a Marine who shares his feelings on why he carries a gun.  It’s been around for a while, but it’s definitely worth the read (even a second or third time).

The Gun is Civilization by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for “automatic rule” by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a forced monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won, by the physically superior participants. The result is overwhelming injury inflicted on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.  It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

And the original music video

Because hey–I like guns!

The issue at hand is still relevant today and is being debated at schools across the country as they continue to argue whether guns have a place on campuses. Incidents at Colorado State University, in Texas and Arizona, Utah, and elsewhere show that people are still searching for the best solution to protecting the students, faculty, and others on campus. Unfortunately, most of them get it wrong.

“Gun-Free” School Zone Again a Failure

“We’re all ignorant, just on different subjects.” Will Rogers

“Without data, we’re just another schmuck with an opinion.” D. Chris Anderson, Ph.D.

All of us should feel a little sick, and great sympathy for the victims and their families, as a result of the tragic series of shootings by a deranged killer in Blacksburg, Virginia.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the killing-spree at Virginia Tech is precisely what the anti-self-defense forces have been hoping for:

(1) Predictable, the followers of Sarah Brady – and perhaps many of the Democratic candidates for President – will exploit this needless tragedy to call for more gun control among the law-abiding.

(2) Second Amendment advocates, with knowledge of the scientific data, will observe that, in that terrible nightmare-situation in Blacksburg, if just one civilian with a firearms concealed-carry permit had been among the shooter’s intended-victims, he or she could have stopped the killing and saved many lives – long before the police arrived.  This is exactly what happened on January 16, 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, where three individuals, two of whom were legally armed with handguns, stopped a disgruntled former student who was trying to kill everyone.

But self-defense was impossible at Virginia Tech.  In an incredible act of “feel-good” ignorance, “Policy 5616 – Campus and Workplace Violence Prevention Policy” prohibited all firearms for self-defense from the Virginia campus.  Lawful gun-owners – who had submitted applications, paid all fees, submitted fingerprint-cards for national police-checks, and confirmed knowledge of the law and proficiency with their firearm – were told by Virginia Tech they do not have the right to defend their life, even though the State of Virginia has said they can.  Their uninformed desire to “feel safe” prompted this foolish university policy, which actually made people less safe.  Virginia Tech’s Policy-5616 enabled the needless carnage on their campus.  The cost this day – some 33 killed, plus more wounded and possibly dying in a premeditated murder-spree.

It could have been avoided.  All credible scientific data confirms in the United States roughly 2.5-million crimes are stopped or deterred by armed civilians every year – most with no shots fired, and fewer than one in a thousand resulting in any death.  2.5-million crimes!  There have been scores of credible, independent, criminological-studies which confirm guns in the hands of the law-abiding save lives.  You might start by reading economist John Lott’s MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME, and his later, MEDIA BIASES AGAINST GUNS.  There are hundreds of such publications – many by well-known, liberal Constitutional scholars – on the Constitution, history, and current criminological data.  There is no – repeat, NO – valid data that indicates so-called “gun control” laws prevent violence, or keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  The data indicates just the reverse – where the law-abiding are deprived of their right of self-defense, violent crime increases.

So-called “gun control” laws harm innocent people.  My friend, Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, lost her parents in the Luby’s massacre in Killeen, Texas.  Dr. Hupp, who kept her gun locked up that day in compliance with the law at the time, said “I blame the deaths of my parents on the legislators who deny me the right to defend myself.” Just 2-months later, in an eerily-similar incident in a restaurant armed-robbery in Anniston, Alabama, all innocent lives were saved by a lone customer who happen to have a legally-concealed pistol in his possession.  The national press – which had such an anti-gun feeding-frenzy over the Killeen incident – never bothered to mention the 21-lives saved by the lone gunman in Anniston.

There is an old legal maxim, “Hard cases make bad laws.”  As I am writing this, all major TV networks – following their

ethic “if it bleeds, it leads” – are rehashing every past school-shooting incident in their TV libraries.  I have no doubt they will dig up Sarah Brady, Bill Clinton, or some other politician to once again call for their discredited and dangerous laws.  What every TV-report has failed to mention is every one of those schools were by law, “gun free” – meaning the killers knew their victims were defenseless.  In Israel, attacks on schools were abruptly stopped when teachers and (where appropriate) adult-students were permitted guns for self-defense.

What position will the media take?  A rational policy based on the data?  Or still more hysterical calls for useless anti-gun laws, which are ultimately more dangerous to our values and public safety?

Should police officers be stopping traffic just to see if people have a drivers license? Should they be stopping every Hispanic to make sure that they are legal? Should they be stopping other police officers to make sure that they aren’t impersonating an officer? It would be ridiculous to attempt to enforce all of these things by randomly stopping people to check credentials and id’s. Here’s a story from a few weeks ago about an officer who felt he needed to double check.

Arizona is the third state to allow this behind Alaska and Vermont (Montana also allows this for many of their citizens, but not all of them). Permits will still be valid and if one desires to get a permit I believe that they will still issue them to allow Arizona residents opportunities to carry in other states with reciprocity laws (which is what Alaska does).

Now many people will (and have) cried out with concerns about widespread violence and a wild wild west attitude–but I’m going to predict that the violent crime rate will NOT increase. If anything it will decrease. More states should follow suit.

Read more here.

I personally believe that concealed carry does reduce crime (the overall crime rate for the country has dropped significantly over the last 25 years as concealed carry has significantly risen–a lot of factors need to be taken into account, but it’s a strong correlation in the right direction). Regardless, if they can’t come up with anything in 25 years showing that concealed carry can lead to an increase in crime then drop the issue. Let us live our lives by the constitution (even if they don’t want to) and have the ability to protect ourselves and our families.

I don’t like however that the committee has allowed tobacco, alcohol, and inappropriately dressed woman (all of which are not age appropriate)  as sponsors but then deny a gun store. They are free to pick and choose, but I would seriously consider pulling my son out of that league for being so inconsistent in their sponsorship selection by rejecting a gun store but allowing other sponsorships that are equally likely to cause “controversy”.  I fully believe that gun owning consumers must vote with their dollars and purchase from stores that do not prohibit  legal guns in their stores. And make sure that you drop them a note saying that you are respecting their wishes by keeping your gun and your money out of their store (or that you are spending money at a certain location because they allow you to protect yourself with your personal firearm in their store).  Money speaks loud in the business world.

Utah is one of the very few places where citizens may carry a firearm on a school campus (Elementary through College) with a concealed firearm permit. And in Utah, where there is no law that prohibits openly carrying a firearm (as long as you have a permit) then it is not illegal to do so. And if it is not illegal, then it IS legal. It seems like a very black and white issue and Nick knew the laws of the state better than the law enforcement officers did (how can you uphold the law if you don’t know what the law is).  Well the school doesn’t seem to be concerned with what the law is (even though in Utah public schools are not allowed to trump state firearm laws).  One of the two officers who detained Nick even seemed to agree that the law was on Nick’s side–but he said that it was simply easier to conceal his firearm.  His logic? If you exercise your rights, then it will bring more attention to them–which could lead lawmakers to take that right away from you–so don’t bother exercising your rights because then you’ll lose it. I’m not making this stuff up–it’s all in the video. So if you can’t exercise a legal right when it is legal then do you really have a right? It might as well be illegal if you can’t do it when it is legal.

Through all of this, what has really stood out to me as I’ve followed the incident is the question of how far I would be willing to go in order to fight for something I believe in.  Nick Moyes has had that decision thrust upon him by some people who happen to have an opinion different than state law–and then enforced his opinion (and that of his superiors) as though it were law.  Nick initially complied with the requests of officers to conceal his firearm (after a lengthy debate until he realized that the officers would not reason with him or the law) and then he has started to push the incident step by step to try and regain his ability to exercise his legal right to open carry on campus again. But the school hasn’t budged. The incident is still ongoing, but it’s caused me to think about what I would do in a similar situation.

The aftermath of the initial incident resulted in the gun community in Utah to suggest ideas about how we can bring UVU and other public universities in Utah into compliance with the law rather than their opinion. The ideas ranged from contacting state legislators, the attorney general, the school itself and soliciting legal opinion–to wearing shirts with an arrow pointed to a concealed firearm saying “I’m Armed”–to using news/media outlets to increase awareness of the issue–to staging open carry events on campus to force the issue (some intentionally talking about doing so to get arrested and then to force the issue through the courts).

It’s more important now to fight for your rights. But just how far would you go to defend your rights.  Would you take the time and energy to constantly write/call/email your state reps and others who can help make changes? Would you spend the time and money needed to fight for changes? Would you willingly get yourself arrested and fight in courts? Would you give your life to fight for freedom?  This country was founded because people were willing to fight and die for freedoms. But where do we stand today? What’s the best way to truly change this country (for the better–unlike some other changes that are ruining our country)? I don’t have all the answers–but I wanted to thank Nick for giving me a close to home real life situation to help me contemplate where I personally stand.

If you want to learn more about Nick and his experience you can follow it here. And if you are interested in getting involved here is a good place to start:

UVU Chief Brewer’s email: brewerjc@uvu.edu

UVU Office of President Holland: REYESKY@UVU.EDU

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff: uag@utah.gov

The app is basically a quick pocket guide for concealed carry laws for each one of the 50 states.  It covers the basics (definitely not a comprehensive review of all firearm laws) but captures most of the questions you would like to know when you carry a firearm using reciprocity laws. It has a page for each state CCW laws, then a “Transport Rules” section, and also every Attorney General phone number (an email for each AG would also be nice to have but isn’t currently included).  The navigation is very simple, clean, and easy.

The front page of the app gives you a rating from 1 bullet to 5 bullets (with Illinois and Wisconsin earning head stones instead of a bullet rating!) ranking their friendliness towards concealed carry.  From there you can go to the state you want with each state page including a section for prohibited areas (both state and federal) and any special notes or exceptions–this may include any weird laws or general attitudes that may be different than written laws in the state.  There are two reciprocity maps on the state page as well–first is what states honor the permit of the current state and the second is which state permits the current state will honor (not all maps are currently on there but Legal Heat has confirmed that they will be updated soon).

It would be nice to know if you were required by law to notify a police officer if you are detained (although we recommend doing this even if it’s not required by law). It would also be nice to know what the laws are when carrying a firearm in your car (with or without a permit) for when you are driving through a state that does not recognize your permit and you need to know if you can still have your firearm loaded or if it needs to be locked and hidden.  There are tons of other random things that could be included, but they’ve kept the information simple enough to where you can find the pertinent information at a glance.

From talking to Legal Heat they are really committed to making this the best app for concealed carry.  They just submitted an update yesterday to add reciprocity maps and add clarification on some points. They also have plans for a much bigger update coming next month which will include open carry information and some additional features.  For $1.99 it’s definitely worth snagging.  But before you run to iTunes we’ve got 3  promo codes for the app for free (thanks to Legal Heat and App Ventures) so we’re giving it away to three of our Facebook fans on Monday (March 1st). So make sure that you are a fan on Facebook and let us know that you want a free copy of the app.

Just a state away, the state of Utah prohibits state owned schools from banning concealed weapons, which means that all Utah public colleges, in addition to all public elementary, middle, and high schools, allow concealed weapons. Other than suicide, I can not find any deaths caused by guns on a school campus in the state of Utah. Ever.  The Utah Supreme Court struck down the University of Utah’s attempt to ban guns in 2006. Since then there have been no problems that I know of.

There was a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake at Trolley Square in 2007. It was a posted gun-free zone and the shooter was pinned down after killing 5 people by an off-duty police officer who was carrying a firearm until emergency response showed up.  Nothing like this has ever happened at schools in Utah.

I personally have experience with carrying firearms into elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges and universities in the state. If nothing more than a convenience it isn’t worth banning them when they do not cause any problems. More than once, I’ve unexpectedly found myself on school property with my concealed firearm, and was glad that I didn’t have to turn around or break the law. I’ve never gone crazy and started shooting just because I am on school property. And when you add the benefits of reduced crime and the ability to protect yourself, I feel that every school in the county should allow concealed firearms. We’ve written about this before (specifically regarding teachers, not students) when a school district in Texas passed a law allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons and we haven’t had problems there. We see it over and over again–concealed carry does not lead to wild wild west shootouts and random gun fights.

Now–back to CSU. More compelling reasons to allow concealed weapons.  Here are some graphs for various crime trends (original source here)–note that in 2003 CSU changed their policy to allow concealed weapons.

Across the board CSU crime trends peaked in 2003, then decreased–usually dramatically–until 2009. I’m not sure what else you want to see, but this is convincing enough evidence for me. Guns do have a place at school.