Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Arizona Working on New Law to Combat College Shootings

Arizona’s Senate is debating a new law to combat college shootings:

Legislation that would allow people to carry guns on Arizona community-college or public-university campuses advanced Monday, 11 days after a gunman killed five people and himself in an Illinois university lecture hall.

Members of the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee passed the legislation along a party-line 4-3 vote. Democratic senators Ken Cheuvront, Albert Hale and Richard Miranda voted no.

Senate Bill 1214, which would allow concealed-weapons permit holders to carry a gun at community colleges and Arizona’s three public universities, next heads to the Senate Rules Committee.

Gun owners must be 21 or older to obtain a permit.

Sen. Karen Johnson, the bill’s lead sponsor, originally introduced legislation that would allow guns at all schools, including elementary, middle and high schools. But facing pressure from some Republican colleagues, the senator was forced to narrow the bill’s scope to apply only to higher-education institutions.

“It’s not the bill that I wanted because I still feel our little kindergartners are sitting there as sitting ducks,” said Johnson, a Mesa Republican and Judiciary Committee member. But she added that the revised bill has a better chance of moving forward...

Police chiefs from Arizona's three public universities - Arizona State University, University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University - said allowing guns on campuses could create greater confusion and lead to the loss of additional innocent lives when police respond to a school shooting. Officers could shoot the wrong person, they said.


In short--HELL YEAH.  I want my kids safe.  This law does more to ensure their safety than all the “Zero Tolerance” bans could ever accomplish.

And I like the idea of allowing guns in all schools, not just colleges.

Welcome to Texas.  You wanna start shooting people, you might get a few rounds off before your ass is done.  Over.  Toast.  Makes you think twice about a shooting rampage at a school.

But the last part about police chiefs' concerns that they might shoot the wrong person--ok, shoot the one person that is going to be pointing a gun at police when they arrive 15 minutes after the rampage started. In actuality, that person will already have committed suicide or if the other students are armed, he/she will be dead. Then all the police need to do is say "put your weapon on the ground". The chiefs are basically saying that their officers are incapable of distinguishing between a murderer with a weapon and your average law abiding citizen with a weapon who responds to commands and doesn't point it at police.

That really says something about the competence of police. I am glad that they are there to keep us all safe. It sure worked at VA Tech and at Northern Illinois.

Comments

Pot smoking, hip hoppin, rave dancin , psychoactive sexual experimentin college students, with guns, not my idea of security.

Combat College Shootings, is that an introductory course or are there prerequisites.

The thing about gun rights is that if you have a gun a cop has justification to shoot you. Trumps all that amendment stuff with finality.

WOOF on February 26, 2008 at 07:12 pm

Pot smoking, hip hoppin, rave dancin , psychoactive sexual experimentin college students, with guns, not my idea of security.

Combat College Shootings, is that an introductory course or are there prerequisites.

The thing about gun rights is that if you have a gun a cop has justification to shoot you. Trumps all that amendment stuff with finality.

Clearly that is not the case.  If you have a gun, the cop has no more right to shoot you than if you don’t have a gun.  You must pose a direct threat to either the officer or others around you.  Cops do not have the right to use lethal force without provocation and the act of simply owning and possessing a weapon do not equate to provocation.

You make the assumption that anyone can simply show up with a concealed weapon.  The law would require the person to obtain a concealed carry permit.  Here are the requirements under Arizona Law:

1. Must be a United States citizen or permanent resident alien.
2. Must be lawfully present in the United States.
3. Must be at least 21 years of age.
4. Not under indictment or have not been convicted of a felony in the U.S. or elsewhere.
5. Not convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
6. Not under court order (i.e. order of protection, harassment, etc.)
7. Not a fugitive from justice.
8. Not a user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
9. Not been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
10. Have never renounced U.S. citizenship.
11. Do not suffer from mental illness and have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed to a mental institution.
12. Have satisfactorily completed a (8 hours) Certification Course.  Training must take place within Arizona.

Concealed weapon permits may be renewed every five (5) years. All applicants for renewal, except DPS approved Firearms Safety Training Instructors, must successfully complete a DPS approved renewal training program (minimum of four (2) hours), no exceptions. Training must take place within Arizona.

Yep, expect Pot smoking, hip hoppin, rave dancin , psychoactive sexual experimentin college students, with guns.  That sounds like what will happen.

Justin B. on February 27, 2008 at 03:17 pm

The chiefs are basically saying that their officers are incapable of distinguishing between a murderer with a weapon and your average law abiding citizen with a weapon who responds to commands and doesn’t point it at police.

Cops do tend to be trigger happy when they see WHAT they think is a gun [I believe there have been cases where a person was shot for merely pointing a finger at a cop.] However, that is a problem with police training and not a good reason to disarm the licensed carriers.


You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

docdave on February 27, 2008 at 06:15 pm
Avatar for Brandon

“In 2006, in cases where [New York] police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report.” (A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty, 2007)

If a cop is fully trained to use a gun, what makes you think a student will do any better.  Do you realize what it takes mentally to kill another human? Think about it.  The hesitation alone will make you useless, because you will already be dead.  And on top of that, having a bunch of students running around a campus with guns in the middle of a crisis trying to be heroes would be extremely confusing for police. It would be the easiest cover-up and diversion for someone trying to shoot up a school.
And don’t tell me they aren’t trying to be heroes, cuz then they wouldn’t have bought the guns.

Brandon on March 5, 2008 at 12:36 pm

which crie is safer to commit?

A. Mass murder with a firearm in a gun free zone

B. Home invasion robbery in Texas

Wing Chun Geologist on March 5, 2008 at 12:50 pm

And don’t tell me they aren’t trying to be heroes, cuz then they wouldn’t have bought the guns.

What?  You mean the only reason to pack a gun is to be a hero?  Isn’t it quite possible that people carry weapons to protect themselves, not to engage in some gunbattle?

Guns are a deterrent.  What about the school shooters that go into VA Tech or NEIU?  How many bullets did they discharge and how many hit their targets?  It only takes 1 shot to do the job.

Do you realize what it takes mentally to kill another human? Think about it.  The hesitation alone will make you useless, because you will already be dead.

But when someone is shooting at unarmed people, that hessitation might save your life.  What is your point?

What you are saying is that in a gunbattle, there is a possibility that when two people both are armed, that about 30% of the bullets will hit their target.  But that is 30% for either person, so my thought is that unless one person has much better weaponry or is much more trained, it is a toss up on who is gonna win.  50-50.  But even acknowledging that the hessitation factor, the preparedness factor, and the difficulties of killing another armed murderer are there, let’s put the odds at 75-25 towards the attacker. 

What are the odds for the students if they are all unarmed?  100-0.  Attacker wins every time.  Do you like the idea of being defenseless?  Of having zero chance when attacked?

Justin B. on March 5, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.