Monday, February 02, 2009

Is there really an "Immaturity Field"?

Meet Tiffani. Tiffani is 19 years old. She works part time at a nursing home, goes to college, and likes mountain biking. She can vote, join the military, and thanks to Indiana state law, she has a license to carry a handgun. She can carry it at work. She can carry it when she goes with her friends to the movies or to Applebee's. But when she goes to school, apparently she is likely to become "drunken, enraged or excessively fearful" and likely to go on a rampage.

Why? Is there a magic force field on campus that causes students to become less mature when they pass through the shimmering barrier?

Indiana issues handgun carry permits at age 18. Why is someone considered responsible enough to carry a gun everyplace they go; the store, the bank, the restaurant; everyplace except for that late-evening course on campus?

Does this make any sense to anybody?

In Texas, it's even worse. Unlike gun-friendly Indiana, Texas requires someone to be over 21 and to pass a rigid training course in order to be certified to pack heat. But there, even if you're a military veteran or an adult continuing education student, campus is a no-go zone. They get scared you might go all "Wild West". You know, like you don't do everywhere else you pack heat. It must be that magic campus force field again...

45 comments:

Brigid said...

Since our new administration believes they know more about economics than anyone else, I have to ask them. Why can't you apply an economic analysis to criminal actions in gun free zones?

People choose to do more of something when the cost to them is low and choose to do less of something when the cost to them may be more than they want to pay.

So why does this logic make sense when we're talking about an economic stimulus and not register at all when we are talking about cowardly or crazed people who want to commit murder at a school? If they knew they might be stopped, certainly they would think to take their business elsewhere.

It's economics of living.

alan said...

Texas has been surprisingly weird on its gun laws.

We're getting better though. After "OMG, BLOOD IN THE STREETS!" didn't happen with concealed carry, it's been hard for the antis to successfully argue against getting rid of the more pernicious laws.

We can now carry in cars without a CHL. The car is the equivalent to the home in the Texas castle doctrine.

There are bills in this year's session to allow carry on campus and open carry as well as some improvements to the CHL rules.

Earl said...

The rule about weapons on campus reflect the fears of the fools, I mean the academics that don't shoot and are sure that bringing firearms into the drunken drug infested young under their care will be a problem. But then I do believe there are children that shouldn't have weapons, but I also believe they should have adult supervisors - parents and teachers that will get them matured properly. Now can we get back to sex education?

Armed Texan said...

alan, do you have a link to the Texas open carry bill? There has been a push, but I have not heard of anyone actually filing a bill. (And I have contacted my state rep. urging him to do so.)

Tam, let's be fair. Liberal pantywaist professors are more likely to go into cardiac arrest at the thought of being near a gun than the general public. They're just trying to protect the professors.

Tam said...

"but I also believe they should have adult supervisors"

The big problem right now is the number of chronological adults in this country who need adult supervision is rapidly approaching a supermajority... ;)

Avenger29 said...

Tam, back after V. Tech, when endless disscussions were flying on THR.org and other boards, there were several members on THR who thought that College Students shouldn't be able to carry or even keep a handgun in their dormroom because "all college students are drunks who do stupid stuff"

I'm getting tired of being treated like I'm a second class citizen by both the antis and the so called "supporters" of the 2nd A. because I'm a college student. I'm 20, I don't drink, I hold two jobs, and I will be purchasing handguns as soon as I turn 21. My CCW class is this weekend.

Avenger29

alan said...

Armed Texan: An open carry bill has not been filed yet, but it will be.

Old NFO said...

Tam, this is being driven, I believe, by the left wing loonies that populate most campuses as professors. They are scared to death of the students having ANY power, even that of self protection. Utah is the only state where students can concealed carry as far as I know.

OA said...

Back when I was in high school (mid 90's) most of the girls I dated started carrying a .357 at 14 or so, laws be damned. Then again, it was backwoods Alabama...

They kept their mud in a ball just fine on Friday nights after the game.

Caleb said...

I go back and forth on this issue - on the one hand, I made some really dumb decisions during college, but at the same time none of the decisions involved getting liquored up and grabbing my guns. And I had a whole locker full of guns when I was in college. I never lived in campus housing, so I could keep my firearms in my apartment.

Despite that, I somehow managed to avoid 1) shooting someone, and 2) shooting someone else; anecdotally suggesting that while I was immature in some aspects, I was smart enough to know that guns and booze never ever mix.

Matt G said...

Texas weapons laws are probably some of the silliest in the Union.

Carry a gun in your car? Legal.
Carry it in your car when you commit a Class B misdemeanor, like Obstruction Of Highway, or DWI, or Reckless Driving? It's Unlawful Carrying Of A Weapon. (Class A misdemeanor)

Carry a pistol, sword, dirk, dagger or poiniard, or club, around town? That's U.C.W. Take it into a place that is licensed to sell alcohol? Why, that's a third degree felony.

Carry a pistol with a Concealed Handgun License? Fine. Drop by City Hall to pay your parking ticket, or stop by your kid's school to drop of her sack lunch that she forgot? Well, that's a third degree Felony.

Drop your kid off in the parking lot of the school with a pistol on your belt? Legal. Chase after her in the door because she forgot her jacket? Third Degree Felony. They say you can literally feel your voting rights being stripped from you as you pass through the plane from legal citizen to Felon.

WTF?

CastoCreations said...

There was a woman, not a student but a worker, who was killed on campus by her stalker ex-boyfriend. He SHOT her ... which makes NO sense to me whatsoever since the UW is a non-gun campus. Clearly the criminal ignored the signs.

If she'd been allowed to carry and protect herself she might be alive today.

fast richard said...

The jury is still out on the existance of an immaturity field in schools. My contacts with teachers and profesors support the existance of the field. Such a field clearly exists, however, in newsrooms. How else can one explain the fevered paranoia of the stories you linked to? The one from Texas even equates open carry in a holster with "brandishing" a firearm.

Mike W. said...

I loved this little bit in the comments to the linked story. Stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

“And the second amendment says nothing about bearing arms anywhere. We already have restrictions."

Yes, the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." says nothing at all about bearing arms

Anonymous said...

You covered Tiffany, but what about Amber? She could be in danger along the mean streets of Broad Ripple when she goes from her pilates class to her hair appointment! And then she has to take Jared's dog to the K9 day spa.

I don't get liberals and their selective fear. It's already legal to walk about strapped at Indiana universities only the students can get in administrative trouble if they do.

Thus, Tiffany is immature when she is a student, but suddenly mature if she drops out of IUPUI's nursing program? Encouraging helplessness and dependency. Morons.

I carried a pistol in undergrad. Heck, the indoor range that I was RO of was underneath the student union and I carried guns (including long guns) to the range most weekends. Never went on a rampage and I handle firearm better than 99.9% of cops (even when I was 18 and younger) and other servants of the State that liberals trust to carry guns everywhere.

Texas is just goofy. I started going to Thunder Ranch before the '96 reforms and it never made since then or after the reforms.

Good luck to our friends in Texas.

Shootin' Buddy

Anonymous said...

People who express fear that someone will "go crazy and start shooting everybody in sight" are projecting their own likely actions onto others. They don't want YOU to have a gun because they don't think THEY can be trusted with one. Typical hoplophobe reaction.

Nathan Brindle said...

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0711f.asp

"In January 2002, a disgruntled student at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, shot and killed the dean, a professor, and a fellow student. He was disarmed and subdued before he could harm anyone else by two students who retrieved guns from their automobiles."

Guess VT has forgotten about that little incident.

Noah D said...

It's already legal to walk about strapped at Indiana universities only the students can get in administrative trouble if they do.

I'd be real careful about that, there.

Indiana Code 35-47-9-2 sez:

Possession of firearms on school property, at school function, or on school bus; felony
Sec. 2. A person who possesses a firearm:
(1) in or on school property;
(2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or
(3) on a school bus;
commits a Class D felony.

There's no exception for 'college campus'; and as far as I can tell, 'school' is undefined in this section of the code. The only exceptions to this are in 35-47-9-1:

Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A:
(A) federal;
(B) state; or
(C) local;
law enforcement officer.
(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or
(B) another person who owns or operates property being used by a school for a school function;
to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school.
(3) A person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.

Noah D said...

And if you want this to change, support Senate Bill 12.

hpcc19 said...

"Only the naive, the fearful or the fanatical could believe that arming students on the streets will make them safer"

So true...

I am naive when I constantly underestimate the deceptive and manipulative tactics of gun control enthusiasts.

I am fearful that our free society is slipping away.

And I am fanatical about defending our natural rights.

So true...so true

Anonymous said...

"I'd be real careful about that, there."

Are you kidding me, I'm wearing a belt and suspenders while I type this! I wear two guns, two flashlights, two knives and an Israeli Wound Bandage, but Indianapolis Police are STILL not impressed.

There are no exceptions for "college campus" as the definition does not include them. Let's look at that there blackletter law:

*******************************

Sec. 24.7. “School property” means the following:


(1) A building or other structure owned or rented by:



(A) a school corporation;



(B) an entity that is required to be licensed under IC 12-17.2 or IC 31-27;



(C) a private school that is not supported and maintained by funds realized from the imposition of a tax on property, income, or sales; or



(D) a federal, state, local, or nonprofit program or service operated to serve, assist, or otherwise benefit children who are at least three (3) years of age and not yet enrolled in kindergarten, including the following:



(i) A Head Start program under 42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.



(ii) A special education preschool program.



(iii) A developmental child care program for preschool children.



(2) The grounds adjacent to and owned or rented in common with a building or other structure described in subdivision (1).

Indiana Code 35-41-1-24.7

Tiffani cannot pack while she is a student. If she drops out, it is legal with admin complications (and she increases her chance of getting preggers multiple times).

If I am caught carrying a pistol at a Indiana college, I will simply run from the police over to the Office of Admissions and resign from the school.

Shootin' Buddy

Janie B said...

The Virginia Citizens Defense League is trying to ensure all adults (over the age of 21) can carry on campus. The media keeps telling us how safe we all are, then reports the muggings and rapes that happen just outside the sight and hearing of college security officers.

John said...

"Is there a magic force field on campus that causes students to become less mature when they pass through the shimmering barrier?"

I'm pretty sure it's emitted by some of the professors, Tam.

WV: andedb
Isn't that something Porky Pig says?

Noah D said...

Thanks for the backup, Shootin' Buddy. I couldn't find the cite for 'definition of school'.

I'm fond of saying (and will write someday on the ridiculous bit of static street theatre IUPUI calls 'Democracy Plaza'):

You lose more civil rights walking onto campus than you did in 8 years of Bush.

WV: proin. That's the sound my brain makes, reading the Indy Star's editorial page.

Tam said...

"You covered Tiffany, but what about Amber? She could be in danger along the mean streets of Broad Ripple when she goes from her pilates class to her hair appointment! And then she has to take Jared's dog to the K9 day spa."

Wouldn't Amber be okay as long as she stays off the Monon Trail?

Anonymous said...

"Wouldn't Amber be okay as long as she stays off the Monon Trail?"

Yes, of course. Amber, age 19, can pack while going to pilates, the hair salon and the doggie day care, and have Seth take her to Nake Tchopsticks, but once she goes to class at Butler, she can be expelled for doing what she can all over the state.

"Thanks for the backup, Shootin' Buddy. I couldn't find the cite for 'definition of school'."

No sweat, Noah, prosecutors can't find the definition either, along they always seem to find the aggravating factors cite. I kid, I kid.

All the dope I've seen slung at Purdue, Rose, DePauw, I've never seen the school zone enhancement and I've never seen carrying a handgun on school property be prosecuted. Don't think either would get far no matter how overzealous the lapel-grabbing prosecutor is.

Shootin' Buddy

Overload in Colorado said...

Does Indiana have in their carry law that you can't carry in a Bar or other place that serves alcohol? Or do you just have to not drink?
Overload in CO

Tam said...

IANAL and TINLA, but AFAIK, you can carry in a bar and you can drink in a bar while you are carrying, but the gendarmes get all exercised if you get (legally) 'faced while toting.

kbarrett said...

I don't need to be on college campus to be drunken, enraged or excessively fearful.

DirtCrashr said...

Yes there is a magic force-field on Campus, it's called the Leftfield Derangement Precursor - and it's shaped like a donut and the thing that passes through a rolling donut.

the pawnbroker said...

"...it never made since then or after the reforms."

yes, i know this makes me a dick, but...that just don't make no since, s.b. :0)

jtc

reflectoscope said...

This is utter insanity. All of it. I refer you to Oleg's photo of the girl in the shirt which reads to the effect of, "I can't talk about my Olympic sport at school."

</despondent>

Jim

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if any Indiana colleges have NCAA rifle teams?

Anonymous said...

Overload, no prohibition as to carrying in taverns or drinking alcohol while carrying. I've even carried into Brazilian steakhouses and not burst into flame while having wine with my skewers and skewers of meat.

There is a statute against Public Intoxication but it has nothing to do with carrying a pistol.

Carrying and drinking is a problem out West and in the South, but oddly here in uptight Yankeeland Demon Rum does not create the problems it does in other places apparently.

pawn, yes, I left out " any rational basis" before since. Thanks for the catch. Kids, don't do voicemail and type.

Shootin' Buddy

rob said...

After four years of working on a degree, in regards to their being an "immaturity field" around college campuses? Yes, yes there is.

rob said...

Damn me and having mutliple tabs opened.

Forgot to add: That field may not apply to the students as much as it does the professors.

True story: One of my most liberal profs (and I was a Poli Sci major, so thats saying something) once said in class, "Well, Robert here, Robert thinks everyone should own a Glock. Isn't that right Robert, everyone should own a Glock?" *note, he had this odd thing that all guns were Glocks. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, bows and arrows. They were all Glocks."

I looked up, shrugged, and said "Nah, I think everyone should have a Sig Sauer 226 or a 1911."

Adrian K said...

Washington's much the same to no surprise.

What's truly amusing is that while you cannot carry into courthouses, they are required to provide you safe storage when you arrive at the security checkpoint.

That's right, you can approach the checkpoint and check your handgun in with security and they have to put a little tag on it and put it in the lockbox and they give it back to you when you leave.

It drives the King County Sheriff's Deputies into absolute fits everytime that specifically-mandated state right is exercised here, and even better, WA State RCW specifically says that the government has to pay restitution to the lawful firearm owner every time they fight the concealed carry laws and lose. I think they've tried 3-4 times now to confiscate the lawful firearms that are turned in legally for short-term storage while on business at the courthouse, and end up giving the gun back and paying every penny of the so-called-accused legal bills.

Of course, since the city and county officials have heads filled with concrete instead of brain cells, they still try to fight state pre-emption here.

Although folks are a bit concerned, it appears that not even the Democrat super-majority in Olympia has been willing to touch the state pre-emption issue. If they want to keep electing Dem governers, they need to keep rural Western WA on their side and that means no new gun laws on the state level. Otherwise they'd flip Republican so fast that the governor's mansion would probably bounce and Seattle would lose all their nice little kickbacks.

_Jon said...

I'm a 40+ yo adult with 2 kids, a college degree, career, and no criminal record.

I work at a public state funded university in North Carolina.

I can't concealed carry here.

It is clearly a violation of my 2A rights for the State to prohibit me to carry here. I don't have the funds right now to push a court case. I don't see the NRA on my caller ID wanting to represent me.

I look out my window and see 100' of lawn and the bus stop on the public street. There is no fence, wall, security door, or barrier that would prevent a criminal from getting off the bus and walking into my office.

A few years ago, this office was ransacked after hours and computers stolen. The result was security cameras so they could identify a potential future criminal.

On Friday at 4pm, a now ex-employee was escorted off campus by campus police. I was the one who disabled the network account.

I think it would be great if I could exercise my Constitutionally protected and Natural Right to Life (e.g. Self Preservation) while on government property. Especially when the government doesn't provide even elemental security for my safety.

charles said...

I know that at least Rose and Purdue have rifle teams. I had several friends on Rose's team.

Anonymous said...

Any criminal justice degrees are the classes to attend. The want-to be cops and future dog catchers of america with nice shiny black boots, along with the teaching professor are packing heat. There really is no standard like the double standard. TT

Tam said...

_Jon,

"I don't see the NRA on my caller ID wanting to represent me."

They may have had to lay their psychics off due to the bad economy. Have you called them?

Nathaniel said...

It's really interesting to me how so many of us in the pro-gun movement make this argument that "gun control only affects the safe, responsible law-abiding citizens!" and then think we've laid down the ultimate trump card. The thing is, many of the gun-control supporters actually know this full well; they continue to push for gun control because they don't want ordinary people like you and me to have guns regardless of whether or not we're criminals. Of those who would actually articulate such a position, I would posit that about 95% of them are pessimists who have an extremely negative view of human nature and humanity, and many have pent-up frustrations about other people. These are the ones who routinely call other people idiots, criticize ways of life they don't understand, make fun of southerners as being "uneducated bible-thumping hicks", and have no trouble demonizing their opponents or believing that others "have it in for them."

These people unconsciously recognize that due to their unresolved emotional problems and latent anger, they are not trustworthy or responsible enough for gun ownership. However, most habitual pessimists are selfish as well and this selfishness turns the internal critique outwards until eventually it seems to them that it's actually the rest of the world who's untrustworthy and irresponsible with firearms rather than themselves. And since only a very small fraction of humans are criminals, to them it makes sense to disarm those who are not members of that group but who may become that way if allowed to own guns due to their own unquenchable passions (so goes the thinking).

Hence, restrictive gun control makes prefect sense to these people. To them, the world is a crazy, muddled, disorderly place filled with anger, violence, brutality, hate, and bitterness. To add guns to this mix is insane, they think, and so the policy prescription is to take the guns away so all the irrational, uncontrollable wackos don't hurt themselves.

It's pretty sad, when you think about it. I would hate to perceive the world this way. Such a cold, lonely place.

But anyway, in case you ever find yourself deploying this "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument and you get back a "so what?" in return, you'll know what kind of person you're dealing with. I don't know of any way to change these people because their reasons for disliking guns are tied into an entire worldview—one that is not only extremely depressing, but also very emotionally satisfying for habitually negative people who often feel victimized.

the pawnbroker said...

hey s.b., where'dja find that edit button? been lookin' for it forever. if i commit a typo or other nonsince...or dickery; a surprisingly common occurrence, i'm stuck with it.

kinda like insider trading or something...

as to the gist of the post, i've successfully embraced the practice and premise of don't ask don't tell for many years, but i don't advocate that for others because iants and idnwtgmaso...

jtc

_Jon said...

Tam: asked for contact info, got no reply. I'm a lifetime member, btw. I'll try again once I get re-settled here.

Nathaniel: Nice analysis.

rob said...

Nathaniel has an excellent point. I've been in that situation, and it is down right scary to hear someone damnn near say they don't care if innocents die as long as the evil world ending guns are banned.

To quote Lewis Black, the left side of my brain looked at the right side of my brain and said, 'its dark in here, and we may die'.