U. officers on leave after leaking gun policy

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50985304-76/university-campus-policy-officers.html.csp

"A pair of University of Utah public safety officers are on paid administrative leave after internal guidelines that would ban the open carrying of firearms were made public."
The article is somewhat confusing. It is not clear from the article whether open carry on campus is legal or not, though I believe it is. The passage:

"Utah law doesn’t allow anyone to carry a weapon openly on campus, he said, whether or not they have a concealed-weapons permit, and the law allows the university to deal with issues that interfere with the school’s educational mission."

Was not in quotes and I believe this is what the University president is trying to say.

But it seems from the rest of the article that state law in Utah allows open carry, and it should thus also be allowed on state campuses.

I'm not a big fan of open carry. It causes more problems than it is likely to solve. Concealed carry should be the way to go, and it should be allowed on college campuses for people with valid CCW permits.

[sharesunited]

1. More guns better? Quite the contrary. More guns worse.

[X_Digger]

2. Anything other than your opinion to back that up?

I mean, surely if this is fact, you should be able to correlate the two- find a place or time when the ownership of firearms went up and things got 'worse', or the reverse.

[timo]

3. ooooooo ooooooo ooooo

I bet he is going to use germany and mexico as examples of no guns and things got better!!!

[X_Digger]

5. Thing is, those countries with low violence had such, even before strict gun laws..

And there are countries like the UK whose violent crime rate (both with guns and without) have continued to rise in spite of tougher gun laws.

[Katya Mullethov]

22. They have been specified as being " English Speaking"

But that didnt narrow it down much though .

[sharesunited]

14. How can you dwell down there?

We're talking about a society with more guns versus less guns.

You're choosing the more guns vision of this nation?

More guns means more bullets discharged in destruction of flesh and bone.

More guns means more caps popped into more asses.

WTF is wrong with you. Honestly. When all is said and done?

[X_Digger]

15. So that's a no?

Feel free to attack me, it merely shows how shallow your arguments have become.

I asked if you could back up your opinion with facts.

More guns means more bullets discharged in destruction of flesh and bone.

More guns means more caps popped into more asses.

Here are some facts for you- I'd love to see how you explain them.

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

Yet at the same time..

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009

Washington, D.C.—According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in the Nation declined in 2009 for the third consecutive year. Property crimes also declined in 2009, marking the seventh straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses dropped below the previous year’s total.

The 2009 statistics show that the estimated volumes of violent and property crimes declined 5.3 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively, when compared with the 2008 estimates. The violent crime rate for the year was 429.4 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 6.1 percent decrease from the 2008 rate), and the property crime rate was 3,036.1 per 100,000 persons (a 5.5 percent decrease from the 2008 figure).

Your assertion, it is not backed up by reality.

[sharesunited]

19. I have guns killing people in at least three locations in my city today.

Do I believe your statistics or my own lying eyes?

[X_Digger]

20. One data point, compared to what?

Let me remind you of your words-

More guns means more bullets discharged in destruction of flesh and bone.

More guns means more caps popped into more asses.

More indicates a comparison.

If we let x = the number of guns, and y = the number of violent uses of guns, you're asserting that-

when Δx > 0, then Δy > 0

However, the data I presented shows that-

given Δx > 0 in 2009, Δy < 0

[sharesunited]

23. I think you just compared calculus to human lives.

That puts you in the camp of the most bloodless of insurance executives.

Don't make me have to repeat the most obvious of equations. Guns plus ammo equal death.

[X_Digger]

25. So you have no data, and rely only on emotion? Gotcha.

Rational, logical data trumps emotional hyperbole every time.

[sharesunited]

26. Your logic leads only to the grave my friend.

By way of gruesome pain and suffering.

Coma and death are the only relief from your world.

[X_Digger]

28. Much gnashing of teeth, and pulling of hair.. still no data.

Do you retract your statement as unsupported?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

31. Notice that I did not make that claim- that is a straw man of your own making.

I merely disproved your statement that:

More guns means more bullets discharged in destruction of flesh and bone.

More guns means more caps popped into more asses.

By giving you data that illustrates your assertion is incorrect.

One can disprove a statement without endorsing the converse.

Funny that you should ask if I've imbibed, since according to your previous statements, illegal drugs must be hard to obtain, since they've been prohibited. Did you just contradict yourself?

[sharesunited]

32. You claim they are easy to get. Hence my reluctant willingness to accept you are getting them.

And consuming them.

And somehow believing that the world is a better place with more guns and ammo in it.

Not possessed of your normal sense, it would appear.

[X_Digger]

33. I'm not the one who thinks that illegal drugs are rare. Who has more sense in that light? n/t

[RSillsbee]

37. If that's the case

Nigeria must be Utopia no?

[cleanhippie]

44. The willful ignorance here is astounding.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. You are repeating Robert Bork's theory of 'moral harm'.

The fact that guns mostly do not cause damage is irrelevant to you. You claim that the mere presence of guns is harmful.

You are not alone, by the way- Robert Bork came up with the idea first, forty years ago. From an article by Dan Baum, in the August

2010 Harper's Magazine:


"Happiness is a Worn Gun: My Concealed Weapon and Me" (page 36)

.........My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....

Is it any wonder you despise the citation of empirical evidence?

[RSillsbee]

36. Isn't your city Chicago?

There couldn't be 3 people killed by guns there today guns are banned there. And so is Murder. Oh wait

Spelling

[jeepnstein]

40. You have people killing people.

Your prohibitionist tendencies won't do a thing to stop violence. Open your eyes.

[Atypical Liberal]

46. They are the FBI's statistics, not his.

>Do I believe your statistics or my own lying eyes?

Firstly, they are the FBI's statistics, not the posters.

Secondly, the rational course of action would be to use reliable statistical data to form an opinion. Anecdotal data, such as personal observations, are not reliable for making generalized comments such as the ones you are making.

A man who gets hit by lightning is no doubt going to think that such occurrences are much more likely to happen than someone who has not. But anyone who looks at the data sees it is an unlikely occurrence.

[one-eyed fat man]

47. Duh

Crooks, thugs and dickheads killing people in Chicago?? You make it sound like you and your fellow denizens of the Cook County never heard of such......

[lawodevolution]

16. You keep Spreading this false idea even though I've shown that being in a nation with a

High civilian gun possession rate results in having about a 1/5 the chance of being murdered than living in a nation with a low gun possession rate, this is cited data and it even passed a t test with a 95% confidence interval.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=339915&mesg_id=339915

But gun control proponents don't care about the truth, they just care about their gun phobia.

[sharesunited]

17. You accuse me of gun phobia and I accuse you of gun phelia.

When bullets enter your body, perhaps you will understand which is less unpleasant.

[Straw Man]

34. An exemplary sub-thread....

...full of hyperbole, hysteria, ad hominem attacks, holier-than-thou grandstanding, and random anecdotes. The kicker is the suggestion that all of these are somehow preferable to hard data as a basis for public policy. It is public policy that is being discussed here. Remember?

Please explain in concrete and specific terms how we can make all the guns go away so that no bullets will ever enter anyone's body again. Include rough calculations of the economic and social costs of your plan. Think in terms of things like the logistics of confiscation and the political ramifications of the greatly expanded police powers that would be required.

Or just continue to rant.

[PavePusher]

41. Still rejecting valid math, eh?

500 years ago, you'd have been screaming that the sun went around the earth, and the world was flat.

[cleanhippie]

45. Just more emotional hyperbole without substance.

Epic Fail.

[Straw Man]

18. When all is said and done?

We're talking about a society with more guns versus less guns.

You're choosing the more guns vision of this nation?

More guns means more bullets discharged in destruction of flesh and bone.

More guns means more caps popped into more asses.

WTF is wrong with you. Honestly. When all is said and done?

I might ask the same question of you. Your conclusions are based on several faulty assumptions.

• You somehow think that the estblishment of gun-free zones yields "less guns" <sic> in society. Actually, it does nothing to reduce the overall number. It merely delineates specific areas where law-abiding gun owners will not be able to legally carry one.
  
  
• You accuse Second Amendment supporters of wanting to see "more guns" in America. I can't speak for every Second Amendment supporter, but I personally don't give a damn how many people are exercising their Second Amendment rights as long as I am not denied mine.
  
  
• You seem to think that guns are the sine qua non of violence. This view is patently wrong on many levels. First, it ignores the long history of violence that predates the invention of firearms. Second, it ignores the protection of one's own "flesh and bone" that a firearm can provide. Finally, as has been pointed out to you time and time again, the significant rise in the issue of concealed carry permits nationwide has not resulted in the Dodge-City blood-in-the-streets scenario that is constantly invoked by gun control activists.
  

[Euromutt]

42. Beautifully put

Particularly the alluded to, but not explicitly stated, correction of "less" that should have been "fewer" (the Grammar Police: "To Correct And To Serve").

The anti-RKBA crowd does have such an ambivalent attitude when it comes to Dodge City, doesn't it? On the one hand, they'll invoke Hollywood-inspired images of running gunfights in the streets (and with the term "Hollywood" I include Drip-along Daffy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drip-along_Daffy which at the time incorporated every Western movie cliché taken to its extreme), while--hardly drawing breath--pointing out that law enforcement in Dodge City supposedly required visitors to check their guns (while conveniently omitting the fact that this only applied to the area on "the wrong side of the tracks," to wit the south side, which was where all the saloons, dance halls and brothels were, whereas one could carry a firearm openly anywhere north of the tracks with no trouble).

And yes, interpersonal violence predates firearms to no small extent. As I've frequently pointed out on this forum, homicide rates in medieval Europe (insofar as historians have been able to establish) make D.C. and Beirut in the 1980s look tame, and that was before the manportable firearm had been introduced into Europe. What seems to have driven down the homicide rate across Europe was humanism, followed by the Enlightenment, and the whole notion that human life carries a high price and you'd damn better make sure that if you end it, it's for a very, very good reason. The problem with a nation of immigrants from every part of the world--like the U.S.--is that not everybody got that particular memo yet (and that includes descendants of Europeans who came over before the Enlightenment took hold in the part of the world they came from, lest anyone think I'm trying to suggest this is a racial/ethnic thing).

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

39. You can believe whatever you want, but at some point it comes down to results,

Many places around the US have adopted CCW laws in the past decade and we've had time to observe any increase in violent crime from permit holders. Nothing (other than your emotional-based opinions/fantasies) suggests that life has become more dangerous because of concealed-carry permits.

You are wrong. GTFO.

[Atypical Liberal]

4. Recent history would seem to contradict that

Firearm crime and accidental deaths continue to decline, in spite of record firearm and ammunition sales for the last two years.

So far, more guns does not appear to be worse.

[cleanhippie]

43. Too bad reality disagrees with you.

But you know that already.

[Bold Lib]

6. My first question, Are state universities allowed to have secrete policies?

It would seem to me that university policies are public domain. If I am correct then the university president is the one that should be on suspension.

[pipoman]

24. Law enforcement isn't required to disclose their

policies and procedures under freedom of information. There are cases when specific policies dealing with specific situations are subpoenaed for a specific case, but most agencies protect their policies by threat of dismissal for disclosure.

[damntexdem]

7. No guns should be allowed on campus except for law enforcement.

There should be long prison terms for anyone not there for law enforcement carrying a gun on a public education campus.

[DonP]

8. That is the current policy -

How is that "No Guns on Campus" policy working in the real world at Virginia Tech and NIU, versus the Appalachian Law School?

[Euromutt]

10. Yeah, key phrase being "should be" as opposed to "are"

In other words, your personal desire for what the law should be is not a guide to what the law actually is, and the latter is what we've got to work with here. Utah state law prohibits public institutions of higher learning from imposing restrictions on firearms that are more stringent than those imposed by state law. You may not agree that that should be the case, and you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is.

And I for one do not care for the idea of an agency of the executive branch of government thinking it gets to decide for itself what is and what is not a criminal offense. Under a system of separation of powers, that is the legislature's job. Certainly, no executive agency should get to decide what it will have people arrested for and not publish that information.

And honestly, "long prison sentences"? How does that serve the public good? Do you ever wonder why the United States has such a massive prison population, and lament that fact? Look in the mirror: you're part of the cause.

[PavePusher]

12. Why? Why do you think peaceful exercise of a Constitutional Civil Right ....

should be a jailable offense?

[oneshooter]

38. So the idea is......

"There should be long prison terms for anyone not there for law enforcement carrying a gun on a public education campus."

So in your mind a LEO that is taking classes would not be allowed to carry while off duty and on campus? And if they do then they are to be sent to prison?

Try to get that law passed!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[jazzhound]

48. Too bad that your emotion-based argument fails.

I hereby challenge you to counter any ONE of the arguments tendered by the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus with anything other than hyperbole, assumption, or fallacious reasoning:

http://www.concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

[Euromutt]

9. "Campus police officers ... were told the document 'is not for public distribution.'"

Anyone see a problem with a government institution having a policy that can result in people being arrested <i>and not publishing that policy?</i> It's hard to escape the impression that the University didn't want its "policy" disseminated because the administration was well aware that it was not in accordance with state law. Either way it raises the problem that you can't comply with any law or policy when you're not allowed to know what it is.

[Hangingon]

11. I am in favor of campus LEOs being armed but

these guys should be suspended if the document was not for distribution.

[Euromutt]

27. Personally, I tend to like people who question orders

As I remarked previously, the contents of this document have direct consequences for members of the public (in that it instructs campus cops to arrest people for behavior that is not actually illegal), and may very well form evidence of a deliberate effort on the part of the University's administration to harass legal gun owners in violation of state law. I'm sure the University administration would indeed prefer the public not to lay eyes on this document, but when that is for illegitimate reasons, that makes these guys whistle-blowers performing a public service.

[X_Digger]

29. Considering the history of the Uni flouting state law..

I'd rather have a conscientious LEO leak the information than have a citizen be detained, and possibly arrested for a secret rule.

[PavePusher]

13. Actually, Open Carry doesn't "cause" any problems.

Any problems are caused by those who are unreasonably fearful of a peacefully exercised Civil Right.

[krispos42]

21. dont' forget the [/i]

Makes reading a bit easier.

[jallo]

49. laws GENERALLY don't ALLOW stuff

they prohibit stuff. Rarely, they specifically authorize X, usually to clarify something. But more frequently, they prohibit stuff. Open carry is legal in WA. As far as I can see, it is nowhere mentioned in our penal code. What is mentioned is prohibitions on concealed carry, while not one's own property, w/o a permit. Thus, open carry is legal here, and that has been upheld by courts.

I don't know enough about Utah law to state whether a campus prohibiting open carry would be violative of the state law or state constitution. That would be the case in many states, to include mine