apostate wrote:J.R.@A&M wrote:My main thought about 2013 campus carry is to frame it more in terms of deterrence/prevention of general violent crime, both on an off campus, versus focusing on the mass shooting/Va Tech scenario. The other side appeared to be successful in framing the issue as "making the campus safer" and pointing out that mass shootings are rare. The point is to make individuals safer (or at least give them the choice). The "campus" is just a geographical abstraction.
When you listen to the testimony at the committee hearings, that's what we did.
By and large, the testimony for HB 750 and SB 354 talked about street crime. We explained that criminals cross property lines, so we need the ability to protect ourselves on both sides of the line. We talked about walking to our cars late at night, after class or study sessions. We talked about people who live nearby and walk or bicycle to campus, and are disarmed during their entire commute. We talked about people who rely on public transportation and are likewise at risk during their entire commute, including their time waiting alone at a bus stop. All because of an unnecessary law with no proven benefit.
The testimony against HB 750 and SB 354 was the broken record of mass shootings and their rarity. It was John Woods and his one-trick-pony brigade that focused on Virginia Tech. They would occasionally mention Charles Whitman, and one or two may have said Walt Whitman, but the bulk of their arguments against HB 750 and SB 354 were (1) VT and (2) their fear of civil rights.
In short, our testimony was about being safe whereas their testimony was about feeling safe.
That's in the testimony, but I think in general, the argument that was publicly put forth the most by those in favor of campus carry has been that it will make campuses safer by being able to stop active shooters. That's also what Sen. Wentworth concentrated on when arguing for it in the Senate.