I love when the desire to editorialize against guns is so strong that they actually contradict themselves. It makes me wonder if newspapers actually have anyone edit their editorials for content.
HB 1652 lets people who hold concealed-carry permits keep firearms locked in their vehicles while on a CareerTech campus. That includes people 21 or older who have completed a training course and undergone a cursory background check.
The problem is that most CareerTech students are teenagers and thus not eligible to carry concealed weapons. HB 1652 will mean that unarmed teens will rub shoulders on campus with armed adults, a potentially dangerous mix.
In Oklahoma, the Tulsa World is arguing against a bill that will force adults to lock legally carried firearms in their cars – therefore leaving them unarmed while on campus – by saying it’s too dangerous to have unarmed teens near these now unarmed adults. I didn’t realize that concealed carry holders who don’t even have guns on their person were so dangerous in society. It would be nice if they had some facts to back that up. Oh, but wait, they don’t like when facts don’t match their view:
Advocates of concealed carry and other laws aimed at arming more Oklahomans are quick to point out that those laws have not resulted in bloodbaths, as critics predicted they might. That might be true, but, on the other hand, there is no evidence that they have prevented public violence or made the citizenry more safe.
So it doesn’t matter that these laws haven’t caused any problems. It doesn’t matter that concealed carry license holders are likely more law-abiding than their teenage counterparts on these campuses. Reason and Logic have clearly left the building there in Tulsa.
7 thoughts on “Unarmed Teens vs. Unarmed Adults”
That might be true, but, on the other hand, there is no evidence that they have prevented public violence or made the citizenry more safe.
Nevermind that the individual with the CCW was made more safe, which is the whole point.
What you and I mean when we say “guns are inherently dangerous” is different than what they mean. For us, it means they can cause harm if mis-handled; for them that they cause harm by existing.
Solution: lower age of carry to 18. As a start.
When did the rules change to make it the job of those who simply want to lawfully exercise a right to show that it makes “society” better?
The default is freedom, the burden is on the restrictor to demonstrate that allowing lawful exercise will make things worse (and significantly worse enough to justify the infringement, “even just one child” doesn’t meet that standard).
Freedom has a “presumption of innocence” that must be overcome, it has a “5th Amendment right” to not have to mount a defense to its exercise at all.
What is not expressly forbidden, to individuals, is inherently allowed. (Government of course living by the reverse.)
Not sure why these yahoos can’t grasp that’s how our system of government was designed.
“HB 1652 will mean that unarmed teens will rub shoulders on campus with armed adults, a potentially dangerous mix.”
Markie Marxist sez: “Of course! It’s just common communist sense that adults can’t be allowed to own guns because children are unarmed. Since we can’t arm children, we have to disarm adults. It’s perfectly logical! We Marxists get things the way we want one way or we get things the way we want another way. That’s the way we do things. It works for us! Ha! Ha!â€
What Oklahoma HB1652 does is remove “Technology Center” parking lots from the places prohibited. As it stands, all technology center property is classified in the same paragraph of state law as elementary/secondary schools( OS 21 sec 1277 A 4 ). Oklahoma Self Defense Act prohibits colleges from prohibiting folks with a ccw license from bringing a carry weapon onto property “set aside” for parking. The weapon cannot leave the vehicle. Removing “Technology Centers” from that paragraph would only allow for the storage of the weapons in vehicles, not the “rubbing of elbows” that the article implies.
Tulsa was a great place to live in the 1970s. I’m sorry to see that’s changed.
Comments are closed.