Dan Casey, that is. Every once in a while, it seems I have this need to bang my head against the brick wall he represents. This time, he’s posted a fact and logic deficient rant about how Texas is moving towards allowing concealed carry on college campuses. Go read through it, and my comment should be there once he approves it. I hit a few of the more glaring points, and I’ve reproduced it here.
Wow. Where to begin?
“It’s entirely unclear whether those massacres could have or would have been prevented if there were a relative handful of concealed carriers on campus.”
You’re right, it’s unclear. A gun is not a magic talisman that guarantees anything. But the chances of preventing them or of stopping them early would have been better than they were with no concealed carriers on campus.
“A handgun would have done little good against Charles Whitman. […] No coed with a Glock could have stopped him.”
Did you actually do any research – even just checking Wikipedia – on what happened that day? The police were assisted by armed civilians, and one officer who was involved in actually stopping him credited those civilians with preventing Whitman from being able to aim accurately. Another officer borrowed rifles from civilians to try and stop him from the ground (PDF warning!).
The police had little or no difficulty getting onto the observation deck once they got into the tower. A “coed with a Glock” could have done the same thing, and may have stopped him.
“But that “prevention” angle assumes people like Charles Whitman or [VT Shooter – name redacted. ed.] are rational. They’re not. They chucked rationality long before they showed up on campus with guns.”
Such “gun-free” zones were rare or non-existent in Whitman’s time, so they don’t really figure into that incident. But while you’re right that such people are not rational, it seems telling that since the advent of victim disarmament zones nearly all these events have occurred in places where the law-abiding are prevented from possessing firearms. The people who commit such atrocities may not be rational, but they generally have enough mental ability left to choose places where they know they can get the highest body-count before meeting effective opposition.
“According the Center for Science in the Public Interest, 44 percent of college students engage in binge drinking. If they lack the judgment, wisdom and maturity to handle alcohol, how is adding guns to that equation going to help?”
Nearly all of which takes place off campus, where students are already allowed to possess guns. It doesn’t seem to be a real source of problems now, and likely wouldn’t be significantly affected by the proposed law.
If I understand it correctly, the proposed law would only allow carry by those with a Concealed Carry Permit. These students (and don’t forget the faculty!) are at least 21 years old, and most students that age live off campus. They are already allowed to carry when off campus, and most do so daily without incident. Why do you think they would behave any differently on campus?
Twenty-six colleges in three states already allow licensed concealed carry on campus, with no resulting problems. What reason do you have to think Texas would be any different?