Via email from Ry we have this:

Five of Idaho’s universities and community colleges have spent more than $1.5 million to beef up security after the law allowing concealed weapons on campuses was approved, and the schools expect total costs to top $3.7 million for the year.

The concealed carry law, passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor last year, took effect July 1. It permits retired law enforcement officers and those people holding the state’s enhanced concealed-carry permit to bring firearms to campus, but bans weapons in dormitories and buildings that can hold more than 1,000 people, such as sports or concert venues.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Boise, passed by better than 2-1 margins in the House and Senate. A fiscal note accompanying the legislation predicted minimal “fiscal impact associated with posting signage at public entertainment facilities.”

But the schools say they have had to add new staff, provide for training and purchase new equipment.

How did the concealed carry law change their security requirements? The only way this makes sense is if one were to believe that retired cops and people with enhanced, as opposed to standard, concealed weapons licenses are more of a threat than people with no license to carry or standard CWLs.

I think it is very telling that the article doesn’t allow comments.

This like a public restaurant complaining about the costs of segregating their customers after being forced to serve non-whites. These people are either idiots or emulating the KKK on principle.


9 thoughts on “Idiots

  1. There is a law of politics that says government must get out in front of any new development, so it can a) take credit for any improvements, or b) claim “not enough tool and resources” in the event of a bad outcome. In this case, they can claim that their added “security” was the cause of azny decline in campus violence, or they can say they need more “resources” if there is more violance or if violence is unchanged.

    Once you understand that the purpose of any entity that receives coercively obtained funding and/or “authority” is to obtain more coercively obtained funding and/or “authority”, all this is easy to understand and is quite predictable.

    • So they’re not “idiots” as viewed from within their frame of operation. They’re merely doing what government entities have been doing all along.

      That they’re disconnected from any and all common sense and morality goes without saying, as it is the rare bird indeed which runs on moral principles.

      And after all; who is going to correct them? Much of the voting public runs on the same impulses as they do, and the “education” complex lobby has an intimidating (to moral cowards) presence in Boise.

      As a side note; That this is a Republican-run state says about all you need to know about Republicans. They *think* they know on which their bread is buttered and the government/leftist-“education” complex is as strong here as anywhere else.

      Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin has provided much of the blueprint for dealing with the government/union/education complex, but really who wants to deal with problems from within and having to win recall elections and all that, when you can just go along to get along and the people will still reelect you because they know that the alternatives are mostly hard core communists?

  2. Lyle is on to something with (B). I would suggest that there were some unnecessary and “cut-able” campus security or police force projects that routinely failed to get funded, but now there’s a new excuse……

  3. In short; being guided by reason based on moral principles as outlined in the U.S. constitution will get you attacked and threatened from nearly all sides. Who wants that?

    This is the coward’s way out and therefore it is a largely forgone conclusion.

    And THATstatement must be qualified by saying that in order to be a coward you must first have some principles. If you have no principles, there is no such thing as caving or backing down. You never had a stand in the first place, so without principles you can never lose. There’s nothing to give up. That’s the Republican mantra, essentially.

  4. Sounds suspicious to me. Why is more security necessary, unless they have some weird idea that legal gun owners are going to go on some sort of rampage.
    Sounds like what hoplophobes refer to as “common sense”.

  5. Not stupidity, evil. There was nothing keeping people from walking around campus with guns before. They’re not this stupid. It’s all purposeful orchestrated evil. And the Idaho legislatures need to grab the Universities by the wallet and bring them to heel before they destroy the state. But since “Education” is one of the main idols and shibboleths of our society, it won’t happen.

  6. From now on, whenever there is a shooting incident on campus the fevered question will be whether the assailant had a CCW, or whatever it’s called in Idaho.
    Almost invariably two days later the answer will turn out to be, “no, he was a convicted felon with an illegal gun”, but by that time everyone will have lost interest and only remember that the first day the question was asked repeatedly and will morph into “he had a CCW.”

      • True, but it’s more accurate to call them evil.
        While it is true that you should “never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence” you should likewise not mistake for incompetence that which is in fact motivated by malice.

Comments are closed.