Students For Concealed Carry on Campus Holding Week-Long Protest April 5 – 9

Students For Concealed Carry on Campus Holding Week-Long Protest April 5 – 9

The Students For Concealed Carry on Campus Organization (SCCC) is holding a week-long protest next week, April 5 – 9, 2010.

These so-called “Gun-Free Zones” are killing our children.

When tragic events such as school shootings occur, some people seem tempted to call for “gun free zones”, in which it would be unlawful to have a firearm, and/or where the penalties for having a firearm would be increased dramatically. The belief that these “gun free zones” will prevent crime relies upon flawed reasoning, namely the belief that criminals will be deterred by these new “gun free zone” laws, even know they are not deterred by longstanding laws against murder, armed robbery, rape, etc.


——— 1:58 Video – “Gun Free Zones – 1/2 Hour News Hour” (Comedy Spoof):

———2:11 Video – “Unguarded Gun Free Zones Kill People”:

———  4:01 Video – “When Seconds Count” (Argument FOR SCCC):

Perhaps looking at a few high profile shootings will better illustrate the point.

1. The Columbine Massacre

The Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado, near Denver and Littleton. Two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, embarked on a shooting rampage, killing 12 students and a teacher, as well as wounding 23 others, before committing suicide. The killers unlawfully brought guns into their high school, and proceeded to unlawfully kill innocent people, before unlawfully killing themselves. Guns were not allowed in the school, and neither was murder, yet law did not deter these people who were bent on committing murder then suicide. Perhaps if the teachers had been given the option to voluntarily receive training and a concealed handgun to defend themselves and their students, this tragedy could have been averted or at least lessened.

2. The Westroads Mall Shooting

The Westroads Mall shooting was a murder-suicide that occurred on December 5, 2007, at the Von Maur department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, United States. Nineteen-year-old Robert A. Hawkins killed nine people (including himself) and wounded four, two of them critically. The mall was a “gun free” zone as well, meaning that law abiding citizens were not allowed to carry a gun for self defense. The killer who was bent on murdering as many people as he could, before committing suicide, wasn’t deterred by the laws against murder, nor was he deterred by the sign in front of the mall which stated guns were not allowed.

3. The Virginia Tech Massacre

The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting which occurred on April 16th, 2007, at the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia. The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many more before committing suicide. Virginia tech was a “gun free zone”, which meant the students and professors were forbidden to carry concealed handguns for their own protection. This didn’t deter the gunman, who just wanted to kill his fellow students before taking his own life. Again, a person who wants to die wasn’t deterred by the prospect of jail time for having a gun in the “gun free zone”, or even the possibility of being executed for committing murder.

4. The Northern Illinois University Shooting

The Northern Illinois University shooting was an incident that took place on February 14, 2008, during which a gunman shot multiple people on the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, before committing suicide. Five of his victims were killed, eighteen were wounded. NIU’s campus was a gun free zone as well, and indeed the entire state of Illinois prohibits concealed carry. Once more we see that a gunman bent on murder and suicide didn’t follow the rules of the “gun free zone”, but his victims did follow the rules and were left defenseless.

5. The Lane Bryant Shooting

The Lane Bryant shooting was an incident of mass murder and armed robbery at a Lane Bryant clothing outlet in the Brookside Marketplace in the Chicago suburb of Tinley Park, Illinois, that occurred on February 2, 2008. The shooting resulted in five fatalities, and the injury of another. The killer used his gun to subdue 6 women, before binding and killing them. The gunman escaped and is still at large, despite the fact that an armed police officer was just a couple thousand feet away. Being in the state of Illinois, concealed carry is illegal, so all 6 of the women were defenseless. The gunman, who was willing to risk the death penalty or life in prison for murder, kidnapping, and armed robbery, wasn’t deterred by the law against carrying a concealed handgun. The victims, being law abiding people, followed the law and were left defenseless.

6. The Fort Hood Shootings

An Islamic murderer who ignored the Army’s strict rules against carrying a loaded gun on a military base killed 13 soldiers and wounded dozens more.  The victims, who abided by the Army’s gun control rules, were defenseless.  The deadly shooting spree was only stopped when a civilian police officer arrived and shot the gunman.

7. The Mercaz HaRav Massacre

A lone gunman shot multiple students at the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva, a religious school in Jerusalem, Israel. Eight students and the shooter were killed and ten more were wounded, five of them in serious to critical condition. The attack began at 8:36 p.m. local time and ended about twenty minutes later. The attacker was not stopped by the police, but rather by a student, Yitzhak Dadon, whom saved the lives of countless students by lawfully shooting the attacker with his personal firearm. This is a clear example of a student who was permitted by law to carry a concealed handgun, and who used this handgun to stop the criminal and save lives. One can only wonder how many lives at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Lane Bryant, Northern Illinois University, and the Westroads mall could have been saved if the law abiding victims and bystanders had been allowed to carry a gun for self defense.



The above tragic and horrific events are just a few examples, each of which show that a person who is willing to commit a serious crime like murder or armed robbery, or a person who is planning to kill themselves, will not even give a second thought the penalty for carrying a gun. They know that if they are caught, the gun possession charge will be the least of their worries, or they are too mentally disturbed to think rationally about and care about the penalties.  In short, criminals ignore gun control laws.

On the other hand, the law abiding students, teachers, and shoppers who were unable to defend themselves had a lot to live for, and didn’t want to risk their freedom and futures by facing a gun possession charge. A teacher who unlawfully carried a gun in self defense could lose their job, and face jail time. A college student who illegally carried a gun for self defense could be expelled and face bleak career prospects, in addition to the specter of a prison sentence. A mall shopper who unlawfully carried a gun would face similar prospects. This shows that the gun free zones only disarm the law abiding citizens who we don’t need to fear, and won’t deter the killers.

There are many problems with gun control. Those problems include the fact that criminals don’t obey laws (including gun control laws), and that failure to obey laws is what makes them criminals.

The people who will obey the gun bans are the law abiding citizens, who wouldn’t commit crimes in the first place. Such people are the students at universities, the shoppers at malls, and the other good people in society who die in “gun free zones“. They obey the gun bans because they believe in laws, and because they don’t want a criminal conviction on their record. The problem is that these are the very people who we would want to have guns, since they could help stop criminals and otherwise protected themselves and the rest of society.

These examples should make clear the fundamental problem with passing gun control laws clear.

Some important notes

The vast majority of multiple victim public shootings (massacres) occur in so-called “gun-free” zones.

Killers almost exclusively seek out “gun free” zones for their attacks. In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits. Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.  Such signs are nothing less than an invitation to criminals.

The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible. Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event. They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed.

The vast majority of mass murders in the United States occur in schools or on college campuses where firearms are banned as a matter of state statutes. Others took place in post offices where firearms are banned as a matter of federal law. Most of the rest took place in shopping malls or other businesses where the owners posted signs prohibiting firearm possession by anyone including those with Concealed Carry permits.

The best available evidence shows that the ability to carry a weapon lawfully reduces the incidence of mass public shootings.  Mass public shootings occur almost exclusively in places – like universities – where concealed carry is proscribed.

There are numerous examples of firearms owners acting to disarm would-be mass murderers, thereby saving lives.

Concealed-handgun-permit holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding individuals.

If gun bans truly reduced the risk of mass public shootings, then gun-free zones would be refuges from such havoc. Sadly, the exact opposite is true. All multiple-victim public shootings in the United States with more than three fatalities have occurred where concealed handguns are prohibited. Moreover, the worst primary and secondary school shootings have occurred in Europe, despite its draconian gun laws.

These facts should not be surprising. Gun-free zones are magnets for killers bent on maximizing their body count. They know that they face far less risk of quickly being stopped there. There are numerous cases in which private firearm owners have disarmed or disabled those attempting to murder indiscriminately in public places.

In such circumstances, police officers and other “first responders” are anything but. The true first responders are often armed citizens who are in the line of fire. The possibility that a legally armed citizen could distract or disable an assailant could be the difference between life and death for potential victims.

Nor are the benefits of permitting concealed carry on campus limited to its effect on the likelihood of mass carnage. Numerous peer-reviewed academic studies document that concealed-carry laws reduce rates of violent crime. Therefore, extending the right to carry will also help reduce the rates of crimes against individuals that occur all too frequently in gun-free zones, such as college campuses.

On risks that concealed-carry licensees pose to their fellow citizens, the record is abundantly clear. Based on recent data, Texas permit holders commit misdemeanors and felonies at a rate of about one-seventh that of the rest of the population. For violent crimes, the rates are even lower.

When concealed-carry laws were first proposed, opponents prophesied a plague of indiscriminate gunplay. It didn’t happen. Similar apocalyptic fears are being raised now. The facts, though, demonstrate that concealed carry will reduce mass shootings.

The notion that declaring an area to be gun-free will keep criminals from maliciously using guns is ludicrous. Any law that makes self-defense illegal or impractical is an illegitimate law, because such a law ultimately subjects people to the criminal element.

Many universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology.  We respect their right to hold those views, but we challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever one sees one of those “Gun-free Zone” signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, they should always wonder exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don’t mean much to the criminals.

Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby’s Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now schools and universities gun-free zone.  Do we really want Starbucks or other businesses to be added to this list?

Does anybody see what the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created?  America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and we’ve about had enough of it.

The Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insist on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

Thomas Paine wrote: “The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world.  All would be wonderful if evil men would disarm, but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue; the weak would become prey to the strong.”

People everywhere  need to refuse to support any laws that leave them defenseless against murderers, robbers, rapists and arsonists.”

The notion that declaring an area to be gun-free will keep criminals from maliciously using guns is ludicrous. Any law that makes self-defense illegal or impractical is an illegitimate law, because such a law ultimately subjects people to the criminal element.

I stand behind SCCC in advocating for their right to self protection, wherever they may be.  These UNGUARDED “Gun-Free Zones” are killing our children!

No. 93-1260

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ALFONSO LOPEZ, Jr.on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

[April 26, 1995]

Justice Thomas, concurring.

The Court today properly concludes that the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the authority to prohibit gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school, as it attempted to do in the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4844. Although I join the majority, I write separately to observe that our case law has drifted far from the original understanding of the Commerce Clause. In a future case, we ought to temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence in a manner that both makes sense of our more recent case law and is more faithful to the original understanding of that Clause……..Read More

47.606209 -122.332071
Published in: on April 3, 2010 at 3:12 pm  Comments (1)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by YouCanCarry and Thomas Silence, Steve Neuenschwander. Steve Neuenschwander said: Students For Concealed Carry on Campus Holding Week-Long Protest April 5 – 9: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: