Let's see if we can figure out the logic behind a new set of radio spots released today by gun group Grass Roots North Carolina.
The ads attack University of North Carolina system president Tom Ross for his position on House Bill 937, which would allows handguns on UNC campuses as long as the weapons remain locked in a vehicle. Ross, along with every chancellor and every police chief on UNC campuses, thinks that would pose a risk to public safety.
So GRNC is deploying 60 radio spots in Greensboro, Raleigh and Asheville - along with a news release this morning - harshly criticizing Ross for ... not doing enough to protect students?
The radio spots note that UNC Chapel Hill students have suffered 35 sexual assaults in three years - a rate far higher than the national average for college campuses - and that UNC is under federal investigation for underreporting sexual assaults. The news release goes further, bringing up a recent robbery at knife point near N.C. State's Reynolds Coliseum, along with crime reporting issues at Elizabeth City State University.
"UNC can't protect us, and Ross won't let us protect ourselves," says a co-ed sounding voice in the ad.
That would work, logically, if House Bill 937 did much to help students protect themselves. But because the bill requires that a gun be locked inside a vehicle, it offers little deterrence against rapes and robberies. What it would do, Ross says, is increase the possibility of guns getting in the wrong hands from car break-ins, which are prevalent on college campuses.
We agree. We're also sure that the underreporting of sexual assaults and other crimes - a legitimate issue - has pretty much nothing to do with guns on campus. Unless you're interested in just taking a shot at someone who disagrees with you.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Gun group goes after UNC's president
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Stupid
Give enough to create other issues. Let them carry the weapons or none at all but provide better security. These half witted ideas are what causes the problems. What good is a gun locked in a car. No deterrent value at all.
Following your reasoning then... we should change the law to allow concealed carry on campus (and pretty much everywhere) because as you point out, forcing a concealed carry holder to leave his/her gun locked in the car "INCREASES the risk of the gun falling into the wrong hands...". This is where gun control advocates typically run off the rails! The SAFEST place for a gun, is in the physical posession of the concealed carry holder... yet gun control nuts continue to try to force them to lock them in their cars more and more often!
Stupid is allowing guns on campus period. It is simply not a good fit. If we don't stop these gun fanatics now, we never will. They are out of their frigging minds.
OD,
Please explain how "gun free zone" laws and policies worked in the following environments:
- Sandy Hook
- Virginia Tech
- Aurora
"Allowing guns on campus?" Don't make the mistake of thinking that permission has much effect on the actual presence of guns on campus. When I was in college, which was prior to the concept of "gun-free zones", the college had strict rules against weapons on campus. That didn't mean I didn't have one. It just meant they didn't know I had one, which is the situation you have today.
So when it comes to stupidity and being out of one's mind, which qualifies? Recognizing reality as it exists or as you hope it might be? Because there are laws against the presence of guns in certain venues. Just like at VT, Sandy Hook, etc. And we all know how well that worked out.
The fact is gun owners are much more likely to die by their own weapons through accidents, homicide by friends and family, or suicide than successfully ward off criminals. But gun nuts live in a fact-free universe. Anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy. Reason holds no sway. Have all the guns you want, but leave them outside public buildings.
This law is just one incremental step to allowing unlimited conceal/carry on campus. What's the saying about letting a camel get its nose in the tent? The trigger-nuts would have us all carry, all the time, under the deluded notion that it would make everyone safer. What about the vast majority of us that prefer not to carry a weapon and are more worried about some cowboy, that thinks they know how to be law enforcement, and blows away more innocent bystanders than they protect? What about the rights of the majority who don't want to be around some nut who is convinced they have to carry their manhood around everywhere they go because they are too afraid to go out otherwise?
There's a reason they called gun fanatics. Possessing common sense is not part of the equation.
And placing more guns into the mix is not part of the solution.
Isn't it funny that the same newspaper who loves freedom of speech, doesn't in any way understand they have that freedom at the pleasure of the government. It is completely inconceivable to these otherwise well-meaning journalists that the government might ever infringe on them. Yet they are completely terrified of the guns that keep America free.
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." - Thomas Jefferson
"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals" - President James Monroe
I forget, are the emergency exit procedures for Watson Hall covered in the training to get a concealed weapon permit? Right, they're not. There are armed, trained police forces on every campus, and that didn't stop school shootings either. Why in the world would anyone expect some yahoo to be able to do what they can't? Cause he's got a permit?! Who's not looking at reality here?
Also, if chancellors, police chiefs, faculty, staff and students of universities don't want or need this law, and they overwhelmingly don't, who is this for anyway? Who's pushing for this issue that isn't an issue? I'll give you a hint...they produce commercials...
Jefferson and Monroe have been dead for almost 200 years. During the time they lived gun duels were acceptable. When is the last time we had a gun duel?
The founding fathers are not experts for everything that is needed in society today. Circumstances change.
We don't need more guns on college campuses!
OD,
SECOND REQUEST
Please explain how "gun free zone" laws and policies worked in the following environments:
- Sandy Hook
- Virginia Tech
- Aurora
Post a Comment