How do we *effectively* turn the tide on college campuses?

[RPB]

Unfortunately, we already have. ...Virginia Tech.

But that's what amazes me; that Texas (with its reputation) has stricter gun laws than Virginia; and we didn't even get 2178 passed so we could be as safe as Virginia campuses. I had a couple Twitter exchanges with John Woods about why his sister chose to go to a school where guns weren't illegal (though there was a school "policy" against them (she graduated last week from VT)..... very short conversation lol

I mean if Texas has such a "loose gun law" reputation, but our laws are actually stricter ... boggles my mind.
If I was 15-30 years younger, I'd seriously think of selling my house and moving to a State where legislators used logic and facts to look for a law school and take a multi-state bar exam or something. But, I think I'll just Switch energy to the US ACOE lands for now .... and go fishing and relax a bit while contacting US Congressmen.

I think 1st, ACOE lands, next Texas Schools, then See about a Sunset bill to let the BATFE get de-funded

[C-dub]

Unfortunately, we already have. ...Virginia Tech.

But that's what amazes me; that Texas (with its reputation) has stricter gun laws than Virginia; and we didn't even get 2178 passed so we could be as safe as Virginia campuses. I had a couple Twitter exchanges with John Woods about why his sister chose to go to a school where guns weren't illegal (though there was a school "policy" against them (she graduated last week from VT)..... very short conversation lol

I mean if Texas has such a "loose gun law" reputation, but our laws are actually stricter ... boggles my mind.
If I was 15-30 years younger, I'd seriously think of selling my house and moving to a State where legislators used logic and facts to look for a law school and take a multi-state bar exam or something.

That's what I'm saying. It defies logic. Their entire argument is emotional and cannot withstand historical evidence.

[chasfm11]

Unfortunately, we already have. ...Virginia Tech.

But that's what amazes me; that Texas (with its reputation) has stricter gun laws than Virginia; and we didn't even get 2178 passed so we could be as safe as Virginia campuses. I had a couple Twitter exchanges with John Woods about why his sister chose to go to a school where guns weren't illegal (though there was a school "policy" against them (she graduated last week from VT)..... very short conversation lol

I mean if Texas has such a "loose gun law" reputation, but our laws are actually stricter ... boggles my mind.
If I was 15-30 years younger, I'd seriously think of selling my house and moving to a State where legislators used logic and facts to look for a law school and take a multi-state bar exam or something.

That's what I'm saying. It defies logic. Their entire argument is emotional and cannot withstand historical evidence.

And that's what makes it so difficult to get past. Emotional (hysterical ?) arguments abound on a variety of subjects. We are seeing that presentation of the facts does not work as a counter argument and leads too many times to defeat. I have to admit - I don't have a good answer for it either. My best successes have come from a questioning technique that I tried. I try to walk my questions in a circle that leads back to the facts of the matter. I've had a couple where the person would admit that robberies and rapes were more of a problem on college campuses than a crazed shooter. The part that amazes me is the answer to the question "what do you tell the family of a kid who is killed on campus by an armed robber?" The answer boils down to be "things happen." I can never find a set of questions to get them to the point of saying "things don't have to happen if people can defend themselves." They cannot even be carefully lead to connecting the dots.

[terryg]

Sadly, I think the only thing that will turn the tide is an on-campus event similar to Luby's.

I my meanest, most grouchy, hateful days, I still wouldn't wish that experience on anybody.

Unfortunately, we already have. Columbine and Virginia Tech. The anti's still think the police can protect everyone. IMHO, this all goes back to the unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for anything. The hardcore liberal believes he can do no wrong and that someone else, be it society or parents or whoever, is always to blame. Someone made them bad. They didn't make that decision on their own. Someone pushed them by not giving them a choice, chance, or whatever.

Exactly right. They also beleive that more guns always always escalates a situation. Only testimony like that of Amanda Collins, where the CHL law clearly could have made a difference, can possibly have any sway. And even in that situation, the liberal academic elite is likely to claim that if she would have had her gun, the rapist would probably have killed her rather than her defending herself from him.

[Hoi Polloi]

The thought just occured to me that there are a whole lot of NRA members who must have been apathetic to the cause for the congressmen to hear so little from them. Reaching that group and mobilizing them would not be a primary need, but I think it would play an important support role.

Likewise, I think we need to get more young adult women to a range.

[RHenriksen]

The thought just occured to me that there are a whole lot of NRA members who must have been apathetic to the cause for the congressmen to hear so little from them. Reaching that group and mobilizing them would not be a primary need, but I think it would play an important support role.

Likewise, I think we need to get more young adult women to a range.

Both good points.

I would *guess* that the two main sources of anti-CC voices heard in Austin would be UT students, and out of state. What about helping the UT-SCCC chapter hold some sort of outreach events? Free firearms safety training & shooting?

[RHenriksen]

Sadly, I think the only thing that will turn the tide is an on-campus event similar to Luby's.

I my meanest, most grouchy, hateful days, I still wouldn't wish that experience on anybody.

Unfortunately, we already have. Columbine and Virginia Tech. The anti's still think the police can protect everyone. IMHO, this all goes back to the unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for anything. The hardcore liberal believes he can do no wrong and that someone else, be it society or parents or whoever, is always to blame. Someone made them bad. They didn't make that decision on their own. Someone pushed them by not giving them a choice, chance, or whatever.

Exactly right. They also beleive that more guns always always escalates a situation. Only testimony like that of Amanda Collins, where the CHL law clearly could have made a difference, can possibly have any sway. And even in that situation, the liberal academic elite is likely to claim that if she would have had her gun, the rapist would probably have killed her rather than her defending herself from him.

Let's not talk ourselves into apathy, guys. There are anti's of all shapes & sizes, not all are unreachable. Moreover, we can do a better job mobilizing our base.

[Jasonw560]

Sadly, I think the only thing that will turn the tide is an on-campus event similar to Luby's.

I my meanest, most grouchy, hateful days, I still wouldn't wish that experience on anybody.

Unfortunately, we already have. Columbine and Virginia Tech. The anti's still think the police can protect everyone. IMHO, this all goes back to the unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for anything. The hardcore liberal believes he can do no wrong and that someone else, be it society or parents or whoever, is always to blame. Someone made them bad. They didn't make that decision on their own. Someone pushed them by not giving them a choice, chance, or whatever.

Exactly right. They also beleive that more guns always always escalates a situation. Only testimony like that of Amanda Collins, where the CHL law clearly could have made a difference, can possibly have any sway. And even in that situation, the liberal academic elite is likely to claim that if she would have had her gun, the rapist would probably have killed her rather than her defending herself from him.

Let's not talk ourselves into apathy, guys. There are anti's of all shapes & sizes, not all are unreachable. Moreover, we can do a better job mobilizing our base.

This is true. We do need to organize our base. All great ideas. Can anyone come up with an "action plan" to get this started? Ayone really good with computer graphics and makng pdfs?
I also had an idea about contacting college presidents/staff/students/police chiefs from legal concealed carry campuses, and see if we can get their take on the positive impact this has had on them. Maybe get it on video. Ask the schools' YRs to get the video, and present it on a web page and as part of a package to send to admins.

[terryg]

Sadly, I think the only thing that will turn the tide is an on-campus event similar to Luby's.

I my meanest, most grouchy, hateful days, I still wouldn't wish that experience on anybody.

Unfortunately, we already have. Columbine and Virginia Tech. The anti's still think the police can protect everyone. IMHO, this all goes back to the unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for anything. The hardcore liberal believes he can do no wrong and that someone else, be it society or parents or whoever, is always to blame. Someone made them bad. They didn't make that decision on their own. Someone pushed them by not giving them a choice, chance, or whatever.

Exactly right. They also beleive that more guns always always escalates a situation. Only testimony like that of Amanda Collins, where the CHL law clearly could have made a difference, can possibly have any sway. And even in that situation, the liberal academic elite is likely to claim that if she would have had her gun, the rapist would probably have killed her rather than her defending herself from him.

Let's not talk ourselves into apathy, guys. There are anti's of all shapes & sizes, not all are unreachable. Moreover, we can do a better job mobilizing our base.

Good point, and I didn't mean to present it as hopeless. Just trying to highlight that most of these guys will not come to the same conclusions when presented with statistics on campus crime. They will, in fact, take those same high numbers and predict worse outcomes by 'adding guns to the mix'.

I just wanted to highlight the work we have before us. Primarily that campus crime statistics alone will not make the case for us. It has to coupled with education as most of these guys will not reach the same conclusions as us when presented with this data.

[Hoi Polloi]

Must read! It is written from a left-leaning position both in the topics it chooses to address and in its conclusion only addressing bias on the political right, but the info is just as relevant to this discussion and directly addresses concealed carry.

Rapture Ready: The Science of Self Delusion
Why Harold Camping's flock won't give up the faith, whatever happens on Saturday.

In other words, people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views—and thus the relative risks inherent in each scenario. A hierarchal individualist finds it difficult to believe that the things he prizes (commerce, industry, a man's freedom to possess a gun to defend his family) (PDF) could lead to outcomes deleterious to society. Whereas egalitarian communitarians tend to think that the free market causes harm, that patriarchal families mess up kids, and that people can't handle their guns. The study subjects weren't "anti-science"—not in their own minds, anyway. It's just that "science" was whatever they wanted it to be. "We've come to a misadventure, a bad situation where diverse citizens, who rely on diverse systems of cultural certification, are in conflict," says Kahan.

And that undercuts the standard notion that the way to persuade people is via evidence and argument. In fact, head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever.

[G26ster]

Emotions always win over facts. Political campaigns are successful when they stir emotions over cold hard facts. Sad, but true. I think we spent too much time with facts, and too little time on emotion. The fact that CC already permitted elsewhere showed no increase in gun related injuries or death meant nothing to those overcome with fear. We just need a better PR campaign, preferably run by those who "know how" to influence public opinion. Facts are extremely important, but only when they are folded into a campaign that stirs peoples emotions in a direction opposite their fears. I do not think our side did that effectively this time around.

[Jasonw560]

Must read! It is written from a left-leaning position both in the topics it chooses to address and in its conclusion only addressing bias on the political right, but the info is just as relevant to this discussion and directly addresses concealed carry.

Rapture Ready: The Science of Self Delusion
Why Harold Camping's flock won't give up the faith, whatever happens on Saturday.

In other words, people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views—and thus the relative risks inherent in each scenario. A hierarchal individualist finds it difficult to believe that the things he prizes (commerce, industry, a man's freedom to possess a gun to defend his family) (PDF) could lead to outcomes deleterious to society. Whereas egalitarian communitarians tend to think that the free market causes harm, that patriarchal families mess up kids, and that people can't handle their guns. The study subjects weren't "anti-science"—not in their own minds, anyway. It's just that "science" was whatever they wanted it to be. "We've come to a misadventure, a bad situation where diverse citizens, who rely on diverse systems of cultural certification, are in conflict," says Kahan.

And that undercuts the standard notion that the way to persuade people is via evidence and argument. In fact, head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever.

I read all of it. Interesting read. Gives us something to think about.

[Oldgringo]

The thought just occured to me that there are a whole lot of NRA members who must have been apathetic to the cause for the congressmen to hear so little from them. Reaching that group and mobilizing them would not be a primary need, but I think it would play an important support role.

Likewise, I think we need to get more young adult women to a range.

Do the older adult women; especially, the older adult women with a current CH license need to be excluded?

[UpTheIrons]

Coming in 2013:

"The Student Protection Act"

No! No! No! We CANNOT frame the discussion this way. I liked the term last night when I read this, but woke up this morning with a changed mind. Anything that is firearm related and has the word "student" in it will be turned against us.

Remember, the whole argument was framed by the antis thusly: "They want to GIVE STUDENTS GUNS!"

It mattered not how we politely and gently corrected their misunderstandings, the antis wailing about the NRA handing out "assault weapons" (sic) to drunk college freshmen on the way to a kegger in a frat house was what people heard - not the correct explanation of the law.

Sure, some heard it, but the damage was done. The media picked up the trope and ran with it. It is going to take someone smarter than me to come up with a semantic title that is going to be plain vanilla enough, yet get the point across correctly.

[hirundo82]

Likewise, I think we need to get more young adult women to a range.

Do the older adult women; especially, the older adult women with a current CH license need to be excluded?

I think the point was reaching out to the people most at risk from the current student disarmament law, female college students, especially since many of them currently hold major misconceptions about armed self defense.