Jim Turner wrote for News Service of Florida in an article appearing in the March 10, 2015 Tampa Tribune that a small rally was held on the steps of the Old Capitol to demonstrate against SB 176 and HB 4005. The sponsors of the rally were none other than Everytown for Gun Safety and the Florida chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Chryl Anderson of Moms describes the atmosphere of college life as “toxic” because of alcohol, drugs and surprisingly “academic pressures”. Her simple explanation for opposing these two bills is that “adding guns would make things worse.”
I’ve had two children attend colleges in Florida, one graduated and one to graduate in less than 60 days. Neither has described the atmosphere as “toxic”. What strikes me about Anderson’s statements is if she believes the college situation is so “toxic”, why is she involved in an organization like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America instead of MADD or stoprelationshipabuse or Kick Drugs Out of America? Her first two descriptions of “toxic” regard an illegal activity for students under the age of 21, and recreational drug use is never legal. Calling “academic pressure” part of the toxic atmosphere at a college is like calling oxygen toxic to humans, you have to have it to thrive.
NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer makes the point that the bills are about removing a restriction to adults who have gone through the process to obtain a “Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm License”. The process and factors used by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to determine who they issue licenses to and who can have them revoked is not mentioned in this article because the description is longer than the article itself. The short version is you have to be over 21, not convicted of a felony, or any domestic violence, not judged mentally incompetent, and have taken firearms training.
College campuses are open to public access. There are no card key access points that filter who can walk or drive on a campus. While there is a dedicated security department, they have no more control over who enters campus than who enters the mall down the road. This is really the point of the argument for allowing CWFL holders to carry on campus. The college campus is just as open as any other location in a locale when CWFL is allowed.
The victim is always the first responder. The victim is the first person who has the potential to stop a violent crime. CWFL holders choose to use guns because they are the most effective tool to neutralize disparity of force encounters. Organizations opposed to Citizens owning, carrying and using guns for self-defense typically do not acknowledge that a Citizen has a right to resist attack with any appropriate force up to and including deadly force.
I can agree with UF sophomore Natalia Perez Santos that allowing women to carry weapons won’t reduce the POTENTIAL for sexual assault. What it will do is provide the intended victim a powerful deterrent to an attempted sexual assault.
Natalia Perez Santos goes on to verbalize her misunderstanding of the concept of a CWFL practitioner versus a criminal. She confuses “an attacker”, a person who is about to commit a crime (in her example with a gun) with a person who has fulfilled the requirements of the State of Florida to carry and use a weapon for self-defense. The person who is going to commit a sexual assault or some other violent crime is a criminal who has no regard for the rights of the victim. A criminal is not going to be dissuaded from carrying and using a firearm if that is their preferred method of intimidation over their victim because a campus is a “gun free zone”. Gun Free Zones only mean law-abiding Citizens won’t have guns, not the criminals. Gun Free Zones embolden criminals because they do not expect to meet a POTENTIALLY deadly level of resistance.
Natalia Perez Santos and Chryl Anderson should familiarize themselves with Amanda Collins. She was a Nevada concealed carry permit holder who was unarmed when she was raped on campus by an armed attacker who went on to rape two other women. Because Amanda Collins was a law-abiding Citizen, she was denied the choice of responding to her sexual assault in a disparity of force situation with the best weapon to counter that threat. She was denied the ability to choose for herself what level of response she could employ under the circumstances. There is no way to know her outcome if she had her gun with her. She was denied the chance for self-determination.
Everytown for Gun Safety’s involvement was not a surprise because of their opposition to any measure that enforces the Second Amendment. Everytown is a morph from Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns which had to change because the Mayors that originally signed on soon realized the agenda was not about reducing illegal guns in America, but about making all guns in America illegal.
Bloomberg had an opportunity to have a positive influence on the statistics of gun safety if he would have set up a lottery and awarded safes and sponsored education and training. Instead he invests millions in attempting to make armed self-defense socially unacceptable or illegal.
Make sure you understand the agenda of anti-gun organizations. They use benign sounding names intending to invoke emotional responses to works like safety or violence. Their goal is to remove the most effective means of self-defense from Citizens and turn us all into Subjects of the State. Where rights are granted not by God, but by imperial leaders with a bureaucracy to enforce their mandates. This is a path to tyranny, the kind of tyranny the American Patriots fought a Revolution to separate themselves from.