I can’t find that in the articles. It doesn’t matter, since the claim is that allowing CCW should cut down on this kind of shooting. The Oregon shooter was not a CCW holder after all.
From what I heard the claim is that shooters would be scared to attack places where people might be armed - which was not the case in Oregon, Texas or Louisiana.
I don’t think the reason for the law is to throw a relatively minor additional charge at a shooter. That is indeed pointless. The purpose is that lots of people with guns on a campus is likely to result in more shootings by angry people than it saves by supposedly scaring shooters away or killing shooters quickly.
Kind of like if you have an unlocked loaded gun in your home you are far more likely to get shot by a family member or yourself, or have another family member shot, then to protect your home from the attacking home invaders who we all know visit every week.
I don’t think that claim has been made precisely here. Even still, how does this comport with allowing retired police to carry on K-12 school campuses?
I think a more nuanced claim would be that if people were permitted to carry in any location, then those people would be able to defend themselves more ably should the need arise. I imagine that people intent on doing harm for reasons based on crazy will not be deterred for any reason.
My take is that if a person is licensed by the state to carry a concealed weapon, being on school grounds doesn’t negate the reason for the issuance of that license.
Can you address my clarifying question in post #36?
Well, if it makes sense to ban guns from college campuses, banning guns from ElHI makes even more sense, since the guns will be around little kids, who are more likely to make a mistake than college students. And the latest massacre was at a college. Which allowed CCW holders on campus.
Te repeat myself, the justification for allowing this is to reduce the number of shootings by scaring off shooters. The serial killers are not generally concealing their weapons. If allowing CCW holders does not cut down on the killings, why allow it? Open carry or concealed carry both can increase the incidence of random violence - no one is getting shot if there are no guns.
I didn’t mention the no injury shooting. Justified? Perhaps the news would have been of someone saving their life if it was. Of course, some of that poetry might have been really bad.
I’m sure lots of the shootings in Oakland or East Palo Alto where lots of gang members carry, legal or not, are justified in their minds. Even if they tend to hit innocent kids or fathers.
Someone hitting four people in self defense? Really?
As I said, thanks to the scumbags at the NRA we don’t have as good data as we should have. But the claim that allowing CCW will reduce or eliminate these crimes does not seem to be justified. The real question is whether encouraging lots of people in any type of school to be carrying is going to decrease or increase school deaths.
We know that the possibility of people carrying does not stop shooters. So, you have to encourage a lot more people to carry. Which would of course change the tactics of the shooters. Picking people off from a concealed location is not going to be stopped by people carrying pistols.
Now, if the NRA thought that the numbers would justify these laws, they would probably not oppose research. So my guess is that they know full well that their stand will kill more people than it saves, and they are like Carson, who would much rather see shot up bodies than be inconvenienced by reasonable laws.
I’m of two minds about that. If someone is allowed to, it might as well be someone with some real training. Far better retired LEOs than random teachers.
So, your position that these laws are good because those who carry might get away and screw everyone else? Especially if some percentage of people who carry open or concealed will at some point get angry and shoot at someone without a gun?
If the license is in order to protect someone at more than average risk of being attacked, these conditions would probably not apply at a school of any sort. If the reason is paranoia, what can I say?
I think you’ve misunderstood the comparison completely. In the K-12 setting, the CCW holder is a parent, staff, or adult visitor to the school. In no case in CA can a person under 18 years old obtain a CCW permit. In a college setting, the CCW holder is the student them self. An 18 year old student can possess a handgun, but it is more difficult because it has to be purchased for them in many jurisdictions since 18 year olds are prohibited from purchasing handguns in a lot of places.
I know you’ve said this before, but this isn’t the justification, alone. Among other reasons to justify CCW, is for general lawful self defense. It’s not to “scare” anyone. CCW holders both deter and stop criminal activity frequently, but that is in a more general sense. I don’t think this is an outcome based analysis. If the justification for carry exists, there is nothing special about a K-12 campus that negates the justification.
Yes, really. Have you heard ofBernhard Goetz? 1 vs. 4 in self defense. Hit all 4.
I’m not sure why you think the NRA is relevant here. I think it’s a red herring.
Then how do you defeat the reasoning in Silveira that allowing retired police to be exempt from gun laws did not survive rational basis scrutiny? The basis for police to be treated differently is connected to their role as law enforcement. As retired police do not have a law enforcement role, that basis fails. Even still, if training is the issue, then there should be an avenue that allows people to certify their level of training and then also be exempt.
No - that’s not my position at all. I’m not sure how you’ve interpreted what I’ve written to mean what you wrote. I can’t even make a connection here. Can you walk me through it?
This is completely unsupported why a condition would somehow not apply at a school. This is the point I made above in the second section. In CA a person needs to demonstrate both “good moral character” and “good cause” to obtain a CCW. If they have done so, these reasons apply at a school just as they do at a grocery store. If a person has “good cause” to have a CCW, that “good cause” is not mooted when they set foot on school property.
Here’s a question. Some states/school boards allow or are considering letting administrators carry while in school. Is there a similar movement in California that this law is addressing?
-
No.
-
Oh hell no. The Fraternal Order of Police and its ilk have been working for years to create an uber-class of their own members, and everything we can do to remind them that they too are “civilians” is good.
Pay particular attention to definition #4
Cite that one or two equals a mass.
I have never heard that claim, but I have heard “I’d like at least a* chance* to shoot back, rather than just run or cower and die.”, which is fair.
Honestly, unless a person has combat reflexes, they are very unlikely to be able to do anything- unless of course the mass shooter stops to reload, which has happened.
It’s not terribly likely,but it’s a chance.
How come I didn’t hear much bitching when HR218 became law and Obama strengthened it twice? It’s been around for over a decade now. I said then it was a finger in the eye of other lawful gun owners.
I can go anywhere in the U.S. and CCW no permits/license needed. I just need either my retired officer certification card or my ID card from the agency I currently work for. I can even carry in New York City and D.C. (and I have).
I do find it ironic that some of you oppose creating special classes only when it has to do with LEOs, though. If a policeman wants a bakery to make him a cake should the baker legally be able to refuse just because he doesn’t like cops?
Regardless of what the school’s position on CCW is, generally speaking you don’t find a lot of gun owners among academia anyway, and students spend their money on other things.
I don’t need a cite: no, almost certainly gang members do not hold a legal CCW, especially in California.
Voyager is probably referring to the NRA lobbying against the CDC running gun violence studies because they believe the research is biased. Which I am not certain is a wrong opinion to hold, considering a) it’s the Centers for Disease Control (and Prevention), and I’m not sure that they should cover “social diseases,” b) many, many, other sources of funding exist, c) Obama gave them money with an executive order, d) their first post-funding piece of research was hardly conclusive, e) it was only more recently extended.
California is a may-issue state. In practice that means (see also: the last paragraph in post #46) that in order to have a CCW you need to be either: a) law enforcement, b) living in some rural county where the sheriff is not hostile to CCW, and/or c) well-connected. So unless there is some cabal of politically connected superintendents that I am unaware of, most school admins don’t have CCW and couldn’t get one even if they tried.
Why should retired LEOs have more right to carry than us? Some areas of the country it is near impossible for us plebes to get a CCW.
If you’d read the entire thread you’ll see that I said that. I also said that over 10 years ago. It’s a law I benefit from but still oppose.
What I want to know is, why hardly nobody bitched about it when it first became law.
Actually my comment was more towards your last line. We object to creating special classes when it only serves a special interest group for no reasonable reason. It’s not just LEOs . Hence why should retired officers get special treatment but also corn growers, rich people, reality-show stars, et alii.
And I still want to know what enumerated right give Congress the authority to pass that law.
Haven’t you heard them say that gun-free zones are open invitations to shooters? That implies zones with carry would deter shooters.
After the Aurora shooting there was a bunch of nuts who thought that if people in the theater had been carrying they could have fought back. I haven’t heard that much of that this time, except from Carson. Good point about the probable futility of it, but would someone with a gun calmly wait while others are being shot before he pulls it out? And of course he has no idea of when the shooter will have to reload.
Very true. And then carry laws are unlikely to help at all.
Just being scientifically cautious. 
But it shows that lots of people with guns does not lead to fewer homicides.
Correct. The NRA will of course assume that any research that does not back them up perfectly is biased - which is just like what the climate change deniers say and the tobacco companies said.
Call it disease or not as you wish, but gun deaths are up there in the list of major causes of death, especially among the young, so it was anything else it would be getting studied like crazy. I can dig up a cite if you wish, but some states do not allow doctors to talk about guns with patients - or it might just be pediatricians who are not allowed to. If a pediatrician’s responsibility is to help keep his or her child patients healthy, reminding parents to lock up guns would seem warranted.
I didn’t think they had gone far enough to suggest little kids have guns. But if adults have guns, there is a chance it will fall out of a pocket, or be put somewhere, where the kid can grab it. Just like what happens inside the home. And why do parents or visitors need to be carrying in the school? Lock it in the car or leave it home. Don’t put kids at risk for a slight inconvenience.
Nothing special? There are kids there! As for self defense, the question is whether guns will hurt more people than they save. They do in the home, and that is a place where there is less of a chance for surprise.
As I said just above, my source for the justification of stopping shooters is the condemnation of the Oregon school as a gun-free zone (which it wasn’t) and as such a place which invited shooters in. Surely you’ve heard those justifications.
I’m from New York. I’ve ridden that subway. Not at all clear all those shootings were necessary. And around here we have lots of kids and innocent parents shot by gang members carrying guns with a lot more need for self defense than the average citizen will ever have.
Like I said, I’m of two minds. Them not being allowed to carry in schools is fine with me also. It is far from the biggest gun-related issue we have to deal with.
Sorry I was misleading with the "you"s. There seems to be a call for more guns in places like schools, since just the existence of carry laws does not stop attackers. The kid in Oregon went to the school. Even if lots of teachers were packing he’d know that his teacher was not. The sense I get is that some people consider those not carrying patsies, and think the Heinlein world of everyone carrying would somehow be safer.
Nor hurt.
Nobody says that. I realize that the Lott et al. slogan is “More guns, less crime,” but it doesn’t literally mean the strawman that everyone should have unlimited access.
Yes, that is a poor response by anybody.
But so are poor analogies.
True.
Such laws shouldn’t exist because doctors shouldn’t ask those things. How is that potential danger more worthy of discussion than many other more actuary-friendly dangers?
At best, that sounds incredibly condescending. Like don’t leave your toddler alone by the pool for 6 hours, don’t hire the drifter you just met to babysit, and so on.
But they do hurt if the presence of guns leads to more individual shooting through misperceived threats or anger.
True, they don’t say that everyone should have unlimited access. But opposition to background checks and the desire for instant access to guns at shows, for example, means that practically speaking we are close to unlimited access. The Louisiana shooter got turned down in Alabama - good for them - but had no real trouble getting a gun anyway.
Only in that the tobacco companies and climate change deniers weren’t able to limit research. The tobacco companies funded their own. The climate change deniers tried to also, but ran into the problem of honest scientists who didn’t come up with the right answers.
Who is saying it is either or? My doctor asks about smoking - I don’t, and about sex, and nags me about exercise. It was a long time ago but our pediatrician asked about us using car seats for our kids. Why exclude one public health risk?
I don’t think there is much of a drifter problem. Reminding parents about pools is a good thing. When we got a spa, we had to get it inspected to show we had a locked cover for it. I think we have a requirement that a pool must be fenced to keep the neighbor kids out.
And there is no reason to let a kid be alone near a pool besides carelessness. But if you think that there is a high probability that home invasion thugs will break down your door in the middle of the night, and have a gun to avert this possibility, you are not going to lock up your gun and separate the ammo from it. A doctor who could give parents the statistics on the risk of their child shooting himself or friends or them being higher than someone breaking in might get the gun locked up, and perhaps save a life.
And before you say that this fear is a strawman, I have a neighbor, a great guy, who fears exactly this, and has a gun. We live in a very safe neighborhood. And he has a wife who is starting on the road to dementia.
My daughter studies judgement decision making, and people believe weird things. Acknowledging that is not condescending.