The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

ASUO passes resolution saying how much they don’t like stuff, expects you to care

Every once in a while, one looks at the front page of the ODE, pauses for consideration, and realizes that there is a huge divide between how much clout the ASUO has, and how much it thinks it has. On those days, it strikes one that ASUO has something of a Twitter Famous mentality: the small amount of power they are allotted makes them feel as if they have infinitely more sway than they actually do.

This is one of those days.

Last night the ASUO passed a resolution declaring its opposition to concealed-carry on campus. According to the Ol’Dirty, “The resolution reasons that a ban on conceal-carry weapons is not a Second Amendment restriction after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 stated schools were considered a ‘sensitive’ place, and thus laws barring firearms were not restricted.” Further, it was noted that because the primary purpose of a gun is to “cause lethal bodily harm”, it should not be permitted on campus, versus potentially dangerous but useful objects such as knives.

Those potatoes aren’t going to chop themselves.

Nowhere in the Daily Emerald article, however, is the meaninglessness and inanity of the whole situation specifically noted. What purpose does this serve? Who was banging down the ASUO’s front door begging them to send down their official declaration on the matter from on high? Contrary to what the Emerald’s headline claims, the ASUO does seem to have enough self-awareness to know that they didn’t actually change state law by passing this resolution. Their hope seems to be that if (with the implicit “and when” undoubtedly present in their minds) the state decides to revisit the concealed-carry on campus situation, the ASUO will be in support of a reinstated ban. My question is, why does the ASUO think the state gives a shit?

Please senators, for the love of God, I beg of you–do something useful with yourselves. How long did this resolution take to argue out? How many man hours were lost that could have been better spent on actually doing something that is within your limited power to do?

The Commentator has had an equipment request waiting on your nod since November. Why not manipulate that power?

  1. Gsim says:

    Sen. Rubin – You and your statist senator buddies can start pissing your pants now. Be expecting a line item request for guns and ammunition in our upcoming budget hearing. The OC is going back to its old hardcore ways of the early 90s and putting the gun safe and rifles back in the office.

    Then we’re going to go all Black Panthers and roll up locked and loaded with bullets stacked to the teeth at the next senate meeting too. Bitch.

  2. Ashley says:

    Sen Rudin,

    Thank you for those numbers, I concede that point. However, I still want to know how much of this alcohol and drug abuse actually happens on the campus itself, since that is the location we’re discussing here. If it happens off campus, it’s a moot point. Further, while that data about gun owners is compelling, it does not specifically talk about permit holders. Anyone who carries a concealed weapon without a permit would be in violation of the law regardless, so that’s again a moot point. If there was data to show that permit holders specifically behave in this manner, that would be much more compelling data.

    In terms of defenselessness, you yourself noted the lethal nature of guns. What defense would unarmed students have against a gunman before authorities were able to respond?

    I would say that the ASUO should focus on resolutions with some noticeable impact. In this case, again, the resolution is there to say that the ASUO disagrees with the state, which doesn’t actually do anything that affects the campus.

  3. Sen. Rudin says:

    Hi Ashley,
    See here regarding college gun owners:

    “Students who reported having firearms at college disproportionately reported that they engaged in behaviors that put themselves and others at risk for injury.”

    For the rest, here:

    As for the “safer while defenseless” argument, you’re assuming that having no gun means we’re defenseless. It doesn’t.

    Are you saying we should never pass resolutions?

  4. Ashley says:

    “I would ask you how many campus shootings occurred in the past decade? It’s very rare.”

    Yes. Yes completely. So if, as you have said, these incidences are so rare, why are we discussing this?

    Also, I would want to see data that showed that stress, alcohol and drug use on campus–specifically on campus, not in the surrounding area, because concealed carry has always been legal outside the campus–are any worse than elsewhere in society. How many students are walking to school drunk or high? What is the overlap with permit holders? I would also like data showing that college students who own guns drink and use drugs more than other students.

    Lastly, I wasn’t saying that we would allow guns on campus to start fire fights–the idea that we are safer while defenseless, however, is shortsighted.

    But again, my main point with this post is not about whether I personally agree or disagree with concealed carry, but with the passing of a resolution that doesn’t really do anything.

  5. Sen. Rudin says:

    Hi Ashley,
    I appreciate your input too. As for campus shootings, I would ask you how many campus shootings occurred in the past decade? It’s very rare.

    Regarding stopping like a Virginia Tech, you’re right, and if the goal of banning conceal and carry on campus was to prevent such a thing, then it would be an abject failure. It’s not about that. Many murders and suicides happen other ways, such as with people in the heat of the moment and under the influence of drugs and alcohol. With all the stress associated with campus, and the drugs and alcohol used by college students compared to the public at large (even higher among college gun owners!) logic dictates we would have more people killed on campus in such situations if we legalized it on a huge scale.

    As for less defenseless in a Virginia Tech situation, I don’t want to discount that possibility but here’s why that doesn’t sway me: 1. Those situations are very rare, and more people die from being struck by lightning. Allowing guns on campus to prevent such situations seems far more reactionary. 93% of crime against students occurs off campus. 2. Even police, with all their training, miss their targets over 80% of the time. That’s over 80% of the time something or someone else gets shot. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have an armed campus police force, in fact I’m for it, but a crossfire between untrained students is bound to kill more, not less. 3. 86% of campus police chiefs surveyed agree that allowing students to carry guns on campus would not stop all or some school shootings. Maybe an armed student body would help in such a situation, but maybe it wouldn’t.

    As for licensing, I never said I’m opposed to conceal and carry anywhere. I was only talking about campuses given the prevalence of stress, drugs, and alcohol

  6. Ashley says:

    Sen. Rudin,

    You are absolutely right that the Senate has passed toothless resolutions like this in the past, which is, I believe, the problem. Why go the effort of passing such a resolution when it won’t accomplish anything? What purpose does it serve?

    As for the issue of licensed carry, I have to pose this question: how many campus shootings in the last decade were carried out by permit holders? The Virginia Tech and the UT shootings involved concealed weapons, but in those cases, the individuals responsible one, were not permit holders as far as we know, and two, brought guns onto campuses where all gun possession was prohibited. So, clearly, a ban on concealed-carry isn’t going to stop people from bringing weapons onto campuses if they really want to. How will prohibiting licensed carry fix that? I would argue that allowing, yes, “law-abiding citizens” to carry on would leave potential victims less defenseless against potential attacks. Just because concealed carry is allowed doesn’t mean DPS isn’t allowed to check licenses.

    Further, saying that we can’t trust licensed carriers and therefore shouldn’t allow them to carry at all sets an unpleasant precedent. Can we also not trust licensed drivers, since licensing won’t prevent accidents and reckless driving?

    I will say, I do respect your wish to keep the campus safe. However, the response seems reactionary, and the resolution ineffectual, as the decision does come down from the state. Is the ASUO involved in any attempts to have the legislation appealed by chance?

    Regardless, I appreciate your input here. Always good to have a little back-and-forth on these issues.

  7. Sen. Rudin says:

    Hi Ashley,
    I knew full well that the resolution was toothless when I proposed it. The Senate passes those all the time. It is simply an expression of opinion, like we also did regarding opposing the mandatory reporting policy and the gender-neutral bathrooms.

    To the substantive issue, the requirement to get a conceal and carry permit is no safeguard, especially in shall-issue states. Cho would have gotten one if he applied. As for your main point about someone who actually has gone through the process, I think about how campus is a factory for stress AND the binge drinking and drug use that happens on campus, and how such incidents are much more likely to turn fatal if a gun is present. They may be considered “law-abiding citizens” but that does not help matters.

  8. Ashley says:

    Hello Sen Rudin,

    “Who do you think is more likely to kill everyone in a room: someone who walks in with a gun or with a knife?”

    I think it might be better to ask, who is more likely to attempt to harm another human being: someone with a concealed-carry permit, who has taken the time to go through legal and legitimate channels to obtain a weapon, or someone who picked up a flip knife over at the good ol’ knives and smokes?

    I think a lot of the disconnect over this issue is that people’s views on those with concealed-carry permits differ. One side sees a person carrying a gun in public as dangerous, and the other sees permit holders as law-abiding citizens.

    However, my issue here isn’t with individuals’ opinions on concealed-carry, as those are something everyone is entitled to. What bothers me here is that the ASUO responded to a decision handed down by the state by passing a toothless resolution in protest that…pretty much does nothing. It’s almost like a child stomping their feet and huffing because they didn’t get the candy they wanted. I really don’t want to be able to draw such a comparison.

  9. Sen. Rudin says:

    Hi Ashley,
    I don’t know too much about switchblade knives, but it’s not just about the primary purpose. It’s also about capacity to kill. Who do you think is more likely to kill everyone in a room: someone who walks in with a gun or with a knife? Of course the former, for 2 reasons: (1) people are more likely to survive an encounter with a knife than with a gun, and (2) a person who walks into a room with a knife might get to one person, meanwhile everybody else can run out the door. In contrast, a person with a gun who walks into a room can stand at the door, and kill people from that position

  10. Ashley says:

    Aaaah, darn.



  11. Ashley says:

    Pardon me, I’ve edited the article to reflect that.

    But then, wait a second, that makes even LESS sense. How is the “primary” purpose of a switchblade any different than the “primary” purpose of a gun? And how is someone licensed to carry a concealed gun somehow more dangerous than someone who carries a blade in their back pocket that they picked up at Walmart?

    Also, can I go to class with a cleaver on my belt? I mean, it’s primary purpose is for cutting meat.

  12. Sen. Rudin says:

    It said primary purpose, not sole

  13. Thief says:

    The Emerald article says “It also points out that the primary purpose of guns is to cause lethal bodily harm, unlike other sometimes dangerous — but not restricted — counterparts like cars and knives.”

    So maybe.

  14. NGA says:

    Did the resolution really say “the sole purpose of a gun is to cause lethal bodily harm”? Or was that exaggeration/satire?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.