Killers at large in Tempe.

[lonestarnot]

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/10/tempe_sees_huge_spike_in_murde.php


Following the second highly publicized, unsolved murder of an Arizona State University student in six months, the Tempe Police Department has come under fire for its handling of violent crimes.

The department responded to media inquiries about crime statistics by issuing a press release yesterday touting how violent crime has decreased considerably since the same period last year. In the same release, however, the department announced that the number of homicides in Tempe has skyrocketed in 2010 to the second-highest murder rate in 20 years.


So far this year, 12 people have been murdered in Tempe -- that we know of -- in 10 separate incidents. That's a considerable increase from the two murders within the city in 2009.






ASU Student Shot Near Campus Sunday Dies

An Arizona State University student was shot last night and has since died from his injuries. Police haven't identified a suspect in the case and are asking the public's help in tracking down the person, or people, responsible.

Tempe police aren't releasing too many details about the shooting, and calls to the department have not been returned.

Here's what we know, though, based on a press release issued by the department this morning.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/10/asu_student_shot_near_campus_s.php

[jillan]

1. Omg - that is awful! Wonder what kind of sicko is doing this?

[lonestarnot]

2. I guess they wanted the last kid's IPOD or computer or something and he wouldn't give it up, so

they shot him. Allegedly "two black men." I do not know if I believe that, but may be true. Whomever, it breaks my heart for the victim, and whomever would kill someone for such bullshit.

[PavePusher]

3. Fortunately ASU students are unarmed....

http://www.asu.edu/housing/handbook/2010-2011/

Select "Student Code of Conduct" on left.

"24.    Use, possession, display, or storage of any weapon, dangerous instrument, explosive material or device, fireworks, bomb-making materials or dangerous chemical on university property, at a university sponsored activity or in violation of law or university policy, unless specifically authorized by an Arizona or federal statute governing law enforcement officers or in writing by university officials with the authority to grant such permission. Universities may permit students to possess certain potentially dangerous instruments, and limited quantities of chemicals or other dangerous materials if they are used for academic or other legitimate purposes, if the presence of these items does not present an undue risk to the campus or community, and if the proposed use, possession, display or storage of these items has been expressly approved in writing by an authorized university representative."


Otherwise, the criminals would have to endure dangerous working conditions.

May the innocent victims be remembered, and haunt the sleep of the Board of Regents.

[lonestarnot]

4. Oh for fucking fuck sakes. Let's arm the battlefield not the university.

[PavePusher]

5. Or we could actually support Civil Rights....

instead of engaging in utter hyperbole.

Or were you volunteering to provide personal security for students?

[lonestarnot]

6. How comforting, an entire freshman class armed.

:thumbsdown: Bout as comforting as driving with one with a learner's permit.

[PavePusher]

7. Perhaps you could discuss actual facts...

instead of unsupported assumptions and insinuations.

Please?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[PavePusher]

11. See #12. n/t

[lonestarnot]

30. Apparently, you have a set of facts? Do tell.

[one-eyed fat man]

17. Here's a few armed "freshman"

Class of 1944



Class of 1952



Class of 1969



Class of 1991



Class of 2009



After 26 years of active duty and service in two wars I'll testify that some 18 year olds have shouldered more responsibility than some of their hard partying contemporaries, cutting classes and wasting their parents' money.

Just because some recall their colleges careers as profligate wastrels does not mean all 18 year olds are. In fact, almost 80% of the current US population cannot begin to fathom that level of commitment or responsibility as they have never served a day in their lives.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Awesome post

Some of the best students I have ever had are vets. Whatever frat party leanings they had are gone and they understand what it means to buckle down and get stuff done. No excuses or drama either.

[lonestarnot]

29. I do not blame those that haven't served a day in their lives. At this current point in time, and I

were contemplating enlistment, I would have to think better of it in fighting apparently 3 wars based on lies. If we could get back to it, I believe we were discussing the murderers at large in Tempe, the unarmed child they killed for an IPod and his computer or some other material thing. What do you suppose would make one person do that to another?

[one-eyed fat man]

33. Where to start?

"How comforting, an entire freshman class armed.:thumbsdown: Bout as comforting as driving with one with a learner's permit."

Not all freshman have just turned loose the apron strings. Not all eighteen year olds are irresponsible. I would not consider an 18 year old a child, unless you meant in the sense he was some mother's son, regardless of his age. Most of those students are the same age as many of the soldiers of their generation. Some of those 'freshman' you dismiss so casually are combat veterans taking advantage of the GI benefits to go to college. That they ought be allowed the same means to defend themselves on campus as they would enjoy anywhere else in the state is not untoward. That other states do exactly that without suffering the dire consequences to which you allude might counter your assertions.

As to the killers: They take because they feel they are entitled. It has nothing to do with need, social advantage, economics, or anything other than they choose to steal and kill. Neither the law nor their conscience is any hindrance and until caught or killed they will not stop. Some people willingly choose to do evil; some are evil. To rely on their benevolence and mercy is foolhardy.

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph." --Haile Selassie

"PACIFIST: Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." George Orwell

Those 'progressives' who truly feel that service in the Army is beneath them should consider that by discouraging military service to those who identify with the Left is pretty dumb as a policy. How will you command the loyalty and service of an Armed Force who, by default, has an antipathy to everything you believe in?

[lonestarnot]

37. You may have misinterpretted here. No dismissal of 18 year old freshman in the manner in which you

invented. 18 year old men are not fully developed, mentally or physically. At 18, one would have to have entered military duty at 15 to be a combat veteran, so WTF are you saying really? While I agree that some willing choose to do evil, the question is why? And yes, silence kills. While I am not a combat veteran, I am a veteran, none-the-less, and my first inclination was for ed. benefits, second service to G. and country meme. But my story is not the issue, the murder of this innocent child is. Many innocents are murdered in commitment to service to G. and country, by kids following orders, which IMO does not make that right either. They could just have easily have joined the Peace Corp., but the nation needs its warriors as you outline in your last paragraph for military recruitment. :patriot: Now back to why you think it is that two alleged black children would kill for material items. I only read excuses, not causes. Wonder if you may want to rethink that.

[one-eyed fat man]

40. Part of the problem

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/one-eyed%20fat%20man/17

The pervasiveness of the "thug culture" contributes. Doubt that is pervasive? What would drive millionaire football players feel they need to dress and act like "gangstas" when out clubbing? Or that some think they rate a "pass"

http://blogs.nbcsports.com/home/archives/2008/11/the-giants-have-been-pretty.html

The children of highly successful black parents, enrolled in prestigious schools in affluent suburbs, trail in academic achievement and tell researchers they don't want t seen as "acting white."

http://www.racematters.org/whyareblackstudentslagging.htm

Welfare policies that ensure children grow up fatherless.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=19CPxf-5m7EC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=welfare+and+fatherless+families&ots=bA-NzaCJiJ&sig=ry2n3SsbHdxYwy62uYwu_CjDOVs#v=onepage&q=welfare%20and%20fatherless%20families&f=false

But in the end, turn the question on yourself. As you say you spent some time in the service, you likely know enough about firearms you could readily walk into your neighborhood convenience store and demand the days' receipts. You probably have enough garden tools in your garage you could bludgeon your neighbors in their sleep. Why don't you? What keeps you from it? Is it restraint from without? Is the only reason you don't steal is because you think there might be a camera watching? Or do you not stomp puppies merely because it is WRONG, the restraint coming from within?

Whatever you want to call it, moral compass, sense of right and wrong, why do most members of society have it and others quite demonstrably don't? Why should society tolerate enabling those negative behaviors by making up excuses for those who exhibit criminality early and often?

[lonestarnot]

47. Socio economic factors contribute to development of any child. You cannot in all

good "moral compass" deny that. Where is a welfare policy in place these days. The absence of love or the absence of a present and accounted for parent would also be factors doncha think? Color has nothing to do with this argument, but for the allegation is for this latest Tempe murder, the perps are alleged to be "two black men."

[one-eyed fat man]

58. Too easy!

"Socio economic factors contribute to development of any child."

Then the spoiled rich kids raised with every possible material advantage by indifferent and uncaring parents will always be wonderful, sober, socially conscious, well-adjusted,low-carbon footprint adults.

The offspring of hard-working, engaged, loving, involved, nurturing, motivated, but economically disadvantaged parents will be knocking over liquor stores in junior high.

You do not have to look hard to find rich people who raised bad kids or poor people who raised good kids.

Color's only role in the argument is that, for better or worse, the negative influences and peer pressures are more prevalent in "da 'Hood" than elsewhere. Some (such as Bill Cosby and Cynthia Walker) feel that societal and cultural "pressure" to conform to a "gansta" mentality in African American communities is destroying youth (particularly young males) and creating broken households. The truth of these observations is seen in the biting satire of comedian Chris Rock.

THUG CULTURE IS A CANCER DESTROYING BLACK AMERICA

At some point, the individual, CHOOSES to be a thug or not. If all your friends are thugs, your heroes have always been thugs, your music, literature, and culture celebrate thugs, while your momma dates a string of thugs, the pressure to become a thug would be a lot to overcome. That the "gang wannabe" behaviors are seen in affluent black suburban youth indicate cultural influence and peer pressure outweigh economic advantage or disadvantage.

But in the end, criminals are cancer on society. The analogy goes further, plenty of people get lung cancer who never smoked a day in their lives. Certainly, those who puffed a couple packs of non-filter Camels for forty years are at higher risk, but some of them never devleop cancer. Once a person is diagnosed with cancer, it makes no difference where it came from, they just fervently want it GONE!

Likewise the killer or killer(s) in Tempe. I don't care what path they took to get to where killing some kid over an I-pod and a laptop seemed like a fun way to spend an evening. I want them stopped!

Until then, I feel that adult who is permitted under Arizona law to carry concealed for self-defense should be accorded the opportunity to make their own choice without the hyperbolic pandering about drunken, testosterone-laden, frat boys with guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. All the discussion of testosterone is an attempt to distract from an incovenient truth:

The practice of legal concealed weapons carriage on campus is demonstrably not a problem elsewhere, and there is no

reason not to allow it in Arizona.


Those that don't like the idea have resorted to a cartoonish and rather sexist view of young men to oppose the idea.


Implying that an entire gender is too hormone-addled to allow something? Just as sexist as when the same argument was

used in regard to women and voting.

[Glassunion]

41. Don't mean to butt in... A quick correction.

"At 18, one would have to have entered military duty at 15 to be a combat veteran"

You are mistaken in that statement. If you enlist at 18, you could very well be a combat veteran at 18 as well. You would not be given a 3 year grace period after basic training.

[lonestarnot]

46. Yes you are right, basic to field to casualty or worse.

Terrible scenario of that, so yeah, you are correct.Thank you.

[PavePusher]

42. A person could enter the military after high school...

get out at 19 or 20 or 21 or older, and enter college/university as a freshman. I intend to enter as a 40-something freshman when I retire from the Air Force. In the meantime, 18 does not automatically mean "untrustworthy", as many thousands of current 18-yearolds in the military prove, every day, or many more thousands of their counterparts in civilian life doing the same.

No-one is espousing "arm them all" but you seem to be implying that someone is. Hopefully this is merely a minor miscommunication somewhere.

[lonestarnot]

48. A minor miscommunication somewhere yes.

Hats off to 18 year olds serving, either in school as a serious student, military as a serious soldier. Discussion was raised as to 17 or 18 year olds with concealed weapons on campuses somewhere on this thread. Weapons training may or may not have affect on testosterone levels. I would think just on an educated guess that it may reduce levels from mere exposure. (See post 31 I believe is the number.)

:)

[PavePusher]

53. A couple points....

1. There are only a few states that allow CC under age 21. IIRC, Maine is one. No blood in the streets... Perhaps they just aren't doing it right?

2. Edit: covered in my response to your CBS link.

[jillan]

8. Yeah - that would be great, to have a bunch of hormonal teenagers with guns.

That would really stop the killings, wouldn't it?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

20. I'm not sure what I said that was inflamatory or untrue.

I would be happy to discuss facts and data at any time.

[lonestarnot]

31. Point! Real learning environment there. I'd feel comfortable sitting in that classroom.

Not! Guess poster hasen't seen the study on the increasing testerone levels in adolesent males as teenagers. Can't remember the age range used in that study, but I recall the results were facsinating). The levels increased at the mere knowledge of presence of a gun in close proximity within moments of receipt of the knowledge.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. The mere knowledge that someone has a gun will cause trouble? Evidence, please.

Next-door Utah already allows this, so if it were a real problem there should be some media accounts and/or

court records to back up your claim.


More than one person has pointed out the real-world examples of Washington State and Utah to you, and instead of empirical

evidence of problems- you cite a study of testosterone levels. Without a link or citation, I might add.


I'm sorry, but your discomfort with the idea of properly licensed college students being allowed to carry concealed

handguns on campus is not sufficient reason to disallow it, especially given the fact that the practice doesn't

seem to be harmful in the 2(?) states that already do this.

[lonestarnot]

49. Here

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/31/health/webmd/main1849354.shtml

[lonestarnot]

50. I was educated along with police, swat taught one of my classes, etc. They had training.

Still not allowed to carry in class. I would not have been comfortable with weapons in my classrooms, but the crazies who have come in and slaughtered people while in classrooms does make one want to rethink the idea.

[PavePusher]

43. Can you link this to an actual propensity for violence?

'Cause I'm not seeing such a causuality anywhere...

[lonestarnot]

51. Yes, here is one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/31/health/webmd/main1849354.shtml

[PavePusher]

54. So?

They claim a link between hot sauce and agressiveness, but show no proof/evidence. Also, hot sauce is not even close to actual violence. At best, that study might show a casual link to dominance displays.

Secondly, no control group. Oops, automatically invalid.

Thirdly, what about other potentially lethal object? Why did they not use a hammer, knife, and a rope as well?

Fourthly, a pellet gun is not really a lethal object. If they'd used a real (but unknownst to them, deactivated) gun, that would be a little more telling. Personally, there are lots of people I'd shoot all day long with a pellet gun, but never with a real one.

This "study" is, to say the least, very weak sauce... :P

[lonestarnot]

55. another

http://faculty.knox.edu/fmcandre/guns-testo-aggress.pdf

[PavePusher]

57. Sigh. Same study, still faulty.

Although they claim the toy group as a "control" group, it wasn't. A true control group would have no object to handle, hot sauce only. Actually, to be really thorough, you'd also do groups with object only, no hot sauce.

There was no attempt to isolate factors.

Any decent teacher of freshman or sophmores in high school, would given the student an epic fail.

[lonestarnot]

56. another

http://www.sju.edu/academics/centers/ivrp/pdf/guns-testo-aggress.pdf

[PavePusher]

60. Ummm, your persistance is admirable...

but at this point you are flogging a dead horse.

A really stinky dead horse.

[SteveM]

61. "hormonal teenagers with guns?" Sounds like "Reefer Madness"

with an ageist bent (I know: in the panoply of minor prejudices, this doesn't rate much, but there it is).

You know, when in college, I was hunting a lot and never thought twice about strutting around with my shotgun or pistol. I WAS trying to channel my hormonal best into more pleasurable avenues.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Nevermind that the kid was shot off campus, the article doesn't mention

if he even lived on campus, and if he was not in campus housing there is NO university rule that applies.

But you go ahead and jump to your conclusion. The exercise is good for you.

[Hangingon]

15. Where do you store your gun while you are on campus?

I doubt there is any place. So, you don't carry. Looks to me like the on campus policy carries over to off campus.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. In a gun safe in your apartment, of course.

If you choose to live on campus, you also choose to not carry. It is as simple as that. This is the 21st century - is there any school that still requires freshmen to live on campus? If so, and you choose that school, then you are also choosing to not carry.

Your choice.

[PavePusher]

19. If a student lives off-campus...

they are still not allowed to carry on-campus. Thus, if on the way to or from campus, they would be unarmed and thus less able to exercise the Civil Right of self-defense.

So, point of habitation has little to do with the U's policy.

I'll note that rapes and assaults also occur in on-campus living facilities. How many? Who knows. U's are notoriously reluctant to release such data.

[Euromutt]

44. Institutions of higher learning are actually legally required to publish crime statistics

The Clery Act of 1990 requires them to do so. Mind you, the Clery Act doesn't say they have to make it particularly easy on you to find those statistics ("It was on display, in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard'"), but still, the information is generally somewhere on the website.

[drmeow]

22. Lots of students violate the policy

From what I've heard from students, there are TONS of guns in the dorms here.

Besides, it wouldn't make a difference.

There are two ways in which carry laws could theoretically prevent homicides – as a deterrent to people intent on committing a crime or by preventing the crime in the middle of the act. The first way has no bearing on this case – in that case just having a concealed weapon law in a region tends have that effect.

The second method is much harder to provide support or lack of support for. In order for a concealed weapon to stop a crime that was not already deterred by the law, the person carrying would have to see that there was a risk, pull the weapon, and prevent the crime without becoming a victim. Again, there is no reason to think ASU’s policy would have made any difference in that type of situation, either. First, the student would have had to have a concealed weapons permit – there was no mention in the story I read that he had a permit or owned a gun which he would have otherwise been carrying. Second, he would have had to been able to pull the gun quickly enough to prevent himself from being shot. Based on what I know about psychology, that isn’t very likely. It is one thing to hear someone enter your house and have time to get your gun and shoot. It is very different to be walking down the street and suddenly be confronted with a gun pointed at you and have time to get your gun and fire it before you get shot. In reality, someone nearby would have much greater success in preventing the homicide in a case like that than the potential victim. And, again, ASU’s policy would have absolutely no bearing on that – the victim was not on campus at the time so there was nothing to prevent someone with a permit who was carrying to be nearby. Unless the perps had been following him all the way from campus, they couldn't have known he wasn't carrying just because of the policy.

[PavePusher]

23. Counterpoints...

1. "First, the student would have had to have a concealed weapons permit – there was no mention in the story I read that he had a permit or owned a gun which he would have otherwise been carrying."

In order to carry concealed in AZ, the student would have to be 21 or older. No permit required in AZ, except for a few defined special locations. But at 18, one may Open Carry perfectly legally, no permit required.



2. "Second, he would have had to been able to pull the gun quickly enough to prevent himself from being shot. Based on what I know about psychology, that isn’t very likely."

Actually happens quite often, if you follow such things. There are several websites that track such occurances.



3. " - the victim was not on campus at the time so there was nothing to prevent someone with a permit who was carrying to be nearby."

See my post #19 about carrying to/from campus. Basically, you can't. So if the perp knew the student came from campus, s/he'd be relatively assured that the victim was essentially unarmed.



4. "tons of guns in the dorms"

Doesn't mean they are being carried daily. Far easier to keep a firearm secretly concealed in a dorm room, than to daily conceal it on your body. Especially when its 115 deg. in the shade.

[lonestarnot]

32. You entirely skipped the alleged motivation of the last case, an I POD and a computer.

Please see #31

[one-eyed fat man]

34. Material gain may not be the motivation.

If you wanted to merely steal stuff you could be a sneaky shoplifter, a burglar, break into lockers on campus and have no interaction with the owners of the stuff you are taking. Robbery, by definition implies the threat of force. It might be only physical, like a strong arming an elderly woman for her purse to lethal where knives and guns are used to intimidate the victim.

In robbery the real motivation is terrorizing the victim; the loot is secondary. What the robber wants to see is you cowering, pissing your pants, and blubbering in fear. It is seeing the abject terror in your eyes and the smell of your fear that gets him off. It reinforces his contempt for you and allows him to enjoy your humiliation. It even enables them to rationalize killing as your fear makes you contemptible in their eyes. In that regard robbery is akin to rape. Rape is about control and humiliation, not about sex.

"...it breaks my heart for ... whomever would kill someone for such bullshit."

Your sympathy is entirely misplaced. The vermin who perpetrated the murders rates no more sympathy than a cancer. Like a cancer, whatever flaw in their make-up caused the barbaric and destructive behavior is no longer relevant. It must be excised before it cause death.

My sympathies lie entirely with the victim. My disgust is for those who would ensure a greater abundance of victims with policies whose only result is to ensure predatory sociopaths a target rich environment.

[lonestarnot]

35. So, you throw under the bus the socio econ factors which would turn out such a calloused seething

individual and ignore root causes in a society that would develop into such a killer. Shortsighted IMO.

[one-eyed fat man]

38. Actually, yes.

Poverty makes people poor, it does not MAKE them steal, kill or rape. Millions of people grew up poor and didn't become thieves and murderers. Ted Bundy wasn't impoverished. Charles Manson wasn't destitute. The scumbag may have been miserable, but he wasn't Les Miserable. He wasn't stealing a computer to feed his starving family. In all likelihood he started as a child, stealing from his mother's purse and bullying his classmates for their lunch money but no one intervened lest they bruise his tender psyche or damage his self-esteem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=341856&mesg_id=341856

Like the vicious punk in that episode, he CHOOSES to do evil. He is not incapable of telling right from wrong, he has been a hoodlum for quite some time. His parents are apparently powerless to stop him. He has been terrorizing the neighborhood and the one old woman in particular. The police have responded repeatedly but been powerless to intervene.

I am sure his self-esteem has been shattered. He is just a poor at risk youth. It's not his fault, he's a victim of society, anymore lame excuses you have to justify his despicable and criminal behavior? There is no way the cretin does not know his behavior is wrong. He doesn't care. At some point he might learn a lesson his mother failed to teach him. If he's not killed committing a holdup he far more likely to be sentenced to life without parole than he is to finish high school.

Why are you defending turds like that? He is in a protected caste and he knows it. He knows there's not a damn thing the justice system can do to him even if rapes the woman and murders her in broad daylight on the mound in the middle of Wrigley Field. He is 12. Under Illinois law it is impossible to try him as an adult if he nails the doors and windows shut on the poor woman's house and sets it afire with her in it.

If there is a blame for society it is that it incentivized the destruction of the traditional family, ridiculed conventional middle class standards, that hard work is a quaint anachronism and that right and wrong are not moral certainties but relative to getting caught.

[SteveM]

63. Put another way, econ. conditions mean nothing when the glass starts breaking.nt

[drmeow]

39. Huh?

#31 is about testosterone and I'm not clear on why the motives of the shooter would make a difference in the desire of someone to carry and the ability of that person to prevent being victimized if they were carrying.

[lonestarnot]

52. What can I say. If you are really interested in figuring it out, read the entire thread.

There is a link to a study that was being discussed, may have referenced wrong number, sorry.

[SteveM]

62. Certainly possible, but why do armed robbers go after 7-11s?

Where cash is in short supply? As one thug told me when I was working in a county slam: "It ain't the money, it's so we can go back and tell everyone we killed someone." (Jail workers confirmed this was SOP for the worst goblins.) Today, some call it street cred, others "juice."

If the prospective victim was seen to be carrying nothing but books, but he/she was most vulnerable (not situationally aware), the attack may still have occurred. (Funny thing about apps, iPods, Blackberries, earphones, cells: they are a signal to a thug of easy meat.)

IIRC, in the constellation of homicides in the U.S., some 80% are committed by a thug with an average of 3 felonies on his/her record; the victims are quite often of the same profile. But to some of these thugs -- quite frankly, backwoods killers, in past history -- any vulnerable person is fair fame; besides, nothing like a "gun-free zone." Incidentally, I've seen signs of this sort increasingly drying up here in liberal Austin, TX.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Utah and Washington State allow properly licensed students to carry guns on campus

If you think what PP suggests is whack, you should be able to find some evidence to support your arguments.

Put your Google-fu to work and make your case.


UU and UWA have some very large campuses, so there are at least a few armed students in class even as we speak.

[Euromutt]

45. To qualify your point re: Washington state, it's not a *criminal* offense

Just about every state-run college and university, however, has some rules making it a disciplinary violation for students, staff and faculty to carry on-campus. And since those rules are incorporated in the Washington Administrative Code, it is technically "against the law" (albeit not criminal law) for a CPL-holding student to carry to class.

The snag is that the state constitution stipulates that "the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired" so where state-run institutions are concerned, it is very likely that if push came to shove (e.g. a student were expelled for being caught carrying and sued the college), the rules would be struck down as unconstitutional. It is entirely possible, therefore, that the administrations prefer not to actually enforce those rules (insofar as they even can be enforced) lest they be put to that test and found wanting. After all, as long as they're on the books, at least somebody may follow them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Discrepancy between the violent crime rate and the homicide rate

are not necessarily in error.

There may be more murders while the assault and rape stats are down, and as both assaults and rapes would vastly outnumber murders in any case, the increase in the murder rate would only marginally affect the violent crime rate.

Not to say the murder rate isn't very disturbing.

[DonP]

21. "Students" under discussion aren't teenagers, hormonal or otherwise

Any time you mention "students" carrying on campus, the less informed jump to the lowest common denominator.

They don't realize that the "students" under discussion are 21 or older, are already carrying everywhere else anyway, with permits of course if required. Hence the "teenager" references in every other post are either ignorant (small i) or just plain misinformed.

And, of course some people think that Animal House was actually a documentary and college is full of only drunken, stoned wastrels.

If you are rude enough to actually ask about the campus shootings at VT, NIU or any other gun free college zone, they start screaming at you in print. Mainly because they don't actually think through the "what if" scenarios.

Their solution to an illegal gun on campus is to quickly call for people with legal guns to rush to the campus as a solution.

In their mind it's far better to wait for an execution style death I assume and hope the killer doesn't find you, or can't break into your poorly barricaded classroom than to risk ... "being caught in a crossfire of bullets so the police can't tell the criminal from the armed students".

Little information, vivid imaginations, ignorance reigns supreme.

[jillan]

24. WHY the name calling? Just because I don't agree with you, you start referring to me as less

informed? Ignorant?

You are entitled to your own opinion, which I totally disagree with, BUT I am NOT going to debate someone who has to resort to insults and trying to belittle me. No thanks.

Animal House a documentary? How dare you insult me like that.

[PavePusher]

25. There was no name-calling.

Ignorance (demonstratable at that) is a condition (remediable, at will), not an object.

No insults were given, merely descriptions of common behavior when this debate occurs. And you seem to be falling into the "bringing up facts means you're insulting me" school. Not an effective debating strategy.

P.S. IIRC, in the deleted posts, someone was implying that I was a murder-happy cretin after I repeatedly asked for a factual debate. I don't remember if it was you or someone else.

[DonP]

26. That's why I said "small i ignorant" to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Your opinion is fairly irrelevant. We're talking about facts, laws and several school that already allow CCW on campus here, what you "Think" might happen isn't as important as the facts are.

You are merely poorly informed on the subject under discussion, as evidenced by your references to "teenagers", hormonal or otherwise. (For now we'll all politely ignore how incredibly rude it is to refer to anyone as hormonal).

Teenagers are not allowed to get concealed carry permits. Your must be 21 and pass the state's requirements, which may differ slightly, but usually involve several background checks including the FBI and fingerprinting, pass a course that involves the legal responsibilities and a range qualification, comparable to the one police have to pass once a year. CCW holders have also been proven to be from 4 to 10 times more law abiding than the general population without permits.

In other words they are proven to be safer to be around and more law abiding than people like you, without a permit.

No insults involved just facts. Sorry if that upsets you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Time to inform yourself on the subject. Some students *do* carry legally, in at least two states

Washington, Utah, and IIRC Alaska. And they are not teenagers, as you must be 21 in all states to legally carry a concealed handgun.

If this is problematic, you should be able to find accounts of those problems online.


I can see no reason not to allow the practice on the campuses of public universities in Arizona.

[cleanhippie]

28. Feeling guilty about something?

This poster never once referred to you personally. Why so defensive?