Paul C. McKain for Congress (Florida, District 2)

While we are waiting to see the next assault on our society by the administration and Congress, it may be a good time to lay some groundwork for the next line of defense that will surely "come under fire": the Second Amendment.

Our Constitution is a thorn in the side of the world; in particular, our right to gun ownership. Unfortunately, those that oppose the Second Amendment in favor of stricter "gun control" laws (all in the name of a safer society) turn a blind eye to the facts: gun ownership reduces the crime rate.  Just to exemplify this fact, let’s observe what has taken place in Colorado.  In particular, a place in Colorado those with FSU campuses in Panama City and Tallahassee can relate to: Colorado State University.

Through 2002, the crime rate at the University was historic. Attempts to control crime were all but useless. In 2003, a decision was made to allow anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry their weapon on campus.

Opponents cried that there would be a blood bath. No facts, as is usually the case, just hysterical gun-control progressives that were not getting their way. Let’s look and see what the outcome was, shall we?

We'll first look at the enrollment. In 2002 the student population was 20,728. In 2003 (after the decision to carry on campus was passed) the enrollment was 28,103. You would expect that crime would go up proportionally with the increased enrollment, but wait – what happened?  Violent crime went from 30 incidents in 2002 to 16 incidents in 2003. This can’t be. More students and less crime?

Let’s look at some other categories:

Taking all this into consideration, what conclusions can be drawn?

1. The “blood bath” obviously did not occur.
2. Violent crimes, rape, assault, property crimes, larceny, and arson dropped significantly - even when the student population increased.
3. Burglary and vehicle theft did go up proportionally, but these are non-contact crimes: crimes where the criminal does not come in contact with the victim. If a criminal is going to be criminal, we'd rather they not come face-to-face their victims.
4. As far as Robbery goes, it did go up by two (2), which proves that not all college students are geniuses.

The only significant change in school policy was to let the honest, law-abiding students who were legally capable of carrying a concealed weapon to do so. This should be an eye opener to proponents of stricter gun control laws.

Although there has been no problem with honest citizens carrying their concealed weapons on campus, on December 4, 2009, the Board of Directors at CSU voted to outlaw the carrying of concealed weapons on their campus again. As is always the case, decisions of the liberal elite don’t take into consideration details like “the facts” or looking at history for answers.

I think they should call the new ruling what it really is. The Board of Directors should take out an ad in the local paper: Only criminals will be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus now. Criminals, you no longer have to fear that your victims will have the ability to fend off your attack.

I suppose this is line with the Obama’s “spreading the wealth” policy. It would seem that the Board of Directors feels that criminals need to make a living also.

Every law-abiding resident in Florida's District 2 should have the right to protect himself and his family.  As Congressman, I will always vote to uphold the Second Amendment, and the Constitution as a whole.

[See the telling graphs that inspired the research for this blog.]