That’s the title of my forthcoming article in the Connecticut Law Review; a revised version is now available. The article suggests that, under Heller, bans on guns at schools are constitutional. However, as a policy matter, gun prohibition on campuses turns them into targets for criminals, particularly mass killers. The response of anti-gun groups is to warn about the dangers of 18-year-olds carrying AK-47 rifles to keggers. For the record, I do not think that anyone should take an AK-47 (or any other gun) to a kegger. However, there are sensible policies that avoid the dangerous extremes of creating a cluster of thousands of defenseless victims, or teenagers bringing machine guns to keggers. For example, adult employees of the school who already have been issued concealed carry licenses by the state should not be barred from licensed carry while on campus. A professor at a medical school who lawfully carries a licensed concealed handgun throughout the state is not going to suddenly turn into a violent criminal if he also carries while on campus.
chris says:
However, there are sensible policies that avoid the dangerous extremes of creating a cluster of thousands of defenseless victims,
Like, for example, hiring security professionals such as campus police officers and having *them* carry (and if necessary call the city, state, etc. police for backup). It works almost all the time, despite sensationalist media bias that only reports the failures.
The idea that some professor with a concealed handgun will stop shootings that the campus police won’t is just as fictional as AK-47s at keggers. It might make a good action movie, but it makes lousy policy.
It’s quite possible that people who are licensed to carry in general should be allowed to carry on campus, but for reasons completely unrelated to whether the school is a target for terrorism or whether some of the students are armed and deranged.
October 28, 2009, 1:48 pmjack burton says:
Chris sez: Like, for example, hiring security professionals such as campus police officers and having *them* carry (and if necessary call the city, state, etc. police for backup). It works almost all the time, despite sensationalist media bias that only reports the failures.
Jack replies: Yes, a security guard three buildings away and police backup 20 minutes away is really, really going to help a situation RIGHT NOW.
Chris sez: The idea that some professor with a concealed handgun will stop shootings that the campus police won’t is just as fictional as AK-47s at keggers. It might make a good action movie, but it makes lousy policy.
Jack replies: And isn’t it amazing, folks, that people who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on how well guns work for self defense?
While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with decades of experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to make guns work, and without the anointed ones’ guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?
October 28, 2009, 2:07 pmOrder of the Coif says:
A campus awash in guns can be safe or unsafe irrespective of the mere presence of those weapons.
When I went to High School in West Texas in the early 1960′s, every car in the parking lot (save 1 or 2) had at least one gun in it. Every boy had a 4-inch knife in his pocket (none would admit not to have) and most girls did too. There were knives in unlocked drawers in unlocked Home Ec classrooms, bats in the gym, and crow bars in the shop. Often, on the way home from school, we pulled onto the shoulder of the road to shoot at cans in a nearby arroyo and no one got excited. We were literally awash in potential weaponry. BUT no person got shot, stabbed, or bashed.
Why? It wasn’t lack of tools for mayhem. It was the HUMAN ELEMENT.
The Society in general and the society of the school didn’t tolerate displays of deadly interpersonal violence. Students who couldn’t adhere to the non-violent norm were promptly expelled from the community (for the act of stabbing; not for possessing the tools or skills to do so) or sent off to reform school. The rogues were culled from the herd. And the rest of us were left alone. “Left alone” — what a superlative condition.
Enforcement focused solely on the trouble makers (BECAUSE they were trouble makers) and made really effective use of resources by not wasting them on the rest of the students.
October 28, 2009, 2:10 pmAeon J. Skoble says:
David, that’s so sensible and practical a solution that I hope it’s not doomed to fall on deaf ears. I had excatly the same argument in an intra-campus email discussion forum — in response to my referring to “gun-free zones” as “mandatory defenselessness zones,” a colleague objected with the machine-guns-at-keggers response. I replied substantively as you have in this post, and the only reply I got after that was from an otherwise left-wing colleague who liked the idea!
October 28, 2009, 2:11 pmJames N. Gibson says:
Not being a lawyer I sometimes have trouble accessing law review articles. So I will instead make my own argument regarding the no gun on campus act of the Clinton era.
When I was in High school in the 70s we had drill rifles and target rifles for JROTC training. This was the result of an action by Police unions who took issue with the ROTCs and JROTCs having functional military M-14 rifles in the school armories. So we were relegated to demilitarized Springfield rifles for drill and single shoot 0.22 rifles for marksmanship training.
When no guns on campus was passed it was directed at preventing criminals bringing guns on campus. But instead of preventing that from happening (columbine and other subsequent cases) it removed the drill rifles and target rifles. Now a ROTC color guard is really two color bearers and two other cadets walking in step (the guards have been disarmed). The drill teams are no better (just a group of students walking in step) and the marksmanship training is essentially gone. This unexpected side-effect has been essentially ignored as just another part of liberalizing a military stuck in the dogma of old fashioned ways. Or its viewed as just another attack sanctioned under the ongoing attacks against ROTC for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.
What most people don’t know is that this action against the JROTCs an ROTCs has had a much greater effect on readiness then all the quote kicked out gays. Because this attack is directed at the selective service system and our ability to rapidly increase the size of the Army.
Under the original Selective Service Act the senior ROTC cadets would be immediately drafted as second lieutenants and the Senior JROTC Cadets as Sergeants and Corporals. They would command the squads and platoons that would be formed from the draftees (1916 National Defense Act section 79). Any shortage of these cadets or limitation in their training would force a suspension in the conscription system until the problem was solved. Thus, if the cadets must be run through a multi-month remedial training effort to get their skill in small-arms up to par, the conscription of the men the cadets will command will have to be suspended. This is not crazy talk, under the present selective service act, a draft will be suspended if the government cannot provide for food, clothing, shelter, etc. for the draftees (Section 454, part A). So why should they continue a draft when the government cannot supply the leadership required under the 1916 National Defense Act which the present Selective Service Act invokes (Section 451, part D).
To add further insult to injury, most states in the union were relying on the arms in the JROTCs and ROTCs for use with their State defense forces. Under Federal law each state can have a State Defense Force to replace the National Guard units of said state when these units are drafted into Federal service and sent out of country. Federal law in recent years has been circumvented by the government sending NG troops out without declaring war. In California this has placed the SMR in a interesting position. They were in recent years guarding the NG armories while the Guard was away in Iraq. But they cannot be raised to full strength under Federal law which only allows cadre strength until war is declared. The Federal government will also only supply arms under NG regulations if there are substandard and obsolete arms in Federal store (at last check these were all discarded in the Clinton Era). That leaves the ROTC and JROTC arms which until the early 70s were the reserve arms for the SMR and similar units in other States. Granted in World War Two the Federal government appropriated the ROTC arms for Federal service leaving California only Federally supplied Shotguns; But these were the official reserve of arms for the States. Otherwise, the Federal laws prohibit the States from having a militia for its own defense at a time of war which could be viewed as unconstitutional.
In short thanks to both a Police gun control measure and then no guns on campus we now have a Federal problem in operating the Selective Service in a timely and efficient manner plus the inability of every state in the union to have a defense force during a crisis, and the inability for the government to provide arms it has required of its self to provide to the States. In the case of California the only good thing one can say is that in addition to these Federal law and regulation issues, in 1989 the legislature passed a law prohibiting the SMR from bearing arms unless Congress declares war and then declared in the ASW act that all arms listed were not the arms of the militia (and thus prohibited the State from issuing these arms to its own troops). But the State can change its law real fast (as they did in the Korean War). The Federal government can’t as rapidly find serviceable arms or train the cadets.
October 28, 2009, 2:11 pmJames N. Gibson says:
Order of Coif’s remark on why aving all these arms didn’t correspond to violence. “It wasn’t lack of tools for mayhem. It was the HUMAN ELEMENT.”
Please note that there is no report of any weapons being present on campus at the 20 person gang rape of the young woman in San Fran. As police investigators have already stated no one tried to stop this attack and there is some evidence boys at the attack took cellphone video of it to put on facebook. What good is keeping arms away from these monsters we are producing in our schools. Its only a matter of time before they get the arms anyway.
October 28, 2009, 2:31 pmSGD says:
Utah allows anyone holding a concealed permit to carry in public elementary schools, secondary schools and colleges. The AG opined that schools could not prevent teachers from carrying.
I assume if there had been some massacre resulting from this law I would have heard about it.
October 28, 2009, 2:36 pmPeteP says:
Another case point – me.
In a world long ago and far away, I was in a job ( HVAC / R service & repair ) that took me to many many schools ( and prisons, and jails, and stores large and small, malls, and any and every type of establishment you can name ) that had malfunctioning equipment. As the day progressed, I never knew where my next service call would be, or how late I would have to work ( late evening / early morning was not unusual ).
I carried a 357 in the glove box, and SOMETIMES in my pocket ( late at night, bad neighborhoods, etc ). Which means it was in my service truck every day. If I got a call to a local school, or jail, or prison, there it was, in the truck. I might see 5 other calls before I got home, I might be out at 1 AM behind the seediest convenience store in the worst ‘hood’ area fixing their refrigeration unit so the local people could buy fresh cold milk in the morning, or fixing the heat in a blizzard and 10 below so they don’t freeze in that apartment building, etc.
If I had abided by the ‘gun free zones’ rules of all kinds, that would mean that I was simply prohibited from ever leaving home with my gun, for practicle purposes. I could never tell my boss or customers ‘OK, it will take me an extra hour or two to get to that call, so I can go home and drop off or pick up my gun, depending on where the call is’.
So, I made the decision ‘better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6′.
Screw the law, it’s an asshole :-)
October 28, 2009, 2:38 pmBill Poser says:
What is even more problematic about bans of guns on campuses is that they usually prohibit possession anywhere on campus, including in a parked vehicle. I worked for a while at a place that had such a total ban on possession of firearms on campus. If I followed my usual practice, whenever I parked on campus I would be in violation since I routinely kept my rifle in my vehicle. It was perfectly safe and legal: unloaded, locked, in a case, and concealed, and could only have become a threat if I had removed it from the vehicle, unlocked it, loaded it, and left the the parking lot with it, but the way the rules were formulated, it was just as much a violation sitting in my vehicle.
October 28, 2009, 2:49 pmJust Dropping By says:
However, as a policy matter, gun prohibition on campuses turns them into targets for criminals, particularly mass killers. . . . there are sensible policies that avoid the dangerous extremes of creating a cluster of thousands of defenseless victims
VC needs an eye-rolling “smiley.” The average person has a greater likelihood of winning a lottery jackpot than being the victim of a “mass killer” and I can’t begin to see how the odds of the event (one way or another) would have any impact on the constitutionality of restrictions on carrying firearms. But at least this is a useful example of the fact that policy making by hysterical overreaction to cherry-picked sensationalized data points isn’t the exclusive province of liberals.
October 28, 2009, 2:49 pmjack burton says:
dropping by sez: The average person has a greater likelihood of winning a lottery jackpot than being the victim of a “mass killer”
Jack replies: It’s never the odds… it is what is at stake that counts.
October 28, 2009, 4:37 pmKevin P. says:
All these massacres are used to drum up still more laws to ban law-abiding citizens from possessing and using guns. Other than that, there is little impact.
October 28, 2009, 4:38 pmSteve says:
The article uses the absence of massacres in Utah as a policy argument against gun bans. So it is hard for me to understand how the reverse argument can somehow be off limits.
October 28, 2009, 5:07 pmCJColucci says:
dropping by sez: The average person has a greater likelihood of winning a lottery jackpot than being the victim of a “mass killer”
Jack replies: It’s never the odds… it is what is at stake that counts.
That just isn’t true. We drive without buckling our seatbelts and smoke cigarettes. And anyone who went around wearing a football helmet all day to protect himself from the fatal consequences of falling masonry would be considered a lunatic.
October 28, 2009, 5:27 pmEvery one of us every day takes statistically inconsequential risks of death, which we wouldn’t do if only the stakes, and not the odds, were what counted. And we rarely bother to take even modest steps (like wearing a football helmet) to protect against minuscule risks of fatal harm. As a gun owner myself, I don’t much care what the rules are regarding guns in schools: the threat of a harm that gun-toting teachers might deter is probably about as tiny as the threat that the gun-toting teachers themselves present. Pick your poison, but the dose is probably too small to matter.
jack burton says:
cj sez: Every one of us every day takes statistically inconsequential risks of death,
Jack replies: Absolutely correct. And it is OUR choice as to what we choose to do to confront and modify those risks. If someone chooses not to carry a handgun because he feels the risk is small… more power to him. And as long as he doesn’t try to interfere with MY assessment of the risks, the stakes involved, and the steps I take we’ll get along just fine.
And that is what Kopel’s argument is all about.
October 28, 2009, 5:42 pmAllan says:
Hmmm, no guns mean defenseless victims. I don’t buy it. Were it true, schools would generally be killing zones. That is not the case. Virginia Tech-like massacres are not common.
Indeed, having firearms around does not guarantee much. When I was stationed at Fort Bragg, an enterprising soldier got himself an automatic weapon and a sniper position and gunned down a bunch of his fellow soldiers. He was subdued by special forces guys who happened to be running by. They were unarmed (at least that is my recollection).
October 28, 2009, 5:48 pmOrder of the Coif says:
Re my high school experience. Since there was a gun in every car, there were LOTS of guns at keggers. And, in the days before MADD, any male over 5′ tall could find a “good ol’ boy” outside the liquor store to go in and buy 3 cases in return for a six-pack. So … everyone got a buzz on but no one got shot. Yup, drunken teenagers, guns, and no violence (except pushing matches and an occasional wild punch).
Social control (of the human being) works not object control (of the inanimate thing). IIRC this point is made by David Kopel himself in his award winning book — The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy.
October 28, 2009, 6:04 pmjack burton says:
That’s a pretty standard belief of those who would limit guns in society: Because guns don’t protect in every situation, then obviously they are not good in any situation.
Guns won’t protect one from lightning, or losing a winning lottery ticket, Aunt Mabel spending a week at your home, or even a mental case like Kreutzer from shooting up an Army base… but one saved me from two thugs who wanted what I had and were willing to do me harm to get it.
Not to mention all these thousands of everyday citizens who have successfully used guns to defend themselves.
October 28, 2009, 6:07 pmRandy says:
“Hmmm, no guns mean defenseless victims. I don’t buy it. Were it true, schools would generally be killing zones. That is not the case. Virginia Tech-like massacres are not common.”
I don’t buy it either. I went to high school, college and law school, and never once heard any gun shots or had any person anywhere killed by guns.
In fact, that is a ringing endorsement for not having guns — think of all the crimes that have been prevented simply because criminals didn’t have ready access to guns.
Now, I realize it’s impossible to count something that never happened. But as one commentator said as evidence that he went to school in Texas where everyone had a weapon, and no crime occured, we can just as easily conclude that when no one has a weapon and no crime occures, then it must be due to lack of weapons.
In other words, no one can prove that weapons present, or no weapons present, cause or prevent anything at all.
October 28, 2009, 6:20 pmLarryA says:
Because at least since 2000 every active shooting with more than two innocent deaths has occurred in a “gun-free” zone.
The active shooting that defined the argument was the New Life Church incident in December, 2007. Estimates at the scene were that the shooter could easily have killed 50-100 of the seven thousand people on the campus, most of whom were in the sanctuary where he was headed when a concealed handgun licensee shot him.
Not all of us do. In fact, we have laws that require the use of seat belts, even though the chance of being in an accident any particular day is small. Are you saying we should have a law prohibiting the use of seatbelts by those of us who want them? Then don’t promote laws prohibiting concealed carry for those of us who would rather be safer.
Compared to gun shows, rifle ranges, and firearm dealers, schools are killing zones.
The Herald Independent School District in North Texas instituted a new policy last year allowing concealed carry by licensed teachers. Have you heard about all the problems they had? No? Well?
About the only place criminals don’t have ready access to guns is when they’re in prison. We all know what peaceful places they are.
October 28, 2009, 6:27 pmSteve says:
Because at least since 2000 every active shooting with more than two innocent deaths has occurred in a “gun-free” zone.
Does Pennsylvania have a law against guns in fitness centers? What about the shooting rampage in Alabama earlier this year?
October 28, 2009, 6:58 pmPintler says:
Your argument may apply to the population at large, but what about someone who does face a non trivial particularized risk (battered wife, witness, police spouse)? The bans affect everyone.
Another problem with the helmet analogy is that many people do in fact wear helmets all day to protect against the minuscule risk of fallen objects – they are called ‘hard hats’ :-). If a person’s particular circumstances raise their risk of being victim of a violent crime are as high as the average construction worker’s risk of head injury, is it then reasonable to allow them to carry everywhere?
October 28, 2009, 7:06 pmOrder of the Coif says:
Exactly, the presence or absence of guns is not a factor in determining when violence will occur. The HUMAN actor makes that decision.
But if violence occurs and you are defenseless, the choice to defend is denied to you when you most need it. And the choice to defend MY life isn’t yours to take whether you are a school board or a legislature. You may have the power and the legal authority but you don’t have the moral right.
I suspect much the the same is true of fires and fire extinguishers. We have the extinguisher in the pantry, not because everyone is a trained, experienced firefighter, but because we want the choice to defend against the fire. We know there are few fires, few fires observed while extinguishable, and few successful extinguishments; BUT we want the ability to make the choice and the tools to succeed. We pay the cost of vigilance in order to have that choice.
When I was a lawyer in the criminal Justice system I observed (as confirmed by every cop I know) that criminals use whatever is at hand to facilitate their aggression. They have pedestrian tastes. Also, in every mass shooting situation that I’m aware of the killer specifically brought a gun from home to the location of the shooting. Since he was on a mission with a murderous objective, I doubt that he cared that gun possession was illegal.
October 28, 2009, 7:33 pmjack burton says:
PA allows businesses to not allow guns in their business. I just confirmed with a call to an LA Fitness in PA that they don’t allow guns.
The Alabama shootings were all in private homes or on the street which makes your question pretty moot. It ended in the factory in which the person had worked, and since virtually all working sites have fairly boilerplate rules about firearms not allowed I’d have to say that it was a disarmed place also.
October 28, 2009, 7:42 pmHarryEagar says:
‘While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with decades of experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to make guns work.’
Yes, that’s about how I see it after 40+ years as a newspaperman writing about who gets shot with what.
As I’ve written here before, I was raised around guns and hunters. I wised up when I was 17 and it occurred to me that I had never been around people with guns who weren’t also boozing.
We had a guy working for us who was one of those experienced gun users like Jack. He even gave an interview in the company newsletter about how he taught gun safety classes. Then he got mad at his son about leaving a cord on the floor, fired 7 shots at him with a .45 from about 6 feet range and missed 5 times.
I don’t think you’ll read about him at Alphecca, though.
October 28, 2009, 8:48 pmjack burton says:
Harry sez: I was 17 and it occurred to me that I had never been around people with guns who weren’t also boozing.
jack replies: At 17 I also thought I knew everything there was to know about the world and the way it operates. It’s a chronic condition for teens but few people brag about it after they become adults.
Harry sez: We had a guy working for us who was one of those experienced gun users like Jack.
Jack replies: And that very same night 79,999,900 gun owners did absolutely nothing harmful with their guns.
Harry sez: after 40+ years as a newspaperman writing about who gets shot with what.
Jack replies: Some people have 40 years of experience. Others have one year of experience 40 times. Either way, I wonder how many guns Mr. Harry saw during that period jump up and shoot someone all by themselves.
October 28, 2009, 9:30 pmTim says:
Just out of curiosity Professor,
I’m a 26 year old college senior, licensed to carry in > 30 states. If I attended college in one of those 30 states, would you support my right to carry to class? Does the fact that I’m a student make a difference in the analysis?
If so, what would be the basis for a restriction if I were barred from carrying? I already can (and do) carry where lawful, which includes nearly anywhere I go in a state where my CCW rights are respected, including shopping malls, gas stations, etc.
Pennsylvania is also one of the states that allows lawful CCW in places where alcohol is served for consumption…just a little food for thought.
October 28, 2009, 11:26 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Pretend “Gun-Free” School Zones: A Deadly Legal Fiction -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Xavier, LOA Lottery Winner. LOA Lottery Winner said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Pretend “Gun-Free” School … http://bit.ly/4xha3R [...]
October 29, 2009, 2:27 amPol Mordreth says:
Tim:
You missed one small point about PA. True, PA (along with 40 other states) allows carry in establishments that serve alcohol for onsite consumption, but the carrier may not consume any. AFAIK only FL allows consumption while carrying.
Otherwise, I would fully support you carrying on campus as a student with a CCW/CHP/HCP/CWP (depending on where you got it) based on the requirements to get one. However, as SCCC works toward that, politically it would be much easier to start with staff and then work down to students. (Or, just go to school in UT or VT (I think))
Respectfully,
October 29, 2009, 8:47 amPol
Gordo says:
Yes. I don’t trust you, carrying around a gun everywhere, not to snuff out my life on a public street just because I looked at you the wrong way.
And I never will.
October 29, 2009, 12:39 pmOrder of the Coif says:
So, consistently with your distrust (even fear)Gordo, you don’t walk public streets or shopping malls which are filled with criminals and gang wannabe’s all of whom are carrying and would put you down without a moment’s hesitation? You stay in a secure location at all times?
I — don’t — think — so.
October 29, 2009, 1:02 pmjack burton says:
Too bad… because unless you live in Illinois or Wisconsin you walk the streets daily with thousands of legally carrying citizens… and, as noted, even in those two states thousands of ILLEAGALLY carrying citizens. My advice: stay at home under your bed.
October 29, 2009, 2:42 pmjack burton says:
Classic case of “projection.” Gordo knows that he can’t keep control of his emotions and feelings so he assumes that everyone else is a spineless weaking like him in order for his ego to tolerate his own existance.
October 29, 2009, 2:50 pmGordo says:
My point, Jack, is that anyone who thinks it’s actually a GOOD idea to have armed students and teachers prowling around our nation’s high school and university campuses is not a person that I would want carrying a gun around in public.
October 29, 2009, 3:02 pmjack burton says:
Trying to retcon your previous post into something less embarrassing?
Since you actually haven’t given any reason why it’s a “bad idea” then your whole supposed point it moot.
And from where did you get the idea that “armed high school students” are even in the discussion? Not too many of them are 21 and older, eh.
And I just enjoy the way you feel civil rights are to be handed out based upon who agrees with you and who doesn’t. Do you also think that people who vote against your preferred candidate should not be allowed to write books?
October 29, 2009, 3:23 pmGordo says:
This sure looks like the post of someone who wants to allow students and teachers to be armed. Let me know, Mr. Burton, if I am mistaken.
October 29, 2009, 5:39 pmRyan Waxx says:
I guess you don’t trust me to have a car then, which can snuff out your life on a public street even more easily.
Every single day, each one of us is armed with deadly force. The results aren’t always pretty, but they do demonstrate that people like you are nothing more than bedwetters.
October 29, 2009, 6:23 pmGordo says:
It’s a little easier to dodge a car than it is a bullet.
October 29, 2009, 6:51 pmHarryEagar says:
‘And that very same night 79,999,900 gun owners did absolutely nothing harmful with their guns’
And that very same night, tens of millions of people boozed up and then got in their cars and drove, and almost all of them got home without hitting anything.
But the law in its majesty ties to discourage it.
Here’s a good recent example of responsible behavior by a gun owner.
‘ The results aren’t always pretty, but they do demonstrate that people like you are nothing more than bedwetters’
I think it’s the gun nuts who are the bedwetters and children, with their fanatasies about being there when the bad armed guys — but how do you tell the difference? — start shooting down the women and children in the shopping center.
It never happens, somehow.
You can tell how childish they are by going to a site where they brag (Tim Blair’s blog is a good place to start) about their weaponry. If you were going to save the people in a shopping center, a .22 would suffice in almost any case (assuming the holder could aim, which is an assumption I would not make). But the braggarts prefer heavier artillery.
The difference between real gunsels and the wannabes is like the difference between real mechanics and the guys who just like loud noises. If they gun the engines while they’re working on them, they’re amateurs.
October 29, 2009, 6:59 pmjack burton says:
Perhaps in your part of the country “professors” and “campus” refers to high schools but I would believe it is generally assumed to be speaking of colleges. And those are the exact words that are referenced in the post you quoted. You can see that as well as the next person.
Which leads me to wonder why you are confusing the subject. Thank God for Al Gore inventing scroll back along with the net. You stated “high school” and now you are just speaking of “students”. This is not the first post when suddenly what you said before turns out to now be completely different.
October 29, 2009, 6:59 pmGordo says:
I am quite happy, Mr. Burton, to find out that your wish to have armed students and teachers on campus is limited to universities, and does not extend to high schools.
However, your wishes remain ones that I find deeply disturbing, and therefore my insult to you stands.
October 29, 2009, 7:17 pmjack burton says:
Harry sez: ‘And that very same night 79,999,900 gun owners did absolutely nothing harmful with their guns’
And that very same night, tens of millions of people boozed up and then got in their cars and drove, and almost all of them got home without hitting anything.
But the law in its majesty ties to discourage it.
Jack replies: Well, Harry, if you want to tell the world that you can’t tell the difference between a citizen sitting peacefully at home with his gun stored somewhere safely, and a drunken driver on the road who is a hazzard to everyone I guess you have decided that your crediblity means nothing to you. So be it. I’m willing to let you proclaim it loudly and strongly. Go for it.
Harry sez: Here’s a good recent example of responsible behavior by a gun owner.
’ The results aren’t always pretty, but they do demonstrate that people like you are nothing more than bedwetters’
Jack replies: So someone on the ‘net calling someone a name he doesn’t like condemns all gunowners as irresponsible? I think you’d have to label 90 percent of the ‘net users irresponsible for at least something or another that they’ve posted.
Harry sez: I think it’s the gun nuts who are the bedwetters and children, with their fanatasies about being there when the bad armed guys — but how do you tell the difference? — start shooting down the women and children in the shopping center.
Jack replies:
Generally we can tell the difference between good armed guys and bad armed guys when the bad armed guys start in shooting innocent people. Do you really think you’re impressing the fencesitters on this subject, Harry?
Harry sez: It never happens, somehow.
Jack replies: Really? And that’s just one dozens of similar stories that somehow you’ve never, ever, once, heard about. But you’re posting about the subject anyway.
Harry sez: You can tell how childish they are by going to a site where they brag (Tim Blair’s blog is a good place to start) about their weaponry. If you were going to save the people in a shopping center, a .22 would suffice in almost any case (assuming the holder could aim, which is an assumption I would not make). But the braggarts prefer heavier artillery.
Jack replies: Yep… the same way people brag about their TV, their boat, their car, the size of their workshop, and the riding lawnmower. Big deal.
And the fact that you think a .22 is a sufficient self defense gun against a mall shooter just notified every single gun owner here that you have absolutely no real clue about guns or self defense.
Harry sez:
The difference between real gunsels and the wannabes is like the difference between real mechanics and the guys who just like loud noises. If they gun the engines while they’re working on them, they’re amateurs.
Jack replied: Sorry… you’re the one who just suggested the equivilent of taking a VW Beetle to compete in the Indy 500. I wouldn’t be so quick to speak about “real” anything when it comes to guns if I were you.
October 29, 2009, 7:36 pmjack burton says:
I’m sure the thousands of college students and professors who carry daily are deeply disturbed by you being deeply disturbed.
October 29, 2009, 8:03 pmHarryEagar says:
I read your link and the comments, too.
Very funny. The guy put down his sarsparilla, which he had been sipping on the off chance that somebody would pull his heater, and responded so quickly that the initial shooter had time to empty his pistol and start reloading before he reacted.
But since you’re an expert, just how much artillery should I be thinking of carrying to the mall?
I live in a small town with a small mall. I think the maximum shot you might have to consider would be around 200 feet — about 2 orders of magnitude farther than most pistoleers I know can reliably hit a target, but I already said we will assume the gunslinger can aim. This is kind of a hypothetical/mythical/mystical thing. And maybe you could break it down to Mall of America-artillery and small mall-artillery.
(I once knew a guy who shot a running man in the back from 200 yards with a .38 revolver, in a crowd, but that was exceptional, like Ralph Boston’s long jump.)
October 29, 2009, 9:32 pmjack burton says:
Harry Sez: Very funny. The guy put down his sarsparilla, which he had been sipping on the off chance that somebody would pull his heater, and responded so quickly that the initial shooter had time to empty his pistol and start reloading before he reacted.
Jack replies: Well, Harry, we all know based upon your own statements that if it had been up to you the shooter would not only have had time to reload… but to finish shooting and reload again and again. That pretty much disqualifies you from having any valid input as to what and how the armed citizen handled the situation.
Harry Sez: But since you’re an expert, just how much artillery should I be thinking of carrying to the mall?
Jack replies: If you’re not an “expert”, Harry, then why were you commenting previously about just what caliber was acceptable and making a fool of yourself in the process. Is this a recent trend of yours or have you done it quite a bit before. And yes, that is a serious question that I have.
You claim to be a journalist but if you approach your professional writing the same way as you do here it goes a long way towards explaining just why the news media is now sliding towards a minus-30 percent trust factor from the public. Look in the mirror, Harry.
Harry Sez: I live in a small town with a small mall. I think the maximum shot you might have to consider would be around 200 feet — about 2 orders of magnitude farther than most pistoleers I know can reliably hit a target,
Jack replies: With the amount of ignorance that you’ve already proved on this topic we can pretty much guess that any “pistoleer” that you know inhabits the Hollywood screen world.
Harry Sez: but I already said we will assume the gunslinger can aim. This is kind of a hypothetical/mythical/mystical thing. And maybe you could break it down to Mall of America-artillery and small mall-artillery.
Jack replies: Do you really think you’re impressing the fencesitters, Harry? You’re looking like a chump and they are moving away from your side of the discussion as fast as possible.
Harry Sez: (I once knew a guy who shot a running man in the back from 200 yards with a .38 revolver, in a crowd, but that was exceptional, like Ralph Boston’s long jump.)
Jack replies: I once knew a Jayson Blair. He was a journalist also. Not too exceptional though. I think a lot of journalists have quite a bit of Jayson inside of them.
October 29, 2009, 10:27 pmKirk Parker says:
David, here’s an issue on p. 63 (of the PDF):
Here the subject is students, and thus the final clause has us converting “them” into “penal institutions”.
It should probably read, “surround them all with barbed wire and convert their schools into penal institutions.”
October 30, 2009, 2:01 amHarry Eagar says:
I just said I quit hunting with drunks, Jack. I didn’t say I quit using firearms, and yes, I have used them since, all kinds up to and including Browning .50-cal. machine guns.
What could the patrons of the bar have done while the gunman was reloading? Well, in a true story I may have told already on one of these threads, in one case I know in Council Bluffs, a robber came into a bar with a shotgun and fired a shell into the ceiling to get everyone’s attention. He sure did.
Somebody plunked him between the eyes with a full can of beer and when he fell to the floor, the other patrons beat him nearly to death with pool cues.
So, it was a serious question. If I were going hunting at a shopping mall, I’d figure a .22 would be plenty for any kind of game likely to be enoountered there. You claim more expertise than me. What would you carry?
October 30, 2009, 2:13 amIan Argent says:
I don’t know what he’d carry, but my answer would be “it would depend.” Specifically on what I was wearing, and how comfortable I was with the handgun. Given my current selection of handguns, it would probably be a .22; but I don’t currently have a lot to choose from.
And it’s very nice that physically fit(young) males can defend themselves physically. But not everyone is able to so so. My wife, for example, can neither outrun an attacker nor best him in a physical confrontation. Nor can my wheelchair-bound friend. And I myself would not want to try conclusions with a younger attacker. And even the fit man is at risk in a physical confrontation. As for your council bluffs story – the robber was “beaten nearly to death” (your words). I may get some flak for this, but I think it would have been better if instead of giving a beating to disable him, someone had pulled a gun and held him at gunpoint for the cops.
As Caleb’s example here shows, it’s better to have a cup of coffee and a firearm than just a cup of coffee. A defensive gun use where no-one was harmed; and the very act of showing the gun ended the incident. This wasn’t unusual. (Also, note the questions of caliber and response)
October 30, 2009, 9:43 amFriday Round-up | SCOTUSblog says:
[...] Kopel, also writing for Volokh, previews his own forthcoming piece, which will appear in the December 2009 issue of the [...]
October 30, 2009, 10:18 amjack burton says:
Sorry, Harry… you’ve already used up any quotiant of crediblity that you might have had. Any further remarks from you fall into the farcial bin.
October 30, 2009, 12:07 pmGordo says:
Sorry Harry, you’re a faux gun nut, not a real gun nut like Jack here.
October 30, 2009, 12:13 pmjack burton says:
I’ll wear that label proudly…
You Just Might Be a Gun Nut:
…if you ever seriously thought about dabbing a little Hoppe’s #9 on your neck before going out on a date.
…if you buy some checkering tools, checker all your gun stocks, and then start on the bedposts.
…if you cannot recall how many firearms you own.
…if you buy a gun that’s just like that other gun you have except the barrel is 1/2″ shorter (or longer).
…if you buy a gun at a shop only to find out you used to own it a couple of years ago.
…if you know 12 different names for one caliber of cartridge.
…if you ever clean a gun that hasn’t been shot in the week since you cleaned it last.
…if you consider naming your unborn child Winchester or Remington.
…if you purchased two Glocks and two Sigs just to see which brand was better.
…if your drive to work is filled with reverie about why Ed’s Red actually works.
…if you strip all the paint off our car and refinish it with cold blue.
…if you ever bought ammo in a caliber for which you have no gun, because you thought some day you MIGHT get a gun in that caliber.
…if your collection of American Rifleman back issues, Gun Digests and reloading manuals cost you a premium the last time you moved.
…if you have more than one gun that “kills on both ends.”
…if you buy high capacity magazines for a gun you have not bought yet.
…if you take your guns out of the safe each night and handle them, just so you can wipe them off before putting them away.
…if your mother-in-law asks what new gun junk you want for Christmas this year.
…if you see TV footage of the war in Afghanistan and wish you were there to pick up the brass.
…if you drive 300 miles just to ogle (and fire) HK-MP5s (and Stens, Uzis, BMGs and whatever else shows up at Knob Creek).
…if you keep a loaded gun hidden in every room in the house, including the bathroom and kitchen, “just in case,” and then keep one on you at all times just in case
someone breaks in while you’re in the hallway.
…if you consider it unpatriotic not to own at least one .45 and one .22.
…if you named your pocket pistol “Little Guy” and your 12 gauge “Big Jake.”
…if you own reloading dies for calibers that you do not shoot.
…if you tape American Shooter so you can pause, reverse and fast forward to do a complete analysis of the show.
…if you understand Smith & Wesson’s model numbers.
…if you ever bought two brands of the same weight and type of bullet, just to see if one “shot better.”
…if you keep a collection of different cartridges at your place of work as a “conversation piece.”
…if you take your wife on vacation to a gun show for your 10th Anniversary and she is as excited to go as you are.
…if you ever had to explain, “It’s NOT the same gun, it’s a different VARIANT . . . ”
…if you and your new father-in-law go to a gun show on your wedding day.
…if you have life memberships in more than one shooting organization.
…if you read that “Brady II” would outlaw possession of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition and think, “I have more than that rolling around loose in the trunk of
my car!”
…if watching The Lion King gives you the itch for a .470 Nitro Express.
…if, while watching the movie Terminator 2, you have to leave the room in tears and mournful sobs after Arnold Schwartzenneger throws the CAR-16 off the moving
tractor trailer and it goes bouncing away.
…if you go to three different gun shows within a month and you’re excited every single time.
…if your guns are cleaner than your residence.
…if you have 5 different guns being DROS’d at 3 different FFL dealers.
…if you plunked down a $130 deposit on a Seecamp after waiting two years for them to accept your order, and are still willing to wait another two years for them to
make your pistol.
…if your mom gives you a new Springfield Armory .308 sniper rifle for Christmas.
…if four local gun shops know you by name.
…if you have your own BATF agent (mounted any suitable way).
…if you’re friends with 90% of the employees at all the local gun shops.
…if you identify the gun on the cover of Dillons Blue Press before you even notice the girl.
…if, when you stop in at the local gun shop, they ask you questions like: “How was work?” “How are the wife and kids?” “We’re gonna order some food, ya want in?”
etc.
…if you have more gunpowder stashed in your home than your local sporting goods store has on hand.
…if you can wallpaper your house with old issues of Shotgun News, Gun List, Guns & Ammo, etc.
…if all of your children are life members of the NRA.
…if your children are named “Ogive” and “Meplat.”
…if you make $30 per hour at work, but spend 30 minutes on your knees at the range looking for that last piece of .40 S&W brass.
…if you have Brownells on speed dial.
…if you trimmed down 100 10mm cases to form .357 Sig brass before commercial supplies of this brass were available.
…if the custom door lock pulls on your Jeep are .223 Rem cases and the gear shift knob is a .50 BMG.
…if your girl friend thinks that aura of Hoppes #9 is your favorite after shave.
…if you have guns in your safe that you can’t for the life of you remember how you came by.
…if you tag pages in SGN/GL for later reference.
…if you own enough guns to arm everyone on your block.
…if you own 4 AR-15′s configured EXACTLY the same but by different manufactures (Colt, Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, Armalite, etc.) just because you can.
…if the last 5 guns you bought are never to be fired.
…if, when buying a new gun, you plead with your gun shop to keep it until you have space for it.
…if your wife wants to wear black leather so you buy her a carry holster.
…if you have Trijicon Night-Lights in your bedroom.
…if your mailbox has a Weaver Rail on top.
…if you can’t figure out why your non-shooting friends laugh when you say, “Bushmaster.”
…if you would like to see Barrack Obama or Barbara Boxer spend even one hour after midnight at a Washington, DC bus-stop without their bodyguards.
…if you build a gun rack in your bedroom and it’s closer to you than your wife.
…if you can identify gunshots from faraway as to caliber, whether from a rifle or pistol, brand of gun, grains of powder used, *what* powder and at what velocity.
…if you ever stumbled across a cache of once-fired brass for a caliber you don’t own, but hoarded it anyway.
…if your answer to the recent rec.guns newsgroup thread, “How many guns do you need?” is, “How many do you have room for in your house?”
…if you stockpiled thousands of primers during the infamous “Primer Famine of 1994.”
…if a friend knows you reload and gives you a set of dies of a caliber you do not already have, and you go out and buy a gun so you can use the FREE dies.
…if, when you do the wash, several spent casings fall out of your rolled-up sleeves.
…if you go to a gun show and contemplate buying a particular gun for a half an hour before you remember that you already have that one.
…if, when you go to the magazine rack, you check the “Guns and Ammo” cover to see if there are new guns as compared to checking the Playboy cover to see what
it is offering.
…if you own more reloading manuals than Bibles.
…if you own a BAYONET for a gun you haven’t bought yet.
…if you buy a gun that is a duplicate of one you already have because the original one might break someday . . .
…if you name your first-born boy MAK90.
…if you’d rather have a $10,000 PSG-1 and drive a $600 car, rather than drive a $10,000 car and have a $600 gun.
…if you preach how stupid gun laws/bans are at work when you work in a predominantly ANTI-gun company.
…if you would rather ban alcohol than high-capacity clips/magazines.
…if you name your first-born girl LadySmith.
…if your kid’s disposable diapers come in camo battle packs.
…if it bothers you more when 007 runs out of ammo than when the BOND girl dies.
…if your key-ring fob is a converted .50BMG cartridge.
…if your driver’s license says “must wear night-vision goggles.”
…if you watch La Femme Nikita just to see the HK MP5s.
…if “Miller Time” means plinking at beer cans.
…if the highlight of your week is discovering that six .40 S&W hollowpoints fit perfectly in a plastic 35mm film canister (five up/one down in the middle).
…if you put a Hogue Grip on your car’s parking brake.
…if you retrofit a laser sight to your TV remote control.
…if it takes you several minutes leafing through “Small Arms of the World” to find a gun you have never fired.
…if you have a callus on your shoulder.
…if you’ve ever sent a scope (that was never dropped) back to Leupold for repair.
…if factories ask *you* how well their guns hold up.
…if Hornady’s largest midwestern distributor informs you that you’ve bought over half of all the Vector ammo they’ve ever had in stock.
…if you even had the thought, “I wonder what scale little kids Animal Crackers are, compared to Regulation silhouettes?”
…if your standard Sunday afternoon question to guys selling surplus ammo at gun shows is “How much for all of it, so you don’t have to lug it home?”
…if RCBS asked *you* for load data for the .357 Sig (before it was published).
…if you shoot enough Berdan-primed ammo that you are on a first-name basis with your local scrap metal dealer.
…if, upon seeing your 1978 wildcatting project (a .375 on a .50 Sharps 3 1/4″ case, 3340 FPS with a 300 Sierra boat tail), Elmer Keith says “You’re nuts!”
…if Keith Francis (at JGS, the chambering reamer company), answers your phone calls “What have you dreamed up *this* time?”
…if you own a firearm listed in the Guinness Book of World Records.
…if you go to a marriage counselor, he asks you which you like better, shooting or sex, and you think it’s the stupidest question you’ve ever heard.
…if you’re in the army reserves, and they can’t figure out why every time they send you out to shoot the M60 with 100 rounds, you return with a shot-out barrel (it
never dawns on them you’re bringing your own ammo . . . ).
…if you keep a copy of one of Elmer Keith’s books on your coffee table.
…if you spend more on ammo each month than on food.
…if you list your local FFL dealer as a dependent on your tax return.
…if a topless joint with free admission is half a mile away, and instead you drive 40 miles to the shooting range on a Saturday night.
…if you alternate Silvertips and Hydra-Shocks in your magazines because they look prettier that way.
…if you guess range and windage whenever you look at road signs.
…if you have more .50 caliber ammo cans than the local U. S. Army Reserves armory.
…if your gun collection is worth more than your automobile.
…if you have to run out to the range this weekend to shoot up some ammo because you need some brass to reload.
…if seeing Hillary Clinton’s picture automatically sends you into Condition Orange.
…if you’re still reading this inane list.
October 30, 2009, 1:11 pmGordo says:
Jack, it’s nice to see that behind your gun nuttery lies a little bit of humor. Maybe there’s hope for you yet.
October 30, 2009, 4:12 pmcontemporary bathroom mirror lights says:
Comfortabl y, the post is actually the freshest on this precious topic. I concur with your conclusions and also will certainly eagerly look forward to your future updates. Saying thanks will certainly not simply be enough, for the wonderful lucidity in your writing. I will quickly grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Fabulous work and also much success in your business endeavors!
April 14, 2010, 6:40 amTiffany says:
wow nice gadgets and tech.. love this things..
September 2, 2010, 4:21 am