I had been meaning to post about HB 199. Then this e-mail was forwarded to me, so am posting a version of it. A colleague comments that student opposition to this bill is very strong, and that this point may help convince legislators to oppose the measure.
House Bill 199 of the current legislative session would allow persons holding a permit to carry a concealed handgun to carry that handgun on college campuses. It revokes the authority of college presidents to impose other rules regarding this matter. In spite of opposing testimony by the college presidents, the Commissioner of Higher Education, and the university police departments, the bill was passed by the House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice by a 11-3 vote. It has been reported to the full House and there may be a vote as early as Monday, May 12.
This bill imagines the Gary Cooper figure rising and protecting us from the deranged student attacking our class room. The odds of a tragic incident involving permitted guns far outweighs those of one involving a crazed attacker. Please oppose this bill and contact members of the House and express your opinion. A phone call is best. If you write or send an e-mail be sure to use your own stationery or personal e-mail address. Please do this before Monday.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
Someone else said their students have mixed reactions to the bill.
People need to realize that most shootings are not planned but are crimes of more immediate passion. Guns have to be available for these types of shootings to occur.
Someone else said it will probably take several shootings on campuses in LA as a result of this law until the legislators or courts suspend it.
I hope no one is killed although it’s likely that they will be.
The mailing lists are buzzing about this and there are faculty who heavily favor the bill (although most do not).
Today the bill was to have been voted upon but its proponent pulled it due to heavy opposition including a demonstration and an editorial in the Times-Picayune by the state commissioner of higher education. LSU coaches and directors also oppose the bill. See The Advocate / WBRZ:
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/18877054.html
Wooten (the proponent) says he is going to do more work on it due to ‘perception problems’ and call for the vote in two weeks. Keep watching!
on another topic, here is an interesting aca-demonic article
Academonic, I like that word. And need to study that piece – !
Oh yeah, and see my latest entry on my site. Although very brief, you may be able to get a very general gist of what I’m talking about since it relates to some things we’ve been talking about here. I’m at last starting to find out the source of what I have always found to be inimical in this culture (compared to my culture of origin). I am starting to see how empty formalist ideas about equality twists things. There is a subtle movement by which all of life’s content is reduced to nothing (and as an aside, I think this is why abusers find it easy to abuse, under a system of reified consciousness – their abuse is “just a good” as anybody else’s good behaviour; it’s just a mild variation from the norm if it is perceived at all. This is how formal equality as a reified category messes with the mind. How can I be abused by someone formally EQUAL to me??! — that would be a logical contradiction, under reified terms. But this is also one of the reasons why mental processes conditioned by bourgeois society are uppity: The citoyens are so full of wallowing in bourgeois Idealism that they are generally unable to see the contradictions at an empirical level. They cannot.)
Great comment, and yes – I’ve already glimpsed the entry you mention, earlier this morning, meant to mention that it is *precisely* germane to this thread – although I need to study it further (as well as the Larval Subjects post) – maybe tonight. 🙂
I must respectfully disagree with your take on this bill.
http://www.concealedcampus.org/press_hb199.htm
I too must respectfully disagree.
These permits allow their (trained and carefully screened) holders to carry concealed weapons at most locations* in the state, yet license holders commit less crimes per capita than the police. Utah allows carry on campus, yet they’ve had no school shootings result from it, let alone school shootings by permit holders. What reason do we have to believe that despite the favorable results seen in this state off-campus and seen outside this state on-campus we will see an increase in violence on our state’s campuses?
YOU HAVE FORTUNATELY NOT HAD A MAJOR INCIDENT YET. IS THAT POSITIVE, OR JUST NON NEGATIVE? –Z
Is there something that changes in a person when they walk within 1000 feet* of a Louisiana campus that makes them suddenly prone to murder?
IT IS NOT THE CAMPUS, IT IS THE GUN. –Z
I must also object to the mention of the athletics staff as if the issue of sports recruitment was paramount to this debate. This is a question of self-defense, safety, and liberty – potentially of life and death. It’s often said that LSU football is a religion but I find bringing up recruiting in such a debate to be extremely inappropriate. Our focus on this issue should be guarding the safety and freedom of our citizens, not catering to the unfounded fears of athletes.
IT IS THE ATHLETICS STAFF WHO OBJECTED – AND IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, THE PARENTS. I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THESE ENTITIES. UNFOUNDED FEARS OF ATHLETES? ???
I AM NOT AWARE OF ATHLETES AS BEING PARTICULARLY FEARFUL. ALL THE ONES I HAVE HAD IN CLASS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN QUITE BRAVE, WILLING TO TAKE ON DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, STUDY DIFFICULT MATERIAL, AND SO ON.
ATHLETES ARE ALSO QUITE AGILE AND STRONG PHYSICALLY. I INFER THIS FROM THEIR ABILITIES WITH VENETIAN BLINDS AND ALSO MUCH HEAVIER EQUIPMENT. I REALLY DO NOT SEE ATHLETES AS FEARFUL PERSONS. WHERE DO YOU GET THIS? ??? –Z
*Exceptions include schools, churches, assorted government buildings, and bars. (RS 14:95.5 for bars, RS 40:1379.3 for the others.) And guns may already be brought onto campus freely, provided that they remain in the car. See RS 14:95.6 B(5).
**Gun free zones extend 1000 feet beyond the boundaries of the school.
RSN/Gun Enthusiast, this is my personal blog and I do not want the comments thread hijacked by the gun lobby or used to publish prose written for their purposes. I will abridge your comment here but I am not publishing your name or e-mail address. –Z
“A good reason to pass the bill is the same as the reason for passing RS 40:1379.3: guns in the possession of trained and licensed individuals can protect them and the people around them.”
I AM NOT FOR THAT BILL EITHER. FIREARMS REDUCTION IS MY NAME, SORRY. PERMIT OR NOT. –Z
“Why are people who spend their time on campus required to be defenseless?”
I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO BRING GUNS INTO MY HOUSE, EITHER. –Z
Is there a reason that [students] are discriminated against by the government, called “children” by an elected representative while being denied equal treatment and protection?
THAT IS A RIDICULOUS SET OF PROPOSITIONS, FLAWED AT ITS BASE. *MORE* PROTECTION IS THE POINT.
“The athletics staff were not the only ones who objected. Many people argued for and against the bill however a large portion of air time went to the athletics staff; the conclusion I draw is that they were considered more important. That is what bothers me – that when an issue of public safety came up a good deal of attention was given to people who play games for a living and their concerns as to possible impairment of recruiting players for those games. Perhaps I’m being overly sensitive.”
–COLLEGE SPORTS ARE BIG BUSINESS, NOT “GAMES.” –Z
“I don’t consider athletes to be particularly fearful; my claim is that, if the athletics staff are to be believed in their claim that the bill will hamper recruitment, athletes have an unfounded fear that guns in the hands of trained and licensed individuals will reduce their safety.”
–THERE IS CAMPUS SECURITY AND THE POLICE. –Z
Here is some more detailed information on a position like mine:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw –Z
I polled my students on this tonight. They unanimously said, NO GUNS ON CAMPUS. I asked the most conservative one why he said this. He said:
“Because this area is not dangerous enough to warrant that kind of ‘protection’. Because people are nervous enough that having firearms available could lead them to do things they may regret. Because the idea that one needs guns increases paranoia, and it is easy to believe it is time to shoot when really, it isn’t.”