Blog

New Research Confirms Guns on College Campuses are Dangerous

Samantha Michael’s article, “New Research Confirms Guns on College Campuses are Dangerous” (2016), argues that concealed carry on campus does not get rid of campus shooters, and may lead to other violence. Michael’s backs up this claim by including many facts, one being that only 13 percent of mass shootings from 2009 to 2015 occurred in gun-free or gun-restricted zones. Michael’s purpose is to point out that even though campuses have gun free zones, this still doesn’t stop shootings from happening, and having other people carry can cause even more harm. Given the language of this article, Michael is writing to an educated audience, most likely college students, and anybody that is interested in the topic.

I found this article to be very interesting. Throughout my research on this topic, I’ve read a lot of anti-conceal carry articles. This one was like most others, but Michael’s actually had evidence to back up her claim. I can completely respect that, and I now have some facts to go off of. I appreciated that this was the last article I read for this project, and that this article was very well written even though I still have other views on the conversation. After my research on this topic, I am still pro-conceal carry, but this article did give facts to back up her claim, and I can respect that. Now I wonder how other people are feeling about people conceal carry on campuses, and if they are against it, why?

Michaels, Samantha. “New research confirms that letting college kids carry guns on campus is a terrible idea.” Mother Jones. N.p., 2 Nov. 2016. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Advertisements

It’s about time for Texas’ guns on campus law

John Lott’s article titled “It’s about time for Texas’ guns on campus law” (2016) argues that it has been too long for this legislation to come into play. Lott backs up his claim with examples and statistics of how gun violence is not fueled by people that have their concealed carry permit. John Lott is writing this article to shine some light on how arguments for gun control do not hold up, these arguments have little value and can be offensive. Lott uses language that can be understood by al people. He is writing to an audience that may not be well educated on this subject, the way he uses language he could potentially gain supporters.

In this article John Lott is for the new legislation passed at the University of Texas this past year allowing students to conceal carry on the campus there. I personally really liked this article because he calls out many arguments against CC that I have encountered through researching this topic and did not agree with. Such as alcohol fueled violence, and how college students are nowhere capable of being responsible with a gun. He gives the reader something to think about when he states how these arguments are nothing more than hypotheticals that have never actually happened. He also gives data from Europe, where he explains how 98 percent of shootings in Europe have been I areas where there is strict gun control laws. Adding to the argument that gun control only effects the law abiding citizen not the bad guys. I also really liked how Lott went about his argument in a professional matter. I think that added to his argument and opened the doors for people who are unsure about this topic.

-Travis

Lott, John. “It’s about Time for Texas’ Guns on Campus Law.” Fox News. FOX News Network, 1 Aug. 2016. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

In Colorado, carrying guns on campus is no longer controversial

colorado-guns

In Michael McGrady’s article “In Colorado, carrying guns on campus is no longer controversial” posted on the website titled “Red Alert Politics” in November 2015, he argues that the majority of students and faculty in Colorado are starting to focus on other pressing issues that effect their daily lives and are caring less about legislation surrounding concealed carrying on college campuses. He provides evidence to this claim by interviewing multiple students and faculty members of college campuses, and reveals that their interests have drastically shifted off of the issue as opposed to how much emphasis was placed on the topic in years prior. McGrady is writing this article as an informative report on the situation surrounding colleges in Colorado, but provides selective interviews that suggest he may be trying to persuade anyone who is anti-carry that the argument is no longer valid. Due to the selective interviews that are very pro-carry and the downplaying of the other side of the argument, McGrady is writing to not only pro-carry individuals to reaffirm their beliefs, but also to anti-carry individuals and trying to convince them that the entire argument is a thing of the past.

 

I found this article useful due to it’s geographic context that brings this issue home for a reader who attends Colorado State University. This article really articulated the most important point that many pro-gun advocates believe to be true and that is “only good guys follow the laws, bad guys do not.” Throughout McGrady’s interviews with students who attend CU this message was expressed and I believe it to be the most solid, common sense argument for the pro-carry side of the argument. However, red flags immediately popped up in my mind when I saw that he interviewed students from the University of Colorado, a University well known for being a very liberal and anti-gun school, who saw this as a menial issue. This, combined with the article being posted to a website with the title “Red Alert Politics” and having many of the side links that were very conservative in political nature, made me suspect that there was large amounts of bias throughout this article.  Although I am not questioning the authenticity of the quotes collected from the individuals that were cited, I question the validity of taking these selected quotes and making an argument that these few individuals represent the ideals of the entire campus. Besides the bias shown, I think that this article was a very good report on
the opinions of college students and faculty members who are pro-concealed carry on college campuses.

 

McGrady, Michael. “In Colorado, Carrying Guns on Campus Is No Longer Controversial.” Red Alert Politics. Red Alert Politics, 27 Nov. 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2017. <http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/11/27/colorado-carrying-guns-campus-no-longer-controversial/&gt;.

Say ‘no’ to concealed carry on college campuses: Overview.

Faith Alford’s article, “Say ‘no’ to concealed carry on college campuses” (2015), claims that the cons of allowing guns on campuses definitely outweigh the pros. The author supports this claim by stating how much concealed carry would cost universities, by increasing police officers, gun stores, and campus security, this would take away from other thing such as research. Alford’s purpose is to point out how costly concealed carry is for college campuses and to change the audience view to go against concealed carry. Given the technical language used in this article, Alford is writing to an audience that is well informed about the current argument surrounding concealed carry and especially to people that are pro-concealed carry.

I found this article to be very interesting. I have read some articles that have been against concealed carry, but none of them have ever brought up cost before. I did not even think that cost was apart of this argument. This authors states how college campuses would need to increase security, police officers, and gun stores if they allow concealed carry. I can see that all of these would definitely cost the university a lot of money and could potentially take it out of areas, such as research. However, I do not think that these things are a necessity if a campus allows concealed carry. I do not see the need for the extra police officers and campus security. I feel like thats where this article really lacked is that they did not state or show why campuses would need all of these extra things that they would need to spend a lot of money on. I also do not agree that more gun stores would need to be built and why the university would pay for something like that. It is hard for me to see this authors argument that concealed carry permit would cost universities too much money, because I do not agree that these things are needed. Although I did like that it was a different perspective from the anti-concealed carry that I have not heard before. Unfortunately, the costs that this authors states that are needed for concealed carry on campuses I have a really hard time believing those are necessities.

-Bre Jessen

Alford, Faith. “Say ‘no’ to concealed carry on college campuses.” The Daily Cougar. The Cougar, 05 Mar. 2015. Web. 17 Feb. 2017.

Allowing concealed weapons on college campuses is a silly, and dangerous idea

The Times Editorial Board article, “Allowing concealed weapons on college campuses is a silly, and dangerous idea” (2017), asserts that college campuses are full of irrational, “alcohol-fueled teenagers”, and guns should be kept out. The Times Editorial Board backs up this claim with many different statistics, one being there were more than 50,000 firearm incidents last year, in which more than 15,000 people were killed and 31,000 more were wounded — and that doesn’t include some 22,000 suicides by gun. The article’s purpose is to point out the dangers of having students carry guns on campus in order to make a bold statement, and tell people that support conceal carry to think otherwise. By the way this article is written, the audience is mainly for current students on college campuses, and the lawmakers because the author wants to make sure conceal carry on campuses is not allowed.

I chose this article because I knew I would have very different opinions than the author. I would consider myself to be extremely open minded, but the first few sentences accused college students of being “alcohol fueled”, and almost incapable of making decisions. I took offense to this because I am a college student that works at CSUPD, and the Larimer County District Attorney’s office, and I am more than capable of making “adult decisions”. I think this author could have been more thoughtful when they were writing, and could have been more open minded to the fact that not every college student will fit the “party-animal” stereotype. In all honesty, this article was more attacking individuals instead of being informative. I have read articles that are anti-conceal carry, and I am more than willing to hear those arguments. This was just one of those articles that was extremely accusatory, and quite frankly, offensive.

– Ella Anderson

“Allowing concealed weapons on college campuses is a silly, and dangerous idea.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 17 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Feb. 2017.

Lawmaker takes aim at allowing guns on college campuses

Tim Farley’s article, “Lawmaker takes aim at allowing guns on college campuses” (2017), asserts that college campuses are a dangerous place to begin with, so allowing individuals to protect themselves only makes sense. Farley backs up this statement by including many interviews with the lawmaker, one quote standing out and stating, “You can’t have enough firepower out there ‘cause they (criminals) have more guns than we do.” Farley’s purpose is to point out the positive ways conceal carry laws can benefit individuals in order to strengthen his argument, and convince the opposite audience. Given the professional nature of this article, Farley’s audience is anybody that is interested in the political side of conceal carry on campuses, and law enforcement.

I found this article to be really informative, but also understanding of other opinions. I liked how the author included interviews of the main stakeholder, and one of the interviews stated how law enforcement would want to be proactive, and know who is carrying on their college campuses. I agreed with this article in the fact that college campuses are going to be dangerous no matter what, so having trained individuals that go through a thorough background check, and are able to protect themselves and the community at large would be extremely beneficial. I loved the quotes that this author brought in. They are very pro law enforcement, and sound like they have personal experience with law. I wonder how the community reacts to this article, since it is very pro law enforcement, and pro conceal carry. I also question how the department would do the background checks. Where would they draw the line of an individual not being able to carry? How are they going to maintain being proactive, and keeping an eye out on the individual’s that do carry?

– Ella Anderson

Farley, Tim. “Lawmaker takes aim at allowing guns on college campuses.” Red Dirt Report. N.p., 09 Feb. 2017. Web. 10 Feb. 2017.

The Top Four Reasons to Carry Concealed on Campus

photo_74433_landscape_650x433

In John Archer’s Article titled “The Top Four Reasons to Carry Concealed on Campus”, He argues that college students are not idiots, but self-aware responsible adults. John backs up his argument by laying out 4 main reasons that is CC on college campuses is a good thing. Archer’s purpose is to point out that college students are more that capable of handling a weapon. Also how it is no different to be carrying a gun on campus rather than any public situation. Given the language and format of this article Archer is writing to anyone who wants to learn more about this topic.

In my opinion I liked this article a lot. The stance that Archer takes on this subject is a good way to talk about this subject. In this article Archer lays out 4 reasons why it is a good idea to conceal carry on campus. He did this very clearly and concisely. I also liked how Archer gave some common examples of arguments against guns on campus. He mentioned ways these arguments have no value to them and are unsupported. I also liked he gave credit to college students/CC license holders credit for being responsible. There were many things I liked about this article however, there were some thing I did not like as so much. For example some of his points were very brief and didn’t have much to them. I think he could have went more in depth with some rock solid examples to drive his point home.

-Travis

Archer, John. “The Top Four Reasons to Carry Concealed on Campus.” American Concealed. American Concealed Inc., 03 Oct. 2016. Web. 09 Feb. 2017.

Guns on Campus Make Colleges Less Safe

Javier Auyero’s article “Guns on Campus Make Colleges Less Safe” (2016) claims that if we permit guns on college campuses then the men and women of universities will become too comfortable with guns. Auyero backs up his argument with an interview from William H. McRaven a chancellor at the University of Texas who was a formal Navy SEAL. He explains how even a trained SEAL does not want CC on college Campuses. Auyero’s purpose is to convince people that it is not a good idea to allow CC on campus. Auyero states that it will make campuses much more dangerous if these laws were permitted to try and persuade people to be against this. The attended audience for this argument is fellow educators and students at universities. He uses language to suggest everyone is in this together. He is writing to hopefully change the minds of students who are on the fence about this subject.

 

Here is another article about concealed carry on college campuses making the learning environment unsafe and putting many people at risk. Javier Auryero is an educator at the University of Texas where the bill to permit concealed carry on college campus was just passed last year wich makes him a stakeholder in this discussion. In his article he tries to argue that by permitting guns on campus will make every one more comfortable with guns, and this somehow translates to people not being able to share ideas freely. This in my opinion was very abstract and the fact that he had nothing else to back this up just goes to show his supporting evidence had no value. Even though Auryero’s arguments had no support it was still  a good way to see what people feel on the other side of the argument for CC on college campuses.

-Travis

Auyero, Javier. “Guns on Campus Make Colleges Less.” The Opinions Page. NY Times, 31 May 2016. Web. 9 Feb. 2017

Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers: Overview.

Cliff Stearns’s article, “Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers” (2009), argues that everyone should have a concealed carry permit because they are life savers. Stearns backs up this claim by stating quotes and facts that show how concealed carry has saved lives from violent crimes using various resources including a criminologist, the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report, and from different laws. Stearns’s purpose is to point out different ways that concealed carry has saved lives in order to change the audience views to see that everyone should have a concealed carry. Given the technical language used in this article, Stearns is writing to a well-educated audience with knowledge on this topic and especially an audience who is against concealed carry.

This was one of the best articles that I have read so far. I really liked this article because it stated quotes, facts, and statistics as it’s support for it’s claim. This is the first article I have read that has done this. I find that this author was very persuasive because of the way they backed up the claim. At the beginning of this project I started out very neutral, I had heard arguments from both sides. The arguments that I heard I did not find very convincing, which is why I was neutral. This is the first article that I found that is convincing to persuade me to be pro conceal carry. This article used at least one fact, statistic, or quote in every paragraph whenever he talked about something that supported his argument. I learned so many interesting facts while reading this article. I cannot say that about any of the other articles that I have read. I do not think there is anything that I could suggest to improve this article or anything that I wish I could change with this article. I thought the author did a good job on trying to persuade the audience to change their views on concealed carry. Although I do have some questions after reading this article, how does his facts and statistic related to conceal carry on college campuses? What are the counter facts and statistic to his claim?

-Bre Jessen

Stearns, Cliff. “Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers.” Human Events. The Human Events Group, 26 Jan. 2009. Web. 09 Feb. 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

Allowing guns won’t make campuses safer: Overview.

John A. Fry’s article, “Allowing guns won’t make campuses safer” (2015), claims that having concealed carry on campuses will not do anything to reduce mass shootings and could even increase shooting deaths. Fry backs up this claim by stating that mass school shooting have not decreased although people with concealed carry on campuses have increased, stating that experts from Harvard found places with more guns have more murders, and that colleges are already trying to stop suicides, sexual assault, and binge drinking without adding guns into the mix. Fry’s purpose is to point out that people with concealed carry on campuses is not helping to fix any issues on campus in order to change the readers opinion on concealed carry to show them how it is not working. Given the general language used in this article, Fry is writing to anyone in the general public who cares about this topic and especially the people who are pro concealed carry.

I have been trying to find a good article that was against pro concealed carry on campuses. Most articles I found just stated “what if” situations, however this article did not use that approach at all. This article I found really interesting because he makes his claim very persuasive at first. After reading it a couple of times I realized that he did not state any facts that could be proven or any statistics. Since I am a psychology major I have learned through many of my teachers that facts and statistics are very important in order to prove something. John Fry is trying to prove that concealed carry on campuses is not improving anything and in fact is only making things worse, but he does not have anything to prove what he is saying is true. His support for his claim does not show actual statistics or actual quotes from the experts at Harvard, it’s just what he is saying. At first I found this author very persuasive and had me stumped on what my opinion is about concealed carry. After thinking about what John Fry was actually stating I realized that I need more support in order to consider his claim. Facts, statistics, and research are very important to me in order to believe something. If this author would have added more of those things in the article it would have been more persuasive in changing my views.

-Bre Jessen

Fry, John A. “Allowing guns won’t make campuses safer.” Philly.com. The Inquirer Daily News, 19 Oct. 2015. Web. 09 Feb. 2017.