Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, January 2, 2012

New old arguments

Well the new year has started out where the old year ended. It all started with this article about the shooting at an Indiana Kroger's food store. A store manager shot and killed an "armed" robber. Now mind you, this robber was no nice guy. He had several previous offenses and he was clearly a felon. Did he have a gun? Did he intend bodily harm? Was the clerk in immanent danger? Should the manager have been allowed to have his gun at work in violation of Indiana law? Should the manager, a gun permit holder, have shot the robber point blank? Could the robber have just taken the money and run as is the case in many armed robberies? How should employees react to such incidents? Do employers want guns in the work place? If not, who does? Is it a good idea for employees to be armed at work? Opinions vary. This one expresses my views pretty well.
I can see it now: Shoot-out in canned goods! Gunfire in the cereal aisle (those granola-eating liberals had it coming…they weren’t even packing heat!) So what if Kroger has to pay zillions of dollars to innocent shoppers who might inadvertently step into the line of fire? So what if a trigger-happy employee misconstrues a “situation” and starts shooting? So what if…well, let’s just say there are innumerable scenarios that would not end well.
This one expresses the conundrum presented by this work place shooting by an employee.
News reports say some Kroger workers fear the employee who shot Atkinson will be fired, causing supporters of the store manager to launch a Facebook site expressing support for him. It is unclear whether the employee had a license to carry a concealed handgun. Many larger, chain retail stores train their employees not to forcibly resist robbers, including chasing after shoplifters who flee the store with stolen merchandise, for liability reasons. Marion Co. Prosecutor Terry Curry and IMPD have indicated that they do not currently have plans to file charges against the store manager who shot Atkinson.
It turns out that the employee did have a permit to carry and he, indeed, will not be charged with a crime. From another linked article within the above article comes this:
The gun rights battle continues to rage. While many people said they support what the worker did, some of those same people don't think guns should be allowed in the workplace.
Kroger spokesman John Elliott said Tuesday he wouldn't discuss his company's policy because of the ongoing investigation.
Marsh, a competitor to Kroger, said its policy reads that "possession of any weapon of any kind on company property, in any company building or at company-sponsored events is not allowed," with some exceptions.
Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said that while companies can have such policies, he thinks they shouldn't and doesn't believe an employer should second-guess an employee's right to self-defense.
"If they've got a policy that says that their employees can't do that, I wouldn't work for them, personally," Steele said. "I guess they can fire him, but at least the guy is alive, so he can go get him another job." 
Comments on my previous blog post seem to pretty much express the views of gun rights activists. You can read them on the comment section but suffice it to say that most of these folks support the idea of people carrying loaded guns in the work place in case they might be needed in a situation like the one above. They also seem to be saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to keep their employees from carrying their guns at work.

With more people carrying in more public places, does this mean that we will see more workplace shootings like this one in California? The economy is bad. People are out of work. Homes are being foreclosed. In this case, there was security at the company: "The complex is surrounded by a fence and patrolled by a security guard. Employees need a security card to get into the building, said Gil Alexander, a spokesman for Southern California Edison." So do work places have to have metal detectors if they have a policy against carrying guns at work? Would other workers with guns have been able to stop this man? He shot himself once and he also shot 12 people ( according to one account), 2 dead plus the shooter. Most people would want to get away from the situation rather than challenge a deranged and angry person with a gun. Besides, there is no guarantee that a permit holder would be able to shoot someone like this once the element of surprise happens. Or there is a real possibility that someone with a legal gun could attempt to shoot back and maybe or maybe not hit the shooter and maybe or maybe not hit innocent employees or customers.

Other work place shootings include in a beauty shop in California, a law office in San Francisco, an Omaha shopping mall, at hospitals, at a Minnesota sports bar,and post offices ( "going postal"). It happens anywhere. Some think guns are needed in self defense in these places, most do not.

But then there is this one-a store clerk in Aurora, CO killed one of two armed robbers and left 2 store workers wounded. This one appears to be justifiable as this same store has been the target of many robberies and one other time, resulted in a robber shot by the store's owner. And this shooting of an armed robber at a Las Vegas pawn shop resulted in the death of the robber. Luckily for the store owner, he was uninjured. So these are just several incidents of likely many that occur on a fairly regular basis all across our country. Some business owners choose to have guns at work and there are places where more danger exists than others. In these cases, guns did make a difference to the safety of the business owner. That is not always the case though. And yes, some shootings are justifiable.

This comprehensive study about work place gun violence and prevention of the same suggests that allowing guns in the work place increases the risk of homicide during work hours. Some states, including my own state of Minnesota, have passed laws specifically allowing guns to be stored in cars in parking lots at the work place. The guns must be locked in a glove compartment or trunk and not visible. Many employers would prefer that these laws were not in place. But the gun lobby got them passed anyway. And the whole thing is complicated by unclear language in the laws, leaving employers to guess at how to institute work place safety. The second amendment trumps work place safety apparently. The second amendment is silent on guns in the work place but that hasn't stopped the gun lobby from pushing the laws using their rights as a cover for their desire to carry guns everywhere they go during the course of a day.

Here are a number of articles about the guns in the work place:

This one is a discussion about work place security.

This one is from the Brady Campaign/Center regarding work place violence.

Here is one about the open carry movement and what it means for corporations and businesses.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a lengthy article about safety in their places of employment.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has this article on their website about how the NRA has managed to pass laws allowing guns in work places in spite of opposition from businesses.

And finally this article about guns, the work place and domestic violence.

These articles to which I have linked raise many issues: work place safety, insurance issues, domestic violence as the cause of some work place shootings, how to recognize volatile work place situations, anger issues for employees, and a host of other issues which are not black and white. The solution to work place violence is also not black and white. But most people recognize that when there are guns in the work place, they may very well be used against other employees rather than for self defense. There are certainly enough work place shootings to merit concern.

Guns for self defense in the home are one thing. I understand why some people have chosen to keep guns for that purpose. But once guns are introduced into public places, it changes the equation. The U.S. is awash in guns. We have more guns per person than any other country. We are allowed to carry guns in public places that other countries do not allow. We have a second amendment which almost all other countries do not have. We also have more shootings and people dying from gun injuries or surviving with life long complications from their injuries.

The conundrum is how to keep the "bad people" from using guns in crimes; it is how to keep guns away from children; it is how to make sure guns are stored safely so the "bad guys" don't steal them and use them illegally or sell them in the illegal market place; it is how to get young people involved in drugs and gangs to stop feeling as if having a gun is a must; it is how to keep those same young people from being able to buy guns cheaply on the streets; it is how to keep law abiding gun owners from using them against someone they know and/or love in a domestic dispute or dispute over property, or "stuff"; it is how to make sure that only responsible people can legally purchase guns wherever they go to buy them; it is how to keep guns away from a suicidal teen; it is how to make sure guns don't discharge accidentally or get misused to accidentally shoot someone. These are the things that worry me and keep me blogging. My common sense tells me that we can do something about those things I worry about. My solutions are different than those of the gun rights activists. The public is on my side. The gun lobby is not.
Those surveyed supported the idea that gun laws and gun rights complement each other. The poll offered this statement: “We can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them.” Among all gun owners and NRA members, 86 percent agreed.
Somewhere in the middle is where change can happen.

52 comments:

  1. One of the problems with the store policy is that they might fire you if you resist even without using a firearm. Here is a recent story where the robbers threaten to shoot a clerk so he fights back and is fired for doing so. It seems as if some corporations a see employee death as an part of doing business. At least he lived to be fired and did not make it into a statistic that day.

    I will always be more afraid of the criminal with the gun and not the legal carrying Manager but even then I choose not to let them be my only protectors.

    http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/pensacola/sales-clerk-fights-back-gets-fired

    ReplyDelete
  2. Employers have a right to set work place rules. I take it that you would take that right away from them if you don't agree with it? It's hyperbole to say that employers see death as part of doing business. That is exactly why they have work place safety rules- to prevent injuries and deaths.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "We can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them."

    I too believe that "we can do more to stop criminals from getting guns." But gun control advocates are always reminding us of those who were not criminals before they misused a gun, and I suspect that in attempting to do something about that, gun control advocates will not be concerned with "protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them."

    "In countries where there are fewer guns per capita coupled with reasonable gun laws there are fewer gun deaths."

    I too am not against all reasonable gun laws (although we may differ as to what is reasonable). What concerns me is that if those reasonable gun laws do not result in the decrease in guns per capita that you seek. more gun laws will follow the reasonable gun laws.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, Jay, as you know, I am planning to come for all of your guns. Did I say anything about decreasing the guns per capita? I would like to decrease the guns per criminal, per domestic abuser, per minor, per adjudicated mentally ill person.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One of the interesting things about the gun control issue is that people feel so strongly about it that their position on a gun matter is often at odds with their other principles (this happens with both sides).

    For example, there are many who say that "employers have a right to set work place rules" who have little objection to federal & state legislatures and agencies placing all sorts of limits upon the rights of employers to set work place rules on many other matters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, Jay. You are right. It's sort of like most of us on the GVP side wanting some federal background check laws since the state laws are a checkerboard of laws that allow guns to get from a state with looser laws into a state with stronger laws. But we are against the National conceal and carry reciprocity bill. You guys support the national reciprocity bill but object to other federal laws saying the states should decide. And it seems to me, anyway, that you would be in favor of over ruling work place rules in favor of gun rights. And I think the work place ( private employers for the most part) should be able to decide. And yet, I am in favor of certain other federal regulations regarding the work place, particularly if they keep people safe or keep business from taking advantage of ordinary folks like you and me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I am planning to come for all of your guns"

    You say that a lot, and I suppose that it's aimed at those who worry about such, but I see I need to say this again: I'm not one of them.

    "Did I say anything about decreasing the guns per capita?"

    What you said was this:

    "In countries where there are fewer guns per capita coupled with reasonable gun laws there are fewer gun deaths."

    Both parts are presented equally -- yet you want the "reasonable gun laws" but not the "fewer guns per capita"?

    What if it's the "fewer guns per capita" that results in the "fewer gun deaths"?

    "I would like to decrease the guns per criminal, per domestic abuser, per minor, per adjudicated mentally ill person."

    What will you do about those who have no record of such until they misuse a gun? You often mention those -- do you not intend to try to do something about them?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Like I said. Fed vs states is out the window when it comes to gun issues.

    Gun rights folks will always take the pro-gun position and GVP folks will always take the anti-gun position.

    I accept that -- I am disgusted only when one side displays phony outrage, pretending that they don't do the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We are always in hope of doing something about stopping guns from getting into the illegal market. As for the record- if everyone had to have a background check on gun sales, criminals would have to look harder to get their guns. I know there are already so many illegal guns on the streets and in general in the pool. We need to drain the pool of illegal guns and stop them from getting into the pool in the first place. And that should not involve you unless one of your guns is stolen and you fail to report it so it becomes part of the illegal market. Or unless you buy a gun for someone who can't buy one legally in a straw sale or unless you sell a gun to a felon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Agreed, Jay. Both sides do it. How can we stop that from happening?

    ReplyDelete
  11. japete writes:

    "Should the manager have been allowed to have his gun at work in violation of Indiana law?"

    How was he in violation of Indiana law? He had a permit to carry. There's no law in Indiana preventing him from carrying at work. At most, he violated Kroger's policies. Not a legal violation.

    "They also seem to be saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to keep their employees from carrying their guns at work."

    I believe employers should be able to set work rules, including prohibiting individuals from carrying at work.

    "Some states, including my own state of Minnesota, have passed laws specifically allowing guns to be stored in cars in parking lots at the work place. The guns must be locked in a glove compartment or trunk and not visible."

    This is not correct.

    MN 624.714 specifically states that an employer may not prohibit the storage of a firearm in one's vehicle in a parking lot or area. The specific language is "an employer or a postsecondary institution may not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area."

    MN statutes say nothing about the method of storage. Firearms do not have to be locked in the glove box or trunk and may be visible - though I would not at all recommend that method of storage.

    MN 97B.045 makes other requirements around storage of firearms for transport but they are (mostly) null and void for individuals carrying under a Minnesota Permit to Carry.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What is an "illegal gun"? I've seen that term thrown around yet I've never seen it defined. Is it a gun in the possession of a person who cannot legally own one? Are they guns that have slipped through police armories and have been returned to the streets instead of scrapped? Are they guns stolen from homes and cars? There is really almost no such thing as an illegal gun. Vast, vast majority are legally manufactured from the beginning and it, once again, comes down to the end user. The person and not the object that should be the point of focus. You can't drain a pool with a garden hose when it's being filled by an industrial pump.

    ReplyDelete
  13. All of the above. And we do make the person the focus. That is why we want background checks on all guns sales so illegal people can't buy guns. That is why we want to crack down on straw purchases and make sure guns are safely stored so people who can't get guns legally don't get them. Your last statement is true and that is what it feels like to those of us working on this issue. Why don't you guys help us out so we make the garden hose bigger and the industrial pump smaller?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Did he have a gun? Did he intend bodily harm? Was the clerk in immanent danger?"

    The standard is, as you well know, whether a reasonable person, in those circumstances, would have believed that he was in immanent danger.

    If someone says he has a gun, and acts like he has a gun, and says he intends you harm, and acts like he intends you harm, you are a damned fool if you don't take him at his word.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Because people like me are not the problem but would be among those who have to pay for such laws. There is already laws against straw purchasing. You need to think about what it would take to enforce the law. It's actually quite impossible because there is no database or level of supervision capable of insuring every single gun buyer is not a straw purchaser. I buy a gun as a surprise gift for my father yet he might have difficulty with the NICS simply because he is not a citizen of this country. He has absolutely no criminal record nor anything that would prevent him from lawfully owning a handgun in my state yet the NICS might not understand the anomaly. So do I sell it to him anyway and make us both criminals? There are parts to the equation you simply are not seeing because you, at a personal level, have never dealt with it. Do you know the NICS often has problem and backlogs just handling the current volume of checks? Do you know what happens when the check returns no result within a specified period of time? The sale goes through anyway. What do you think will happen when millions of more entries are added every month? Reinforcing the garden hose and making it tougher does not make it flow a higher volume.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, I do get that there are problems with NICS. Perhaps if we give it more funding, we could do a better job. As to your father ( don't know if this is real)- can you gift him a gun? Under most background check laws, there is an exemption for family members. I don't think any of this should stop the process of trying to work on the issue. Harder things have been before the American public before. We can find a way to do this if we but try.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You missed the point. Why would I have to jump through another hoop, have added expense, and wasted time for a law that will do absolutely nothing to deter illegal gun sales? What are the enforcement mechanisms? How do you propose a law that would make ALL firearms purchases including those between private individuals subject to a NICS check be enforced? Would you start from an arbitrary date and grand-father in 300,000,000 firearms that currently exist in the US? This is what happens when laws are proposed without thinking beyond legislation or considering the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  18. How exactly would this affect you, James? Do you buy guns now from FFLs? It would be no different. It can and does work. Several states are doing it. It's not a big deal. It would start with gun purchases from the date of a new law if it ever passed. Private individuals can go to the nearest FFL just as you now go to the nearest grocery store or electronics store or furniture store to purchase other goods. This is not a hard thing. You guys are making it sound like some horrendous thing. It is not.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have purchased one out of my several from an FFL. I generally purchase secondhand models that I have interest in collecting that are generally not found in retail outlets. So yes...it would affect me. Wouldn't affect the gang member on the other side of town though. Which several states are doing this? Handguns, long guns, or all guns? Do they actually require the transaction through a FFL or through a county office? Have you researched the patchwork of laws in these states? Have the laws in these states ceased firearms sales among criminal elements? You really don't know what you are asking for here. It is incredibly difficult which is why it hasn't gained any national level traction.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "How exactly would this affect you, James?"

    Allowing the government to know who knows what guns affects all of us.

    There are methods of ensuring background checks on all firearms transfers that do not allow the government to know which specific firearms are being transfered, or who are the individuals involved. Somehow, though, you never seem to support those.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "It can and does work. Several states are doing it. It's not a big deal. It would start with gun purchases from the date of a new law if it ever passed."

    California does it, but I do not know if anyone can measure any benefit. Criminals still get TONS of guns on this state: just look at Lovelle Mixon:

    "“I told him, ‘Man, you’re in a no-win situation. You’re a parolee. If they catch you, you’re going back to prison,’ ” said his cousin Jermaine Mixon, who said Mr. Mixon had showed him a gun that he would eventually turn on police officers on Saturday. “Lovelle said he was going to put the gun away. But I guess he was carrying it with him.”"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/us/25parolee.html

    Mixon was not unique, except for the fact that he killed 4 police officers with a weapon it was illegal for him to possess, was illegal for a person to sell to him without using an FFL. In California a prohibited person cannot even TOUCH a firearm, and yet they still get them and use them in crimes.

    So Joan, extending FFL transfer requirements nationwide might have an effect, but I doubt it would really get rid of all guns in criminal hands.

    I might be willing to give this a try on the national level, but that would be my limit to additional firearms regulations, and I would want something else in trade, like national concealed carry reciprocity.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Nearest FFL"...as if there's one on every street!

    ReplyDelete
  23. California, Connecticut, DC, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island- see here- http://www.lcav.org/content/private_sales.pdf

    Some are just for handguns. Yes, they usually get the checks from FFLs. If the sellers are doing their jobs, criminals should not be able to legally buy guns and would have to get them in some other way. That doesn't mean that criminals don't still get guns. America is awash in guns including lots of illegal guns on our streets. And criminals can go to nearby states where background checks are not required for all sales to get their guns. That is why a federal law would be good. I believe it is working in the states where the background checks are required. It might be more inconvenient but it's not the end of the world for goodness sake.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What happens when people buy guns from FFLs which I assume most people do actually? I guess all of those people are not too concerned about the government, jdege. But I know you libertarians just think the government is out to get your guns and would surely come calling if you buy guns from licensed dealers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. http://www.vpc.org/studies/dealers.pdf

    looks like quite a few dealers to me but fewer than there used to be. There used to be more dealers than gas stations in the U.S. Now, of course, we have more big box type stores like Gander Mountain that do a lot of the gun sales and background checks. Like all other businesses, sometimes the smaller ones don't make it for one reason or another.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Japete: "They also seem to be saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to keep their employees from carrying their guns at work."

    Where on earth did you come up with this fiction?

    I did not see a single comment stating that employers can't set their own gun policies. I know I repeatedly said they could.

    Kroger's has every right to ban guns from inside their property and discipline or fire the employee for breaking the rules.

    In response, citizens have every right to boycott Kroger's and hold protests outside store property in order to show their disapproval

    However, whatever the results, the manager and his fellow workers are still alive. That's a worthy trade-off for any action Kroger's will take against him, up to and including being fired.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Japete: "That is exactly why they have work place safety rules- to prevent injuries and deaths."

    Gun bans in places like Kroger's are about liability, not safety. Big companies are afraid of lawsuits. Lawsuits are expensive. Replacing rank-and-file employees killed or maimed by armed robbers is not. It's the classic example of companies putting a higher value on their bottom line then their workers lives.

    Anyone who supports workers rights should oppose such gun bans, even if the company has the right to put them in place (which they do).

    ReplyDelete
  28. I wonder why they would be concerned with litigation concerning guns? What could they possibly concerned about? I'm sure they are all about safety of their workers as well. And I don' t get what your last sentence is all about. It doesn't make sense. First of all, there are no gun bans. What are you talking about? There may be places where guns are banned for very good reasons. Workers and customers have a right to be safe from employees bearing guns at work.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "With more people carrying in more public places, does this mean that we will see more workplace shootings like this one in California?"

    No because murderers don't care about violating company policy. They will carry guns whether it's against company policy or not.

    If you look into this matter more closely, You'll find the majority of workplace shooting occur at places that have gun bans already.

    ReplyDelete
  30. And that is why they are banning guns in the work place- to keep more shootings from happening.

    ReplyDelete
  31. But that's silly, because it's been proven time and time again that gun bans don't work. Again, look into workplace shootings and you will see most of them occur in places that already ban employees from gun carrying.

    Murders don't follow gun bans. Unless the company is willing to spend the money to have checkpoints and metal detectors at every entrance that are manning by armed guards (which nearly all are not), gun bans are simply impossible to enforce.

    The only way gun bans would work is if criminals obeyed them. They never have and common sense tells us they never will, but the gun-ban crowd still insists on their effectiveness anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  32. That is an incredibly naive statement with absolutely no credible evidence to support it. Can you cite a source? Also, you still have not addressed by what mechanism a Federally mandated background check on all transfers could be enforced.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "And that is why they are banning guns in the work place- to keep more shootings from happening. "

    Southern California Edison prohibits guns from being carried by employees - yet still had a workplace shooting late last year. This appeared to do nothing to stop the shooting.

    A bank was robbed in the twin cities last week that had a "Bank X bans guns on these premises" sign - this appeared to do nothing to stop the robbery.

    There was the courthouse shooting in Northern Minnesota. Minnesota law prohibits the carry of a firearm in a courthouse. This appeared to do nothing to stop the shooting.

    Virginia Tech has a ban on firearms on campus - yet we had the Virginia Tech shootings. This ban appeared to do nothing to stop the shooting.

    Help me understand how these gun bans are supposed to keep more shootings from happening?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I would wager that if guns were allowed in the work place, there would be more shootings in the work place.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I am not naive nor am I a lawmaker or policy maker who would decide how it would work. If we can send a man to the moon, I'm sure we could figure out how to make a federal background check bill work. FFLs are at all gun shows. That is how it works in the states where those laws have been passed. There are many FFLs for private sellers. Buyers and sellers can meet at the FFL and have the background check performed. This is not rocket science.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Look Bryan, I am not saying that ALL shootings would be stopped. I am saying that prevention is a good thing. You are saying that guns should be allowed. I am saying the fact that a work place gives a message that they don't welcome guns means they don't think it's a good idea. No one says that everyone will follow the rules. But the opposite- just allowing guns or telling people it's O.K. will also not work out very well. More guns do not equal a more polite society. We already have the highest rate of gun deaths per 100,000 in this country. You just don't see a lot of shootings in the work place in other countries where the laws are more restrictive. And don't send me examples of where that has happened. I know they do but they are much more rare than in this country. And the Governor of Virginia says he is unlikely to sign a guns on campus bill. He understands that more guns on college campuses would be a stupid and dangerous idea. He is right. Help me understand how more guns on college campuses will not result in drunk students shooting at each other or killing themselves in suicides or accidentally shooting someone in a dorm room or classroom or shooting a professor with whom they have a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Help me understand how more guns on college campuses will not result in drunk students shooting at each other or killing themselves in suicides or accidentally shooting someone in a dorm room or classroom or shooting a professor with whom they have a problem. "

    This is the same straw argument we hear about permits to carry when this legislation comes up in other states.

    There's no data indicating that allowing firearms on campus is going to result on that - and from a civil liberties perspective, there's no compelling argument that could withstand the level of constitutional scrutiny required to curtail the exercise of this right on a college campus.

    Not to mention there are tons of colleges that already allow this - and many colleges (like the U of MN and the MNSCU system) where students/staff are restricted from carrying but the general public is not.

    Why are we not seeing all of these shootings, suicides, and dead professors on these campuses like you claim there would be?

    ReplyDelete
  38. You are trying to tell me that a lot of kids and professors are carrying guns at the U of M and MNSCU colleges and so therefore we should think that carrying guns has not resulted in a lot of shootings and gun crime? Talk about a straw man. That is ridiculous Bryan and you must know that. I don't think the Presidents of the colleges would agree with you that there a lot of people carrying guns on their campuses. Perhaps a handful of citizens who, like you, think it's O,K. to carry your guns around in places that generally ban guns from their premises. The reason there have been few, if any, shootings at U of M campuses has nothing to do with the fact that some gun rights extremists choose to carry their guns there.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Kids? I'm not sure about MN, but most states require a person be 21 years of age to get a Concealed Carry permit. Still young, I'll grant you, but not like some 18 year old who is away from home for the first time...

    ReplyDelete
  40. Students. They will mixing with the younger "kids" on campuses and where they live. They will be at the same parties where alcohol is served. Where will the gun be stored by the "student" who carries once he/she is at home in an apartment or a frat house where younger students are also living?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Utah has allowed CCW on all their public universities for over 7 years now. The bloodbaths and prophecies of doom predicted by the anti-gun crowd never occurred.

    To this day there has not been any evidence showing that colleges that allow CCW on campus are any less safe or more violent then ones that don't.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Is there any evidence to show that a CCW permit holder stopped a shooter on a college campus? Is there any evidence to show that having people with guns on campus have made the campuses any safer?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Here is an article opposed to guns on campus that shares my views- http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/columns/east_valley_voices/article_f8bb40f6-365a-11e1-8682-001871e3ce6c.html

    ReplyDelete
  44. Not students and professors Joan - they're banned by the archaic laws of MN. The General Public however can not be banned from carry at public institutions in MN.

    ...and is there any evidence that legal carry of firearms on college campuses has made them any more dangerous?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Really Pat? Archaic? You guys just never cease to amaze me.

    ReplyDelete
  46. James- argumentative- asked and answered.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I'm of the mind that allowing guns in the workplace is a dangerous policy. Not only are many concealed carriers ill-trained to begin with, but now you are in a tighter situation, with more people in closer confines and more chance of confusion. My workplace luckily prohibits guns on its property. If it allowed it, I would seriously consider not working there anymore, particularly since one of my coworkers in my office is very pro-gun and might carry. I don't trust his sense of judgement or safety.

    Also, allowing an employee to take matters in his own hand and play "Wyatt Earp" rather than just give into the demands of the robber sets a very dangerous precedent. The employee should be fired. Will robbers think twice about robbing that store again? I doubt it. More likely they will come better-armed and shoot first.

    And there's good reason why police say clerks should just give into demands. Few business robberies actually end with the robber shooting someone. They just want their money and will leave. It usually only turns deadly when the employee or manager puts up resistance or pulls out a gun. In the last couple years there have been something like 35 armed robberies in my town. Only one was deadly, at it was when the employee pulled out a gun and started shooting (he had it against the employer's rules). The robber died, but not before the robber got some shots off and nearly killed him. The next employee may not be as lucky.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Check out this law abiding college student on a campus with his gun--http://www.wsusignpost.com/2012/01/05/firearm-discharges-on-campus/

    ReplyDelete
  49. And? Seemed he taught himself a tougher lesson than any professor can give. That's why guns are supposed to be carried in holsters and not pants pockets.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Yes, and he taught the rest of us that we don't need idiots like this carrying guns around on college campuses. If there is one, there are bound to be more. I write about them in almost every post. It is not reassuring.

    ReplyDelete
  51. A lesson taught to your side of the issue but that certainly does not mean a majority. One incident in a state where 10 public colleges/universities allow CCW does not a trend make and trends, not singular incidents, are where policy should take shape.

    ReplyDelete