The Student Federation, representing elected student governments from all of South Dakota's public universities, is seeing some success for the bills for which it lobbied during Higher Education Days last week.
- Senate Bill 91, funding for the Regental needs-based scholarship, is still alive, although Senate Appropriations had to wipe out the specific dollar figure to keep the bill in play.
- Ditto for Senate Bill 92, funding for the critical teaching needs scholarship.
- House Bill 1147, the Governor's proposal to increase the Opportunity Scholarship from $5,000 to $6,500, made it out of House Appropriations intact. The bill doesn't mention the $1.274 million that increase will cost; legislators can vote for it and let the scholarship default to the statutory prorated amount if existing funding can't support the new maximum amount.
- I'm not sure how the tuition freeze is faring; Senate Bill 181 appears to have been lost in the shuffle in Thursday's Senate Appropriations hearing.
The Legislature is flatly ignoring the testimony of the Student Federation on House Bill 1206, which would allow students 21 and older to carry concealed weapons on campus. Most students agree that school is no place for guns. The gun-tooting (if no -toting?) members of House Local Government voted 8–5 to say sure, let's open the door to guns at our universities. (Augustana, Dakota Wesleyan, stay gun-free, and you have a recruiting pitch to make here.) Northern State University's Student Association sent out this call to action, not arms, to its campus Friday:
Despite strong testimony from the Board of Regents and the South Dakota Student Federation, the House Local Governance [sic] Committee passed House Bill 1206, which would allow the concealed carry of pistols on public university campuses. As NSU Student Association we voted unanimously to oppose this bill, as it takes away the local control from the Board of Regents and the individual universities. The presence of guns around heated discussions and alcohol will lead to tragic consequences. Please contact your legislators to oppose this bill.... [G]uns should not be present in our classrooms, student center, or anywhere else on campus [Menno Schukking, NSU Student Association Vice President, e-mail to Northern State University campus community, 2015.02.13].
The Florida, Texas, and Montana legislatures are advancing similar campus-concealed-carry bills. Speaking to the Florida bill, Daniel W. Webster of the Johns Hopkins University for Gun Policy and Research says allowing more guns on campus will lead to more gun violence:
“The bill is obviously based on the idea that a) college students are sitting ducks for individuals who carry out mass shootings on college campuses because campuses are “gun free zones” and b) good guys or gals with guns can save themselves and others by taking out the shooters,” Webster says in an e-mail statement.
In reality, he says, those instances are extremely rare, and college campuses — where students are almost constantly surrounded by stressors, violent behavior and substance abuse, along with the development of schizophrenia or other mental disorders — aren’t the place to house lethal weapons.
Webster also says that in cases of a potentially lethal attack, students are just as likely to shoot innocent bystanders in the melee of a shoot-off as they are to shoot the attacker, as is sometimes the case even with trained police officers.
More importantly, an “across-the-board” law like SB 0176 would prevent students from being able to make a decision about whether or not to attend a school where concealed guns are legal.
“Very few academics or academic administrators want students carrying concealed firearms on campus and most strongly oppose such policies,” Webster says.
“The best research on the impact of so-called Right-to-Carry laws has shown that the policies do not deter violent crime but simply lead to more gun violence. I have no reason to believe that this finding wouldn’t hold for the college campus environment” [Morgan baskin, "Florida State Senate to Vote on Concealed Carry Weapons Bill," USA Today, 2015.02.13].
Idaho lifted the ban on concealed weapons on its university campuses in 2014. In response, the Idaho university system is now spending $3.7 million to beef up security, with no additional funding from the state government that imposed these costs.
$3.7 million—that would pay for the increases in all three scholarships and half of the tuition freeze South Dakota's Student Federation advocates. Instead, South Dakota's House Local Government Committee would rather make them pay for an increased security risk, just to maintain legislators' NRA ratings.
Bonus Wishful Thinking Over Facts: In Thursday's House Local Government hearing, Rep. Lee Qualm repeated the cliché, "The only way to get rid of a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Brian Roesler, the man who stopped the workplace shooting in Lennox Thursday, ran right at the shooter and tackled him. Roesler did not have a gun.
I heard a comment about this yesterday from an angle , I had not thought about. Would this prevent Division I teams like Nebraska, Minnesota, Kansas, etc from coming to SDSU or USD because of the uncertainty this measure would create?
If a shooting breaks out, what does a police officer do when he or she arrives at the reported scene? Go after the crazy-looking guy with a gun? Which one(s)?
Guns must be the prescription free Viagra these old white legislators are using this year. Remember legislators, more than 4 hours and you need to see a doctor.
It would be funny if it wasn't so damn serious.
Francis-most Div 1 football schools only contract home games with smaller schools because the big guys control revenues from concessions and pay the opposing door mat a princely sum to get whooped on. Playing in a smaller venue doesn't pay for the big guys in money or prestige. It is, afterall, all about the money. Smaller schools need the revenue to keep their programs going.
Perhaps not worth noting, Tim, but election does rhyme with erection. Both can lead to mindless and meaningless behavior.
Only in koch bros korporate amerika do guns have more protected rights than the 99%. Only in koch bros korporate amerika does smaller,less intrusive gubmint mean the exact opposite for the 99%.
Mike, I was not thinking just football, but more so women's basketball. I understand your point about the money in college football, will this measure help in recruiting?
Don't like the grade you got in French Math? Show the prof you're packin'. See if you can get him to start grading on the curve.
You would probably be surprised, Mr. Fleming, at how much French Math goes into finding the curve that a projectile may describe in the air let alone Mr. H's money bills.
"The only way to get rid of a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." This message was brought to you by the proud and patriotic American Gun Manufacturing Association. Please check with your local investment broker for an excellent return on your investment with any of the members of our association.
Feeling a little inadequate and are concerned about the side affects from Viagra? Buy a gun and make sure everyone knows you have one at all times. Ammosexuality is just plain sexy!
As a faculty member, this frightens me for myself and my colleagues.
Remember the names of the sponsors of this bill and let the mental detectors (the electorate) do their jobs next election :Sponsors: Representatives Stalzer, Brunner, Campbell, Craig, DiSanto, Gosch, Haugaard, Heinemann (Leslie), Hickey, Latterell, May, Otten (Herman), Qualm, Rounds, Verchio, Wiik, Willadsen, and Zikmund and Senators Olson, Greenfield (Brock), Haggar (Jenna), Jensen (Phil), Lederman, Monroe, and Otten (Ernie)
This a a perfect example of legislators bringing presenting bills that are a complete waste of time. If my son's school is so dangerous that students must arm themselves to feel safe, then that university needs to be closed immediately.
Note to the legislature: every perceived wrong in this world does not need another law to correct it. Use a little common sense. If you don't have any, resign and let someone younger take over your position.
Your primary function should be passing a budget. PERIOD. Instead of working on the important work first, we clog up the whole process with bills and resolutions that never should see the light of day in the first place. You are wasting time and the taxpayers money.
Students between the ages of 18-20 will be defenseless against those students age 21+ that are packing weapons.
Guns are you often used to threaten and intimidate not just to kill or maim.
Do South Dakota parents really want their 18 year old daughters around men with guns?
My kids have left SD, as much as I miss them, I'm glad they're not here anymore.
If there are no infringements on guns pre-schoolers better be suing to conceal carry or wingnuts arguments about the 2nd amendment don't hold water. Furthermore,to prevent unarmed students from becoming targets,those that carry should be forced to wear standard 50 yard targets on their persons in plain sight at all times when carrying.
Francis-I don't know if it would help recruiting. Most of the athletes have their hands full with practice,games and the rigors of academics they shouldn't have to worry about guns.
Mike, shh, don't give them any ideas. Since teachers, principals and custodians have elected not to carry in school, the next logical step is to arm the Grade, Middle and High school students. I wouldn't put anything past this group of legislators.
Dr. Math, do professors have any authority to declare firearms a violation of their personal classroom rules?
I agree with the bill, I conceal carry on a regular basis ever since I went back to school I have stopped because of the hassle of taking it off and putting it back. By this law passing it is not going to changr much, students are not going to go out and purchase fire arms because they now can carry on campus. Students who have already gotten a concealed carry permit and taken classes will wear the fire arms to class, just as many of those who truly believe in concealed carry already do, and no one will notice. To many of the arguments where a student may brandish their fire arm over a bad a grade well tell the authorities and they not only pay a fine but loose their permit; however I would like to see a requirement for training to receive a permit similar to Idaho's or Florida's permit requiremrnts
Mike B--you are so 'right on!' This current legislature has worsened from the last 2 or 3 by a long ways with the kind of bills clogging up the system. They are so afraid of the NRA blackballing them or failing to appear they are macho-ammosexuals.. Guns and a woman's womb are so on their minds.
Mike, should it be revealed at recruiting time and would that hinder recruiting?
When you look at the opponents of this bill, as Cory noted - SDSU students' association, SD Board of Regents, SDEA, SD student federation, NSU students' association ALL spoke out against it. Doesn't this say enough that the SDs universities do not want this? I see Hickey's name supporting this, Larry.
Jenny I saw that too but one must not speak ill of Rep. Hickey here at Madville. Rep. Hickey has photoshopped his face onto a Captain America outfit on his twitter account.https://twitter.com/stevehickey
This message is in reply to SuperSweet... Vote them out? No matter what they do or don't they will either be re-elected or beat by another R in the primary. The Democratic Party is basically gone in SD and I predict things will only get worse after the next election cycle. Heck the party doesn't even have 1 Statewide elected official left. Then some suggest if only the D candidates would be more "liberal" they'd win elections... Go ahead and give that a try.
They know they can't lose no matter what so I can't really blame them for coming up with "creative" legislation. You might just say I'm being negative, but honestly look at the state of the Democratic Party in this State. I can think of a couple of Ds in our State that just might be able to win a Statewide race someday... Stephanie and Billie Sutton... But then this forum tells us their not liberal enough. All I can say is good luck.
Blackhills76,
The SDDP needs to be nearly rebuilt from the ground up. It's going to take a lot of work and volunteer hours to build up infrastructure. Here is Bajun Mavalwalla, consultant for the South Dakota Democratic Party and South Dakota Progress to give you an idea. http://www.argusleader.com/videos/news/politics/2015/01/13/21710775/
He starts with his bio but at 16:49 he gets into what will be needed to rebuild.
Your point is well taken BH76. District 33 is an example.
Archie Bunker anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=archie+bunker+guns
The other real problem with this is that if there is a shooting on campus, the same legislators who passed this will say it just shows all those over-educated fools don't know how to handle guns and we should cut funding for the universities until they agree to train killers.
The only opposition to this bill are what its. Compared to the statistics of states where this is already approved like Utah where there has not been a school shooting since the law has been on the books; however, they have a required class to optain a permit which in my opinion every one who plans to conceal carry should take at least one. Also to the student associations as a student at USD that is not an accurate representation of what the student body wants. I do not speak for the campus; however, the student association never asked the student body what they wanted and therefore we are poorly represented
Sutton could win a statewide election.
Dylan,
Would you be happy if could take your gun to school for show and tell?
Dylan says "..like Utah where there has not been a school shooting since the law has been on the books.."
There weren't any school shootings in Utah before concealed carry passed in 2004 either.
Utah colleges lobbied hard against it but the legislature did not care. Colleges even took it to the Utah's Supreme Court but it was upheld, obviously.
A kid got close to doing a school shooting in Utah in December, but another kid without a gun stopped him.
Young women have far more safety concerns than men do, especially in college, yet women aren't lobbying for any college campus to have concealed carry. What's that say?
If I took my gun to school as a conceal carry no one would know I had it, 1) being it is concealed. 2) I do not feel the need to flaunt to other that, I am carrying, and 3) by showing others while you have a concealed carry is called brandinshing which is actually a crime that comes with some serious penalties. To Taunia women generally fear fire arms because it is something they are not familiar with, my fiance was the same way when we started dating. Once she understood why I carry, which I went go into other than there was an incident where I could have helped someone if would've been carrying at the time but now it's too late, also once she was familiar with fire arms she was much more comfortable and understanding
Yes, those silly women, just not understanding things the way we smart, tough men do. That explains everything, ladies: settle down and let a big strong man explain things for you.
Caheidelberger your arrogance astounds me. I was only pointing out that a common norm in the Midwest is for boys be expected to attend hunters safety at a young age, there are also shooting badges that you can achieve and because of this men typically have more exposure to firearm's throughout their lives, and therefore more comfortable with them. I would not force anyone to handle a firearm if they were adamant against their will; however, that is not the issue. The issue is my individual right as a citizen of the United States of America to conceal carry if that is my choice as long as I go through the hoops of becoming the responsible owner of a fire arm, and do not harm anyone else. It is your sexist attitude and arrogance that is wrong with this country.
Taunia- I have a question towards whether or not the person who almost attempted a school shooting had permit to conceal carry? If they did not it still shows that regardless of whether or not this passes if someone wants to cause others harm they will regardless of the law. Also even though there are incidences of untrained people disarming a hostile gunmen, as someone who has taken a class to learn how to protect myself, it is hard to do and most likely the firearm will go off which leads to someone possibly being shot. While giving everyone firearms is not neccesarily the answer by this passing it would not only allow the concealed carry of firearms but tazers as well, which is a much more safe option. While I am for this passing I would like to see more stringent regulations put in place to optain a CCW.
Arrogance? You're the one telling the women to shut up, pay attention, and quit fretting about your constant readiness to use deadly force. I have said nothing sexist here; shouting, "I know you are but what am I?" does not change the inherent sexism of your words.
Your language about "right" and "choice" selfishly ignores the danger to which you expose all of us who prefer not to live in constant fear. Remind me: how often have you used your gun? How necessary is it to your life and liberty?
Frankly, I feel much safer in a classroom with no guns than in a room with guns. You objectively increase the risk of physical harm when you enter a room with a gun. We unavoidably fae a greater risk from a gun that is right here among us than from a gun that is absent and imagined in the hands of some terrorist or other bogeyman.
And Dylan, if you want more stringent regulations on concealed weapons permits, you're talking to the wrong Legislature. The same legislators who want to make campuses a free-fire zone are also trying to make it easier to get permits.
Civilized society does not need civilians carrying guns. If we need to walk around armed, we have failed to create a healthy civil society.
I never said anything about women just ignoring the fact I simply stated why men are more comfortable around firearms , what about your first comment was not sexist towards. Also to how much training I've had with firearms. I have been in the military over five years where I have received extensive training on how to handle a deadly weapon. When I decided to become a CCW holder and conceal carry a firearm on a normal basis I realized that I have a duty to society to have proper training and have taken a class to receive my Utah permit licens, even though I am a resident of South Dakota because it is much better than is required here. I have also taken classes in how to defend myself and others in the case of an emergency with the number one rule being deescalation of violence in order to prevent deadly force. I also practice shooting at the range on a regular basis. Much like many other responsible firearm owners who are serious about concealed carry have. I simply stated that often times people fear what they do not know, or have not had experience with male or female. I know plenty of men who are uncomfortable around firearms, and would recommend anyone who is unkowledgable of something like firearms to at the very least do research into it and gain actual facts.
In regards to constitutional carry I am against that I would recommend anyone who wants to own s firearm to take a class before doing so, especially for basic safety. It is my choice to carry because of a situation that I experienced where if I would have had a conceal carry I could have helped someone and unfortunately as is the case with many waited to act until it is to late, while statistically it is unlikely I will ever be in the same situation why should I take the chance knowing that with proper training I can help.
And they are not guns, they are fire arms, pistols, rifles, and weapons. Guns are on naval ships.
Dylan, try some reading and writing comprehension. You said men are more familiar with guns. You said you needed to educate your female friend about the merits of guns to calm her fears. Inherent sexism. Own your own words, please.
South Dakota is a failed state, people: protecting yourselves and your families from your legislature should be your second priority after arming for the end days.
I had grown up around firearms unlike my fiance had. I did not force anything upon her I explained why I personally made the choice to carry, and over time she came to realize that fire arms are not all that is evil in the world, eventually asking to go with me when I went to the range in a safe environment I taught her the basics of firearm safety. Which lead to her going and taking a class because she wanted to.
How is this not sexist towards
"Yes, those silly women, just not understanding things the way we smart, tough men do. That explains everything, ladies: settle down and let a big strong man explain things for you." As you previously stated; however, I remind sexism is not the issue here. It is an individuals right to conceal carry as long as there are not on a federal institution, a place where more than 50% of the profits come from alcohol, or a grade school, which is not a college, as long as someone takes the legal measures to do so.
Women should be forced to carry sidearms in a state where their personal safety and reproductive rights are at risk to an extremist legislature.
"According to the FBI, less than 15 percent of homicides each year occur during the commission of a serious crime; i.e., robbery, larceny, burglary or rape. On the other hand, at least 4 out of 5 homicides grow out of arguments, and these arguments involve people who know each other. And we aren't talking about casual acquaintances -- we're talking about people who knew each other on a continuous basis and had been arguing and fighting over a period of time. The personal connection between shooter and victim in domestic disputes accounts for virtually every single killing in which the victim is a female (who are 15 percent of all murder victims each year) and accounts for 100 percent of all suicide victims who, by definition, have allowed their anger at themselves or others to get out of control. " From Huffington Post
dylan: "women generally fear fire arms because it is something they are not familiar with".
Hate to inform you of the facts Dylan, but your comment is based upon a stereotype surrounding gender which is the absolute definition of sexism. You are blatantly stating that women (not a specific woman but rather all women apparenlty) fear fire arms due to their ignorance.
As Cory said - own your words. You accuse Cory of arrogance simply because you don't understand his satirical comment which was meant to serve as an example of how idiotic your words actually are.
Now if you would like to retract your comment and state that specific women (for instance perhaps your example of your fiance) are not comfortable with firearms then that may be an accurate statement, but to generalize as if to suggest all women are scared of guns is blatant sexism and adds nothing to the discussion.
Sometimes it is better to just admit you don't know the answer instead of saying something you will be forced to defend.
I will retract that statement and say from my experience with people that I know, male or female, who dislike guns is because lack of understanding, not to say some people may have had a bad experience in the past and that is why they dislike them, and if you would, explain to me how what I am saying is idiotic. That an individual who has had proper training with firearms should not have the right to carry their firearms.
David- I like seeing actual statistics, those are very helpful.
Too bad:
"The law was reportedly inspired by the duel between Vice President Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. A spokesman for the Idaho Sheriff's Association put it: 'Needless to say, this is obsolete.'"
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/16/386635194/idaho-moves-to-get-dated-duel-law-off-the-books
Here is the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/knowing-when-to-back-down-guns_b_6687996.html
Thanks.
Dylan do you really feel that training is all that is required to allow someone to carry their firearm whereever they choose? The truth is the vast majority of training courses are available to anyone willing to pay the registration fee. There is no mental health examination involved which might help prevent many of the tragedies we have experienced in recent years, so simply taking a course isn't sufficient in my view. Besides, those classes can be as short as a couple of hours to a max of a few days - do you really think that is sufficient training to deal with someone who is on a rampage?
How many well trained police officers have shot unarmed victims in the past decade? I think that shows that sometimes training isn't enough - because when people walk around with hammers everything starts to look like a nail.
Some level of training might help people become more proficient with a firearm, but aside from those who have experienced military combat such as those in the Special Forces and those who have practiced for thousands and thousands of hours so that they can detect and react to a threat as well as think about line of fire and secondary impacts BEFORE they pull the trigger... well let's just say there aren't many people who would be of a benefit in a true live shooter incident. I dare say most CCW permit holders - even those with a limited amount of training - would do very little if any good, and due to the threat of crossfire and issues with responders not being able to tell the "good guy shooting a gun" vs. the "bad guy shooting a gun" I'm not sure it is worth it.
For the record, I have a CCW permit and I support the right of people to own and use firearms responsibly, but I still don't think more guns on campuses is the answer. In my personal experience I have seen far more "Call of Duty" wannabes carrying because they think it is cool that any other type of permit holder... and it is troubling.
Practicing on a range is one thing, having the experience to deal with someone else shooting back at you is an entirely different issue. I know everyone who has ever purchased a Glock and spent 3 hours at a range thinks they should be a savior if things go bad, but that isn't realistic.
Do we really need more guns on college campuses, or should we instead focus on education? If that doesn't convince you, then think about how even though you may be well trained and you might be a responsible gun owner that allowing guns on campuses will allow all those other idiots out there to carry.
It is sort of like driving - you might be the best driver in the state, but you still have to share the roads with those who are horrible at it. They passed the same test as you even if it was 30 or 40 years ago before they were diagnosed with Bipolar... but yet they still have the same legal right to operate a vehicle on the road as you do.
Now replace "operate a vehicle on the road" with "conceal carry a pistol" on my prior sentence and tell me you still think it is a good idea.
Cory--I don't know if I could put a policy on my syllabus about not permitting guns in class. I suspect that if this bill passes, the BOR or my institution could write a policy and require us to put it on the syllabus. Currently, we have some policies that they have written that are required. I guess that would be one way around it, but how do I enforce it?
I grew up around hunting and guns, but I won't own one, carry one, or allow one in my house. That is my personal choice.
The first colleague that came to my office this week concerned was a male, not a female! Luckily, I don't teach in a large lecture hall, but several of my colleagues do.
College students have to deal with the stress of school, making new friendships, and figuring out their future--guns will not help them with these things!
Mike B--your comment was spot on! During the legislative session, I wonder if any of the legislators care about the real issues, such as roads and education, or if they just want to get one of their bills to pass. It is very clear that they are not representing their constituents.
You make a very compelling argument, I do not entirely disagree with you and I see where you are coming from; however, I believe by this going into effect is not going to send students flocking to get their CCW's and pistol. It is a very expensive thing to do. I had a CCW before going back to school and have made that part of my life;however, by going back to school has detered me from carrying while off campus. I'm not saying that I do not feel safe on my and that's not why I want to conceal carry on campus, I also agree that the requirements should be more extensive if they allow people to carry on campuses, such as pysch evaluations as long as that can be done without infringing on persons rights, it could also be argued that if someone wants to exercise their right of concealed carry they h
Should have an obligation to take a psych eval in order to prevent harming others in society.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Read 'em weep,Dylan.
Here is myth #4-Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
Dr. Math, there's an interesting question here. The Legislature claims (and Rep. Haggar made this claim last night in Inside KELOLand) that the guns-on-campus bill was brought to the Legislature by students who apparently feel unsafe without pistols on their persons on campus. Teachers like me could contend that we do not feel safe in a classroom with guns present, and we could refuse to teach in an armed environment. Whose claim to safety should take precedence?
Dr Math-you can forget about real issues. Having guns in class will raise insurance liability premiums astronomically and there won't be any pesos for real issues.
"Call of Duty wannabes"—good term, Craig.
Dylan, you say you don't feel unsafe on campus. If you don't have safety concerns, what reason remains to carry a firearm?
And you realize that, at the point where you advocate psych evals as a precondition for getting a concealed weapons permit, the folks sponsoring these bills will lump you in with me as just some crazy gun-grabbing liberal, right?
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/
Hooray for 2015. NRA will be Number 1 with a bullet(pun intended).
I know that, I see the merit in them. There are people who clearly shouldn't be able to own a fire arm, there are also people who can. I believe it would be a fair compromise. I uses to conceal carry before I started going to school again, being that by unhulstering and rehulstering several times a day gets tiring.
Paranoia the Destroyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRpAANsoG8I
Yes, I can just see a fat ass ammosexual being very proficient( in spite of his morbid obesity) in a split second and aiming perfectly at the bad guy. No - I'm not seeing it. Trying - just not seeing it. I'm seeing an overweight ammosexual keel over in a heart attack instead and accidentally shooting an innocent bystander. :(
I'm also seeing a stressed out, obsessed college guy ticked off because the better looking guy got the girl he wanted to go out with and the lovesick ammo take matters into his own hands, a very bloody mess thanks to SD GOP legislative freaks.
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun".
Translation: "If you live by the gun, you die by the gun".
Dylan,
You say you don't feel safe on campus, is it just on campus or are there other places you don't feel safe? If you have safety concerns shouldn't you get professional help to find out if those fears are real?
When I've been in situations where my safety has been threatened, and believe me there have been many, I talk to the people in charge. If there is a specific threat to my safety I dial 911.
You can take all the gun classes you want, have experience with guns that brings you personal confidence and share your vast knowledge, but if you talk with law enforcement they will tell you that the best defense you have against a bad guy with a gun or a good guy turned bad guy with a gun is Vigilance.
If there is mass shooting the police can offer you a protocol of what to do and that doesn't include being Clint Eastwood and shooting anything that moves or risk being killed yourself when law enforcement arrives on the scene.
Remember, the police will be looking for anyone armed and anyone shooting.
Maybe I'm just blissfully ignorant of my surroundings, or maybe I live a sheltered existence, but I can't remember the last time I felt unsafe or in danger from another human being.
david newquist-@2.16, 9:43, "100% of all suicides...have allowed their anger...to get out of control." this seems incorrect-what is the huffpo citation?
Agree with Nick - I've found myself in areas of San Francisco and Chicago where I am told it was not safe to be walking past dark... too bad I didn't learn that until after I had done so. Neeless to say I never felt threatened and in the few occasions in my life where I have felt there was potential from harm, a firearm on my side wouldn't have de-escalated the situation.
The problem with a gun is that if you pull it out you had better be prepared to use it. If someone gets in your face or threatens you, that is hardly justification to start waving a gun around.... so in reality, how many times in one's lifetime is having a firearm readily available really useful vs. how many times could it just escalate a situation where it wasn't otherwise going?
I did not say I feel unsafe on campus, "I'm not saying that I do not feel safe on campus and that's not why I want to conceal carry on campus," were my exact words, and as Mike pointed out no mass shootings have been stopped a someone with concealed carry there have however been incidences where shootings have been prevented because of people conceal carrying.
Bearingarms.com/yes-concealed-carriers-have-stopped-mass-shootings/
I do realize that in this topic I do need to do much more research on the subject. Regardless of whether or not the legislature passes I have made the personal decision to personal carry and will continue to do so, not on campus if not approved. I still agree with it but now also see the points of why it could be a bad idea.
As someone that works in healthcare, more trips are made to the ERs for mental health reasons than for anything else. A lot of young men in their 20s are not properly reared into how to deal with emotions such as breakups and turn to violence, suicide, alcohol or drugs. In this country where boys are raised to be macho, a young man not knowing how to deal with emotions is mainstream in the ER world. I see one big mess if this law is passed.
Kind of a stretch there dylan.... they presume to know what was in the mind of that shooter as if he knew he would be shot and so he just killed himself instead. Really? That is the best example they can come up with?
First - the damage in that incident was already done.
Second - since we don't know what as in the mind of the shooter we can't know if his suicide was due to seeing someone with a gun, or simply because he had fulfilled his mission. Any assumption is just that - an assumption.
However, since mass shootings seem to be quite popular there is always a potential for a concealed carrier to be involved, and I'm sure there are cases where a civilian with a gun may have prevented further deaths (can't say for certain either way, but we can agree that the probability exists at the very least). That said, knowing what we do about the requirements and training involved to carry a concealed weapon, do we really think having more of these types of individuals walking around with firearms will result in lives being saved?
For every concealed carrier who ends a potential mass shooting, I'd wager you will find a dozen - perhaps dozens upon dozens who end up drawing and escalating a situation and/or being involved in a shooting that wouldn't have occurred had they not had a firearm available. Thankfully these are typically single incident shooters rather than mass killings, but either way lives are lost.
Let's also keep in mind that as our recent incident in Lennox points out, it doesn't take another gun to stop a shooter... it just takes bravery. Hard to say if having a gun would have changed anything in that case... would it have ended the life of the shooter sooner, or would it have resulted in even more deaths? Who can really say - but I do have to question the idea that more guns automatically means we are more safe.
It sure looks like the legislature is settling in to begin their real jobs, writing policy for the advancement of early response to critical situations involving safety on campuses of higher learning. Its kind of funny really, they trust the BOR to spend massive amounts of money, and yet that body has been in effect neutered, when it comes to deciding what is safe as far as firearms are concerned.
Let me make this perfectly clear. The BOR is responsible for the safety of the students and faculty of every university in the state, except where guns are concerned. Why?
CCPs, dont guarantee that the holder is sane. Its just a piece of paper. It doesnt make bad people good, and it doesnt make good people bad.
It doesnt guarantee that the holder has 0 BAC, or that their antidepressants are the right kind, the right amount, or taken in the right combination. In my opinion, if you are taking antidepressants, you should never be allowed to hold a gun.
The CCP doesnt guarantee that the holder hasn't been pissed off at his girlfriend, her parents, his parents, or the man wearing the hoodie.
It doesnt care that while the permit was obtained when the holder was acting normal, when he or she gets mad they turn into a power junky with a weapon.
And it sure as hell doesnt address the raging hormones that rutingly messes up lives even without guns.
Let's talk about " the basics of firearm safety," for a little bit here. This is the age of gaming. The one part of that sport that has always bothered me is that you can kill a person and when the game is over, that person comes back to life again for the next game. Well let me tell you real life isnt like that. When you squeeze that trigger, there is something life changing comming out of the end of the barrel. Until you understand that, you dont have any business carrying a gun.
I've been at this gun thing for a while. The first thing I ever killed was a bunny. When I shot it, I only crippled it with the first shot. When we walked up to it I was going to shoot it to put it out of its misuory, something everyone would do. My Uncle Cars put his hand on my shoulder and stopped me. "Bill I want you to see what happens to an animal when it gets shot. Its not like in the movies, there are no happy endings at the end of a gun barrel, only pain and death. I want you to remember what your looking at every time you look down the sights of a gun."
I've carried that with me my whole life, but most people didnt get that kind of education. They took gun courses, went to the range, and shot at cans. Most never experience what happens when a bullet meets flesh. Everyone that packs should.
While most people are trying to avoid situations where there is the possibility of violence, others are hoping they are in the right place at the right time to pull their weapons. " Once she understood why I carry, which I went go into other than there was an incident where I could have helped someone if would've been carrying at the time but now it's too late." So your trying to avenge somthing that has already happened by packing?
And the woman argument only hold water if your mindset says they are to dumb to do anything but cook and type. I grew up with females that handled guns. They could all be counted on to judge a situation and determine what had to be done. They were every bit as compitent as any man.
" The only opposition to this bill are what its."
Isnt that exactly how the DOD makes its decisions? It's no longer about defense, it's about defense contractors, and finding a use for their products. All planning is about what ifs.
Can anyone else see the insurance cost jumping when this law is put in force? All of a sudden instead of no guns ever for any reason, you open classrooms up to what could be a volitale situation because someone wants the oppertunity to do something that puts them in the limelight. It looks like the state will be putting out at least $100,000 per school, per year for added insurance protection. Wouldn't that be a direct subsidy to those that want to carry?
Life isnt a vedio game. When someone gets shot, they yell and scream, they bleed, they gurgle, and sometimes they die. Unless you are willing to deal with the after effects, you dont have any business with a gun in public.
The Blindman
I know that was a bit of a stretch, you also make other very good points. I also realize now that I need to do a lot more research in this topic before I can debate it. I still believe that people have the right to carry and that is what I believe is what it ultayely come down to. Of whether the individual has the right to carry or does the group have the right to feel safe. I am going to continue to follow and research this topic. While concealed carrying within the current parameters of the law.
dylan,I checked your source. Not a single case where the shooter was stopped before shooting a number of people. The good guys with the guns came along after the fact. Your source admits he doesn't know if they would have gone on to kill more people. He speculates they might have. I speculate if my aunt was piped differently,she'd be my uncle.
Dylan,
I have luckily or unluckily been in one brief situation where I had a confrontation with a former roommate that always wore a sidearm and also had a CCW. It was great that David Newquist and MFI mentioned the facts that some armed owners are less likely to de-escalate a situation and my experience is that they feel even more emboldened. I mentally buried this experience as something I'd like to forget but this brought back memories.
Long story short I unknowingly moved in with two survivalists that hid it from the outside very well out East. These two were a prime example of mentally ill individuals that should not have any firearms but that place was armed to the teeth including illegal arms like grenades.
Anyways when I was moving out as in real quick realizing how dangerous they were a confrontation occurred. One of them who loved conflict was like a murder suicide waiting to happen held her hand on her un-holstered sidearm threatening me. If I would of motioned to a firearm which I don't have I would of been killed. It was one of those moments almost in slow motion where I chose to back down, accept the insults and my property being damaged and try to peacefully move my remaining belongings out.
After I moved out which was shortly after 911 I repoted them to ATF and nearly every law enforcement agency I could given the threat they posed. Not long afterwards that armed individual died of a self prescribed accidental overdose. They were hooked on painkillers.
#1 They never should of had firearms given their mental health. #2 They are less likely to de-escalate a situation if armed and in the case of this person looked for an excuse to use their firearm.
Sorry for the late posting. Cory and Dr. Math, if Idaho's situation (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/16/idaho-faculty-weigh-options-campus-gun-law-goes-effect) is any indication of what could happen here in SD, faculty (and even universities) attempting to block CCW students from entering their classrooms could be subject to lawsuits by students and/or pro-CCW groups.
There is hope that SD institutions could adopt a policy similar to WI's (described here: http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx) whereby it is permissible to prohibit weapons from specific buildings on campuses that otherwise allow CCW on their premises if the university posts signs at every entrance of said building indicating weapons are prohibited. I would think that buildings with minimal handicap access and/or exits (and maybe even stadiums and arenas) would be prime candidates for such a proviso.
Lynn- I am sorry that you had a bad experience with CCW holders and as I stated in previous posts I don not disagree with a mental eval before obtaining a ccw. If the situation was that bad you could have had law enforcement on the scene, because by brandishing they did break laws. I am fortunate that I have had very positive experiences with ccw holders where they were very respectful and many times I didn't know they concealed carry.
From Jakes kink "Boise State officials said preparing for the law – including doubling security staff and giving them arms – will cost $500,000 up-front and nearly $1 million each year,"
My my, we pass a law to fix a problem that doesnt exist, and create a whole new st of problems so some legislators can have a good NRA rating.
The Blindman
Dylan,
I didn't know until they showed my area of the property I was to rent and knowing I was in the military they pointed out the window and showed me my "area of responsibility" meaning perimeter and line of fire. I'm thinking to myself "what the heck?" I'm just there to rent for a short period and am not into this.
Anyways. I've lived in metro areas here in the US including taking a few classes at Austin Community College campus in sketchy east Austin TX back in the 80's and never felt threatened or the need to own, carry a firearm but that was me and my choice. Some areas where I lived or traveled to were borderline or marginal and only had one very isolated bad experience as mentioned above.
If they legalized CCW on college campus I doubt I'd attend that school. If I were to travel to Texas and see these open carry in a business I would talk to a manager going up the chain of command and let them know I will not patronize their business with them carrying openly AR-15's or whatever and walk out. It's unnerving.
Dylan,
Say you were at a large library at SDSU or one of our Universities. You hear shots fired. What scares me is the chaos! If I or someone else had a CCW what if the bad actor with a gun was hard to identify and your visibility and ability to properly access the situation was limited? I could end up shooting another good actor with a gun or the reverse. Law enforcement could mistakenly shoot me and it would just complicate the situation with them.
It's not like an honor system where we call could call out for everyone to identify themselves. "I'm the bad actor with the gun!" "I'm the good actor with the gun!" "me too!" I joke about this but really what worries me is the potential of making a situation far more chaotic and dangerous than what it needs to be.
Lynn- I also disagree with people carrying AR-15's around in public, I believe that is excessive, also I stated in my discussion with grade after reading his points that I am not sure whether or not it should pass; however, the truth is there is no current law where it is illegal for someone to conceal carry on campus, it is at the universities discretion just like any other business if someone were to be caught concealed carrying on campus they would be escorted off the premises.that being said many people with permits already conceal carry on campus. I do not because I do not want to be asked to leave a class I paid a lot of money for. As I said to Craig after reading his points I am not sure it should pass or not, but I will continue to follow the discussion and do further research in regards to this.
Dylan I appreciate your comments and perspective, and it is nice to have a civil discussion. It seems to me you probably hold an opinion that is in line with most Americans. You appear to support the right to own and carry firearms, but perhaps agree it would be nice to require a bit more training and perhaps better background checks before just anyone is allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
That seems logical, but you have those on the extreme right saying they feel anyone should be able to carry at any point with no restrictions (coupled with groups like the NRA) and you have those on the extreme left that see no reason that anyone should be able to concealed carry at any time nor should they even be able to own many types of firearms (coupled with groups like the Brady Campaign).
Obviously these disagreements will carry on with or without us, but it is nice to discuss local impacts without people yelling or insulting one another. In my view what is probably most upsetting about these types of bills is that they are a solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist. Students by and large don't even want more guns on campus, Universities and their leadership have come out against the idea, and yet a few legislators push this type of bill through because they feel the need to kiss the feet of their campaign contributors.
Regardless of the actual bill, this entire concept should embarrass anyone. Yet I can almost guarantee when it comes to election time nobody will remember the details... they will just see the "100% NRA Rating" bullet point on a 5x7 glossy mailer.
Thank you Dylan! It's been a good thread and brought up a few things I have not considered in a long time.
Several comments here and the links they provided deal with numbers and percentages, etc.
The only number I could come up with was ONE.
ONE coed raped a gun point.
ONE unarmed student killed by an armed one. Heck cops make that mistake all the time, why wouldn't a student.
ONE teacher killed by an armed student for any damn reason in the world, mostly like they didn't get the grade they felt they deserved.
ONE concealed carry student shot to death by police because they thought he was the shooter.
ONE is the most scary number there is because you could be ONE.
It was a very good conversation. I learned a lot about other points of views on this topic and got a good look at other considerations than just my own. It gave me a lot to think about.
It appears that this bill would PREVENT the Board of Regents from creating a policy prohibiting them. Therefore, faculty could not put a policy on their syllabus stating that they are not allowed in the classroom. Here is a link to the bill, http://legis.sd.gov/docs/legsession/2015/Bills/HB1206HLO.pdf
Dr. Math, I think the key term from the legislation, at least for our purposes is "campus." I take that to mean school grounds, so an approach similar to WI's, whereby firearms are prohibited in specified buildings, could still be an option. I believe SDCL 35-2-6.1 (http://legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=35-2-6.1) supports my interpretation of the "campus" definition, as it states that "'campus' shall mean only the area immediately surrounding the buildings used for classrooms, administrative offices, athletic facilities, and housing."
Nevertheless, I would not be comfortable operating solely on my interpretation; I would want confirmation that HB1206 has a similar campus definition.
Nitpicky grammarian side note, did you find it odd that they used "However" as the transition for their amendment passed on 2/12? That implies that the previous sentence would have contained something in opposition to the amendment, but the prior sentence merely states another instance when the university can exercise discretion (dorms & housing). It made me wonder if there was a clause stricken from the final legislative text that detailed instances where the university could not restrict firearms.
Dylan, I'm glad we could keep you around for the conversation.
No campus-wide ban, but allowing bans for D-1 events and certain buildings? If I'm a right-winger, I can't be happy with that. If the Constitution says I can carry a gun, why can't I carry a gun at the basketball game? Heck, the more people there are, the more risk I face (since, in the eyes of the NRA, people are just threats and targets, not citizens), so there's all the more reason to bring my gun to the playoffs, right?
Cory, it definitely could've made the "World's Largest Pillow Fight" during last year's SDSU-USD football game more explosive/lethal.
Maybe the bill's sponsors see this as a way for firearms to expand entrée onto campus, which they could leverage later to permit CCW access to buildings where firearms were previously restricted.
One way that would prevent concealed carry at games would be if there were alcohol sales at the games. I know that it is prohibited in the student but I am not sure if it is prohibited in the VIP area for people who donate x amount of dollars are allowed to sit. If they are allowed to have alcohol and the revenue were to reach w certain percentage there would be legal grounds to prevent concealed carry on the premises because of alcohol consumption. Also knowing that a lot of tail gating and drinking goes on before games which would prevent anyone who were to drink before the game from carrying or risk loosing their right to own firearms. I'm still bit sure where I stand on the issue anymore but reasons why I do not think you would need to worry about people carrying at sporting events.
Dylan, it would be a lot simpler if we just established that there is no cause for anyone to carry a gun in the halls of higher education.
Jake, I'll be curious to see if supporters will accept a foot (Glock) in the door or if they will insist on total victory right now.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-yorkers-slam-texas-republican-lax-gun-law-push-article-1.2116821
"Midnight Cowboy" Barbie John Cornyn is pushing the latest NRA wish list bill to force states to honor concealed carry gun owner permits.. Of a certainty,this does not apply to same sex marriages. That would be gubmint overreach.
http://concealedcampus.org/common-arguments/#29
Cory, looks like my interpretation of the legislation was wrong (http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/education/2015/02/18/sd-plan-let-college-students-guns-class/23646879/), and the intent is to allow guns into buildings. That seems to be a new definition of "campus" compared to SDCL 35-2-6.1.
Dylan, thank you for providing that reference, but I hope you will consider the source (which probably lacks objectivity). Many of their refutations of the arguments lack source material and merely state what they deem facts. Also, please consider that the Argus Leader article mentioned several possible unintended consequences of allowing guns into campus buildings. For example, the Sanford School of Medicine at the U (and possibly other partnerships at other institutions) may have to relocate because allowing CCW would violate hospital security rules.
The source lacks no more objectivity than many of the other articles previously posted. I believe it is hard to find a reference to both sides of the issue since it is split between whether someone supports it or not with very little middle ground. I will; however,go through the reference and try to find the actual sources. The author does make a note of the sources but does do a poor job of actually citing them. To the possible consequences of the school of medicine there is nothing preventing people from carrying in those places already. Hospital security rules is a different topic than carrying on campus, but the majority of the students that would be attending those buildings more than likely be in a major where they know hospital security policies and use their common sense to not carry there.
Dylan, what objective argument (with sources) did you find most compelling on the pro-CCW site?
You cannot separate hospital (and other partners') security rules from this issue if the legislation would mandate that CCW be allowed in those buildings. I would hope that legislators would have specified those exceptions, but it does not appear they did.
As to your statement about nothing preventing people from carrying in those buildings now, the BoR's Dr. Warner contradicts your assertions in the aforementioned Argus article when he states that lease agreements, which must comply with hospital security regulations dictate firearm prohibitions.
In the article the author places * by the references many of which are books or Harvard research studies including a title of publication and date. I have also contacted the director of the site to obtain a works cited list which I will post once I have received information.
Also if those policies are already in place then law abiding citizens who have taken the time to get their ccw would know that building is off limits as long as those policies were made known to everyone. I myself am in a medical major and would not conceal carry in those buildings for a much simpler reason however, for many of those classes you are required to where scrubs, it is physically impossible to conceal carry in scrubs.
Dylan, the issue becomes which "law" will the weapon carrier abide by? Are you willing to concede that ardent CCW advocates may believe that the proposed legislation supersedes existing prohibitions and allows them to carry where they could not previously? It appears the BoR feels that such supersession may be a risk because they indicate facilities may need to be relocated. Now, I will concede that the BoR has engaged in behavior and activities that warrant skepticism regarding their CCW assertions, but their concerns should at least be considered.
When someone is attempting to permit an instrument which can cause harm, as a gun can (I know the whole "guns don't kill people" argument proves me wrong), in a group setting, the onus should be on that person or their advocates to demonstrate why the presence of said instrument is now necessary, when they were doing things like attending classes without concealed weapons in those very buildings prior to this legislation.
HB1206 was defeated this afternoon by a two to one margin after students and student organizations campaign against it.
Kids are smarter than legislators.