Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, June 1, 2011 | 3:10 p.m.
CARSON CITY — A former university student who was raped at gunpoint at UNR testified Wednesday in support of concealed weapons on campus.
Amanda Collins told the Assembly Judiciary Committee she obeyed the law and left her gun at home. If she had a gun, “I would not be an easy target.”
She said if she had been able to prevent the 2007 attack, two later rapes and the killing of Brianna Denison by the same man wouldn’t have occurred.
In her emotional testimony, Collins said she had thoughts of suicide after the rape, which happened in a university garage about 100 yards from the campus police station.
But Aimee Riley, student body president at the College of Southern Nevada, said students are “horrified” at Senate Bill 231. She said police officers should be the ones who carry weapons on campus.
“It’s not a good idea,” Riley said.
The committee heard testimony for more than three hours but didn’t take action. The bill has passed the Senate 15-6, but strong opposition came from law enforcement and faculty members Wednesday.
Current law requires a student or faculty member to get permission from college or university presidents to carry a concealed weapon on campus. Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Dan Klaich said permission had been granted to about five students, but he didn’t know how many applications had been submitted.
Klaich said campuses are losing faculty, and it would be more difficult to recruit new professors if this bill passed.
Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, said people have to go through several procedures to gain a concealed-weapons permit. The use of a weapon “is not to have an equalizer so I can get an ‘A.’ ”
Lee, the bill’s sponsor, said Collins was given a permit to carry the concealed weapon on campus after she was attacked.
Individuals shouldn’t be allowed to carry weapons in grade school and high school, but campuses of universities and community colleges are different, Lee said. Weapons should be restricted in dormitories and at athletic events, he said.
Leah Wilds, an associate professor at UNR, said more than half of faculty in the system “adamantly oppose” the bill. If concealed weapons are allowed, she said she would fear for her safety.
Frank Adams, representing the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, said these law enforcement officials have mixed feelings on the issue. But the association opposes removing the power of campus presidents in making the decision to permit a concealed weapon on campus.
This law servs only to restrict lawful people from carying guns. It does nothing to stop or restrict criminal activity in any way. Criminals by defintion do not obey the law so this won't stop them.
Why would we let our gov. tell us we cannot protect ourselves?
if the people that were thinking of commiting a crime knew there might be someone with a gun that could turn the tide on there wrong doing,it might deter them.
The problem stems from the community outside the colleges, and the outreach given to those in the community. Guns would not be needed if more focus was on community efforts, rehabilitation, drug control, etc. I'm not opposed to open carrying elsewhere, just not in education facilities, government buildings, and parks.
If the school doesn't want anyone to carry on campus just guarantee everyones safety.
Sofakingbored opined: "Guns would not be needed if more focus was on community efforts, rehabilitation, drug control, etc."
Drug control laws have done as much to stem the rising crime rates in this country as alcohol prohibition did in the 20's. That is to say, "nothing". It has only made the criminal element more rich and powerful and law enforcement more corrupt.
I appreciate the kumbaya moment anyways. Such naivete is rarely encountered these days.
I find it difficult to believe allowing 18-25 year olds -- who are not trained to handle criminal situations -- to go to school with guns makes a college campus safer. There is no research to support the assertion. Without training, someone with a gun could make a situation worse, have the gun taken from them and/or misjudge the situation and kill innocent people. Unless the person has a specific situation that would require extra protection -- and with the university's consent -- students should not be allowed to carry guns on campus. Besides, in reality, college campuses are more safe than off-campus, so while students may be victims, they are often victims off campus and not on. This would change that!
1. You can't have a CCW at 18. You have to be 21.
2.You are trained to defend YOURSELF, which is the reason to carry a concealed weapon.
3. More strict gun control results in more violent crime. That IS a provable fact.
4. It's pretty hard to misjudge a situation where a person pulls out a gun and starts randomly blowing people away. The gun-free zone of Virginia Tech didn't dissuade the shooter in that instance, only the law-abiding victims, and I fail to see how an armed and responsible citizen could have made it worse.
5. When was the last time someone KNEW they were going to be attacked? The only way the campus president will grant permission now is by proving an IDENTIFIABLE threat.
6. So campus is really safe, but the surrounding neighborhood is what it is; a festering cesspool of crime, and you have to traverse this place without your gun because you can't very well leave it under the dumpster at 7-11 before you set foot on campus now can you?
People who go to the trouble and considerable expense to get their CCW are usually a more responsible sort than the average person who does not make the sacrifice.
It doesn't matter what anyone THINKS about this. It infringes on our basic right to carry. period. I'm tired of progressives believing that I have to be a victim if the situation arrises. I want to protect myself. By the time the police show up it's too late. Imagine if one of the 37 or others at Virginia Tech could have refused to be a victim that day. Government........get off my freedom!
Scenario 1: criminal shoots up a class or campus and nobody does anything because they can't.
Scenario 2: criminal shoots up a class or campus and 10 trained people shoot back.
You choose!
Enough of the gun control, it doesn't work. The kids who shot up columbine & virginia tech obviously didnt care that their schools were gun free zones..
Police can not protect me 24/7. I am in no way leaving my family and life up the response time of 911...
18 year olds are grown adults, we send them to war, I don't see how they can not responsibly own a weapon being as millions due it year after year.
Looking at most of the people in Washington who are for gun support they generally have personel that have guns so they are protected. So put your money where your mouth is Washington, drop all of your securities weapons... Of course you don't want to do that when it's up to your safety so why should I give up my safety, I simply can't afford armed personel like Washington can.
And if you want to enter reality I have seen plenty of cops misuse weapon and I have seen plenty of military misuse weapons. I have seen both kill innocent people with their weapons, so why on earth would I let those same people be the only ones with guns?
Not all military & police are responsible gun owners, thats a fact. Just like citizens, not all are responsible, but just like the military & police there is plenty that are responsible.
Arizona Shooting - 60 shots into one veteran. Thats irresonsible gun use and they were cops with training.
The Costco shooting with that ex veteran, also irresonsible gun use, and they were cops with training.
Sport Shooting Innocent foreigners for fun is irresponsible gun use, and they were military with training.
I could go on with plenty more examples of how trained personel also misuses weapons.
Last but not least, Shall not be infringed is really easy to understand and was implemented for a lot of different reasons. Stop eroding our Constitution, we are all growing tired of it.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
"A man with a briefcase can steal millions more than any man with a gun."
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
"We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts -- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."
Many men, far greater than you or I, have debated this issue and determined that the best way to stay free is to be armed. -Me
Vegas17,
Your comment has several flaws, some of which were highlighted by fexlh.
#1: You are correct that CCW holders are not required to obtain specific training on handling criminal situations, just 8 hours of instruction concerning the laws and judicial standards surrounding self defense. No one is asking for permission to carry a concealed firearm on campus to be a supercop or some kind of crime fighter. They want to keep from being attacked or killed by someone with ill will on the campus.
#2: You note there is "no research to support this assertion" Well of course not, because no one is allowed to carry a gun on campus so how would there be research on it? We would first need to pass the measure and then proceed with a study from there, but answer me this: If you were a rapist, robber, or mass murder looking for the weakest, easiest targets you could find, wouldn't you want to go somewhere like a college campus where you know the law restricts everyone from possessing a weapon with which to defend themselves? If students were allowed to carry on campus, it would "up the ante" so to speak for the criminal element wishing to take violent advantage of people.
#3: I agree that by and large more crime is committed out in society, i.e. "off campus" as opposed to on campus, but off campus those students who chose to do so are able to utilize their CCW's and carry a weapon to defend themselves against violent crime. And I agree that an uneducated person could make the situation worse, and as you indicated possibly kill an innocent person, but those situations have to be dealt with individually with the person responsible for firing the round(s). Far more people die in auto accidents every year, but does that mean that you shouldn't be allowed to drive your car to work because someone else drives like a moron? Why would you suggest punishing the many for the possible shortfalls of a few? And why should I as a college student have to risk being gunned down on my to and from class because I chose to obey the law currently on file and leave my gun at home before I head to lecture?
In Arizona, the state Legislature passed a similar bill, but the bill was vetoed by the Arizona Governor, who is a Republican and an NRA member.
The logic behind the notion that criminals would be fearful to commit crimes because a citizen might have a gun is questionable. Banks, armored cars, convenience stores, bars, etc all get robbed. Most would assume that those types of establishments will have armed employees.
One would assume that armored cars do have armed guards and RARELY get robbed. Whereas convenience stores rarely have armed employees and get robbed frequently. Up until recently, Washington D.C. banned handguns altogether and had one of the highest percentages of violent crime in the country, while Arlington VA, (across the river and having very little gun control) had one of the lowest. Scumbags go for easy targets.