1. Wait, let me get this straight: If a man and a woman share common views, that means they’re “lovebirds?” Would you like to bring any other sexist allegations into this discussion, or are you done now?

2. Should I infer from your reference above to your status as a Delta Chi brother that this kind of discourse is condoned by your fraternity?

3. Do you believe it is appropriate to resort to ad hominem attacks against somebody who challenges your stance on something, especially when the people challenging you are those you are asking for a vote? You do realize you are insulting people you would serve as a representative, right?

4. Since you are missing the point completely: Both Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University have policies prohibiting carry on campus. And somehow, the murderers at both universities (and every other murderer who enters a “gun-free zone”) passed through the magic forcefield of said policies and killed people anyway. Could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that criminals disobey laws… and those who would seek to carry legally in defense of themselves and those around them were disarmed?

5. Perhaps you are unaware, but this IS an issue that will be coming before the Idaho legislature again this year, and will almost certainly be discussed at the ASUI Senate. It is also being discussed, legislated and litigated across the country. (Allow me to point you at http://concealedcampus.org/ for more information.)

It is entirely inappropriate for someone seeking the office of ASUI senator to be both utterly ignorant on an issue and unwilling to conduct a discussion about it. Such an attitude is contrary to the whole point of representation, and dangerous to the legislative process.

I truly hope individuals on BOTH sides of the concealed carry issue will ask for higher standards from their ASUI Senators than you are offering with your candidacy.

I am fully against the right of licensed individuals to legally carry concealed weapons on campus. For one reason, why would they need to? What serious threats do people feel they need concealed weapons to protect them from? Last time i checked there were no elk or deer on campus so i really see no reason as to why anyone would like to bring a gun on campus, unless for malicious purposes.

I kid you not, the fourth point of his platform is:

4) Campus safety. Although we would both love to walk every girl home to assure their safety at night, a severe change must be made to campus safety. NO MORE rape and violence victims! We must find a solution to this devastating problem that is effecting our campus.

Absolutely zero cognitive connection, there.

I responded.

Koji,

I was just shown the following message, which was your response to your position on concealed carry on campus:

[QUOTE OF ABOVE MESSAGE - "I am fully against..."]

I’d like to know how you rationalize item #4 of your platform with your position on concealed carry. I am quite familiar with the safety concerns facing University of Idaho students, especially those of us who happen to be female. As a gun owner who trains in the use of firearms in self-defense, I am extremely disturbed by your failure to recognize rape and assault as “serious threats people feel they need concealed weapons to protect them from.”

Your characterization of firearms as valid only for hunting game and/or malicious use shows a fundamental lack of understanding of safety and self-defense, as well as a lack of understanding of the time, training and thought gun owners put into their decision to carry.

Let me make this clear: I am disturbed not just because you disagree with me, but because your response uses reactionary language that shows you don’t really understand the depth of this issue. Because of your narrow-minded and misguided view on this issue, I have to urge the men and women of the University of Idaho who are genuinely concerned about campus safety to withhold their votes from you.

As I was replying, a friend was having a separate conversation with him (he hasn’t responded to anything I’ve said, yet) and sent me the following elaboration from Koji:

First of all, in the terrible unlikely case that we did infact allow people to carry weapons on campus, there would be far more havoc than before. Consider these situations:
1) A man walks behind you points his gun at you and orders you to do various things against your will. Just because you have a gun do you think you are going to stop him? If you shot him you would come under just as much punishment because he had the right to carry a gun on campus!
2) Before class a man comes armed with an automatic weapon and brings it out with intent to shoot. Are you going to stop that? Are you going to shoot him because once again you would come under scrutiny as its his right to have the gun just as much as its yours.

How about a better alternative. How about we make as much of an effort we can to inform women on effective ways to stay safe such as:
-never travel alone at night
-carry a can of pepper spray

Sooo I replied (publicly):

Okay, I have to respond yet again. Koji, you apparently do not understand the legal distinction between aggression and self-defense. Brandishing a weapon is a crime. Using a weapon as part of an assault is a crime. A person who uses a firearm for illegal purposes is NOT on equal legal footing with someone who uses a firearm in self-defense. I cannot believe you really think those actions are one and the same!

Furthermore, I am flat-out offended by the idea your solution to campus safety for women is, essentially, CHAPERONES. I should not be required to have an escort after dark to ensure my safety on the University of Idaho campus - you’re honestly saying that, rather than allow me to take responsibility for my own self-defense, you’d suggest my best defense is a babysitter? How chauvinistic!

Regarding pepper spray: I have a female friend who is a police officer in Montana. She shared the story of undergoing OC spray training, where the officers are required to complete a series of combative tasks after being pepper sprayed. Her assessment of the training? The spray did NOT stop her from being able to move or to attack and defeat her targets. It just heightened her adrenaline and rage.

Pepper spray, when effective, is basically designed to allow a victim time to run away. How is that a valid defense for a handicapped person? How about a victim with asthma, which can become life-threatening if they inhale any of the overspray? Or how about a woman like me, who is currently eight months pregnant and not running anywhere very fast? All of the above are ideal victims to an attacker, because we present weak targets. And yet you’re more concerned with an attacker’s rights than my right to carry an equalizing weapon like a firearm?

Again: I am not disturbed merely by the fact we disagree on this issue, but because you are so willing to take extreme, authoritative positions on this issue without an understanding of basic foundational principles like legal self-defense vs. illegal brandishing.

I would hope a candidate for a legislative body would be more interested in educating themselves on laws than you have demonstrated yourself to be, Koji, especially before expressing a definitive opinion on them.

Koji,

Here are some sections of Idaho Code for your review:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180400001.K - Murder defined
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180400009.K - Justifiable homicide by any person
(Notice the distinction between the two.)

http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020001.K - Lawful resistance
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020002.K - Resistance by threatened party
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020002A.K - Legal jeopardy in cases of self-defense and defense of other threatened parties - which I think is important enough to quote in full:
“No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary, or when coming to the aid of another whom he reasonably believes to be in imminent danger of or the victim of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, murder or other heinous crime.”

I also recommend your complete review of Title 18, Chapter 33, found here:
http://www3.idaho.gov/idstat/TOC/18033KTOC.html
Which details firearms laws in full, including the crime of weapon possession with malicious intent:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330001.K (again, distinct from legal carry)
the crime of brandishing:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330004.K
And detailed statutory explanations of both proper firearms handling and the punishments for failure to follow said laws.

For the statutes dealing with lawful concealed carry, see here:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330002.K

These people vote in real elections too, you know. No wonder the Republic is in jeopardy.

EDIT: An update in the next post!