College students should be allowed to be armed.

A few weeks ago I was listening to Bob Mayne's Handgun World podcast, and he did a show about concealed carry on campus. I felt the need to chime in to give some arguments that people could use, in favor of concealed carry on campus.




Here is the letter I sent him.









Here is the text of the letter I sent to Bob, excerpts of which were aired in episode 176.



Hey Bob, it’s Dave from Utah.



I’m writing to comment on your show about the show about concealed carry on college campuses.



I wanted to give you a perspective as someone who has actually carried a weapon while attending school in recent years.



We hear a lot of arguments against allowing permit holders to be armed while they attend classes, I’d like to address some of them.



1. “There’s a lot of underage drinking in college. Putting guns into these same kid’s hands is a terrible idea.”



First of all, very few people actually have a permit and carry a gun everyday. It’s most people’s right, but very few of us actually jump through the hoops and go through the hassle of lugging around a handgun everyday.

In most states, the minimum age for a permit is 21, so anyone who has a permit is not going to be underage if they drink. Plus, in Utah, it’s illegal to drink alcohol while carrying a weapon, and it’s illegal everywhere to be drunk and carrying a weapon. So there are legal protections in place to stop people from drinking and carrying a gun.



Also, I don’t know of many binge drinkers who jump at the opportunity and responsibility of carrying a gun.



2. “A gun in the classroom stifles academic debate.”



No it doesn’t.



I had a class where the teacher told all of us that he had a permit and carried a gun, due to a scary experience of one of his friends, plus the Trolley Square shooting. He said that he had decided he would never be defenseless. Another student piped up and mentioned that he carried a gun for similar reasons. I didn’t show my hand, though I was also armed.



In our small class of 20 or so students, everyone in the room knew for a fact that there were 2 handguns present.



Guess what happened? A vigorous debate about the safety and usefulness of carrying a gun ensued for about half the class time, and several more vigorous debates occurred throughout the semester. Why? Because university students are adults, and had more important things to do in that class than worry about guns.







3. “Students aren’t trained like police officers are, and would likely shoot everyone else instead of stopping the mass shooting.”



-How do you know they aren’t trained? Good training is certainly available to them.

-We need to get the notion out of our heads that we carry guns to ‘stop’ mass shootings. We carry guns to protect ourselves or the people around us, if we ever need to. (To quote Rob Pincus)



Students should arm themselves in order to protect themselves, not the entire student body. True, if a mass killer came into a room with an armed student, the student may very well end the massacre, but only because he was protecting himself.



Armed students would not increase the danger to the whole campus, but we shouldn’t make the argument that we should allow this because it would make everyone safer.



-Acting to rescue another person in danger is a very tricky proposition, as well as a tactical and legal gray area. You need to be really cautious if you decide to intervene, because you will not likely have a complete picture of what is happening. You will have to process information like “Who is the bad guy? Who has the gun? Is the shooting still happening? Is this a mass shooting? Could it be firecrackers?”

The bad guy will be thinking, “Look another person to shoot.” BANG BANG BANG!



Experts can go back and forth about how to approach this problem, but everyone will recommend that the safest thing to do would be to barricade yourself where you are, and only shoot if the bad guy tries to get into your area.



Some people may tell themselves that they would help anyone in need, but let’s think about the Zimmerman/Martin incident. The people in that gated community are all good, decent people, and they called the cops when they heard someone screaming for their life, but how many charged out started throwing punches at the attacker? (Zero)



There are also examples of normal people endangering themselves to help someone else, but the point is, that until you have been in a life threatening situation, you don’t really know how you will perform, so we shouldn’t be arguing that armed students will keep everyone on campus safe, because that would be a false sense of security. For that reason, it’s an argument that’s easily defeated.



4. “In an active shooter scenario, the police may accidentally shoot the armed student instead of the bad guy, therefore we shouldn’t allow anybody to be armed.”



Maybe.



Or maybe the armed student will be expecting the police to arrive at any second, and when they hear the cops yelling than they will put their gun in its holster and point toward the shooting, or comply with police commands.



Also, it would be pretty easy for the police to distinguish between good and bad. The good guy would comply with their commands, and the bad guy would point his gun at the cops and try to kill them.



5. “The police are trained enough and competent enough to protect the students. It’s their job after all.”



My school had a police force, and during the day 2-3 officers were on duty, plus 3-4 unarmed security guards. Physics state that it would take the police 3, 4, 5 minutes to arrive to any given point on campus from any other given point on campus.



Let’s look at a real life example. When Suleman Talovic started shooting people at the Trolley Square mall, it took two minutes for the first call to 911 to take place, and TWO MINUTES after that first call, Sergeant Oblad arrived at the mall. TWO MINUTES. That’s incredible. This was 6 in the evening on a Tuesday night, everyone was going home from work, and Oblad managed to get there in two minutes. The Salt Lake Police department had recently undergone training from the local gang unit on how to respond to exactly this type of situation, and enough officers were in the right place at the right time to be able to respond and put Talovic down quickly.



But even before Sgt Oblad arrived, Officer Ken Hammond, who was having a Valentine’s dinner with his wife, drew his off-duty weapon and engaged Talovic, diverting his attack and herding him into Pottery Barn Kids. Oblad and Hammond hooked up, and fired about four shots from cover at Talovic before the SWAT detectives arrived and killed Talovic with their long guns.



It was a textbook response, literally. The Salt Lake Police department’s response is now being studied and taught as the best possible response in an active killer scenario. But guess what?



In the 3-4 minutes between the start of the massacre, and Ken Hammond confronting the shooter, Talovic shot NINE people.



Five of them died.



They are still dead to this day.



Even with the world’s best response time, a response time that was far better than the law of averages said it should have been, the police can only minimize the damage in a situation like this. Maybe the first victim didn’t have a chance, but the people inside the Cabin Fever store certainly had ample warning, at least the two seconds required to draw a weapon.



But mass shootings are very rare. Any University campus is open to the public, and anyone can come on. They might pose a threat to individual students who have a right to defend themselves just like anybody else does. Women, unfortunately, are targeted much more than men for face to face crime, and women across the country are victimized on college campuses.



Check out this article about a recent terrifying day at my alma mater, the University of Utah. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53333131-78/fotheringham-bail-woman-court.html.csp



The man walked into a female locker room to watch girls dress. Later that afternoon, he groped a woman inside a building. Then long after the sun set, he cornered a woman getting into her car, groped her, and tried to physically control her. He stopped when she bit him on the finger, and she was able to close her car door. Her bite on the finger actually helped the police identify him.



But in a world where such horrible, terrifying random attacks can happen, how is it BETTER to disarm the targets of such attacks? This poor girl was doing the right thing, studying hard late into the night at a university, she didn’t want to be the target of some dangerous pervert, and now she is going to be having nightmares and other emotional problems for years. How is that preferable to this same young lady shooting the guy six times when he became aggressive and dangerous?



What it comes down to, is that nobody can respond faster to an attack than the victim of the attack, and the victim has a much better chance of surviving if they can fight back with a gun. You and I know this, but we need to be able to articulate this concept in real human terms to those whose minds can be changed.

BYU's Honor Code and Standards

Recently Brittany Molina created a viral sensation when she posted a note somebody gave to her, and a picture of her dress that the note commented on.



BYU has an Honor Code that all students are expected to abide by, part of which stipulates that skirts and shorts need to reach the knee. Now, Miss Molina's skirt clearly isn't reaching her knee, but she is also wearing leggings, and nobody could argue that this is immodest. But the policy does say that skirts must reach the knee, so in the mind of the note writer, this ^ is unacceptable.

So every woman that attends BYU should be wearing knee length skirts or shorts, right?












Whew, for a University that doesn't allow short skirts, that is sure a lot of leg flesh showing. It sure seems hypocritical for BYU to disallow this kind of dress for everyday students, presumably for morality and modesty purposes, and then make the official sports uniform for many female athletes short, as if fit female athletes aren't sexually attractive.

The fact that they do this, and then with a straight face talk about Standards, is one of the reasons why I went to the U, (and excluded myself from a decent PR program) instead of going to BYU. University of Utah is not exactly a den of iniquity, where the women wear nothing but thongs and body paint. In fact, if you are 5 minutes late to church at the Institute of Religion, you WILL NOT find a parking spot.

But at BYU, you can be assured that the women will all be covered up.




Unless they happen to be in great shape, and have tried out for a sports team. Now, the BYU runner is wearing shorts that are shaped like shorts, which are slightly more modest than the horrible bikini design of that sinful Duck behind her.

BYU does have a women's uniform that adheres to the Honor Code.



The reason why men's and women's basketball uniforms have knee length shorts is because that's the current fashion. Basketball uniforms used to be ridiculously short.



Thank goodness that's not a trend anymore.

Coincidentally, the reason that modern women's uniforms are so short also has to do with current trends, plus comfort and ease of mobility while engaged in the athletic event. That's a valid reason. But BYU shouldn't pretend like it's not also attractive, and therefore running afoul of their Tradition of Honor and Standards.

I got these from the official BYU drill team Website.

"The mission of the Cougarettes is to provide the very best high quality halftimes and dance performances all while maintaining the standards, spiritual focus, and atmosphere of Brigham Young University and the LDS Church."

and on the Welcome page we see this-




With all the immodesty that's officially sanctioned at BYU, there is not a rash of on-campus orgies. People, for the most part, behave themselves and act like adults. On the flipside, even if you require all women to look like this



there will still be people who are going to have sex against the rules.

Right now BYU has official uniforms that violate it's own modesty standards, which many see as hypocritical. They either need to fully commit to it, or they need to let people act like adults and, you know, 'govern themselves.'

Carrying a Handgun at School

Recent events at the University of Utah have brought up the subject of guns and self defense on campus. I would like to address a few points that are brought up by people trying to discourage on-campus self defense.

The first that is stated by people who haven't thought the issue through, "When the police show up, how will they know the difference between the bad guy and the good guy?"

Easy.

The good guys comply with the police commands. The bad guy shoots at the cops.

Carrying a gun, having it in an active killer scenario does not mean that your brain turns off. Plus most active killer scenarios involve one psycho shooting at the crowd. The Mumbai style assaults are thankfully really rare. So there is only really one place where there is danger. This thought was recently made in the Daily Utah Chronicle: The likelihood of stopping a rampaging shooter is muddled by the misdirection and chaos of such events—a nightmare for responding police.

In an event where there is only one bad guy, sure there will be confusion and chaos, but it will be crystal clear where the shooting is happening. It's where the gun shots are coming from. People may be running around, but they will be running away from the shooting. If your goal is to stop the shooter, then you move toward the shooting and shoot the guy who is trying to kill defenseless people in the crowd, or who is moving from room to room, shooting the people inside.

When the police arrive, they will make a lot of noise, it will be hard to miss, especially if you are expecting them at any second. So when you hear the cops, put your gun away, take cover and point to where the bad guy is.

In addition, the police only know something is happening if someone calls them. After the shooting starts, it will take some time for someone to call the cops, then the dispatcher has to get information out of the caller, like where it's happening and what the guy looks like. Then the dispatcher has to sort out the information, summarize it and pass it on to the officers, who have to fight through traffic on the street or the University's sidewalks, and then find the bad guy.

If the bad guy is in your classroom, or right outside your classroom, you are going to have to deal with the bad guy before the police arrive. And if you don't fight back, you are going to die.

Another is that there is a risk that the student may miss the bad guy and hit other innocent people. Honestly it could happen, if the armed student doesn't practice or is unfamiliar with how firearms work. Anyone who has a concealed firearm permit is at least 21 years old, and they have taken a class that reminds them how dangerous, both legally and physically, a gunfight is.
They have invested time and money into getting the gun and permit. They probably go shooting periodically. They may seek out some private training to help them to shoot accurately. If they've ever gone out in the desert to 'shoot stuff' then they are aware that bullets go through things. All those factors will be going through their mind as they move through the building, looking for the bad guy. (or better yet, an exit)

It has been shown that in most active shooter incidents, the bad guy changes his plan at any sign of resistance. This doesn't mean simply holding the door shut. If the bad guy gets into the room, the occupants need to attack him. Throw books, backpacks, desks, any thing at him until he leaves or you can get his gun away. When he's being pummeled with textbooks and backpacks, his attention will diverted away from shooting people. The longer his attention is diverted, the more opportunity the class will have to tackle him. There is danger in rushing toward a man with a gun, yes, but the alternative is to rely on a mass murderer to spare your life. The choice is between a 95% chance of being killed while cowering or maybe a 90% chance of getting killed while attempting to stop the bad guy. Doing ANYTHING will increase your chance of surviving such a situation.

We have seen from the Tucson shooting and even the Virginia Tech shooting that in the face of death, some people will still put themselves in danger to protect others. At Virginia Tech, a professor who had survived the Holocaust, held the door to his classroom shut, trying to use his body as a shield. He was killed, I don't remember if he prevented the bad guy from getting in, but I'll bet his last thoughts weren't, "Boy I'm glad I'm not allowed to carry a gun here at school."

The first person to confront the guy in Tucson was a grandmother in her 60's, who rushed him when she saw him attempting to reload. If she was brave enough to confront the guy with her bare hands, think of how much more effective if she had a gun? Maybe she wouldn't have had to wait until the bad guy ran out of ammo.

If people are willing to fight, even if it is dangerous, why should they not be allowed and encouraged to use a gun? A handgun allows someone to inflict damage on a bad guy from a distance, instead of having to charge him first. In an active killer situation, the targeted people are already at a disadvantage. Why should that disadvantage be amplified by making rules against students legally carrying a gun?

Another argument is that someone with a gun might flip out and start killing, that the stress of college is too much for some. First, do you think that making a rule banning handguns on campus is going to stop a flip-out? Second, and more importantly, people who receive a permit have passed a criminal background check. They have shown that for at least twenty one years, they have been able to avoid having a run in with the cops. They are not the type of person that flies off the handle and gets into fights with people, they don't drink too much and get themselves arrested, etc. . . They aren't in the habit of being dangerous to the community. The state trusts them to be responsible with a gun as they go about their business everyday, and enrolling in a University doesn't suddenly change their judgment or the years of good decisions they have made up until this point in their life. It's just common sense.

If I've left anything out, or been unclear on any points, let me know and I'll try to address it.

"Public Space"

Today while riding the bus on my way to take a test, there were a two young mothers with 2-3 year old kids. The kids were enjoying themselves, as 3 year old kids do.

Eventually a man about my age got on the bus. He on a ratty t-shirt, sweat pants that were riding a little low, and great big, Elton John-esque sunglasses. I remember thinking that he was probably heading to the university, because he seemed to exude the "look at me! I live an alternate lifestyle" vibe.

The kids eventually were rambunctious, laughing loudly and hitting the window while their mom's spoke to each other over the back of the seat.

Big sunglasses man says, in a loud voice, "This is a public space! Public space!" I thought to myself, "Did he just tell that young mother to get her kids to shut up? I think he did." That made me mad. Who does this guy think he is?

I don't think the mothers paid him any attention, but I started to prepare a response in case he tried it again.

He did. "Hey, you're in a public space here, you need to control your kids."

Me-"Hey buddy you're in a public space, too. She's not smoking or doing anything harmful, her kid is being a kid."

Him- "But she is in a public space, she has a responsibility as a parent to control her children."

When he responded, I learned that adrenaline dumps and the fight or flight instinct show up even in a non life-threatening situation, because my mouth got dry, my throat tightened, I felt something like cold water suddenly in the middle of my chest, and my arms and hands felt cold and slightly numb and tingly.

From here on out, I don't remember exactly what I said, neither of us were speaking very eloquently, we probably both had that confrontation response flowing through our veins.

I said something like, "There just being kids, they're too young to know any better."

He said, "They're giving me a headache, would you like it if I started screaming?"

Me-"No, but you aren't three." The noisy kid looked like he was three.

At some point I said that the mom didn't deserve to be harassed for taking the bus to save some money. He responded by pointing to the stroller she had brought on board, saying she shouldn't have it because it was made in China, it polluted carbon during the manufacture, and that it was taking up half the room on the bus.

It was in the space that was designated for wheelchair users, and there were none of those on the bus.

His comment about the stroller really took me off guard, so I said what I thought.

"Are you saying that she should have carry a forty pound kid in her arms everywhere she goes instead of using a stroller?"

He said no, but the kid was loud, he had had a seizure this morning, and that his heavyset, black-wearing, tattooed female friend could probably control the kids. At least I think that's what he said.

I wondered if he was being serious, that he was worked up enough that he would go over and try himself to quiet the kid. If he tried it, well, I wasn't going to let that happen.

But that's the kind of thing you think about when your lizard brain thinks a fight is on its way. Of course he didn't do anything like that.

During our conversation, I twice told him that if he was really that bothered, he could get off at the next stop and take another bus. He said that the mom had a responsibility to "control her kid" so that Mr. Sunglasses could ride the bus in peace.

My stop was fast approaching, the argument had run its course, and I was late for a test so I got off. It took me a really long time to fish out my electronic bus card out of my shirt pocket and untangle it from the iPod headphones that were in there.

It also took me a long time to consider, and answer the test questions when I got to class.

Guy thinks the bus is his own personal limousine, and that he has the right to impose his own will and values on other people, in the name of public space. What a self righteous, left wing jerk.

Storm Photos

On wednesday, there was a big storm, as I was heading out to the bus. The clouds over the mountains were getting blown north, and clouds over the valley were going south. And the sky was starting to turn green.

I thought for a few minutes that we might have another tornado, but no one reported one. Made for interesting pictures, and a musty class once I got to school.

Weird alarm

I was leaving class last night and noticed an alarm console by the door as i was leaving. I don't know what it is supposed to be monitoring, but whatever it is, it's very dirty.

Tickets for the Louisville game

It took me about an hour of waiting in line to get mine and a guest pass. It should be a pretty big game.

They don't make them like this anymore

What a tough-looking old car. Nowadays sports utility vehicles are so stylish looking that you don't even want to take them out into the rain. But this old thing looks like something could drive through a lake then across some boulders in southern Utah, then go check out the U.S. landing sites on the moon, then to that crater in Arizona, then through another lake, then to the grocery store.

Blue skies are nice, but sometimes dark stormy skies are just more intersting.

Misc ellaneoos

So the top photo is a poster I saw today stuck on a pole. I thought it was interesting because it seemed to be anti war, so it was created by someone who believed Obama when he said he would stop the war. So maybe that means that the people who voted him in are dissatisfied with his performance so far. It's interesting that it took less than 6 months.

The second is the new look I'm sporting these days. What does everyone think?

The third picture I thought looked the truck's bed liner had developed a massive fungal infection that erupted. Kristen thinks it looks like it's guts got ripped out.