To be read as addenda and marginalia to Brian Mori’s writeup. – EML

–  Plumed Rumor seemed to suggest that this event wouldn’t affect the resolution’s future at all, and that ASUA would go ahead and pass it as-is. Even for this old cynic, though, such sentiments come off as rather dour. The Senate has had two public meetings on the issue, and has faced fairly strong opposition in both. There is no doubt a “silent majority” opposing the bill, as alluded to by Ryan Klenke and Francisco Lora, but to defer to this unspoken sentiment – especially without a clear plebiscite – is, well, rather Nixonian.  If the Senate were to say, “Well, publicly students have expressed strident opposition … but my friends are totally in favor of it, so, aye,” this would admittedly be a new height in ASUA cocooning. At the very least, they’ll get rid of the cars-in-guns clause.

– While several speakers ignored our advice to stop using black swan events to irrationally justify their policies (and to all of them:  DOUBLE SHAME), none of them took time to mention the example of Utah. Since 2006, the state has mandated a policy of allowing faculty, staff, and students with CCW permits to carry guns on campus. This has gone on without an exceptional incident or uptick in “danger.” Michigan State – not exactly the most peaceable of institutions – recently allowed for the carry of concealed weapons on its campus grounds, similarly without incident. One student briefly mentioned the example of Colorado State, whose governors recently voted to end their six-year experiment (although the student governments at both campuses opposed the measure).

Nevertheless, the absence of actual violence and criminality was discarded in favor of respecting the “feeling of safety” (paging James Poulos) on the part of the faculty. Who knew that they were such sensitive thugs?

– Yet blame lies with the advocates as well – instead of saying that allowing CCW permits will not make things less safe, they often make wild claims like, “This could have prevented the attacks Virginia Tech/Northern Illinois/UA Nursing/Ford’s Theatre/Lexington!” (I’m only half kidding.)

They should not be surprised, then, that the overwhelming response from those opposed to the measure is simply that, “these measures won’t serve to increase safety.” In this way, the goalposts have been shifted, along with the burden of proof; as a result, gun-rights advocates are foiled again and again. This is not simply an Arizona phenomenon, either:

… [T]he CSU faculty and the school’s governors sided with the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, which said in 2008 that there is no statistical credible evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons reduce crime.

This site, anyway, does not dispute that fact – it does dispute the claim that there will be a measurable, tenable, non-negligible effect on campus crime/safety, beyond “feelings of unease.” This debate should be considering whether the scale tips towards liberty or towards control when it comes to a provision with a negligible effect on safety (for instance, chalk).

– What would Michel Foucault (or Thomas Szasz, for that matter) possibly think of the forum’s universal hatred towards what my notes refer to as “TEH CRAZIES”? Obviously, this is one way to categorize shooting incidents, but it seems like this is a rather broad brush to paint over people who have committed acts for a wide variety of reasons. Writing these events off as someone “going postal” is almost too flip; more frightening is the prospect that they maintained their rationality.

– The discriminatory underpinnings of SB 1011 have also been underrated in recent discussion, although Administrative Vice President Ziccarrelli deserves credit for bringing this issue to light by echoing some of the arguments that we made here.

Although the requirements for getting a concealed-carry permit may be onerous to some (21 years+, no felonies, no history of mental illness, attendance of weapons class, fee, etc.), they are so related to the maintenance of liberty in a civil society that would would survive all but the strictest of scrutiny tests. There is a clear relation between gun safety and gun rights.

Yet while requiring gun owners to take gun-safety classes may make sense, it makes less sense for them to teach academic courses. In fact, it makes exactly zero sense – there is no nexus (clear or otherwise) between one’s doctoral-level comprehension of the late Byzantine military, or any academic subject, that makes one . In fact, it goes beyond that – not only would one require a doctorate, but they would also have to be employed at an instructor at a university. Thus, neither President Shelton nor Meredith Hay would not be allowed to carry concealed arms. (And just like that, the Transformation got a whole lot more interesting.)

In an odd way, the professariat at the UA would become a de facto police division of their own, in the sense that their employment status grants them exclusive civil liberties on campus.

Meanwhile, the arguments against allowing students to carry – they aren’t “fully developed,” aren’t “really mature” – are almost indistinguishable from old-fashioned phrenology. Although one might argue that one is not really an adult until the age of 21 (although, again, current CCW provisions prevent anyone under the age of 21 from obtaining a permit), this argument is curiously lacking around UAVotes season. It also ignores the fact that not all students are between the typical ages of 18-22; and in casting such a broad net, students who are much older get caught. It’s patently offensive – and probably unconstitutional – to say that they are somehow “less developed” than their instructors.

Supporting this as a “decent middle ground,” as the National Review did, is akin to supporting civil liberties for whites, with the assurance that these rights will be afforded to other races by the time of the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s not wrong to support such exclusive rights, but neither is it something to describe as “good” or even “decent.”

– All things considered, the forum could’ve been much, much worse. The rhetoric wasn’t particularly exceptional, but neither did it ever devolve to name calling or exceptional strawmanning. Democracy is truly the ugly stepchild of political order, but at least she gives us something to pass the time with.

– VIDEO?!?! Oh my goodness, there’s video:

Credit goes to the Arizona Rifleman for the upload (and whose thoughts on the forum can be read here).

Goofy image courtesy of johnglenntaylor.blogspot.com.