't mean it works for all. Respect the locality, and don't get all fearful if some places choose differently. No one is coming to take away your guns. If it's not a gun-carrying campus (or restaurant, or hospital etc) where you're at, work to make it so, if that's your mission.

BUT DON"T GO GETTING FEARFUL FOR ALL, BECAUSE MANY OF US ARE SECURE IN OUR RIGHTS WHERE WE ARE AT. (thought the caps might help some of you who have tunnel vision and can't tell your enemies from neutrals.)

In short, don't fear the Timmy's. He's not for guns on campus, but really he's not threat to you. No threat to those Univ of Utah people who responsibly carry. He just said " "I don't see the need for one up here, so that could only lead to trouble." You think that amounts to anything other than a personal opinion? How dumb.

Be a little more secure in your rights people, and don't make up threats where there are none. Just responsibly be prepared, but don't expect a Cho on every campus every year. Just won't happen. So don't be paranoid.

5:27 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some areas have ethnic, GANG and crime troubles in the neighborhood (Univ. of Chicago); some might not. Some come from responsible gun respecting cultures; some think of them as toys or status symbols.

5:28 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tmink:
I put you in that femme-ing down category btw.

Also, I've read here quite a bit, so your condescending lecture is off base. Save it for your sick patients who need you to talk down and diagnose them? Your business, and Helen's, is a big part of society's lack of independence and responsibility, I think personally. Excuse makers.

5:30 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...understand that without continual media play, insane students with guns are not an everyday occurence, no matter how insecure and afraid you might be personally." - anonymous 9:11

Your statement is so April 15th. Therefore, it isn't much help to the 32 VT students who weren't in a good position to defend themselves from an insane student because THEIR right to carry was taken away by the very people who remain as callous about self-protection as you are.

5:36 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why do you gun-supporting newcomers feel the need to hype the "fear factor" to convince of the need for concealed carry??" - anonymous 9:11

Because I was held up, with a 9mm pressed to my head, by a teenager in the State of NJ three years ago.
Thankfully, I walked away from possible death. However, had I been able to legally conceal and carry, I would have been in the position to drop the stupid little punk at least three times during the ordeal.

I'll save you time and effort, and thank you in advance for your kind words of consolation. However, I'm getting really tired of people like you and little Timmy thinking that I, any VT student who could've put a slug right between Cho's sick little eyes, or ANY responsible American who conceals and carries are the real threats to society...when cases like the University of Utah are staring your misguided opinions of gun control right down.

5:52 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't make conclusions based on anectdotes. Move to where you feel safer and can carry. Don't impose your views on everyone else because you had a bad experience.

Sure bad things happen, but lil Timmy is no threat to you. He has a different opinion. Making him into the guy who held a gun to your head is sad. And you're so emotional you're blind.

or ANY responsible American who conceals and carries are the real threats to society...

6:09 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your statement is so April 15th. Therefore, it isn't much help to the 32 VT students who weren't in a good position to defend themselves from an insane student because THEIR right to carry was taken away by the very people who remain as callous about self-protection as you are.

Oh no. The doctor-hypers have got you fearful. See, this is what I meant. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. All the knashing in the world won't bring those 33 back. Doesn't mean we should cower in fear. Carry if you like, but respect those who disagree. Call me when they TRULY come to take away your weapons. Cause it won't happen here. One size doesn't fit all. Respect that on many issues.

6:12 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What, without a gun you are powerless now? They were taught to hide and cower and they did. They were taught that taking action now means making a phone call for help.

Wonder where they learned that? What types in society have succeeeded in making everyone too fearful to take action, that only a gun can protect you. Sad, sad, sad.

6:14 PM, April 28, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

And, you suggest what action against a gun being pointed in your direction? Be explicit, please. You're pretty vague in your condemnations.

6:50 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I'm pretty sure that one man, with many weapons, can be overcome physically by many if you haven't been trained to "take action" by making cell phone calls and waiting. You're going to lose some, but not as many as if you hid yourself and cowered in fear.

The gun is a tool. It's what you do defensively with the gun that counts. It's not a magical solution just to have one like the tough guy newcomers seem to think. They are doing it for psychological boosts and not truly defensive purposes, I suspect.

8:06 PM, April 28, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

"You're going to lose some..."

Hmm. Nice of you to offer up the sacrificial calves for the sake of not having guns present.

No one here is arguing that physically attacking is not better than hiding.

"The gun is a tool. It's what you do defensively with the gun that counts."

Correct. That's why right to carry laws require training. You know, the ability to do something defensively with the gun.

Me? I'd rather the bastards were blown away with no loss of life on the good side.

This, by the way, from a guy with almost forty years of martial arts behind him.

10:30 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um. . .since as of 2004 the firearms suicide rate in the usa was almost 1&1/2 times the firearms homicide rate -- almost 150% -- shouldn't we actually be talking much more about outreach towards and intervention for the suicidal, instead of wrangling over gun restrictions?

To be explicit: for every 2 people murdered by guns, almost 3 people committed suicide with guns. That being the case, why exactly are we wastefully squabbling about firearms "risks" versus "protection", when outreach towards the suicidal would target the group by far most at risk and in need of assistance -- i.e., almost 2/3rds of all those killed by firearms annually?

Who knows -- we might even find that such persons are -- just as, y'know, a bonus -- also less likely to commit murder, and other crimes, as a result of such outreach.

Doesn't that make a lot more sense than arguing?

Wouldn't that be a lot more productive and beneficial?

BTW, it's interesting to note how this point also works against the death penalty -- since there are almost twice as many suicides as murders overall, it seems not only reasonable but likely that more lives would be saved and more tragedies prevented more efficiently and effectively through outreach towards the suicidal than through the intimidation of potential murderers via State-sanctioned murder.

11:22 PM, April 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoops, sorry, my bad; I correct myself -- that should be "almost 3/5ths of all those killed by firearms annually."

The figure of almost 2/3rds of all those killed by deliberate violence refers instead to the 2X proportion of suicides overall versus homicides overall -- i.e., almost twice as many suicides as homicides annually -- and thus the comparatively stronger argument against wasting resources on arguing for, or about, the death penalty.

11:45 PM, April 28, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Indiana University didn't pass a gun ban until the late 90s, and the only way the trustees would let it pass was to exempt faculty. I am not a lawyer, but from the way I read the state constitution, I suspect that if anybody challenged IU's gun ban in court, it would be stricken down, exemption for faculty or not.

7:03 AM, April 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice of you to offer up the sacrificial calves for the sake of not having guns present.

Just acknowledging the situation as it is.

Nice of you to rely so heavily on the gun, you forget the "defense" part. It's not a "magic" gun; you have to have the mindset to act.

9:08 AM, April 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one here is arguing that physically attacking is not better than hiding.

Really?

9:09 AM, April 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those of you who think that concealed carry is motivated by fear, or that we perpetrate fear are delusional.

Those of you who argue that we're paranoid because no one is going to take our guns haven't been paying enough attention to this issue.

12:38 PM, April 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was a student at the University of Utah in the late 90s, and I had a professor who was known to have a concealed carry permit. We pretty much assumed he was packing heat, and thought it rather amusing--"Professor X, Gunman!". I don't recall anyone being particularly nervous about it.

(The debate on whether or not to allow guns on campus hadn't yet been resolved in favor of banning guns on campus; it was a hot topic for a couple of years before the university enacted the restriction.)

1:23 PM, April 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Those of you who argue that we're paranoid because no one is going to take our guns haven't been paying enough attention to this issue.


Or maybe you're just hyping the threat because you're the fearful type? (see Iraq and the pc psychologist drug-em-up and keep-em-safe culture run by ladies like Helen) Hey, cut that out. It's not good for the children, boys or girls.

5:04 PM, April 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Move to where you feel safer and can carry. Don't impose your views on everyone else because you had a bad experience.

Wow, that's a neat trick. The person who wants to carry is imposing their views on the people who made it illegal to carry?!?!?

Can't argue with logic like that. All you can do is back away slowly...

5:42 PM, April 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's not a "magic" gun; you have to have the mindset to act."

"Or maybe you're just hyping the threat because you're the fearful type?"

"They are doing it for psychological boosts and not truly defensive purposes, I suspect."

Anonymous, your above psychological analysis is neither applicable to my particular situations regarding self-defense, nor persuasive in changing my opinion on the American Constitutional right (except where liberals are a majority) to bear arms.

6:35 PM, April 29, 2007  
Blogger Nom de Blog said...

I live in Utah and I work on university campuses (not U of U specifically, although I do bring my kids up there for the occasional medical appointment. I have lived in other states including my native California. There are a lot of people out here who see a concealed carry permit as a badge of honor, an acknowledgment that they are worthy to be allowed to defend their fellow men.

I happen to think they're right in wanting to have a concealed carry permit. If you want an illustration of why, compare the Trolley Square shooting to the Virginia Tech shooting. Guy walks into a bustling shopping mall at dinner time, kills 7 people before an off-duty officer (who happened to be carrying) drops the shooter. Obviously 7 is 7 too many, but 7 beats 32 any day.

I'd much rather live in Utah where the gun owners feel a sense of duty and obligation to protect the innocent, than in California where there's a higher proportion of illegal guns owned by people who feel it's their obligation to kill the innocent to prove their manhood. I'll let the rest of you argue about why that is different between the two states.

6:42 PM, April 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Move to where you feel safer and can carry. Don't impose your views on everyone else because you had a bad experience."

Thanks Anonymous, I'll remember to use that line or reasoning when debating liberals on other Constitutionally protected American rights if and when they are ever restricted, like: the right to not incriminate oneself, or the right to speak freely, or the right to terminate infancy in the ninth month when the mother's "health" neccessitates extracting the baby's brains with a needle in order to collapse its head...I forgot which Admendment that one is.

6:45 PM, April 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or maybe you're just hyping the threat because you're the fearful type? (see Iraq and the pc psychologist drug-em-up and keep-em-safe culture run by ladies like Helen) Hey, cut that out. It's not good for the children, boys or girls.

Yeah, because the Brady's have totally agreed with us that DC's total prohibition on keeping a functining firearm in the home is going too far. They aren't doing everything they can to preserve the ban or anything. They aren't condeming the court ruling throwing it out either!

I think it's safe at this point to declare you a troll who ought not be fed beyond this point.

1:41 AM, April 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't feed the trolls, people. Two posts at most demonstrate who they are.

As for the Timmy's of the world: There are just those people who have a haunting fear that someone, somewhere, can do for themselves. Don't try to convince them otherwise -- I tried for over 10 years decades ago. College professors, lawyers, once the Governor -- all had had their opinions fed to them long ago.

As Dianne Feinstein said back about '93, "Facts will not sway me in this matter."

Or, as Chris Morton commented years ago, we utterly lack common ground with the gun-fearing folk. There can be no meaningful dialogue, since not only do we no share opinions with them, they have a different set of "facts" then we do. One constructed out of whole cloth.

I told one college professor once that her ignorance of firearms issues "knew no limits," and that as long as she remained so ignorant, my trying to discuss the issue with her was like arguing abortion rights with someone who thought the stork brought babies.

Unknown to me, she was a huge pro-choice advocate. My (actually Chris') analogy so shocked her that she acknowledged her lack of depth in the subject. I recommended James Wright's and Sanford Levinson's essays on the subject. Dunno if she ever looked them up, but she did stop spouting assinine cliches in my presence.

I have found that on one end of the spectrum there are those who prepare for adversity (In addition to a CCW license, I have a fire extinguisher and jump kit in my car -- I used to be a paramedic) and on the other hand, we have some who accept adversity and even personal extinction with the blind, uncomprehending placidity of a bovine.

Perhaps one day, some will understand that the pistol I carry is no more, and no less, remarkable than the fire extinguisher in the car, or the seatbelt I wear. I don't make a fetish of any of those objects, why should someone else ?

1:01 PM, April 30, 2007  
Blogger Serket said...

I live in Utah, but attended a different state university. It surprises me that the UofU is the only college in the nation that allows a CCW. Although the liberals are trying very hard to stop it. There are plenty of liberals in Salt Lake City as they managed to elect Rocky Anderson to be mayor. I think Idaho and Mississippi are probably more conservative states.

2:27 PM, April 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't there a rule somewhere that says guys named Timmy don't get to talk about guns?

6:04 PM, April 30, 2007  
Blogger DiscerningTexan said...

Right on the money, Dr. Helen. I'm linking to this. Cho needed big numbers to feed his deranged ego's death wish for infamy. Had responsible students and faculty at VT been allowed to defend themselves, we might not even be discussing this topic today.

12:13 PM, May 01, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

AC
Just acknowledging the situation as it is.

No. You're not. You're advocating that a physical assault by a group of young people that 'lose a few' is better than a single young person popping the psycho with a gun. Explain in precise terms why that is preferable.

Nice of you to rely so heavily on the gun, you forget the "defense" part. It's not a "magic" gun; you have to have the mindset to act.

Yes. And the people who train for and acquire RTC very likely have that mindset. It would require a significantly stronger mindset to launch your body at a gun with nothing but your hands, you know. Well, no, you wouldn't know.

Me -- No one here is arguing that physically attacking is not better than hiding.

Really?

Well, you got me there. The AC's are all over it.


1charlie2 -- Sometimes it's entertaining. Especially on an older topic like this one has become.

3:37 PM, May 01, 2007  
Blogger Ryan said...

Once again, allow me to repeat: The University of Utah is NOT the only college/university in Utah that allows concealed weapons. MOST of the colleges/universities in Utah do. The first sentence it the post is completely wrong. If you will re-read the article you will see that it says that "Utah only state", not "University of Utah the only College." The first sentence in the post is wrong and is inconsistent with the article.

4:27 PM, May 01, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

Izzy,

Thanks.

6:34 PM, May 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費A片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片

9:10 PM, April 13, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home