Campus Carry Protests: "Because We Don't Want It" and Other Lame Arguments

Two protests occurred recently against AB 148, the campus carry bill, at UNR and UNLV. I am stupefied at the total lack of logic displayed by those opposed to the bill. Students are making arguments so specious, it makes me wonder about the teaching methods on Nevada’s campuses. Like all gun control supporters, they rely on emotion and exaggeration to make their point. Consistently, they fail to being any rationality or evidence to the debate. The opposition are grasping at whatever straws they can to deride the bill.

There is no good cause to keep trained, vetted, and licensed concealed firearm permit holders from carrying on campus. A college campus is no more sacred than any other parcel of land and it confers no quality that would make an average person any more violent than they would across the street.

Opposition to campus carry is based in violating the liberal (sorry liberal gun owners) sanctity of the ivory tower. Academia as a whole hates guns and therefore can’t allow them in their bastion. To avoid the sunlight of extending the Second Amendment onto their precious turf, they are willing to lie, to obfuscate, malign, deride, and embellish. They ignore rape victims and the fact that mass shootings and murder are borne of evil minds; not because of guns.

Going beyond students, the administration of UNLV was forced to cave to the anti-gun pressure and make a statement against AB 148.

UNLV President Len Jessup said: “UNLV joins an overwhelming number of university administrators, faculty, campus law enforcement, and students across Nevada — those on our campuses every day — who oppose legislation that would allow concealed weapons on college campuses [...]. Campus safety is important to the overall university experience for our students, staff and visitors, and it is an issue we take very seriously.”

Jessup said a lot and he said nothing at all. He based his opposition, as quoted in the LVRJ, not in fact, but in the opinions of others. Rather than formulate his own case, he took the easy way out of falling in with the crowd.

Police are against the bill because they would have to cede their exclusive power to carry guns to permit holders. It's a loss of face for them and a diminishment of power to have people on campus who are responsible for themselves. The UNLV police chief said that academic and social pressures could cause some students to commit suicide because they have a gun on campus. Assistant Chief Seda is incredibly dense if he believes that guns cause suicides. Japan, which is #7 worldwide for suicides (the US is #30), where firearms are essentially illegal to own, that hanging tops the list for suicide methods.

Seda also said that “[the bill] wouldn’t keep anyone safe on campus.” To rebut that, the LVRJ quoted former UNLV student body president Mark Ciavola who wrote:

"In UNLV’s most recent Annual Security Report, there were 22 instances of domestic violence or stalking reported in 2013. The report lists five forced sex offenses for that year. There was only one reported in 2012. There have been six sexual assaults reported so far this academic year. But what about the neighborhoods surrounding UNLV? [...] That entire area is teeming with violent crime."

Student Caitlyn Caruso, quoted by the LVRJ, opposed to the bill, showed her capability for hyperbole, but not for rational argument, when she said that "[...] our lives are on the line.” Ms. Caruso is apparently so ignorant of the character of concealed carriers and the intent of the bill (which is to save student and faculty lives) that she views people who desire the right to carry guns for self-defense on campus as a threat. No one's life is on the line because of the right to self-defense. Ms. Caruso needs to fear those who already illegally carry on campus for nefarious reasons.

Ms. Caruso’s logic doesn’t hold water in other areas as well. From her Facebook page, Ms. Caruso is opines because some Idaho colleges spent more money on security. This is a bad thing? Clearly, she’s trying to imply this is because campus carry is legal there. Bring us the evidence dear; correlation does not imply causation.

Student Caleb Green "said he was worried that having guns on campus would make it more dangerous for minority students."

Why? Apparently, Mr. Green is implying that concealed carriers will suddenly decide to attack minorities. Seriously? The legal gun-carrying population of Nevada is not out there targeting minorities for random violence.

Those who oppose the bill associate guns with violence, and therefore those who carry a gun, legally or otherwise, must be more prone to violence. In fact, licensed concealed carriers are generally more law abiding than police.

Rape

“Telling our women to pick up arms to prevent rape is appalling. We need to stop it at the root, and that’s educating our university,’ Caruso said.”

Stopping rape at the root implies that society is flawed and promotes a societal more where rape is implicitly or explicitly encouraged. Education is seen as the cure, because rape is committed by men who are mis-educated by rape jokes, stereotypes, and objectifying women’s bodies.

Education does nothing to stop rape. If education is the solution, then all of the sex offenders in prison ought to be rehabilitated by a comprehensive workshop. Education is not the solution to a violent rapist, undeterred by morality or the law. No seminar, class, or pamphlet will erase unrestrained evil, lust, and hate.

Other Issues

Rape has taken center stage in this debate, overshadowing the many other concerns about demonizing and making illegal the right to bear arms on campus. Being able to defend oneself against a mass shooting is important too. Teachers and professors gave their lives in various school shooting to safe their students’ lives. Of course, those were ‘gun-free’ zones and the murderers didn’t have a permit. And what about defense to and from campus? Does one lose the right to carry a gun on their journey simply because they are going on campus?

Conclusion

In conclusion, the whole argument in opposition against campus carry basically boils down to “We don’t want it.” In their opinion, all guns and everyone who carries a gun is bad, regardless of purpose or background. And that’s all they’ve got.