Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Very interesting article in the UW Daily

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    http://thedaily.washington.edu/2008/...e-shall-reign/

    While I don't care much for the title, I'm really stoked (not to mention surprised) that an article advocating concealed carry was actually published by The Daily - the author even brings up Warren v. D.C. to point out that police have no duty to protect individuals.

    Freakin' sweet.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Spokane, WA, ,
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post


  3. #3
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    Added my comment, then found a typo. Dang I hate that.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    Great article!!!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    That is a good article and I was surprised to see it in The Daily. Of course I was disappointed in the title and the scenario of executing vigilante justice. I left my comment.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    Yeah, The Daily has always been pretty left-leaning, which is no surprise, but they've also seemed reluctant to even touch the issue of guns or guns on campus. It's definitely pretty remarkable that they would publish something like this now.

  7. #7
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    There's a reason why W. Washington is quoted as being full of "Gun-toting Liberals"....
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Spokane, WA, ,
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    There's a reason why W. Washington is quoted as being full of "Gun-toting Liberals"....
    HAHAHA. Your absolutely right. I hear people on the eastern side here say that all the time. And I am being totally honest.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Stealth Potato wrote:
    Yeah, The Daily has always been pretty left-leaning, which is no surprise, but they've also seemed reluctant to even touch the issue of guns or guns on campus. It's definitely pretty remarkable that they would publish something like this now.
    They've touched it once before, that I saw. It was a girl who went to the range for the first time. Typical liberal bs at the begining, but it ended up being pretty good at the end. She said her experience was totally different from her perception, and that shooting was much more relaxing and calming than she expected.

    Anyway, I wouldn't call the Daily "left leaning." The Times is "left leaning," the Daily is FAR left. But that's what you should expect, it's a student-run paper on UW.

    The article today, or yesterday as it's dated, was a far cry from the usual, though. I'm trying to get ahold of my bud, who still goes to UW, to try and grab a copy of that one.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    BigDaddy5 wrote:
    The article today, or yesterday as it's dated, was a far cry from the usual, though. I'm trying to get ahold of my bud, who still goes to UW, to try and grab a copy of that one.
    I still have my hard copy I picked up yesterday, and I could probably find a few more, if you want one.

  11. #11
    Regular Member krazichinaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Between Seattle/Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    177

    Post imported post

    Wow! I'm amazed that someone wrote that!Thats 1 step closer...just a small one.

  12. #12
    Regular Member krazichinaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Between Seattle/Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    177

    Post imported post

    Edit* Double post

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    Hmm, another interesting incident... yesterday I got a call from Josh Lynch, the online editor of Seattle University's student paper. He wanted to ask me a few questions about my views on campus carry.

    Basically, in response to his questions, I told him that I believe it's a matter of personal responsibility for one's own safety, the Washington Constitution, the inability of police to protect individuals, and so on.

    However, he also asked me if I was concerned about other students possibly seeing someone's gun and getting freaked out. I felt it would have been impolitic to push open carry too hard here, but I basically told him that most people conceal (), and that they usually do a good job of it. But I also said that even further than that, simply the presence of a gun shouldn't cause fear to any reasonable person; anybody who actually meant harm would either just be hiding it (say, in a guitar case) or would already have it out and be shooting people.

    So, I'll keep a lookout for any results of this interview, and I'll be sure to post here as soon as I find anything.

  14. #14
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Stealth Potato wrote:
    Hmm, another interesting incident... yesterday I got a call from Josh Lynch, the online editor of Seattle University's student paper. He wanted to ask me a few questions about my views on campus carry.

    Basically, in response to his questions, I told him that I believe it's a matter of personal responsibility for one's own safety, the Washington Constitution, the inability of police to protect individuals, and so on.

    However, he also asked me if I was concerned about other students possibly seeing someone's gun and getting freaked out. I felt it would have been impolitic to push open carry too hard here, but I basically told him that most people conceal (), and that they usually do a good job of it. But I also said that even further than that, simply the presence of a gun shouldn't cause fear to any reasonable person; anybody who actually meant harm would either just be hiding it (say, in a guitar case) or would already have it out and be shooting people.

    So, I'll keep a lookout for any results of this interview, and I'll be sure to post here as soon as I find anything.
    Well-done Trip! Any idea how he heard that you'd be someone to talk to on this matter?
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    I'm guessing he got my name from the KOMO news article on SB 6841 and 6860.

    In any case, hopefully he'll actually present a fair look at the issue. I'm not sure what his personal opinions are on the matter, or if he'll let them influence his article, but I'm half-prepared to be portrayed as some kind of paranoid nutcase. But maybe that's just being paranoid of me.

  16. #16
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Well, here's to hoping he's as Fox News likes to say "fair and balanced"...

    Actually, I wouldn't even mind if he was unfair and imbalanced towards the pro-gun side. *chuckle*
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    151

    Post imported post

    The title sounds to me like an attempt by the editor to discourage readers from reading the body of the article.

    FWIW, I'm slated to be on Evergreen's "Disappearing Task Force" (in English: committee that will disband once the task is completed) to review the Student Conduct Code at some point in the coming year, and I fully intend to push permitting carry on campus. My fallback position will be to reinterpret the current rules to class carry (open or concealed) by any CPL-holder as being "authorized," but that's only if I fail to gain traction by pointing to the state constitution, the fact that Evergreen Police Services currently only have 6 patrol cops instead of the 10 they're supposed to have, and the fact that even a 2-minute response time (which is very good, no slam intended towards the contributors on this board who are members of the law-enforcement community) is too slow to stop something like the NIU shooting, even with "lessons learned" from Virginia Tech.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Stealth Potato wrote:
    Hmm, another interesting incident... yesterday I got a call from Josh Lynch, the online editor of Seattle University's student paper. He wanted to ask me a few questions about my views on campus carry.

    Basically, in response to his questions, I told him that I believe it's a matter of personal responsibility for one's own safety, the Washington Constitution, the inability of police to protect individuals, and so on.

    However, he also asked me if I was concerned about other students possibly seeing someone's gun and getting freaked out. I felt it would have been impolitic to push open carry too hard here, but I basically told him that most people conceal (), and that they usually do a good job of it. But I also said that even further than that, simply the presence of a gun shouldn't cause fear to any reasonable person; anybody who actually meant harm would either just be hiding it (say, in a guitar case) or would already have it out and be shooting people.

    So, I'll keep a lookout for any results of this interview, and I'll be sure to post here as soon as I find anything.
    Why not invite him to go shooting and then really educate him at the range. It's amazing what happens when they actually shoot a gun for fun. Just start him out with a 22.

  19. #19
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Why not invite him to go shooting and then really educate him at the range. It's amazing what happens when they actually shoot a gun for fun. Just start him out with a 22.
    +1, it can certainly work. But, the person has to be willing to enjoy themselves. I know, sounds dumb, but if they're determined to have a bad time because they "know" they will, then it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I had a friend of mine that was brought up by "tree-hugging hippies" (his words) and taught staunch anti-gun rhetoric. He came to me and wanted me to take me up on my offer to all my friends to take them shooting. We went to the range and he shot a ruger .22lr pistol (first firearm he'd ever shot) and he enjoyed it so much that when he finished with his brick of 50 rds, he went back to the counter of his own accord and got another brick of 100 rds!

    He's still very liberal, but he's now VERY pro-gun.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Euromutt wrote:
    The title sounds to me like an attempt by the editor to discourage readers from reading the body of the article.

    FWIW, I'm slated to be on Evergreen's "Disappearing Task Force" (in English: committee that will disband once the task is completed) to review the Student Conduct Code at some point in the coming year, and I fully intend to push permitting carry on campus. My fallback position will be to reinterpret the current rules to class carry (open or concealed) by any CPL-holder as being "authorized," but that's only if I fail to gain traction by pointing to the state constitution, the fact that Evergreen Police Services currently only have 6 patrol cops instead of the 10 they're supposed to have, and the fact that even a 2-minute response time (which is very good, no slam intended towards the contributors on this board who are members of the law-enforcement community) is too slow to stop something like the NIU shooting, even with "lessons learned" from Virginia Tech.
    Wonderful! Don't forget to push state preemption and question if their WAC's could stand up to a legal challenge against all of that. I know they've found a way around preemption, but personally doubt it could stand up in court.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    Well, a little more good news! Just this morning, The Daily published this comment on their op-ed page. Way to go, Stan!


    Euromutt: maybe you should also bring up how the policy opens the school up to liability if someone is killed or injured who otherwise would have had some way to defend themselves.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    151

    Post imported post

    Stealth Potato wrote:
    The Daily published this comment on their op-ed page. Way to go, Stan!
    Stan's argument there is very closely related to the main reason I stopped supporting gun control, only my reasoning went along the same road in the opposite direction, so to speak. Stan says, very correctly:
    Responsiblity must be transferred to another, before that other can excercise authority.
    For the government to legitimately restrict, let alone prohibit, private ownership of firearms for self-defense purposes, it has to first accept the responsibility to protect each and every citizen (and foreign nationals) in its care, and be held liable when it fails in this task. In repeated instances (notably the SCOTUS rulings in Warren v District of Columbia and Castle Rock, CO v Gonzales), the government has refused to accept this responsibility. Therefore, it cannot legitimately claim authority to deny its citizens the means to defend themselves.

    Yeah, maybe I should push for the school accepting liability if anyone gets hurt as a result of complying with its policies. Problem is, it's rather difficult to prove that a particular victim of a school shooting wouldn't be dead or wounded if he or she hadn't been restricted from carrying.

    Trip Volpe makes an interesting note in that comments thread, about how the UWregs state that "Nothing herein shall be construed to deny students their legally and/or constitutionally protected rights." Perhaps the stealthy approach is to just get something like that inserted into the Evergreen regs, and then let the college administration explain how imposing disciplinary sanctions for lawful possession of a firearm is not an attempt to deny students (and staff and faculty) a constitutional right.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    Euromutt wrote:
    Trip Volpe makes an interesting note in that comments thread, about how the UWregs state that "Nothing herein shall be construed to deny students their legally and/or constitutionally protected rights."
    That would be me. I think the existence of that exception would their policy very difficult to actually enforce, should it ever come up.

    Anyway, more good news from The Daily! In today's issue, they published a letter I wrote in their weekly "Free Speech Friday" feature. This was in response to a letter by one Emily Stix that they published last week; she made some of the usual tired old points, e.g., guns don't belong in schools! and someone who's carrying might snap and decide to kill everybody! She also claimed that if people carry guns for self-defense, criminals will resort to carrying even more deadly weapons. :shock:

    They don't seem to have any published letters for the last couple of weeks on their website, so here is the text of my letter for any who are interested:


    Emily Stix claims that Jackson Rohrbaugh's article Vigilante Justice is "absurd," but her letter is itself nonsensical.

    One claim presented: If students carry firearms, criminals will escalate by carrying even more deadly weapons. Such as what? Rocket launchers? Nuclear missiles? And this doesn't even consider the fact that students and other citizens already carry guns for self-defense on a daily basis around the city of Seattle. When somebody gets mugged with an RPG, let me know.

    Regarding concealed carry on campus, Emily asks how she can know that a student who is carrying won't decide to go on a rampage like Seung-Hui Cho did at Virginia Tech. The question is flawed because it assumes that a "no gun" policy will prevent people from bringing guns onto campus in the first place. What's stopping anybody from going on a rampage right now?

    One might claim that deadly weapons are not conducive to a learning environment, but this is an emotional argument, not a rational one. The State of Utah has allowed concealed carry on its public university campuses since 2006, and has so far had no reason to regret it. It's time for Washington to get with the program.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    Ah, and here's the article by Mr. Lynch: http://spectator.seattleu.edu/news/story.aspx?ID=24200

    Not terribly biased or anything, though I did make a point of the Washington State Constitution in the interview, and I'm kinda wondering why he didn't bother to mention that.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Stealth Potato wrote:
    Yeah, The Daily has always been pretty left-leaning, which is no surprise, but they've also seemed reluctant to even touch the issue of guns or guns on campus. It's definitely pretty remarkable that they would publish something like this now.
    Oh, I don't know. When I attended the UW, I wrote for the DAILY. That was back in the early 1970s and the day after George Wallace was shot, I did an editorial condemning the notion that "we need more gun laws."
    We already had gun laws, just nobody with the balls to enforce them, I wrote. The AMERICAN RIFLEMAN magazine, then under editor Ashley Halsey, Jr. picked that up and ran it. "Enforce existing laws" from then on became kind of a generic response to demands for new laws.

    Them were the good old days.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •