America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
The only thing this bill will do is to add one more place concealed carry permit holders may legally carry. These are people who already have permits, and already carry firearms in public. This is the demographic of firearm owners least likely to commit a violent crime.
I'd be interested to hear the source for the claim that there has been a surge in black youth killed by white adults using firearms. That is not supported by any of the FBI firearms crime data, which show that the overwhelming majority of non-suicide firearm crimes are committed by blacks against blacks.
A handgun can, in fact, be used for purposes other than killing. There are far more instances where a handgun is used for defense and never fired than there are where one is fired. An analogy would be nuclear weapons. To say they exist only to kill is a gross oversimplification: most exist to deter the use of nuclear weapons by others. The primary defensive capability rests on possession of the weapon, not the actual use of the weapon.
The tacit implication that sexual assaults will increase as a result of this is offensive. The only people affected by this bill are concealed permit holders, which means the author is implying those who hold permits are more likely to commit sexual assaults simply because it is now legal to carry on a college campus. If they were going to commit these assaults, why would they be concerned about the legality of the firearm they're carrying? It makes no sense, unless the point is to create an emotional reaction in place of a logical one. The use of such tactics is dishonest, and shows the person using them lacks intellectual integrity.
With regard to the training issue, if the number of firearms crimes committed by Idaho concealed carry permit holders amounted to more than a fraction of a rounding error this argument might have some traction. Those crimes don't exist, however, so there is nothing to "fix" by increasing the training requirements.
The last paragraph illustrates clearly how the entire article is motivated by an illogical terror of firearms, rather than any articulable danger created by the extension of concealed carry to college campuses. If there were a problem with concealed carry outside of college campuses, one would assume it would have been noted in this article as supporting evidence for the argument made. No evidence is given as to why concealed permit holders would suddenly start committing crimes on college campuses when they don't commit crimes anywhere else. There's no reason to believe college students who don't already have permits would suddenly go out and get one now, much less if they have a criminal bent.
Mrs. Dolezal should ask herself how many times she's been assaulted over grades and homework. If the answer is "none," she has nothing to fear from students in possession of firearms. If she /is/ regularly assaulted by students intent on killing her, perhaps she should find another line of work.
Website powered by Foundation