Right off the bat, I want to make clear that I am not responding to last week’s editorial about conceal and carry permits on campus. Rather, this commentary is devoted to the idea that our beliefs should reunite with our practical everyday lives, and it is in the spirit of a better world that we try and eliminate gross imbalances of what we believe in and how we go about doing it.
That being said, what was said last week is a good place to start. My first reaction to the idea that students, faculty, administration, staff and guests who are on campus should be allowed to carry and conceal a firearm if they have a permit for it was to laugh out loud and turn to the calendar page. What a great idea—no wonder no one thought of allowing concealed weapons on campus before. I cannot imagine an environment more appropriate for lethal weapons. Drunk college students with concealed handguns? Visitors to the Dive with a 9-mm tucked into their jeans? Perfect for fending off … terrorists … or the Soviets … or all those fatal gun-related crimes we’ve had on campus…
I should say that I think we as a responsible and democratic people cannot disallow people from responsible and trained usage and ownership of firearms, nor do I believe that we can disallow to the public the same lethal ways our police force uses. An armed citizenry capable of resistance (say, for instance, against the British) is EXACTLY why we have the Second Amendment in our Constitution. We believe that we should be able to resist an oppressive force that threatens our liberty and livelihood.
How does that belief, then, get so contorted that we need to have concealed weapons in public spaces, let alone in college campuses? Even a very lenient definition of what the threat of terrorism entails does not seem to evoke our Second Amendment rights on campus. In fact, it encourages the kind of Vigilantism that makes the people who drive around in trucks on the border of Texas seem legitimate. How do people convince themselves that by having a concealed pea-shooter they could stop a terrorist, save America a la 24, or that they have the moral or ethical ability to judge when to use it against another human in an everyday situation?
Since I’ve been alive, over 6,200 people in Minnesota have died at the end of a gun. Shockingly, over three quarters of those deaths were perpetrated by people who were within the immediate family or circle of friends of the deceased. Logically, by those statistics, we should be arming ourselves when we go home—but do we? No. Instead we try to expand into the unfamiliar the places we can carry weapons, flaunting our rights but straying away from what we believe in—in this case, the preservation of life.
People have recently become familiar with the Doonesbury cartoon that states: “Nine years ago we were attacked—3,000 people died. In response, we started two long, bloody wars and built a vast homeland-security apparatus—all at a cost of trillions! Now consider this. During those same nine years, 270,000 Americans were killed by gunfire at home.” Keeping in mind the Minnesota number, can we at least see where our beliefs have been distorted in our actions?
Alex Legeros’s February 25th column about disarming students and leaving them vulnerable in the face of danger is an excellent illustration of the lies and deceit that well-intentioned people often perpetuate about guns.
(1) First, in Minnesota, trained, licensed, carefully-screened adults, age 21 and above, are allowed to carry handguns throughout most of the state. They are “MN Permit-to-Carry” holders (MNPTC’s).
These law-abiding and responsible citizens include, of course, students!
For many students it is already perfectly legal to carry a firearm virtually everywhere in the state, besides Gustavus Adolphus College property.
The issue of campus carry then is obviously not about the merits of allowing college-age students to be armed for personal protection; students already are armed.
It is about something much simpler — Gustavus lacks rational basis for disarming these students who carry safely virtually everywhere else, and that reality demands we re-evaluate our current weapon policy.
Gustavus has failed to offer sufficient evidence to justify its current policy that treats MNPTC holders like second-class citizens by forcing them to choose between getting an education and being able to protect themselves.
Implementing a reformed weapon policy that allows campus carry for MNPTC holders makes logical sense if you can cut through the noise of sycophantic rants like Mr. Legeros’s.
(2) Second, Legeros’s column was clearly more about instilling fear in students than it was about reasoning thoughtfully.
(a) Legeros published a blurry photo of the ‘Dive,’ with the caption “drunk college students with concealed handguns!”
Clearly, somebody does not know Minnesota law makes it a gross misdemeanor for MNPTC holders with a BAC of >.04 to carry a firearm.
If the objection to drunken college students with guns were genuine, he’d boycott local bars until they adopted the same draconian laws that Gustavus has and fight the law that allows people age 21 to undergo the rigorous permitting process.
The truth, however inconvenient it may be, is that MNPTC holders care enough about their right to carry a firearm for personal protection that they won’t jeopardize that right by acting carelessly. Intoxicated college kids violating the terms of their MNPTC is not and has not been an issue for anyone besides the fear-mongers who perpetuate the falsehood because it conveniently advances their position.
(b) Legeros than makes the claim that there have been 6,200 instances of death from gun violence in his lifetime in Minnesota and 270,000 throughout all the states.
This statement of course aims to generate an emotive response, but the use of reason to examine its merits will bring to objections to bear.
(i) First, he fails to recognize that gun free zones have not stopped gun violence. Gun free zones disarm law-abiding citizens, but they don’t stop criminals from engaging in illegal behaviors.
Virginia Tech was a gun free zone. Columbine was a gun-free zone. It makes no sense to use his statistics to justify the position that Gustavus should have a policy that disarms law-abiding citizens.
After all, if 270,000 people have died from gun violence, he should be advocating a position that allows people to possess tools necessary to protect themselves.
(ii) Second, though it is certainly a grievous reality that 6,200 Minnesotans have died as a result of gun violence, what Mr. Legeros conveniently fails to inform his readers is that only MNPTC holders have been the assailant in a maximum of two of those occurrences.
David Thul reports that,
“Since 2003 (and with a brief pause when the law was ruled unconstitutional and then modified and re-enacted), until the end of 2008, the Department of Public Safety has issued 56,919 carry permits that are still currently valid. In that same time frame, there have been two reported homicides that resulted in murder charges against a carry permit holder. In one of those cases, use of a pistol was confirmed, in the other case it is reported as unknown. For argument’s sake, let’s use 2 homicides that involved pistols by carry permit holders. But keep in mind, the DPS report only reports charges, not convictions. Both cases reported could have been justifiable homicides for all we know.”
Our new light rail system has killed more Minnesotans than MNPTC holders have endangered citizens (In fact, light rail has killed at least 2 1/2 times as many Minnesotans than conceal carry permit holders have).
So, how does Mr. Legeros have the audacity to claim that these honest, law-abiding citizens are so dangerous that they don’t belong in our community?
It certainly requires that one relinquish the use of reason. If arguments like Legeros’s are accurate, that “our beliefs should reunite with our practical everyday lives,” he has failed to live up to his own aspirations. He needs to get a dose of reality.
Gun-free zones have failed us.
(3) Third, Legeros wrote that, “Even a very lenient definition of what the threat of terrorism entails does not seem to evoke our 2nd amendment right…it encourages vigilantism.”
Though he did make clear in his column that his intention was not to respond to the claims of campus carry advocates, points like this one reinforce his desire to hide from the need to address this important issue.
The issue is not the second amendment. The second amendment is clear. The issue is why Gustavus Adolphus College has a policy that leaves law-abiding students defenseless in the face of danger.
Our college campus shouldn’t be a place where holders of state-issued carry permits should have to feel like their safety and well-being are at risk. If it is, both Gustavus and Mr. Legeros have failed to put forth sufficient evidence as to why Gustavus should choose to apply a standard that is distinctly different from virtually everywhere else in the state of Minnesota.
A point of grace might be that he admitted, “I should say that I think we as a responsible and democratic people cannot disallow people from responsible and trained usage and ownership of firearms, nor do I believe that we can disallow to the public the same lethal ways our police force uses.”
Problematically, it was a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.
He quickly interjected, “How does that belief, then, get so contorted that we need to have concealed weapons in public spaces, let alone in college campuses?”
For most people, it is not a “contorted” belief, but a basic necessity of being able to protect oneself and not live in fear of victimization by others.
For others, it is the reality that so-called “gun free zones” are gun free only for victims of violent crime, and as such banning law-abiding MNPTC holders from carrying at Gustavus make no sense at all.
Even still, it is the truth that tactics such as Legeros’s have been used to try to stop the trend toward the right-to-self protection in Minnesota but they have been exposed for the tactics they are.
In the same way he claims there will be shootouts in the Dive every Friday if we respect the rights of people to defend themselves, so too did pundits claim that Minnesota highways would turn into shooting ranges as travelers would turn to shooting others as a way to express their road rage. But, our legislature passed the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act, and Minnesota highways, bars, and banks haven’t seen the shooting spree that they anticipated permit-holders would unleash. Similarly, if Gustavus has the integrity to reform its weapon policy, it the fear-mongering stories, like the one the Gustavian Weekly just printed will not come to pass. Few people would know that anything is different.
Conclusion:
When a body of authority seeks to take rights away from individuals, we traditionally place the burden of defending the necessity of the policy on the institution supporting the policy not the minority it targets.
Gustavus needs to a coherent, logical, and comprehensive defense of its policy, or it needs to incorporate campus carry into a reformed version of that policy. The time for a re-evaluation of that policy is now.
If arguments like those found in the column are the reasons we at Gustavus treat MNPTC holders like second class citizens and force them to choose between being vulnerable and defenseless or getting an education, then it is obviously that it truly is time to reform Gustavus’ unjust weapon policy.
To those entrusted with the power to change this weapon policy, we must exclaim “Campus Carry, Now!”
All the rigmarole about “what if this…” and “what if that…” is nothing more than fear compounded by ignorance, and the result is that Gustavus now oppresses people who have a lifestyle that includes firearms.
A candidate for Texas A&M’s Student Body President put it nicely,
“I may think “what if I am hit by a car today?” but I don’t support prohibiting driving. Lately, I heard a girl say “what if you’re rummaging through your bag and you shoot your prof in the head?” To that I would say what if the lady in front of you in line at Wal-Mart does the same?” Those things just don’t happen, and they are just projections of ignorance and unfounded fear.”
“A ban on concealed carry on campus is fear and ignorance that is projected onto legitimate gun handlers. It’s also hubris and pride. To think so lightly of other peoples’ rights is to say you’re smarter than them, that you can make a decision for them that they couldn’t make themselves. “After all, I wouldn’t need a gun nor want one near, so I’m not going to allow anyone else to act different.”
That is the very tyranny that progressives are supposed to oppose.
If Legeros wanted a better world where gross imbalances of power were eliminated, as he claims in his column, he would choose to support empowering students on college campuses to protect themselves from danger (instead of using deceptive rhetoric to try to manipulate students into agreeing with his position).
Sincerely,
Phil Cleary
P.S.
It seems the column, opposed to campus carry, illustrates the weakness of the opposition. The reality is that its time to recognize that the students who are allowed to arm themselves for personal protection under state law should be allowed to do so under Gustavus regulation as well. You can show your support for the cause by joining “Gusties for Campus Carry, Now!” on Facebook @ http://bit.ly/safergustavus
Thanks for deleting my response!
Phil,
Thanks for the note. Sorry to hear one of your comments may have been removed. We would like to resolve the situation. I just E-mailed you as follows:
We have an automatic spam filter that removes spam comments, and we do not generally remove comments except for spam. We didn’t intend to remove your comment. If one of your comments was removed, could you send me more details so we can resolve the situation?
Thanks.
Tom Lany
Web Editor, The Gustavian Weekly
I believe the disappearance of the comments was related to an issue we discovered with a WordPress plugin. No comments were deleted (to our knowledge), but comments were not appearing unless you were logged in to the system. We believe the issue has been fixed, but if you notice any strange behavior, don’t hesitate to contact Web Services.
Terrorism isn’t the only reason to be able to defend yourself. Each year, thousands of people are victims of violent crimes. In some of these cases, having a firearm for self-defense would improve the victim’s chances. If you don’t believe me, look at criminologist Gary Kleck’s studies. People who defend themselves with firearms suffer the lowest percentage of injury when attacked.
Also, carrying while intoxicated is almost universally illegal (“almost” because I have not checked all 50 state’s laws for exact rules).
Additionally, changing restrictions on those with concealed carry permits does not arm people. It simply stops disarming those who have gone through the proper legal procedures to carry.
You are dumb is all I can say to you. Read up on gun laws in the state for someone concealed then you may feel bad for writing misinformation here. You, one have to be 21 to own a handgun. There for you cannot have a license to carry till then. Two you cannot be under the influence of alcohol. Another thing hot shot how do you think every “drunk college kid” can carry? Most cannot afford a gun and license when they are in college. Most that would be carrying would be people returning for the education with a back ground in carrying firearms.
This article makes no sense, and is completely unsupported by facts.
Arm every drunken student? Yeah right. Even a class A misdemeanor (such as disorderly conduct) is enough to suspend a licence for several years (5 in Texas and Arkansas, the states I am familiar with).
Sorry, but insinuating a link between overall gun crime and concealed weapons holders is ridiculous. CHL holders are statistically law abiding citizens, as they make up a very very very small percentage of the crimes you brought up in your argument. I am from Texas so I will post the appropriate documentation (from the Texas department of public safety, from 2009 because the 2010 data has yet to be released) : http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf. I’m sure if you looked, other states would follow a similar conviction pattern.
Do your research please before spreading fallacy-based propaganda. These are just examples of the holes in your arguments against concealed carry. I am not trying to be rude or to change your opinion, just trying to promote factual based opinions and discussion over ignorant rambling.
LOL-Written like a true naive liberal arts college kid living in a tiny fantasy bubble. At some point when you get a job, own a home, have a family, and start paying taxes you may have a differant view than things you just read about.
>> Since I’ve been alive, over 6,200 people in Minnesota have died at the end of a gun.
During this same period how people in Minnesota have died in an automobile? To think, we allow minors (16 y/o and up) to operate something MUCH more powerful than any firearm in public!
Extremely great written post. It will be useful to anybody who usess it, including myself. Maintain up the good work – can’r wait to read far more posts.
Very nice article and impressive!
Thank you.
This is an extraordinary share. Thank you for this writing.
Hello, I love to find out more about this field. Thank you for publishing this.
Well great post but I.m not sure if i can agree with the the Gun Licence here as this could lead to further escalation of disastrous statistics, if one is not inclined to wards Fire arms. A good education towards this topic should explored.