Arizona considers concealed carry at schools
posted at 8:50 am on February 19, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
K-12 through university. Is this where we want to go to deal with violence at schools?
A committee of the Arizona Legislature is weighing arguments made today over a proposal to let people with permits to carry concealed weapons bring guns to K-12 schools, community colleges and universities.
The Senate’s Judiciary Committee listened to more than two hours of testimony about the proposal, but didn’t take a vote.
The testimony came four days after a gunman opened fire during a lecture at Northern Illinois University, killing five young people before turning a gun on himself.
Supporters say the permit-holders should be allowed to carry guns at schools so they can defend themselves and others if a gunman starts shooting people and police haven’t yet arrived at the scene.
It should be clear now that declaring schools “gun free zones” does not make them gun free zones. It makes them killing fields if a mad gunman enters them and opens fire.
Allowing concealed carry at schools won’t, as some believe, mean that everyone will be armed and when violence erupts a free-for-all will ensue. It would mean that people who have demonstrated responsibility with firearms by undergoing certified training would be able to obtain a permit to carry. Those people would be the ones who would be most likely to respond to a mad gunman. They would be able to return fire and possibly end rampages and save lives.
There will be unintended consequences for allowing concealed carry at schools, as there are with anything, and some of those consequences might not be good. But on balance, a gunman chooses to attack places where there isn’t likely to be any armed response. If there is the possibility of an armed response at a school, that possibility alone might deter attacks. If there is an attack, armed students or faculty might be able to stop the gunman. It happened at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia on January 16, 2002.
I think concealed carry at schools is worth considering. Let states decide for themselves and see what happens. Gun free zones clearly don’t work, so we have three choices: Increase school security to the point that educational institutions double as lockdown compounds; erode or do away with our 2nd Amendment rights; or allow responsible citizens to defend themselves and others around them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
FINALLY someone gets it. Bryan you got it right. Presently the schools are Killing Fields.
Keep posting the follow-up if this actually becomes law. Thx
mustang1 on February 19, 2008 at 8:57 AM
I vote for #3, as did our founding fathers. They had a bit of a clue.
bbz123 on February 19, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Exactly. In most states, getting a concealed carry permit is a relatively arduous process - a class, a fee, a background check or two. Those who go through the training are not likely to be the school-shooter types.
Slublog on February 19, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Has there been a shooting at either a school or church when the police have done anything other than pick up the bodies? They just cannot be expected to respond quickly enough. I’m not really keen on the idea of anyone under the age of 18 having a weapon, but properly trained staff? Sure.
Mr. Bingley on February 19, 2008 at 9:02 AM
I have no problem with valid conceal carry permit holders being able to carry at college. (I assume in the K-12 environment, we would be talking about teachers and school staff, since the kids presumably could not get conceal carry permits.) However, Bryan, with all due respect, I believe you’re overstating the deterrent value of an armed populace vis a vis these kind of mass murderers.
A defining feature of these people — whether the Columbine killers, or the Virginia Tech guy, or the NIU guy — is that they are severely mentally disturbed and they commit their atrocities knowing full well they won’t survive. I think the NIU and VA Tech guys killed themselves. The Columbine killers I think were “suicide by cop” cases.
I think the deterrent value comes into play in different categories of crime — robbery, rape, assaults and such.
Outlander on February 19, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Bingo, nothing but net, it’s in the hole.
There is no greater deterrence to violent crime than the consideration that the potential victim could be armed. PERIOD. A four minute response time is nothing if someone wants to do something, and it’s worthless if the person has no regard for their own life.
Please let this pass, and in many, many other places afterwards. Maybe we will reclaim our right to defend ourselves after all.
MadisonConservative on February 19, 2008 at 9:09 AM
From Haaretz 01/27/2008:
“About three quarters of an hour later, two figures entered the room. They looked like security guards. In the first few seconds they didn’t look suspicious to us. Greenberg even managed to greet them with ‘Good evening,’ and then they came closer, to a distance of about two meters, pulled out knives and a handgun, and in Arabic-accented Hebrew said: ‘Everyone stand back in a line.’
“At this stage, I still thought this was a joke. Only when I saw the counselor Rafael Singer draw a weapon, I got that it’s real. The two terrorists jumped on Singer and stabbed him in the chest. I moved a little backward. It was all a matter of seconds. I loaded a clip in the gun, waited for there to be some distance between Singer and the terrorists, and shot one of them, who was wrestling with him,” Kovatch said.
“The terrorist flew toward the door and was still twitching and trying to get up. Out of the corner of my eye I saw Shmueli fighting with the other terrorist. He grabbed the terrorist’s hand, which was holding a gun. The terrorist tried to get loose. Again I got some distance between us and shot him too.”
Yeah, sure seems like a good idea to me.
marks on February 19, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Sorry- here’s the link for the above article that was excerpted.
marks on February 19, 2008 at 9:14 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/948272.html
okay- 3rd try’s a charm….
marks on February 19, 2008 at 9:15 AM
True they enter this realm with the ultimate goal of self destruction. But, as wacko as they are they still want to dispense as much carnage as possible before they end it all. Enter a person with conceal/carry and you reduce the carnage, and put the headline from the wacko to the conceal/carry person. Even to the wacko this is not acceptable. Also as a post scrip, in AZ 18 yrs for c/c, students could have a weapon in school.
pueblo1032 on February 19, 2008 at 9:15 AM
They do this, I’ll get a concealed permit. Presently, I have a number of rifles and shotguns, but I’ll buy a pistol if I can carry it to work.
Tim Burton on February 19, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Only true liberals can believe gun violence will stop if “Gun Free Zones” signs are posted regardless of what history shows. Besides it being our Constitutional right, armed law abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons is a very effective deterrent. Looks at violent crime statistics of the states that don’t allow CCP and the states that do.
Don’t be fooled by their ultimate goal to eventually ban all weapons. Only then will their socialistic agenda be possible.
trs on February 19, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Class A, license to carry concealed, high capacity, for any lawful purpose. I’ve had it, and my model 1911, since the day I was legally eligible. Quite a feat here in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.
Alden Pyle on February 19, 2008 at 9:24 AM
I would LOVE for my 2 college students to be able to conceal and carry- legally of course.
Ex-tex on February 19, 2008 at 9:29 AM
I’ll just copy/paste what I posted in the headlines section about the same topic:
Just make sure that if they do pass something that it specifically includes teachers. Here in Oregon CHL holders can carry on the campus of any public school but the districts can still restrict their employees with CHL’s from carrying.
Afterimage on February 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM
I agree that they likely want and expect to die, but not generally by another person’s hand.
The Columbine kids were murder suicide. The recent guy killed himself as did the guy from Virginia Tech and the guy who shot up the church.
I don’t think allowed concealed weapons at school would be an immediate deterrent, but these guys are mostly about racking up a large enough body count that they’re remembered. If they’re met with armed resistance during their rampages, they’re much less likely to be able to accomplish that, which could deter others from trying it.
Esthier on February 19, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Sounds about right for Oregon. They are laying off firefighting supervisors bedause they don’t speak Spanish. Seems they are hiring non-English speaking immigrants as firefighters, and state law requires the supervisor to speak every language represented in his crew, even if it’s only one out of 20. Avoid this state!
Longhorn Six on February 19, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Potential shooters will then have to find more liberal schools and classrooms and assume no one will be armed there.
Universal gun control preceded almost every (I think every) mass-murdering dictator in the modern age, and this is a large reason why mass school shootings have been so “successful” (for lack of a better term.)
I hope AZ goes through with this and I would hope and pray some psycho tries it and gets popped on the spot. Music to my ears.
Grafted on February 19, 2008 at 9:47 AM
It will come sooner or later. Universities and schools will either have to turn campuses into armed camps, (very expensive), or go voluntary - ergo conceal and carry.
Air marshals have gotten little press as to their effectiveness. You know they are armed, but whether there is one on board or not the threat is still there.
Starlink on February 19, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Here’s an article in a local paper regarding the Police “response” to the proposed bill. They don’t even take into account the possibility that the law would actually discourage a gunman from going on a rampage.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/109330
Orange Man on February 19, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Couldn’t agree with you more. I think these psychopaths go to these schools ready for war and desiring to go out in a blaze of glory. Not sure how to combat people that disturbed other than to involuntarily commit them to a mental institution if they’re determined to be disturbed and dangerous before they have a chance to commit mass murder.
bojack on February 19, 2008 at 9:51 AM
In reality, we have one choice: uphold the 2nd Amendment. Doing anything less is unconstitutional at best.
fourstringfuror on February 19, 2008 at 9:53 AM
I lost the link, but I’ve seen it reported that concealed-carry permit holders have the lowest crime rate of almost every, if not every category of adult.
Gun free zones are killing fields, and concealed-carry laws could surely reduce the criminal attraction.
But it makes little difference to the ideological left, as these people are too deeply invested in gun control to care much any more about the inconvenience of rational analysis.
petefrt on February 19, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Thank you, Bryan. As someone who teaches at an urban community college, I wholeheartedly agree. At my school, we were to have “incident” drills this week and next. But the fear of confusion was too much for some. Instead, they are having the instructors review the safety procedures in the event of a violent act.
Here’s the procedure…..the instructor is to go out into the hallway (where the shooter might be) to lock the door to the classroom from the outside. The instructor is then to close the door and move the students away from the door all the while attempting to be as silent as possible. I told my students that if I’m shot to move my dead a$$ away from the door and lock themselves in. Great plan, eh?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 19, 2008 at 10:07 AM
True, but if a staff member had a gun they could have taken those boys down before they killed so many, and that’s the point.
I work in a high school, and the possiblity of something similar is a daily reality for me. We have an SRO on campus at all times, but it takes a couple of minutes to get from the office to my classroom out in the hinterlands. You can kill a lot of people in a couple of minutes.
Bob's Kid on February 19, 2008 at 10:15 AM
OK, So most of the rhetoric against this proposed law here on talk radio in Tucson is coming from people that don’t know s*&t about what is required for a concealed permit. This doesn’t mean kids (under 18) can carry and you have to go through training and background check.
Just don’t be loading up the hollow point rounds people. They actually talk about that in the class - use plain jane munitions when carrying, so you don’t get branded as a zealot/freak looking to shoot someone when you actually have to. The socialist/liberal jurors here in Pima County would love to have you do some time in Florence, AZ for protecting yourself.
This is the first legislation in a long time I’m proud of in this state (excluding Prop 200 - but we know everyone has fought that tooth-and-nail to actually having to enforce the will of the people, but I digress).
SkinnerVic on February 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Can I ask what other parts of the CONSTITUTION you consider worth considering? Are you also in favor of maybe limiting illegal searches and giving students due process?
“Gun free zones” are really self defense free zones. It is not that you have to have someone packing, to stop the shootings, it is the possibility that someone may return fire that will discourage these mass shootings.
AndrewsDad on February 19, 2008 at 10:55 AM
If they allow concealed carry at school would they allow a non CCW holder to open carry?
offroadaz on February 19, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Actually, it’s both.
There are crazy people who don’t care that they’ll go out in a blaze of glory. The only way to deal with them is to grant their wish as quickly as possible, minimizing the number of innocent lives they can take in the process.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are people who think they’ll be able to commit mass murder and get away with it. Doing away with Victim Disarmament Zones will definitely discourage them.
Most are a mix of the two. To the extent they can be deterred, they will. But either way, the damage they can cause will be minimized by allowing CCW permit holders to do what they’ve demonstrated they’re able to do.
The Monster on February 19, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Gun free zones clearly don’t work.
locomotivebreath1901 on February 19, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is planning an empty holder protest in support on over 120 campuses April 21-25. I saw a letter to the editor in the LSU newspaper last week about it. There’s also a web site, http://www.ConcealedCampus.org.
The classrooms where I’ve taught (and teach) on the LSU campus would not be safe in the event of an attack by a crazy shooter. Last semester, my lecture classroom doors opened to the hall (i.e., couldn’t be blocked to keep them from opening), locked only from the outside (with a key that I don’t have), cannot be tied together to prevent opening (handled on only one), and the doors have windows in them. Interior classroom so no way to escape through windows.
My lab classroom has bars on the windows so if the doors were blocked, we’d be fish in a barrel.
I support concealed carry on campus, although I probably wouldn’t choose to do so.
LibbyLA on February 19, 2008 at 11:35 AM
well its nice to see some people starting to come around. I’ve been saying this for years. I also think that the friends of John edwards should sue the hell out of colleges that make gun free zones. If I was a parent of one of the students killed at VAtech/NI someone would be paying in money or blood for the liberal nonsense that killed my child.
unseen on February 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM
When I was a kid in Texas, I took my shotgun to Sunday School because my mom would’nt let me go hunting Sunday morning if I didn’t go to Sunday School.
It was no big deal. I had a motorcycle and the church was on the way home. I could hunt till 10:30, and be in Sunday school by 11:00. Because I was on a motorcycle, I had to bring my shotgun to class so it wouldn’t get stolen. I left all the doves or ducks at my bike, though. That would have been too disrupting.
saiga on February 19, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I have a CCW and take pride in the responsibility. I believe that more liberal CCW laws are the answer. It has been proven that every state that has enacted CCW laws has seen a decrease in violence.
That being said, I would even be supportive of a more stringent process for CCW in what are currently “Gun Free Zones.”
Make it an ongoing process. Then all we need is some unbiased reporting when it starts working : )
America1st on February 19, 2008 at 12:21 PM
The article says:
My friend’s rather snarky response:
I’m all for allowing it…it’s better than me either 1) illegally carrying or 2) plotting my escape route in every classroom I enter…
JeepGirl on February 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM
SkinnerVic:
I’m kind of surprised you’re telling people to carry FMJs in a school environment. The FMJ handgun round is about the worst possible thing - it’s less likely to stop the assailant and more likely to overpenetrate the target and strike an innocent, or pass through walls and strike an innocent, than just about anything else.
And if a DA wants to scare people because you used MagSafes and they’s SCARY, your local PD should be able to refer you to an expert witness who will put that DA’s ass in a sling in about 30 seconds flat.
I literally cannot understand how you could expect people who oppose self-defense would suddenly support it based on ammunition type.
To sum up, you WILL be criticized on your ammo choice. If you choose FMJs, it will be HARDER to defend yourself in court because you chose the less effective and more dangerous choice.
I don’t mean to be too personally critical of you, Skinner, I just think this is REALLY bad advice.
Merovign on February 19, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Buy a lottery ticket. :)
Merovign on February 19, 2008 at 12:49 PM
(might have difficulty distinguishing innocent permit-holders from the gunman.) I don’t think so….by the time the police get there and set up their command station, call the SWAT team, seal off the area, take a coffee break, call the news, and set up a news conference it will be over with. The different between a person with a concealed permit and a police officer is that the person with the permit is there and will rush in and take out the gunman.
Skok on February 19, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Very good idea, AZ. Good luck on getting it passed.
tickleddragon on February 19, 2008 at 1:07 PM
However, Bryan, with all due respect, I believe you’re overstating the deterrent value of an armed populace vis a vis these kind of mass murderers.
Whenever one of these things has happened it has been in a “gun free” zone almost exclusively. Even mental cases seem to have figured out that the best place to do their thing is to go where no one can shoot back. Passing this legislation would be a great step in the right direction.
duff65 on February 19, 2008 at 1:17 PM
We have a track of homes near us, each with a couple of acres, bordering a farm area. Each of the homes out back has a tree stand, and they take a deer once a year or so. No one has ever broken into one of those beautiful homes…I wonder why?
right2bright on February 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Because they dont want a shot gun up their arse, thats why! : )
kcd on February 19, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Already eroded. You need to obtain a permit to carry concealed. Did not need to in the past.
Regarding the ‘do away’; you can’t even give up an inalienable right.
What about infringed do law makers not understand?
Two things
1) my 11 year old son has his own .410 shotgun and a .22 rifle. His sister gets hers this year. Also, my father carried a .22 rifle to school in fourth grade (in the snow and uphill both ways)
2) It’s not a weapon, it’s a tool.
Research Aurora and Brodie and find the wild west wasn’t so wild. Bad guys faced with the potential of sudden death are pretty tame.
You can take it along now if you leave it in the car. Remove the magazine and place it in the glove box. Better to have it close than not around. Personally, I might lean toward ignoring a policy or law if it can help keep me and my family alive.
You my friend, deserve a medal for achieving this in Massachussets.
We have it. Need to exercise it. Too many rely on the police to do it for them.
One of the reasons (lesser) we home school our kids. They receive their education in a protected zone.
AZ_Redneck on February 19, 2008 at 7:42 PM
I’m in total agreement with the plan. I’m also in favor of a national reciprocity law for concealed carry (CC) like we have with driver’s licenses. For those who aren’t familiar with CC, states vary on requirements to CC but in my state I had to take a minimum 8 hour class (mine was nearly 12 hours), pass a written test, show proficiency with both a pistol and revolver on the range, show knowledge of firearm safety and operation of both a pistol and revolver, go through a local background check, and submit my fingerprints for a state and federal background check.
I think the fact that these mass shootings don’t happen at gun shows or in police stations is telling. All of the recent mall shootings I am aware of were in no weapons allowed malls, although all of those have since quietly removed their voluntarily posted no weapons signs. The AP recently posted a list of school shootings in the last 10 years in which the three instances where armed citizens stopped the shooter they merely noted as citizens “tackled” or “stopped” the shooter. Citizens use firearms between 1.5 and 2.7 million times in any given year to stop crimes and discharge their firearms in only about 20% of the cases. They only kill the bad guy about 1% of the time, not because they are bad shots (they have a higher hit ratio than the police) but because they show great restraint and only shoot to end the threat and then stop and call the authorities to clean up the mess. College students, teachers, administrators and school visitors need to retain their right to self defense within the schools.
deepdiver on February 19, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Ankle holsters are more effective, and less suspected.
profitsbeard on February 19, 2008 at 8:39 PM