Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
America has become haunted by the specter of deadly school shootings. As we all work to prevent further tragedy, some are advocating allowing students to carry concealed firearms as a means of defense. But would such measures really make college campuses safer?
These examples do a good job of proving the point that they guns should be aloud on campus, but i can't help but notice that if guns were illegal in the first place then the problem would never had originated. And i just won't except the argument that we need guns to keep us safe from the criminals that will get guns illegally. There has to be a more mature solution then that.
- Jefe32
August 1, 2008 10:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Words that no one EVER wants to hear. When you say, --if guns were illegal-- I feel you, but it is a fact that they DO exist and to wish otherwise is just so much fantasy. The world can be an ugly place and to know and understand this is the only REAL defense. To accept where you are is to know how to best proceed. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms as well as the right to choose to leave your protection in the –limited-- hands of others. But if you abdicate your responsibility in deference to the state, then you get what you get--fat campus police in swat gear hiding behind trees while your loved ones are being gunned down inside.
But I don't believe that guns in book bags are the answer either. I would advocate a --volunteer only-- campus home guard. It could be staffers, faculty and administration. The college could vet, set parameters and police them. In the cases cited, it was an individual who understood lethal force and used it in defending the innocent.
- BLZeebub August 21, 2008 7:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I think it's great that in the few examples provided killers were prevented from taking more innocent lives. However, any life taken is a loss. I think it was wrong for you to say "Happily, he was only able to kill two people." It's great that no more were killed, but I don't think it's right to say "happily." I'm sure the families of those to victims weren't looking at the situation in a "happily" kind of way.
- mer January 25, 2009 4:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I am a gun owner myself but i have enough selfcontrol to not bring a gun to school. If schools were as safe as airports and airplanes are now then this topic wouldn't be here. If people didn't do stupid things then the world would be a better place.
- AW2010 February 11, 2009 9:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The truth is, people do stupid things, and they are always going to. That's just how the world is. Also, nobody is suggesting people be allowed to carry guns in any school. Students shouldn't be able to carry them in high school, for example, because they are just not old enough and it is not nessecary. However, college campuses are different. They are open places, almost like little villages. Maybe letting college students carry concealed weapons isn't that bad of an idea. If they can pass the test to carry a concealed weapon out in public, why should it be any different on a college campus? After all, its like a little village of its own.
- mer February 11, 2009 6:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
To begin, let’s look at the issue again. The issue is whether or not students should be allowed to carry handguns on college campuses. Two of the three examples you have cited are of adults carrying handguns to protect the children and two of the three examples are also citing instances on high school campuses, not college campuses.
So to take out the two misleading examples, we are left with an example of law school students using their personal guns to stop a “rampage”. In this one instance cited, personal handguns were of help in a dangerous situation. And this argument is not to say that handguns are not helpful in certain situations. But when students carry handguns on college campuses, the level of danger is increased. In such a manner, any student may pull out their weapon and use it as a threat legally because handguns would be legal. With handguns legal on college campuses, students have the means to shoot and kill, to take away someone else’s life, right at their fingertips. Self-defense is one thing. But when does the power of carrying a weapon overcome self-defense?
Secondly, a “research poll” from 2000 found that 85% of Americans found it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use a gun to defend students. It is true. The majority of Americans want the lives of their students at school protected. But 85% of Americans have stated that they believe it is appropriate for a principal or teacher to do so. Not a student. If the students are the ones with the weapons doing the shootings, is it really sensible for the students to be allowed weapons legally at school?
- Natalie Marie February 15, 2009 8:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I fail to see how allowing students who have a valid concealed weapons permit and are allowed to carry everywhere else in public(depending on the state laws in movie theaters, restaurants, malls, and even bars in some states) is suddenly so much more likely to be violent on a college campus? Firearms are already on college campuses how would allowing those who actually follow the law to carry increase the danger? These adults already carry everywhere else so why would be allowing them to carry across an imaginary line have any effect on their judgment on a self defense situation. You are correct self defense is one thing, but how is not allowing law abiding citizens their right to use the best tools available to protect themselves safer then allowing an unopposed shooting spree.
For your second point how is a 30 year old ex marine (such as the one currently having his rights violated by Western Oregon University) different from a 30 year old teacher. Yet again the people that have concealed weapons permits are adults why is the title of teacher make you any more qualified to defend yourself? It has already proven that criminals don't follow the law and they will carry firearms on to campus no matter what the law says so why not let those law abiding citizens that have the will to defend themselves the legal opportunity to do express their right to do so.
- tenmaster96 February 16, 2009 11:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I'm not at all sure I trust anyone on campus with me with a concealed-carry weapon if they're just a student. What if they're paranoid enough to carry a concealed-carry weapon simply because they're paranoid? There's absolutely no assurance that whoever has the gun won't overreact to a tense situation, or a perceived attack, and shoot unarmed people.
I support concealed-carry in the hands of people trained to use a gun and discriminate between hostile people and those who are just panicked. Random people with the money to obtain a gun and the nervousness to want to carry one every day do not inspire me with confidence.
- sharky September 24, 2008 8:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Why is the fact they are students change anything? They still have to be over 21 pass a background check that includes a mental health check and in most states take a firearm class. Carrying a concealed handgun is not paranoia it is the acceptance of responsibility for your own personal protection. Yet again as I have said on here many times what makes a college campus any different from mall, grocery stores, bowling alleys, movie theaters, restaurants or any other place adults with concealed weapons permits can carry. You don't here about a CWP holder going off and shooting unarmed people in those places what makes a college so different.
Your second paragraph completely contradicts itself. We aren't saying we are going to go out and arm everyone we are just going to allow those already legally able to carry their firearms everywhere else to be able to defend themselves on college campuses. The way the current laws are written only criminals can carry on campus because they don't follow the laws anyways, those that get CWP's are law abiding citizens that are currently defenseless.
- tenmaster96 January 27, 2009 12:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I know how to load a gun, hold a gun, and fire a gun. I wasn't a bad shot when I was practicing. That does indeed make me unlikely to just accidentally shoot someone. What about the situations you want people to be carrying a gun for? Put me in a school hallway with gunshots coming closer and a gun in my hand, and it probably would end badly; I'd worry I would shoot the wrong person for running through a door and startling me. I have even less confidence in the nerve and judgement of the student body. Flight beats fight unless you've trained for combat.
Colleges aren't a threatening atmosphere. Anyone who gets up in the middle of junior year, after an entire year and a half of no incidents and seeing no weapons, and still straps on their concealed-carry holster might just have an issue with his or her threat-assessment meter. That's... uninspiring.
- sharky January 27, 2009 10:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I never said flight wasn't an option. If I was in a hallway and heard shots coming from one direction I would be going in the other direction looking for cover. I am not some SWOT trained cop my job isn't to protect everyone in the school my job is to protect myself and those I care about. If by protecting myself I am protecting other people around me then that is a byproduct. Now you are just projecting your own abilities onto everyone else, you basically said because you can’t do it no one can. If you were a friend of mine and decided to carry a concealed handgun but still had those reservations I would tell you not to carry you obviously don't have the right mentality to carry yet. To carry you have to accept the fact that you may actually have to use your gun, carrying a handgun when you’re not ready to use it is more dangerous than not carrying. If you aren't ready to pull the trigger you shouldn’t be carrying. I will agree that flight beats fight if it is possible, what I am worried about is the times when you can’t run. The shooter at Vtech locked the doors as he came in so unless there was a window close by you were SOL.
I don't know what college you go to but if you haven't seen or heard about any threatening behavior you are very sheltered or very lucky. I carry because I accept the fact that bad things can happen and I would like to be prepared in case it ever does. I will say I have had to draw my gun in defense so it has happened to me not in the town where my college is but it did happen. Statistically I will probably have to draw again in my life but also statistically speaking I will never have to fire my gun and I hope and pray that I never will. I have never been part of a school shooting but I know it is a possible.
Actually I am not worried about a major school shooting happening at my campus what scares me is all the other violent crime that is much more prevalent. Including robbery, battery, assault, these crimes even at my campus which is way out in the middle of the country are prevalent. The biggest one around here is forcible rape, it happens here a lot and I know many female friends that would carry if they had the choice to protect themselves from these crimes. Like I said I am not really concerned about a major school shooting (thou I would rather be armed when needed then need it and not be armed) but what I am worried about is walking back to my apartment at 7pm down dark paths because that is the only way home.
Also show me where this has happened off campus, I tried looking and I didn't find any instances of a permit holder missing and hitting an innocent person. I am not saying it doesn't happen I know it does but statistically you are more likely to get hit from a cops missed shot than a permit holders. The average distance of a permit holder shots are 10ft or less and the exchange of gunfire lasts less than 10seconds total. "What is worse than allowing an execution-style massacre to continue uncontested? How could any action with the potential to stop or slow a deranged killer intent on slaughtering victim after victim be considered ‘worse’ than allowing that killer to continue undeterred?” http://www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm please read this it handles most if not all the questions you may have if there are any more let me know and I will try and answer to the best of my ability.
- tenmaster96 January 27, 2009 12:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
And just because you lack the confidence doesn't mean other do as well.
- GlockG20 March 16, 2009 11:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I think that if someone with alot of money wants a concealed wepon because their paranoid shouldn't be able to obtain one. If they always think that somone is after them then they should get some help. If its someone that wants one because they would feel safer in a situation when they are robbed then by all means let them have one. But for paranoid people that are short tempered and tense in a tight spot.
- AW2010 February 11, 2009 9:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Let's just get this straight. CCL holders don't carry because they're "paranoid", they carry because they're responsible citizens. Everyone that I know, including myself, takes pride in the fact that they've undergone extensive training, through both professional and personal avenues, to make sure that they're intimately knowledgeable about their firearms and as prepared as a person can be for a life or death situation. We're not a bunch of gun-toting nutjobs, and we're sure as hell not paranoid.
Cars kill many more people per year than guns .
You probably won't get pulled over everyday, but you carry your license everyday just in case. Same with responsible CCL holders. Even though the chance of use is slight, we still carry just in case.
- mhphoto July 28, 2009 8:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
All this talk is about students carrying concealed weapons to protect themselves, but isn't that already someone else's job? Every campus I've ever been to has campus security. Isn't it their RESPONSIBILITY to make sure everyone on campus is safe? Shouldn't they be the people stepping up to protect the students and faculty, not the students?
Allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campus would just tempt them to pull their gun on someone to scare or intimidate them. This alone could increase the number of individual deaths by gun violence on college campuses.
Students have enough on their plates at college with studies and being on their own for the first time. They shouldn't have to be worried about protecting everyone at their school too, especially when that is already someone else's job.
- mer January 25, 2009 3:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
It is physically impossible for the police to be everywhere at all times. Both Vtech and NIU had officers or some form of security on campus and shootings still occurred. At NIU the officers responded in under 3 minutes and still 6 people died. That is a phenomenal response time and people still were killed and injured. Not to mention according to the supreme court case Warren v. District of Columbia the police are under know legal responsibility to protect any specific citizen. So actually it is YOUR responsibility to protect yourself so no blaming the government for this one its all on you.
These students are also adults you can only obtain a permit in most states if you are over the age of 21. I don't recall any stories where permit holders got mad and pulled their firearms to scare or intimidate off campus so why would it happen on campus. That is already illegal to do so why does this scenario happen on campus if it doesn't happen off campus when these adults carry everyday.
You are right college students have a lot on their plates but since we already proved it is their responsibility to protect themselves i guess they will have to deal. We don't advocate a permit holder to act as a one man/women police force and go after an assailant we just want the opportunity to defend ourselves when we are directly threatened. Also since you have to be 21 in almost all of the states I am not aware of many 21 year-olds that are just out on their own most are college juniors and seniors and they are adults who can already carry in malls, movie theaters, restaurants and in some states bars. They dont cause problems there so why is it that college campuses automatically make every permit holder a deranged killer.
- tenmaster96 January 26, 2009 11:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
As mer said, most, if not all college campuses have a security force. The members of this force are trained in handling situations like school shootings should they arise. Students carrying concealed weapons would not prevent school shootings. These students, for the most part are untrained in handling firearms and the panic stricken situation of a shooting. In the 2005-2006 school year, 14 school homicides occurred. In 1992-1993, 34 school homicides occurred. The amount of school shootings has been declining over the past few years. In fact the chance of such an occurrance, although not impossible, is incredibly rare. In the period between 1992 to 2001, an average of 9.3 school shootings took place. In approximately 119,000 schools of the U.S., each school would expect to have one school shooting every 12,800 years. This demonstrates the rarity of such an occurrance. And I do not mean to diminish the enormity of the few shootings that do happen, but the more students carrying weapons, the more potential for violence. Leave the task of security to police officers and security guards and not developing students.
- Big Mac February 9, 2009 7:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
True school shootings are incredibly rare but what about all the other crimes that occur on college campuses everyday. Ranging from assault to rape why are all those crimes not as important? Why does crossing an imaginary line on to a college campus not allow you the right to self defense? Also the place where you got all your information from is talking about High Schools not college campuses. I don't current have the time to look up college statistics but in the next few days I will attempt to find the stats for college campuses.
- tenmaster96 February 16, 2009 11:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Sorry,I forgot to add the source where I acquired my information.
http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/school-shootings.html
- Big Mac February 9, 2009 7:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree with mer, I think allowing students to have concealed weapons might cause more harm than good. It's the campus security's job to protect students, so campuses should let them do their job. I realize that the police can't be everywhere at once as someone already mentioned, but they can still do a very good job at protecting us. I'm not saying that allowing students to have guns WILL make it more dangerous, but it could happen. If there are more weapons, there could be more accidents.
- Kelsey R February 12, 2009 2:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
High school students are young. High school students might be in a phase where becoming an adult involves them being exposed to high hormone concentrations, making them rebellious, impulsive and so on, as everyone who ever dealt with teenagers will confirm.
If you want to make schools safer, deploy armed guards. Why do students who inherently are istable (puberty) and are fighting (mostly verbally) among each other suited to carry guns in situations where one impulsive reaction of (we have to recall they are still children) a child could easily get another kid killed!
Think of the impact for parents and students resulting from one situation where the student making a deadly mistake might not be able to grasp the consequences and will ruin his/her and many others' lives!!
- zebrab July 30, 2008 3:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Here in Arizona, and I'm sure, many other states, most high schools have several police officers assigned to their schools. This is to show a law enforcement presence to protect against gang violence and, possibly, against terrorist attacks.
But what about colleges and universities? Arizona State University, for example, has their own police force; but they can't be everywhere at once. And college students are all, legally, adults. Granted, most are not legally able to bear arms, but those who are are far beyond puberty and (usually) are not subject to impulsive reactions. What also needs to be considered, is that those who are of legal age to carry a gun, are protect by the second amendment. So why should our personal liberties be thrown away?
- Geekrock August 19, 2008 6:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"[college students] are not subject to impulsive reactions."
this is demonstrably false.
- reckoner August 27, 2008 11:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Geekrock said they were "not...impulsive...".
- sandcrystal September 3, 2008 10:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Reckoner said that what geekrock said was false... just by the way.
So, whoever says college students are (in contrast to high school students) not subject to impulsive reactions has lost any touch with reality.
I have seen too many college kids get into fist-fights from one istant to the next (sometimes but not always under the influence) over some bs to know better...
- zebrab September 4, 2008 12:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
yeah, i reread it afterward and said whoops.
no, but CHL holders recognize that they will be held to a higher legal standard than non-CHL holders, and act accordingly.
- sandcrystal September 5, 2008 12:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Who said anything about high school students? Concealed handgun permits require the bearers to be at least 21 years of age.
- sandcrystal September 3, 2008 10:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Having an armed guard means he will be the first to go. If someone wants to do serious damage, they either do it in a place where they will meet no resistance, or they are doing it in a place where they can control the enviornment by eliminating the only knwon threat. By allowing CCW or CHP holders (usually 21 and older, not students) to carry at school, you do two things. 1 - you eliminate the safe zone that would have otherwise existed FOR the bad guy. 2 - You take his control of the situation away, by eliminating his knowlege of those that could resist and end his rampage earlier than expected.
Although an armed guard is better than nothing, having armed and trained individuals is the better choice.
- Machew September 4, 2008 2:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
These examples alone show how everyday citizens can protect themselves and others with the ability to concealed carry a firearm. Imagine if people like the security officer and the principal did not have firearms on them, innocent lives would have been lost. I believe that is enough evidence alone to show the capabilities of what the ability to carry a concealed weapon on college campuses. Nothing can argue otherwise...it is a yes or no situation, yes carry concealed firearms and have the capability to protect yourself, or no, don't allow the carrying of concealed firearms and allow citizens to become subject to the danger that they may face.
- TrapshootingGirl February 26, 2009 10:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
These are just a few examples of what armed law abiding citizens do every day ... just by being an armed deterrent in the face of criminals who would kill and maim an unarmed and defenseless society . Virginia Tech was a good example of the failure of gun control to protect a society. Appalachian State is a good example of an armed law abiding society and how it deterred further killing. Gun control is almost dead. Legally armed response is alive and well.
- OIFtoUSC November 17, 2009 10:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
My Reasons why No Guns on Campus:
1) Someone who may have a mental illness may hurt or kill someone.
2) There are some(or a lot) of cases that kids in Elementry, Middle and High schools manage to get guns from their parents' or grandparents' room or get a gun from someone else.
3) Some colleges tend to have their students to have parties with alchols and if two people(may be drunk) may began to argue a bit and out of norwhere, one of them pull out a gun and shot the another person.
I understand couple of colleges allow their students(21 and over) to carry weapons and guns save lives, but guns can also take others lives of innocent people.
- Bondori13 January 23, 2009 4:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
1. It is already illegal for those that have a mental illness to poses a handgun and they would not in any state be able to obtain a concealed weapons permit so your first point is a complete non-issue.
2. What does this have to do with allowing licensed concealed weapon permit holders to carry on campus? You have to be 21 in most states to get a permit and we are talking about colleges it is against federal law to carry into to a K-12 school.
3. Just about every party I have been too has been off campus so how would allowing permit holders on campus have any effect on this. Permit holders go to parties off campus all the times I have yet to hear any stories from anywhere in the country where a permit holder got drunk and did something. Also no permit holder would carry and then drink it is already illegal and they would have their permit revoked if they got caught.
- tenmaster96 January 26, 2009 7:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Just because allowing students to carry concealed weapons works in Utah doesn't mean it's going to work in every other state.
- mer January 25, 2009 4:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"Just because allowing students to carry concealed weapons works in Utah doesn't mean it's going to work in every other state."
Just what is different from the people outside of Utah that will cause this to fail????
- Olderman January 26, 2009 10:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Go take a course on handgun safety before coming up with all these "maybe this will happen" arguments. Drinking while carrying is one of the fastest ways to lose your right to carry.
Fact: Many Criminals and Crazies already have guns and don't subscribe to this debate.
Fact: Solid law abiding citizens won't have guns if the law doesn't allow them to have them.
Fact: People who don't believe in guns are not required to carry them.
Why are so many people against law abiding citizens?
- joelinda January 26, 2009 3:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
People are different everywhere you go. They have different lifestyles and ways of doing things. So yeah...just because it works in Utah doesn't mean it WON'T work in other states, but it doesn't guarantee that it WILL work in other states either. Because like it or not, it would be different people affected by this new law. No one is the same.
- mer January 29, 2009 10:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I say I'm moving back home to Utah. What does not allowing them on campus say to the gun owners? "Although you're old enough for the government to allow you to have guns you can't have them here because there's people." And out in the street there aren't? People in Utah are not that different from the rest of the country. Those committed enough to complete the course and pass all the checks required to get a concealed carry permit should be allowed to carry it wherever. There should be no double standard.
"Just because allowing students to carry concealed weapons works in Utah doesn't mean it's going to work in every other state."
Sorry. I think it does. A crazy person won't be stopped from a shooting okay fine. Someone who is after someone is not going to barge into one of his classes to take them out if they know some other students in the room could take them down first. People who take guns against those without them are cowards by nature. Confronted with equal or greater force makes them show their true yellow.
- ecuadmail April 24, 2009 9:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"If government can't protect you, you should have the right to protect yourself," said Republican state Sen. Michael Waddoups."
I completely agree with Senator Waddoups.
Some people think the police are there to protect them. Not so. The police have no legal duty to protect anyone. They are there to enforce the law . That's it. If you think that is not true, read the book "Dial 911 and Die". It has been out for a long time and the book is as true today as it was when written.
- spatin April 26, 2009 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Hope to not offend my fellow Americans, but you developed a culture of hysteria in the past...
Spying on anyone... permitted. Taking figerprints when entering the country... permitted. Holding hostile combatants without a trial... well... ok... overlooked...
All this shows, something terribly bad happens to you and you throw all the liberties, for which you used to be a worldwide role model for centuries, overboard.
Rather hysteric, dont you think? So why care about one more liberty (which in my opinion is the most dangerous liberty of all American liberties) lost?
I wish I could understand this reasoning...
- zebrab September 4, 2008 12:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Did anyone ever think to ask students what they want? Students at college are being provided a service; they are paying for the education and everything else they receive. The opinions of students at individual campuses should probably be considered before someone just says,
"Hey, let's let anyone on college apply for a concealed weapons license. So what if they get drunk and do dumb things on the weekend, as long as during the day they're protected right..."
- mer January 25, 2009 3:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The national group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus now has over 36,000 members. Also we don't advocate giving every college student a permit we only wish to allow those who already have a permit to be able to protect themselves on campus as they do everywhere else. What makes a college campus so special? Obviously after Vtech we know that there isn't some invisible force field around colleges that keep evil people out. Criminals don't follow the law so as it sits right now only criminals can carry on college campuses. Why does it matter if they drink on the weekends as long as they aren't carrying I could care less. Last time I checked having some drinks on the weekend doesn't qualify you to be a psycho that wants to shoot up a school.
- tenmaster96 January 26, 2009 7:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
You don't need a permit to have a gun at a keg party. Why do people keep going back to the keg party thing when talking about carrying on campus ? It has nothing to do with anything. These would be 21 year old students that are carrying in Walmart(then maybe go to a keg party). Then maybe going out to eat while carrying
(then maybe go to a keg party). Then go home carrying,
(Then maybe go to a keg party). Then maybe GO TO CLASS carrying ( then maybe go to a keg party).. Whats the difference here? These kids are doing all of this already. It's illegal to carry while drinking. Most people dont "flash their guns around" Why is it that everywhere else they carry, they act responsibly, but if they carry on campus they're gonna "go off".
Plenty of college kids dont even drink and most are ACTUALLY ADULTS WITH COMMON SENSE.
If anyone with a permit gets caught drinking while carrying, they can have thier license revoked. Once you have that permit, you dont want to do anything to risk loosing it. Conceal carriers are 6 times LESS likely to commit a crime than someone without a permit. Its a fact.
Most people that argue against carrying are just uninformed. It only takes about 30 minutes with Mr Google to get the facts.
Do you trust a cop firing back at a killer? The fact is, most conceal weapon carriers can out shoot a cop. We practice more than cops do. Cops only have to qualify with their weapon once a year. Some practice very little in betwwen time. Most conceal carriers practice atleast once a month.
If my child was sitting in a classroom with the doors barricaded and there was a man with a gun coldly shooting people, you damned right I'd hope someone, ANYONE, would be there to save my daughters life. Even better, MY DAUGHTER BE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO DEFEND HER OWN LIFE on campus and anywhere else she may be.
To all that doubt this, i ask that you do research and see the facts. Not studies by the NRA, but by the states, ATF studies etc.
- BobD April 5, 2009 9:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Wait Brady...
Arent these students advocating the right to carry on campus, since they ALREADY carry virtuallyy everywhere else ??
Why would opening the campus to Concealed Carry change any of these factors/variables ???
We dont hear about alcohol being a problem with these folks that are carry "concealed" in their everyday life, what makes you think allowing these LICENSED students to carry in class would change anything that happens outside of class (the drinking and parties) ???
- NotSoSafeCampus September 3, 2008 8:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: Yes
Concealed carry is currently allowed at 11 colleges. None of these schools have had a single incident of gun violence, gun theft, or gun related accidents. This same argument (that more guns will cause more violence) was made whenever people were pushing for general concealed carry. Unfortunately for the Brady Campaign, violent crime decreased dramatically in states that allowed law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
- Curlysue December 4, 2008 9:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Anyone who wants to brin a gun on campus can do so now despite the law. Someone intent on shooting someone cannot be prevented from doing so unless someone else (either the victom or someone nearby) is similarly armed and equiped to shoot the potential murderer.
All the anti-gun laws in the world do not disarm criminals or others with evil intent... gun laws do disarm honest, law-abinding people who if allowed to carry weapons could potentially pervent the mayham that is all too common in our schools.
Just knowing that some of his classmates couls be armed, may have diisuaded some of the killers and savedd lives. Many of these nut-cases are basically cowards and the possibility that they may be shot as a result of their actions may change their plans.
- Bikerdoc February 12, 2009 10:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
The statistics presented may be very true; college aged people may be more irrational or inmature. College students may be more likely to be influenced by alcohol, drugs, or stress as well. Personally, those characteristics depend on the person. However, the more people that have guns, the more people there are that have the means to do damage whether it be accidental or intentional.
Guns can misfire. Someone can accidentally pull the trigger. Someone may think the gun is not loaded. A gun could fall into the hands of someone irresponsible. A person influenced by alcohol or drugs may pick up a gun and react to a situation that they would normally ignore. One way to commit suicide would be easily accessible to those depressed individuals who feel they no longer have a purpose in this world. These are just some of the scenarios that could occur.
One could argue that if all the students who were held hostage in that lecture hall on the campus of VT had had guns, someone could have taken down the shooter, but what about all the potential misfired bullets? What about all the negative situations that could have occurred leading up to that instant and taking place after it? Creating more risk in order to attempt to solve one unfortunate situation is illogical.
- StriveforYourDreams February 16, 2009 12:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
what if just one student had the means and prevented these tragedies?
- jaker277 February 24, 2009 6:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
StriveforYourDreams-
Your argument is based alot on the potential for things to happen, rather than what th reality of a situation may be. Yes, guns "can" misfire and someone "can" accidentally pull the triggen, but can you also consider the fact that a gun also has the potential to never misfire at all, or that a person handling a firearm has the repsonsibility and the expertise to never accidentally pull the trigger. In your response, I see doubt in society and the potential good of everyday people. As with anything, there is bad aspects, but you are failing to see what is good. There are plenty of law abiding citizens that have the responsbility and the ability to carry a concealed firearm. Also, you are placing blame on controlled substances, rather on firearms themselves. Ultimately it is the fault of an individual, not the firearm that they carry or the drugs that they take. When you talk about the potential for misfire. I have been a hunter for 7 years, and all my time spent around firearms, I have never had a gun misfire or hangfire on me.
- TrapshootingGirl February 25, 2009 10:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Brady,
How many times do you need to hear this and from how many law abiding citizens. A GUN DID NOT KILL THOSE KIDS AT VIGINIA TECH!! CHO DID!! And it was made easy for him.
If Virginia Tech allowed CWC how many parents would have been spared the agony of empty beds. My heart goes out to them and they can thank your contributing agenda for being forced to be defenseless sitting ducks.
I'm not hearing any gun shots coming out of the Utah campus '. I am in Minnesota so it is a bit far for the gunshots to be heard. What? No gun battles using a keg as a shield? No enraged gun battles over a parking space? No professors being shot for handing out a bad grade? What you also will not hear from the Utah campus is gunshots of random killers. They will be much safer at malls and churches unless I am there. Yes. I know. Your misguided agenda would make me a criminal for protecting myself and others. Just as you did these students.
- Minnesotan March 27, 2009 2:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
hundreds of drunk post- teens , showing off for their peers and trying to impress members of the opposite sex.
I can see it now....
20 year old boys shooting beer cans off each other's heads, not paying attention to everything that is BEHIND the target.
Girls fighting over hot boys. Boys fighting over hot girls.
Students will shoot strangers that they THINK MIGHT be the person that stole their cellphones and laptops.
People will shoot each other for dumb reasons like gropings, car accidents, not helping someone cheat, gossiping, pranks, namecalling, and fights.
Students would use their guns to intimidate each other, bully each other, and commit crimes, like rapes, robberies, assualts, kidnappings, and murders.
Let's not forget about all of the bullet holes everywhere.
Who will pay for the damage to cars, buildings, windows, furniture, and other private property?
Having a bunch of guns legally on campus would just mean that when a psycho DOES start shooting, EVERYONE will start to shoot EVERYONE ELSE, because they think that THAT person, and THAT person, and THAT person are the shooters since THEY HAVE A GUN!!!
Someone is going to take their new gun out to show it to their friends, and they'll get shot, because they're waving a gun around.
People will accidentally shoot each other, because when they pull the trigger, they will believe that the gun is empty or that the safety is on. Guns in backpacks will go off because the safety is not on.
If students have guns then they are going to want to practice their aiming skills. That means building a gun shooting range, or allowing students to make their own targets and practice in an unsafe environment , which some will unfortunately do regardless of whether a safe facility is provided for them.
Having hundreds of guns on campus, means listening to gunshots at all hours of the day and night. In addition to the annoyance of hearing gunshots, people would become desensitized to the presence of guns and sound of gunshots. Becoming desensitized to the sound of gunshots means that people would ignore them, and thus when a psycho started firing, people would under-react. (In my highschool, the fire alarm would go off at least five times a month because of faulty wiring. In the four years that I attended, I learned to ignore the fire alarm since there was NEVER a real fire. When fire drills were performed, a staff member would have to go on the speaker, and say that "this is a practice drill , please evacuate," because otherwise people wouldn't get out of their desks. If there ever was a real fire, no one would respond promptly and there would be a delay of several minutes before people started to evacuate the building.)
If teachers, parents , and students, feel that guns MUST me present at schools in order to ensure the peace, safety, and securtiy of their staff and students, then the TEACHERS should carry guns.
I WOULD NEVER GO TO A COLLEGE THAT ALLOWED ITS STUDENTS TO HAVE GUNS, because I wouldn't feel SAFE.
I reccommend that people watch this YouTube video. It is a fan-made video that uses scenes from the show "Trigun", about and set to the song "Let There Be Guns", which is also known as "Wouldn't It Be Great If Everybody Had A Gun?" The song is by Arrogant Worms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_Es
Episode#3 of Trigun is suppossed to show both sides of the gun argument - that murderous gangs would develop and that people would use guns to defend themselves.
- gatorgirl7563 April 18, 2009 12:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Please Please Please go do some research before you post such things that are so incorrect and full of fallacies and misconceptions. I am going to attempt to answer your assumptions one at a time. First you have to be 21 to obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit(CWP) so having 20 year-olds isn't going to happen. As for the next 7 or so small paragraphs, I am sorry you feel like you would do this if you owned or carried a gun but as history shows us none of the scenarios you listed have happened ever. CWP holders carry everywhere off campus so why does the imaginary line of crossing on campus suddenly make everyone irresponsible and basically stupid? This stuff doesn't happen off campus so why would it mysteriously happen on campus. As for the drinking how many times have you gone drunk to class? I know I never have and nor as anyone I know.
I obviously don't know the number of CWP holders in the US to assume there are enough to have multiple CWP holders at one place during one shooting and them take each other out(again never happened anywhere off campus so why will it happen on campus). In the US there are about 1 CWP holder out of every 100 citizens. For the 21-30 age group that is much lower in the range of 1 in 300. So in your largest lecture class of 300+ students you statistically might have 1 CWP holder carrying a weapon for self defense.
In your next section you state instances several times of guns just going off. I have been working with firearms for a long time and I also am an instructor and I can tell you will all certainty there is no presently built firearm that just goes off. Companies go out of their way to make sure a firearm cant just go off, almost all new firearms also have drop safeties so you could throw it out a car at 100mph and it still wouldn't go off(it would ruin a perfectly good handgun tho). I am seeing in your writing that you have a genuine fear of firearms and I am sorry for that, I really suggest you go to a local range and go talk to the people there about possibly taking a class so you can better understand firearms and their use because you really don't understand them now.
As for the becoming desensitized to gunshots, first all of your other scenarios are completely baseless so you wouldn't have this massive increase of gunfire anyways, but even if you did(never would happen) most people don't know what sound a firearm really makes anyways. They assume it is a car backfiring or a firecracker.
As for allowing teachers to carry and not students what is the difference between a first year teacher and a 26 year old Iraq veteran going back to school? Why or how is the teacher better qualified than the student?
Ok so after watching your so called video evidence it makes sense that you have a distorted view of reality please visit http://www.concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php to get a dose of reality. You obviously don't understand firearms or their owners so I am not going to spend any more time on you. Please just do some research before you post any other fantasy scenario that has/would never happen.
- tenmaster96 May 6, 2009 8:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Including all of your text made the comment too long. As such I have truncated your original claims.
"hundreds of drunk post- teens , showing off ...."
There are already restrictions on CWP and alcohol consumption. You cannot legally carry a firearm while drinking, even if you have a permit. It doesn't happen off campus, and there's no reason to believe it would happen on campus. Furthermore, drinking and carrying a weapon is usually grounds to revoke a CWP. Those who are serious about personal protection wouldn't take that risk.
"I can see it now....
20 year old boys shooting beer cans off each other's heads...."
You must be 21 in most states to obtain a CWP.
"Girls fighting over hot boys. Boys fighting over hot girls."
When CWP was first introduced, law enforcement thought it would cause shootouts over parking spots. Their fears were just as unfounded then as yours are now.
"Students will shoot strangers that they THINK MIGHT be the person that stole their cellphones and laptops."
A CWP is not a license to kill. The CWP holder must be endanger of death or serious bodily harm in order to use deadly force. Again, people don't shoot random people off campus because they think they're criminals, there is no evidence CWP holders would act differently on campus.
"People will shoot each other for dumb reasons ...."
See the previous two responses.
"Students would use their guns to intimidate each other...."
Statistically, CWP holders commit far fewer crimes than the general population.
"Let's not forget about all of the bullet holes everywhere.
...?"
A CWP is not a license to kill. It's also not a license to shoot whatever you want.
"... EVERYONE will start to shoot EVERYONE ELSE, ...!!!"
The average "gun fight" lasts less than 8 seconds. Furthermore, many potential crimes are stopped by the mere display of "will and means" to defend. More often than not, the conflict can be resolved without shots fired . They would not start randomly shooting at other CWP holders, because on the off chance that another permit holder was around, he would not present a threat.
"... because they're waving a gun around."
This paranoid statement doesn't even deserve a response.
"People will accidentally shoot each other,...."
The first theory is an example of gun owner stupidity, and would be the fault of the shooter, not the gun. Furthermore, it's highly unlikely a CWP holder would do something so stupid as it they would lack a complete understanding of firearms and basic safety. The second is virtually impossible regardless of whether or not the safety is on (if the handgun even has one) as guns include a built in block that would prevent the firing pin from reaching the primer even if the trigger were somehow knocked.
".... That means building a gun shooting range, or allowing students to make their own targets ...."
There is no reason the school would have to provide a shooting range for its students. As for the unsafe target practice: once again, a CWP is not a license to shoot anything, anywhere.
"Having hundreds of guns on campus , means listening to gunshots at all hours ...."
First off, based on the average carry rate of 1%, and the number of eligible students approx 30%, to have "hundreds" of concealed weapons would require over 66,000 undergraduates. That is a large school. You wouldn't hear gunshots everywhere because a CWP still isn't a license to shoot whatever you want whenever you want.
"..., then the TEACHERS should carry guns."
Teachers, and anyone else with a permit should be allowed to carry weapons on campus.
"I WOULD NEVER GO TO A COLLEGE THAT ALLOWED ITS STUDENTS TO HAVE GUNS, because I wouldn't feel SAFE."
Feeling safe is not the same as being safe. You can feel safe all you want, I rather have the opportunity for legal self defense.
"I reccommend that people watch this YouTube video . ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_Es
...."
Mildly amusing at best. You claim that if everyone had a gun, everyone would end up shooting each other. Have you ever been to a shooting range? When I go, everyone has a gun, and nobody gets shot. Imagine that.
- erik January 10, 2010 9:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
By reading your post, sounds to me like the problem is Alcohol and Drugs and the firearm is secondary for protection. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you are not campaigning for alcohol free schools. Easier to blame the firearm and hold nobody accountable for their actions.
- rmatt January 30, 2009 2:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Guns are meant to be in the hands of law enforcement who are trained to use them not in the hands of college students. The fact that drugs and alcohol are often used on college campuses is the first indicator that guns should not joining this dangerous mix. The result would not lead to more safety but to more tragedies. A person who has been using drugs or alcohol is not fit to drive a car so why would they be allowed to use a gun? It seems that in our haste to feel safe on college campuses all we would be doing is creating more problems.
- annalise February 8, 2009 8:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Well it is already illegal to carry a firearm will under the influence so those LAW ABIDING citizens who have permits wouldn't be carrying while intoxicated anyways. I have numerous firearms in my apartment, so do many of my friends and I am aware of at least one fraternity who has multiple gun safes in their house. I have yet to hear of an incident in at my college campus. No to mention how many students do you know that come to class drunk? Most of the parties I am aware of are off campus where guns are already present so how would allowing them on campus by licensed individuals to and from class make it any more dangerous? Also you don't need 9 months of training to know how to use a firearm for self defense. Most self defense situations occur at less than 12 feet and last mere seconds. You like many of those against this concealed carry on this forum forget that these college students are adults that carry everywhere else why does a college campus automatically make someone prone to violence?
- tenmaster96 February 17, 2009 12:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Why are you viilianizing the firearm when the your main argument is controlled substances?
Come on do you really think this is a good argument against the students constitutionally guaranteed right?
- jaker277 February 24, 2009 6:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The study that the BC keeps referencing is flawed. I read the study and it asks if the participant has a working gun on campus (illegal in most cases) and also does other illegal things (drugs etc.). Well duh! I'm sure if they aren't listening to the no guns policy, they probably don't care about the law and therefore won't care about breaking others. I'm also going to make the generalization that if someone cares less about the law they are probably more likely to show violence toward their fellow man (and woman). So I don't think that going from a yes answer to the question "do you have an illegal gun ON campus" should be quoted as "gun owners". Don't twist the facts.
- aaronr8684 May 11, 2009 4:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Its amazing that when firearm related suicide lethality is compared to other methods, they always leave out hanging...which is MORE lethal than firearms. People that are determined enough to use a gun probably wouldn't be detered by the face that they can't get one...they would find another way.
If the Brady Campaign was really interested in lowering the number of suicides on campus, the would focus on eliminating alcohol. No matter the method (OD, Firearm, hanging/strangulation, cutting etc.) many (if not the majority) people attempting suicide are under the influence. But that's not their concern...their concern is to get rid of guns, and they attempt to do so by using scare tactics.
- Machew September 4, 2008 3:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Isn't it true that you have to undergo backgrounds checks, mental testing, and safety courses before you are permitted to carry a concealed weapon? So, how exactly are you suggesting these suicidal and mentally ill students are going to get these guns? Are they going to steal them, or are they just miraculously going to pass all the required checks and courses to get a concealed weapon?
- mer January 29, 2009 11:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The issue of guns shouldn't even be brought up when talking about suicide any more than any other method. Numerous studies (by independant sources) have shown that even when guns are limited, the only thing that goes down is suicide by guns. The over all (successful, not attempted) suicide rate stays exactly the same. So obviously this isn't about guns, it's about suicide. Maybe once we start focusing on the real issue, we might actually be help to help the true victims and fix the problem.
- aaronr8684 August 13, 2009 9:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As has been mentioned already by aaronr8684, the suicide rate is virtually unaffected by gun restrictions. People who are determined to take their own life will find a means to do so.
- erik January 10, 2010 9:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So Brady...
At ALL 9 Public Universities in Utah, as well as Colorado State University and Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia there has NEVER been a gun theft on campus. And as you know, all of these places currently allow LICENSED students to carry on campus.
These 21+ year olds are not the students living in dorms, or on campus.. Most Universities wont allow students that have over 60 hours (19-20 years old) to live on campus.
It's not "increasing gun ownership", these students are ALREADY licensed to carry virtually EVERYWHERE else. They already have the licenses, and they already have the firearms (and there havent been any problems).
When will the Brady Campaign stop the LIES ???
- NotSoSafeCampus September 3, 2008 9:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: Yes
Okay isn't the point of a concealed weapon to keep it with you incase you need to use it. So why would a firearm just be lying around in a students dorm waiting to be stolen? It wouldn't be.
Another point...If someone really wants a gun they aren't going to have to steal it from a college dorm room. So what if guns aren't allowed on campus. If they really want to do damage, they are just going to go off campus and steal a gun there.
- mer January 29, 2009 11:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
The idea of the potential of gun theft on college campus where concealed carrying is allowed is absolutely absurd. As "mer" comments previously, an individual would not leave a handgun around like they would a bookbag so that someone else would have the ability to possibly take it from them. The point of concealed carry is so that others won't be able to see it. I do not know much about how the actual process works, as far of rules on how you are to carry, but I am sure that the firearm always will be, and has to be on the person in the form of a gun holster or a gun belt. If a person would be so irresponsible as to not keep track of thier firearm, then they are the type of individual that should not, and does not deserve to carry. Despite these few people in the population, I do believe that for each person that would do something as stupid as leave their gun behind, there are plenty more law abiding citizens that will utilize their privilege of concealed carrying of a firearm for their own personal protection.
- TrapshootingGirl February 26, 2009 10:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Ownership is at it again. If they paid attention to any of the evidence, they would not need others to debunk this absurd claim.
- erik January 10, 2010 9:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This argument has a good point. While the idea of keeping a concealed gun at college may seem like a logical way to protect oneself from assaulters, it is actually true that this is still very dangerous. As this article discusses, there is a chance that the weapon can be shot accidently or shot while unknowingly still holding ammo. Even the purchasers of these guns may not be fully aware as to how to use them properly. The owners of these weapons may be scared young adults choosing to keep one just in case, a desperate way to keep themselves safe which in reality is puts not only jeopardizes their own health, but the health of those around them as well. These risks are not worth someone's life; as the article clearly states, "If there are no guns on campus, these types of accidents [as in gun shootings] cannot occur."
- Nada February 9, 2009 2:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So you would rather not allow law abiding students any chance at protecting themselves from criminals from various crimes from assault, rape to murder on the fact that there is a small chance of an accident. Firearm accidents are incredibly rare and someone getting injured in a firearm accident is even rarer. But even the federal government states that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for self defense. Also the statement that guns on campus is a completely fallacy, guns are on campus the incidents at VTech and NIU prove that criminals wont follow the law and the cops cant be everywhere at once to protect everyone. Not to mention by your thought cops shouldnt be allowed on campus because they carry firearms and they could accidentally shoot someone.
- tenmaster96 February 17, 2009 12:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
There are alternatives for students to protect themselves "from criminals from various crimes from assault, rape to murder." The colleges themselves can provide self defense classes to teach students specific techniques to protect themselves from attackers. These classes can even include what one should do in different situations of a gun attack without actually having to fire back with a gun, but instead with the weapons around us everyday, like knives and hammers. Even concealed self defense items like pepper spray may be the difference between life and death; it depends on the situation. Yes, security does indeed hold firearms, but they are trained; they actually know what they are doing and are less likely to shoot someone irrationally or accidently. Even students who are knowledgeable on how to use guns should not be permitted to carry them, exposed or concealed, on campus. Campus often times is a temporary home to students, a place where they can seek safety. How can they feel safe knowing that everyone around them is potentially carrying a gun, from the calm and seemingly harmless students to the troublemakers who are arrested at least twice a month? Concealed firearms can quickly escalate a simple argument into a tragedy. And if there is an attacker, with or without a gun, the concealed firearms of the victims can be used against them if they are overpowered. The police and campus security not only try to stop attacks while they are happening, but they also try to avoid them from occurring in the first place. With students allowed to have concealed weapons on campus, it would be more difficult for security to decipher who could be considered a potential threat and who is not. Plus, what edge do the cops have if the students are allowed to carry concealed firearms? No, students and people in general do not always follow the law, and of course the "cops cant be everywhere at once to protect everyone." However, aren’t the chances of a shooting lessened if it is forbidden for students to carry firearms on campus, especially considering that security would be on the lookout for such weaponry? And when does it end? A pistol, a rifle, a semiautomatic? To believe that they do not have “any chance” at protecting themselves without possessing a gun is a fallacy; it is a lie. Besides, once you decide to carry a gun for constant protection from others, you decide to view all other people as potential enemies instead of potential friends. And with this lack of faith in humankind you have taken that first small step into the direction of using your weapon for the wrong reason or worse out of hasty impulse.
- Nada February 17, 2009 11:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
True there are other alternatives for students the best and most powerful is situational awareness which includes paying attention to your surroundings and the people close to you. Staying out of a confrontation is always the best solution. But you must remember once you are in a confrontation to be able to use any of the solutions you advised you would have to be very very close as in within arm’s reach which could be too close. Even if you are trained in self defense you still need to be very close when the attack happens, be on steady ground with firm footing, not have anything between yourself and the attacker, and be able for a short time overpower your attacker. If you are that close you risk much more injury to yourself as much as injury to your attacker. Why is it when you draw a firearm the person would overpower and disarm you but you fail to mention that is much more likely when you have to get close as with the weapons you advised. I have taken some of these classes because the last thing I ever want to do is fire on another human being, I am well aware that a gun is not the end all solution to every problem but it is the most powerful last resort and average person can carry. Also it should be noted that pepper spray effects everyone differently and it doesn't always work. I do carry it in my car and in doing so I have been hit with it before to make sure I can still see if I ever have to deploy it close to myself and form personal experience it didn't have that much effect on me other than make me very angry and agitated not immobilized by any means.
Also what makes a security officer more highly trained that an average citizen with a concealed weapons permit (cwp)? In most states the same class is required for both licenses. I would also like to know where you got the stat that average citizens are more likely to "irrationally or accidentally" shoot an innocent person when according to the GOA fact sheet( http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm )only 2 percent of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being mistaken for a criminal but the error rate for police is more than 11% thats more than 5 times the civilian rate.
Your possibility of "everyone carrying a gun" is also not even close to the average in shall issue states is that there is one person out of a hundred who carries a firearm for self defense. This means there might be one in your class or possibly one on your dorm hall. I would also like to know what state you live in because I don't see people getting scared when people carry concealed weapons in malls, grocery stores, restaurants, or movie theaters. Why would allowing law abiding citizens their right to carry on campuses be any different? Also if a student is arrested twice a month as you put it they would not pass the background check necessary to obtain a cwp in most states.
- tenmaster96 February 18, 2009 8:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The cops are always going to be at a disadvantage they never know who is carrying and who isn't, criminals always have the advantage of surprise. With the present situation only criminals are carrying their firearms so how would people who actually follow the law endanger or hinder the officers efforts? Before you say they wont be able to tell who the attacker is in a shooting event find me one instance where that has happened off a college campus because I looked and couldn't find even one instance. Also since it says concealed then it means concealed I carry a full size handgun and I have many friends who don't know I carry and no one has ever noticed it. That is also the reason I don't believe there is a need for rifles on campus because they cannot be concealed and gets rid of the element of surprise.
You really need to go Google "semiautomatic", most firearms sold today are semiautomatic and they are no more dangerous than any other firearm out there. They still fire one bullet for one trigger pull just like any revolver or hunting rifle, they are no more dangerous or deadly.
Tell me how you are going to protect yourself from an armed attacker at 20ft, hell make it 15ft, how is it a fallacy or how am I a liar? Do you have other options yea possibly; you might be able to run away, maybe the attacker will be stupid and get close so you can attempt some move you saw in a movie, maybe you have pepper spray and the person reacts the same way I did and gets more agitated and angry and kills you anyways(not to mention most sprays can take up to 15 seconds to fully start working and are also banned on most college campuses).
I carry a gun everyday at all times where it is legal and I don't look at everyone as a potential enemy but I do understand and accept the fact that there are evil people out there that would hurt me or my family and I will do whatever it takes to keep my loved ones safe. Also by your reasoning every cop in America that carries a firearm is on their way to using their weapon for the wrong reason or out of hasty impulse. Remember cops are only people too and they also make mistakes statistically they make more mistakes than armed civilians, cwp holders are the most law abiding group of citizens in the country just look up statistics in Florida or Texas(those two states keep the best records) and you will find that around .1 or .2% of all cwp holders are ever arrested for a felony.
Do some research before you come up with some random scenarios that could possibly happen but they only occur on college campuses and not everywhere else concealed carry is legal or making up statistics that fit your opinion.
- tenmaster96 February 18, 2009 9:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
@Nada's Comments- The points that you do present are very valid, concerning both the presented issues of an individual's proficiency in using a concealed firearm, and the issue of accidental shootings in its entirety.
@Tenmaster96- With myself being a person who hunts, has hunted forever, and is on a competition trapshooting team, I do, and will forever retain a respect for firearms. I know their capabilities, and what they can do, but despite everything else, I do agree when it is stated that accidental shooting are rare, and the ability to carry a concealed weapon will most definately be a benefit to students on campus. In my state, it is a proven statistic that hunting, above all other forms of recreation, have the lowest rate of personal injury, virutally zero. Hunting is the safest sport of all, oddly enough. When good citizens that know the parameters of what can happen with a firearm, are able to carry, then they have now become able to protect themselves and others. God forbid if I was ever faced with a situation such as an intruder in school, I would know that I could defend myself and others. I do understand Nada's argument of how people who may carry concealed weapons do not have proper expereince with firearms, but with yourself, being a "concealed-carrier", did you have to complete a firearm safety course before being given your permit? If we think about it, whether you are in an area that allows concealed carrying or not, if things move as to the extreme of guns being banned, all of the law abiding citizens would not be protected, and no matter what the laws were, all the "bad guys" with bad intentions would have thier way no matter what..and this is why it is all the more reasonable that students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus.
- TrapshootingGirl February 23, 2009 7:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I currently carry Concealed Weapons Permits(cwp) or Concealed Handgun Licensees(chl) from 3 different states. Two of those state required mandatory training before I was able to obtain the permit or license. Everyone I know that carries practices on a regular basis and/or competes in pistol shooting competition. I have a mandatory 100 rounds a month at the minimum that I must shoot if I am not competing in a competition that month. That is a personal requirement I keep, if I don't shoot that month then I don't carry, from what I have seen from most police firearms training schedules I shoot more than most cops. It is usually closer to 200-300 rounds a month with upwards of 1000 on months with more than one competition or if I can afford it. I am also taking the instructor/range master course this summer so I can teach the class that is necessary to obtain a CWP in my state
- tenmaster96 February 25, 2009 3:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
When you compare the probability of accidental discharges in public to the probability of accidental discharges in the home, you have included an assumption in your premise that, in my opinion, is not valid. The risk factors are completely different.
Guns in the home are sometimes in a loaded condition and sometimes in an unloaded condition, creating the potential for a fair amount of uncertainty in the mind of any individual handling the gun as well as very little control over who may pick up the gun, trained, untrained, familiar with the particular gun or unfamiliar.
A gun carried on the person will almost always be considered (and known) to be loaded. There is very little chance for confusion on that issue. There is also very little chance a person unfamiliar with that individual gun will be handling it.
Those two situational differences make for a very different statistical probability profile.
I will admit that there is still the chance for an accidental discharge from mis-handling, dropping or overheating (as in a fire), but those types of accidents are vanishingly rare when you consider only people who are trained (as most states issuing Concealed Weapons Carry Permit require). Yahoos and incompetents should be considered in a separate category, as they could be eliminated from campuses fairly easily (I am somewhat surprised at myself, actually advocating the practical equivalent of a poll tax and literacy test on bearing arms).
Another point is that the amount of handling a holstered, concealed gun in public receives is VERY restricted if the gun remains concealed. I daresay that a gun carried outside the home is handled less than one inside the home (provided you only count the time the gun is removed from the protective cocoon of the holster, from which it is almost impossible to produce a discharge, accidental or otherwise).
So, three significant differences hold: 1) The person(s) accessing the gun at home vs carried in public is vastly different, both in numbers and in degree of familiarity with the gun. 2) The degree of uncertainty of the loaded/unloaded condition of the gun is simply not part of the discussion. 3) A contained inside a holster carried on the person is far less likely to accidentally discharge than one in any container other than a locked box.
Compare like situations to like situations.
- Lost Sheep May 20, 2009 10:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
"Temporarily insane"? Who, might I ask, are you to make such a generalized judgment about the college population? Individuals with concealed carry permits carry other places on a daily basis, what is it about stepping onto a college campus that makes the "temporarily insane"?
- paaiyan September 4, 2008 6:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Current Black Market law only requires that cash be paid upfront on any purchase, including guns. Criminals, terrorists, and mentally ill individuals can buy military grade, as opposed to "style," as in, military looking, weapons, in amounts limited only by the amount of cash they have. This law doesn't show much sign of changing. Laws requiring background checks and such will drive those killers, and their funds, to the black market, allowing it to expand, rather than allowing growth in the legal economy. This will increase the power and standing of illegal organizations and increase the amount and variety of goods available. It's a terrible idea. It does, however, have a convenient side effect. It gives the Federal government a list of all legal gun owners in the event that it should ever confiscate all guns.
As far as "temporarily insane," untrained teenage lunatics wandering around shooting people, we aren't saying that all students should be allowed to concealed carry at all. The permit for concealed carry is actually pretty tough to get, requiring actual classes be completed and passed, criminal background checks, etc. All of that is fine for a concealed carry permit, as opposed to actual ownership, because criminals even though criminals won't bother with the permit, idiots will, and those who would engage in drunken gunfights would be weeded out. Even tougher permits could be required for concealed carry on campus. As far as arming teachers, why shouldn't a teacher have the right to defend him/herself? I don't know the South Africa case, but I'm sure the tension in the classroom had to be pretty high for a teacher to believe a student was pulling a gun out. Someone who had taken classes to get a concealed carry on campus permit would have known to tell him to freeze and put his hands up before firing. The gun is for last chance situations, for example if the firearm is being brandished or fired. You also make the absurd assumption that parents wouldn't want to send their children to a school that gives them the ability to defend themselves, as opposed to sitting helplessly awaiting execution, in the event of an emergency. That could easily be put to the test. Give schools the choice to allow or disallow concealed carry, and see which schools attract students and which do not.
In your final agrument, you make a feeble attempt to justify a confiscation list, that would allow the government to remove the citizenry's last defense against tyranny.
- richardsonkr January 24, 2009 6:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Your argument is so poorly presented that it is close to not making sense at all. Obviously just a passionately heated pile of rhetoric not based on sound research or truth.
I am not worried about some keg pary where someone might be carrying a gun. These parties are completely unregulated and have nothing to do with the argument. The point is protecting our youth while they are attending classes. Something that our police and security systems have largeley failed to do.
Why not arm our youth? We send them overseas to fight and die. At 18 we are considered adults but most of the people I know who carry have been inculcated since a young age about the responsibilities related to firearms.
"An armed society is a polite society."
- jaker277 February 24, 2009 6:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
You are obviously informed of your "opinion" based on buzz words and statements repeatedly given credibility that have a political agenda.
Did you know that it is a criminal offense in and of itself to consume alcohol and carry? The person or student that does has not gone through concealed weapons training and therefore not legal. We are talking legal law abiding students that should be allowed to protect themselves and others should they need to.
People of your mindset do not find the common denominator in Virginia Tech, Colorado Springs, Mumbai or even the holocaust to name a few. The criminal, and in the one case a government, has found the common denominator. Why do you think the psycho's don't choose our local rod and gun clubs for their killing sprees.
CWC permit holders have a grave responsibility whether a student or citizen. Not only do they put their lives in danger they better be trained and skillful so no harm comes to innocents. The biggest responsibility? If there is reason to pull it you use it and the one to go home to his family is you. There is no such thing as a fair fight. If it is fair the tactics need to be rethought.
What isn't fair is a college campus full of innocents being defenselessly gunned down and their parents with empty beds from lack of one person on the right side of the law not being able to carry.
- Minnesotan March 27, 2009 12:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
College students don't drink beer in class and won't kill each other for reaching for a pen. This is about preventing incidents like Virginia Tech and Columbine. Had a single person been allowed to defend themselves (or had the cops actually done something) the victims would still be alive.
Keeping guns off campus won't prevent these incidents because killers will not follow the rules anyway. "Gun-free Zones" only protect the killers by disarming their prey. Even if you can prevent people from taking guns to a frat party, there will still be knives, beer bottles, screwdrivers and baseball bats. The point is that if someone has an intent to harm or kill you, they will find a way to do it. I have seen someone nearly get stabbed at a party and I have seen a golf club pulled out as a weapon. Surely nobody wants to ban golf clubs. It appears your objection lies with alcohol , not guns so why don't you advocate a return to Prohibition? Guns are simply a tool, they are useless lying on the ground. There have been many women on my own campus that have been sexually assaulted; don't they also deserve the right to defend themselves? What about preventing a break-in or robbery? Mass killings are not the only things Concealed Carry can help prevent.
- Nickel April 29, 2009 3:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Would Allowing Students to Carry Weapons Make College Campuses Safer?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Safer? Is this a joke?
So now we're asked to believe that having students on campus with guns will make campus life safer? Hey, isn't the Tooth Fairy real?
Aren't campuses those places where young adults regularly get drunk playing beer pong? Where students often experiment with drugs for the first time? These would mix wonderfully with guns don't you think?
- cantupoke July 14, 2008 9:16AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
off topic
when was the last time you played beer pong in class.
I want the ability to defend myself in a dangerus situation.
right now no one is safe and for some reason the ignorant feel safe.
last time I checked this wasnt a debate about gun ownership, its about carrying, im a gun owner already i want the ability to use a gun (a tool) in order to protect myself if i need to. This is not a debate whatsoever about who can have guns only where they can carrythem
- freedomsupporter
September 3, 2008 8:33PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is this is serious question!?!?!
yes...allowing the youth of america to posess guns, knives, ...perhaps grenades, bombs, etc....is a great way to keep colleges safe!!!! is this for real???
my obvious answer to this question is absolutley not....and if i were a parent and heard that this was allowed...you bet id be knocking on the deans door.....wearing a bullet proof vest of course!
- lanidee02 July 26, 2008 9:20AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
yes, this is in fact a serious question
1) grenades and bombs are federally regulated. besides, none of the college shootings featured explosive devices.
2) certain youths already possess firearms - legal age to purchase rifles and shotguns in most states is 18.
3) to obtain a concealed weapons permit in most states, one has to be 21. if i'm not mistaken the legal definition of an adult is 18+ years of age.
- sandcrystal September 3, 2008 10:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your kidding right?
A gun permit has nothing to do with grenades, bombs etc. . . . lets be real. If you are licensed and trusted to carry everywhere else in the state what is special about a school? Either you can be trusted and pass the background check or you don't. There is nothing magic about crossing a line onto school property that will suddenly make a licensed gun owner less responsible than he/she was off of school property.
This is just another feel good rule that is costing lives again. . .
- JDalco
January 23, 2009 10:27AM
Reply to this Recommend
(5)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Have you read this question properly?
Grenades and bombs are not allowed to be owned by private people.
This is not about who has guns , it is about where licensed carriers have guns. They carry responsibly off campus practically everywhere they go from restaurants, churches, movie theaters, and shopping malls. What makes college campuses so special that makes licensed carriers irresponsible the moment they cross the magical line that separates the campus from the rest of society ?
- zack007attack
April 17, 2009 1:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CSU Crime Rates Plummeted after Concealed Carry Was Introduced
When Comparing 2006-2008 (3 years after CWP implemented) and 1998-2000 (3 years before), in 2006-2008:
Forcible Sex Offenses: down 55.56%
Robbery: down 50%
Aggravated Assault: down 50%
Arson: Down 56.52%
Burglary: down 67.16%
Hate Crimes: down 69.23%
- soderstrom
December 6, 2009 8:45PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why would bad students be allowed guns?
It is not an easy feat to be allowed a concealed weapon. You have to be 21 years of age, go through and extensive background check, as well as other things. Students that are too busy getting high and drinking are not going to get guns because they wouldn't be able to pass these tests. Good people, trustworthy people, would be the ones with guns, not the idiots. If I was in class and someone came in to shoot everyone, I would love to know that my teacher or a student that is qualified to carry a gun can save my life and I'm sure my parents would be just as glad. If you're a parent and you think that guns on campuses are a bad thing then you should do some more research. See what happens when a gunman brings an AK-47 to your child's classroom and then tell me that you wouldn't like a good citizen in the room with the ability to save your child's life.
- thinkforyourself July 30, 2008 2:45AM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the reality
a drunk kid with a permit will get in an argument with another kid at a party and shoot them. The idea that only the most trustworthy and responsible will get permits is wishful thinking.
- reckoner
August 27, 2008 11:43AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not Reality
"a drunk kid with a permit .. at a party"
First off, the folks that would be allowed to carry on campus would be the ones that are LICENSED to do so. They ALREADY carry these firearms.
We dont hear about these students "shooting" other students at parties... Allowing students to carry on campus would just allow them to walk across the campus line with their firearm that they ALREADY carry virtually everywhere else.
We are talking about concealed carry in a CLASSROOM environment.
We dont hear about Students that are licensed to carry, shooting up parties off campus. Why would these 21+ year olds start opening fire at those same parties when the only thing that would change is the allowance to carry IN CLASS.
- NotSoSafeCampus September 3, 2008 8:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(6)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
wrong
First off their are no kids involved only adults.
second those adults already carry everywhere else in life without a drunken incident.
you may also wish to concider the type of student that would go threw the time to get training. the cost of a weapon, holster, the cost of training, the fees to the state for the permit, the hoops they have to jump thew to be in compliance with the law, the finger printing and backround checks.
i dont have to tell you that those individuals are not the regular old pot head binge drinker steriotype you make all students out to be.
---another thing to think about is students that are unable to defend themselfs agianst attack. people like disabled students, women, and anyone else that is either to small or weak to be effective in their defence.
but i guess its better to just get rid of the idea because one person may be irresponsible, even though to date it has never happend anywhere campus carry is allowd.
- freedomsupporter
September 3, 2008 8:45PM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
re: the reality
where are your statistics? if there were such incidents, the media would be all over it.
- sandcrystal September 3, 2008 9:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the reality
Posession of a loaded firearm, while intoxicated is a FELONY.
- longshotM14
July 15, 2009 1:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fear does not equal reality
"a drunk kid with a permit will get in an argument with another kid at a party and shoot them. The idea that only the most trustworthy and responsible will get permits is wishful thinking."
This is the exact kind of argument the Brady Bunch uses every time there's a bill up in a state's house or a local municipality. They say "allowing people to carry in restaurants will only lead to shootouts in the restaurants and in the parking lots when someone takes a parking spot..."
And yet, in the 37 states that now allow carry in restaurants that has not been the case. Their argument is based purely on fear and ignorance while the REALITY is that it is not the case. FBI statistics show that concealed carry contributes to an overall reduction in crime . One is statistics, the other is propaganda. Please don't confuse the two.
- LagerHead
July 17, 2009 1:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Think
I read somewhere on here:
'A student will get drunk, get into a fight and shoot someone.'
That's some sharp logic there, Hawking.
How about being a little more open minded? Consider a few things, if you will:
-What responsible gun owner would bring his weapon to a keg party?
-A majority of legal gun owners are smart people. In other words, NOT STUPID. They're not going to whip out their guns and wave them around with the safety lock off. Most legal gun owners have acquired their weapons legally BECAUSE they have the training to show for it, and are psychologically sound individuals who have the ability to stay calm and level-headed in a time of crisis.
-In case you haven't noticed, gang members don't bother leveling and shooting. They run around blindly shooting without looking. And you wonder why innocent people get hit by stray bullets.
-Did you ever consider the many people whose lives have been saved because they happened to have a gun? A would-be thief is not going to mess with you if you've got your gun trained on him. Hear of the 85-year-old woman who held a gun on a burglar and made him call the police? She could have been injured or killed had she been unarmed.
-Virginia Tech -- had there been a student or teacher on campus who had had a gun, they might have been able to stop the killer. But no, everyone had to wait for 33 people to be shot before 'help' arrived.
Last but not least, consider the 2nd amendment, which protects the individual's right to own a gun. And in case you people didn't know, the 2nd amendment is an integral part of our Constitution. Ban weapons and you've got millions of law-abiding citizens (aka sitting ducks) for all the country's vicious gang members and general scum of society to terrorize while the government lays down thousands more laws to restrict the populace.
- TheKateThatWontKissYou September 3, 2008 8:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
knee jerk reactions
The overwhelming majority of negative comments on this topic are initial knee-jerk reactions by people that have not been exposed to the facts yet. How do i know? because the concerns have already been adressed in the FAQ sections of every concealed carry website on the internet. This is about ADULTS who ALREADY HAVE PERMITS TO CARRY outside the confines of the campus and DO SO ON A DAILY BASIS without incident. These people are the most law abiding citizens out there, who take care in what they do every day because they understand that thier RIGHT to keep and bear arms is also a responsibility that is not to be taken lightly. The arguments from people that understand the basic facts have progressed towards things like caliber selection, additional training requirements, and how to prevent theft; NOT whether college students will get drunk and shoot thier professor.
- hodgie September 4, 2008 9:36AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes they would
When you need one you need one, those that are licensed & of age should not be barred from carrying on campus
- The Duck
September 19, 2008 8:02AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There's a safer way ...
My "no" response is related to guns and any other body-harming weapon used specifically as defensive weapons. I'm quite in favor of individual defensive devices of some sort - stun guns, tasers, pepper sprays, etc. - insofar as these weapons can theoretically neutralize a perpetrator without permanent damage. I certainly understand the history of weapon carrying and do not have specific criticism of it. It is simply my preference that a dangerous assailant be neutralized - if at all possible - without causing them permanent harm. I believe there is a better way of controlling violence - armed or unarmed - without the injuries inherent to guns and knives or other like tools. It seems to me these alternate devices are at least a hint at substitutes. Certainly others can be developed. It always seems preferable to defend oneself in a way befitting of one who believes there is no place for physical violence in a civilized culture. The nature of guns and other dangerous tools used even for defensive purposes seems to contradict the spirit of such a society. If we cannot show compassion toward our violent assailants, what right have we to the claim of civility?
In any event, I fully support the right of a voting american to own and carry a firearm regardless of the lethality issues. It is a guaranteed liberty, but I would hope the majority of americans would choose a non-violent path when practical.
- Naumadd
September 21, 2008 10:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
safer way is only safer for the criminal
Trying to "neutralize" someone who is trying to kill you without hurting them is idiotic, and so is advocating it.
Think of it this way: You're sitting in a classroom, or office, or cubicle, whatever you'd like to imagine. Someone walks in with a gun and starts shooting people. Which of these would you want to have in your pocket? A gun, a Taser (keep in mind, the types that actually shoot out electrodes often cost more than a quality handgun), or pepper spray? Obviously, two of these aren't guaranteed to work and one of them requires you to carefully aim at someone who's probably 20 or so feet away. Assuming you have the Taser that shoots electrodes, you have one, or sometimes two, shots before you reload. A Glock 19 will give you 15 shots and nobody can shake off new holes being put in them.
Keep in mind, this guy will kill you unless you intervene. The idea of concealed carrying is that you're only going to use it if you think someone is going to kill you. When someone is trying to kill you, you don't want to mess around with Tasers or pepper spray - you want to kill him. Saying "well, I don't want to hurt anyone!" is nice on paper, but you don't want to fuck around if somebody is shooting at you.
- arrw
October 24, 2008 5:46AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Neutralizing"
I see your point, certainly, however, whether you neutralize the assailant by killing them or otherwise making it physically impossible for them to cause harm to others, neutralization is the point in any violent attack. I agree the Glock has the potential to neutralize their threat quite nicely, however, when given the choice of killing or not killing, is it your choice to kill simply because it's quick and easy to do so? Are we to kill our attackers because killing them is the most convenient approach?
I'm saying only that all life - threatening to us or not - is precious and we ought not be so casual in the taking of it. In a violent attack upon our person or property, our main goal is to end the violent attack. We can do so by any means possible without regard for any life but our own, or we can put an end to violence in an intelligent way that preserves not only our own life but the life of one's attacker.
In any violent event, you can fight savagery with more savagery or with intelligence. I'm saying we ought to choose an intelligent end to violence rather than fall to the very savagery threatening us. By doing so, we in fact advocate the very thing we wish to defend ourselves against. If we truly abhor savagery, let us not be savages to make our point.
I thoroughly disagree with the notion of fighting fire with fire. I firmly believe in fighting fire with intelligence. A gun is the lazy brute's way out. You may stop your assailant from further harming you but, you lose all the same.
- Naumadd
October 25, 2008 4:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You can't reason with everyone.
You're thinking about it wrong. I'm not advocating blowing away everyone who might be threatening. If someone can be brought down without permanently hurting them, while also keeping the person who is being threatened safe, that's fine by me. I'm not advocating the police blowing away every whackjob with a knife or a pipe. What I am saying is that if someone has a gun, and is threatening to shoot someone with it, or has already shot someone, trying to use less-than-lethal methods to neutralize him isn't a good idea. To put it simply, a gun is the best way to make bad guys go away. There is no room to be fumbling with a beanbag shotgun when someone is executing people.
Take Virginia Tech for example. The shooter was going from classroom to classroom shooting people, "execution-style", as the media likes to call it. In this case, trying to get rid of him without hurting or killing him would just allow him to kill more people, while the police try to taser him.
Back to the self-defense issue - pepper spray and tasers are for the drunk guy from the bar getting a little too friendly. Not for people who are trying to kill you. Again, I'm not advocating replacing pepper spray with a gun. Pepper spray has it's purpose - and so does a gun. If someone is trying to kill you, you want to get rid of the threat as quickly as possible. Less-lethal options will never be as effective as a gun for this purpose.
My main point is that while we should always value human life, we shouldn't be so caught up with it that we allow others, or ourselves, to harmed as a result of our inability to take decisive action.
- arrw
October 25, 2008 11:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You use what works
There is a reason the Army uses guns. . . they deal with folks trying to kill them. Peper spray and almost anything else "non lethal" is questionable at best as to if it will work. If they attacker is high on something I almost guarantee it won't work. Tasers are great but one shot maybe two. . . not good if my life is on the line - cops don't even use them if it is life or death.
Naumadd I wish we lived in a world your ideas would work in but we don't. I have spent years learning Karate and if attacked and in fear of my life I still would rather have a gun to fall back on.
Only a gun let you deal with the bigger guy, the guy attacking a small woman, drug crazed, the armed attacker or the multiple attacker issue. It also lets you stay out of reach of his knife or other weapon.
If I am in fear of my life there is no reason I should be forced to use anything less effective than a gun and risk further injury or death because what I use didn't stop the guy. For now guns are the best we have. Until something better comes along and we all get to set our phasors on stun then we should be allowed to have a gun if we pass the legal tests to do so.
- JDalco
January 23, 2009 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Olderman
"... when given the choice of killing or not killing, is it your choice to kill simply because its quick and easy to do so?..."
Any situation which legally and morally requires the use of a firearm is by definition a situation of desperation and last resort. I note that this situation of last resort was created and forced up one or more by an aggressor who is *at that moment* employing deadly force against one or more individuals, who played absolutely no part in this situation of desperation other than merely being there.
Now, having said that, there are always one or more factors which must be considered before you, the defender, even draws a weapon. The 'intelligent' action is that which fits the situation: education, training and calmness under (major) stress are what let you choose your path through a situation in which people have been murdered with very probably more to follow.
"...or we can put an end to violence in an intelligent way that preserves not only our own life but the life of one's attacker..."
There are those who will not engage in any form of dialogue. For "reasons" known only to them, action - meaning someone else's death - is the only course of action. There are others (unfortunately), but I point to Virginia Tech as an example.
"...I thoroughly disagree with the notion of fighting fire with fire..."
There are many degrees of this. A student does not do or turn in his homework. A zero is entered: not an "A" because he meant well or was bullied as a child. There are tens of thousands of other examples, but they *all* point to the same things: duty, obligations, agreements and consequences.
"...A gun is the lazy brute's way out..."
A gun is the lazy brute's way out for the aggressor. For he or she who will oppose the brute whose non-negotiable position is (your) death, a gun is a tool by which to survive and very possibly allow others to survive as well.
"...If we truly abhor savagery, let us not be savages to make our point..." and "...you lose all the same."
Only if you (we) employ the same reasoning(?) and approach as the aggressor.
A couple of thoughts here. In terms of responsibility and duty, carrying a firearm is every bit as weighty as having a family. Your every action has to be weighed and considered in terms of effects on others.
Before you decide to acquire a firearm, look inside yourself. If you truly believe that should the most awful happen, you won't use it, then don't get one. You will only give it to a *really* bad person.
- Olderman
January 25, 2009 2:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I was about to...
I was about to commend you for being one of the only no arguments that offered a calm, thought out statement. Then I read your Neutralizing argument and lost hope.
You see all life is not precious. Someone who wold only do harm to thier society has no place in that society. And there are those of us who would be happy to do what you are unwilling or unable to do, remove that person from our society.
To me the most intelligent choice is to arm myself equally or more than anyone who might choose to do harm to me or my loved ones. This is not lazy or brutish.
And beyond all of this your "all life is precious" argument falls flat in the fact that you support a government who murders millions of innocents through collateral damge around the world fighting unjust wars.
But the real issue is deterence. Most of the time the mere presence of an armed citizen is enough to deter any from even initiating an attack.
- jaker277
May 20, 2009 1:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Neutralizing
I sense that you have never been in a life threating situtation. When the automatic adrenaline reaction begins, most rational thought ends. The fight or flight reaction is about all you are left with and most people are not trained to react on reflex, so they simply freeze.
I have been under fire several times and I have seen even trained soldiers freeze their first time under fire.
Your assertion of "intellegent response" will get you killed.
The majority of carry permit holders train more than the majority of police officers and, in my experience, are, by far, more accurate and less likely to endanger bystanders.
- longshotM14
July 15, 2009 1:38PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Olderman
The real crux of the matter is the intent of the perpetrator. It doesn't matter what tool he or she uses to murder, that tool is one hundred percent activated by an individual who is completely determined to murder innocent people: without regard to the individual, family, position in the community or accomplishments. The perpetrator *will* do his best to murder.
"... I believe there is a better way of controlling violence - armed or unarmed - without the injuries inherent to guns and knives or other like tools..."
In the quiet calm of a home, study, seminar or classroom it is logically impossible to argue against the above quote in any reasonable manner. Yet, in real life, an individual who is completely focused on murder rarely presents an opportunity for someone to neutralize that individual with something less than deadly force coupled with sudden action; powered by a singular intent. As of this time, there is not an effective non-violent method or tool available which is relatively inexpensive and available to the public for immediate self protection. When those become available, then, perhaps, differing methods can be employed.
"...If we cannot show compassion toward our violent assailants, what right have we to the claim of civility?"
We both claim and possess civility because we employ less than civil actions toward *only* those who employ violent means toward others and ourselves. Counter question: What value are we, civil and otherwise, if we choose a violent assailant over friends, family and associates?
- Olderman
January 24, 2009 10:43AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Absolutely right.
The 9-11 hijackers used boxcutters, not guns, to steal airplanes, not missiles.
- richardsonkr
January 24, 2009 4:22PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Absolutely right indeed
I recall as a child (way back in the seventies) my parents driving a neighbor and his wife to the airport. They were going on vacation. When his turn came to board the plane he was asked to open his briefcase. When he did, I remember the sense of awe when I saw a holstered .38 special and his policemans badge.
Perhaps had someone like him been on those planes on 9-11, thousands of lives would have been saved.
- tcarpenterjr
February 18, 2009 5:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No... There really isn't.
You, as one who believes there is no place for physical violence in a civilized culture, may go ahead and use your stun guns, tasers, pepper sprays, etc. The world could use a few less of your kind. As someone who looks to the example of those who came before him, however, I see that there are plenty of places for physical violence in civilized culture. Rome, the antiquity's archetype of civilization, was built on violence. The Pax Romana, the closest our species has come to world peace, was achieved through war, conquest, intimidation, assassination, and crucifiction. As a person who believes that physical violence is a necessary part of civilized society, will keep my guns, and woul kindly request that you let me bring them to school with me to protect myself and those I love. President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Talk softly but carry a big stick." You don't even have to use that stick, you just have to let them know it's there. Nobody is going to attempt armed robbery when there is a good chance of armed resistance. No terrorist would have tried anything with box cutters (or anything else) if they knew a couple of people on that flight are packing heat. I just don't see pepper spray having the same effect.
- richardsonkr
January 24, 2009 4:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pepper spray? Tasers?
Ummm, there are a quite a few people, such as myself, that are not slowed by pepper spray or CS gas. When I was in the military I was one of those folks that was still 80% combat effective after being exposed to a high does of CS gas. 80% combat effective... now add rage to that since you just inflicted severe discomfort and you die.
Taser? Come on, those are not exactly non-lethal either. There are several cases in court now due to DEATH caused by tasers. And pepper spray? Ummm I have seen people continue the fight literally undeterred by pepper spray. I am one of those people.
Sorry but you want to defend yourself against an ARMED assailant with non-lethal and short distance weapons? You die. You need to understand something, if someone comes in shooting (which is against the LAW as is MURDER!) then just how much of a chance do you think you will have with your non-lethal defense? Both weapons require you to be within 10 feet to be even remotely effective. You die.
So you will be one that the cops will come in and stuff into a body tag when it's all over. They will see your mace in one hand and your taser in the other. Nice not knowing you.
- GlockG20
March 16, 2009 11:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There's a safer way???
Naumadd, I'm not against anyone that thinks there shouldn't be alternatives to lethal force. But consider this, How many times have you heard of an assailant or theif or serial rapist that got out of prison and didn't turn right around and return to their old "habits"? How many time can you tase an attaker before the police arrive? How long do you think it would take for a the guy that broke into some ones house, tried to rape them but were sprayed with pepper spray to wait until he regained his vision and skipped over two or three blocks or even skipped town and finally succeded with his task? I'll agree, alternative measures sometimes may be all it takes to deter violence. But I'd rather be able to take comfort in the fact that I, 1. protected myself and, 2. potentially saved someone elses life.
My pro-gun beliefs are not just intended for my own protection or preservation, but I as an idividual feel it is my civic duty to protect a total stranger if the need arises.
- cjlee
April 28, 2009 4:33PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There are no "non-lethal" weapons
Stun guns , Tasers and pepper spray can and have killed people and there is the little problem of getting close enough to effectively use less than leathal options, while your intended target is shooting at you.
- longshotM14
July 15, 2009 1:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Personal Safety In The Classroom
So I'm sitting here in class (was a student, now a teacher), some kid pulls a gun on me. I'm a law-abiding, qualified citizen. What am I to do?
Option A), I don't have the ability to carry a handgun and get my butt blown off the face of the earth because I'm defenseless.
Option B), I have a weapon that I only intend to use in dire emergencies and can defend myself when I need to. I have a better chance at survival.
Hmmm...seems like a no-brainer to me.
- bagpiper2005
October 1, 2008 7:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think it would make college campuses less safe
This is a tough decision for me, but I would have to say students should not be allowed to carry concealed firearms on campus. Let me qualify that by saying I strongly support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. In this case, however, there are too many potential problems to warrant such a policy being enacted.
First, most people simply lack the proper training to carry weapons. There would inevitably be people who would show off their shiny new pistols, and someone would get hurt. Then, not many people are expert marksmen. If a firefight ensued, I'd wager that some individual would "go Rambo" and start shooting everything in sight. If not that, then the stress of being shot at would relegate most people's training to the scrapheap, making them dangerous. In a firefight, one must make a split-second decision to acquire and fire. The stress might cause people to shoot the wrong person.
Then you have the issue that possessing a weapon might actually turn someone into a target. Having that weapon might make someone feel invincible and heroic. They may stand their ground in hopes of "saving the day," instead of retreating when doing so might make more sense. this definitely increases the likelihood of the attacker focusing on the individual pointing a weapon at him/her, and killing them.
Probably the worst thing about allowing concealed weapons on campus is that it is a double-edged sword. Just like someone can carry for defense, someone else can carry for offensive purposes! Concealed carry could actually make it easier to get a weapon on campus in order to carry out a massacre. I guess the only thing that concerns me about this line of reasoning is that it isn't too hard to sneak a weapon on to most college campuses to begin with...still, I think allowing concealed carry on college campuses is a bad idea.
- PSYOP
October 29, 2008 9:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Generally those that carry for offense are criminals
Okay, I'll play! You say it's a tough decision then go on to say no the students don't have the right to carry. Then you go on to state that “most people simply lack the proper training to carry weapons.” Do you know what it takes to get a CCW?
1.Applicant must be 21 years of age or older
2.Applicant must be a law-abiding citizen of good character
3.Applicant has not been convicted of a felony
4.Applicant has not been convicted of any crime of violence
5.Applicant has not been convicted of any offense involving the use of alcohol (If it was more than 5 years ago, you may qualify for the permit.)
6.Applicant has not been convicted of any offenses involving the unlawful use of drugs or other controlled substances (If it was a misdemeanor more than 10 to 15 years ago, you may still qualify for the permit.)
7.Applicant has not been convicted of any offenses involving moral turpitude
8.Applicant has not been convicted of any offense involving domestic violence
9.Applicant has not been adjudicated by a court of a state or of the United States as mentally incompetent, unless the adjudication has been withdrawn or reversed.
10.Applicant must perform a handgun safety handling session before a Utah CCW instructor unless the student as at least one of the following:
* Certificate from NRA Basic Pistol course
* Law enforcement experience
* Certification as an NRA Firearms Instructor
Handgun training in military service
Some states require a psychological examination as well. So it's not just some person willy nilly getting the permit and your fears are unfounded.
Then you go on to state that many people are not expert marksmen... private citizens have been shown to make fewer mistakes in identifying an assailant and then hitting said assailant than the police.
You CLAIM that the stress of shooting will cause a private citizen to shoot the wrong person... and yet there are very few documented cases when compared to accidental police shootings. http://www.policeone.com/police/products/articles/116587 /
http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
I carry CCW... noone knows and the last thing I am looking for is to get into a gun fight. Every other CCW holder I know is of the same mentality. I think you have watched way too much TV my friend. Owning and carrying a weapon is a very big responsibility and it is not taken lightly by any of us that carry.
Anyhow your premise that an attacker will focus on an armed resister... patently wrong. In over 80% of cases recorded, when confronted by an armed resister armed assailants decide they want to be somewhere else and quick and they will leave in a hurry without ever engaging the armed resistance. Go here to get some real life stories of people actually defending themselves... http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Probably the worst thing about allowing concealed weapons on campus is that it is a double-edged sword. Just like someone can carry for defense, someone else can carry for offensive purposes! Concealed carry could actually make it easier to get a weapon on campus in order to carry out a massacre. I guess the only thing that concerns me about this line of reasoning is that it isn't too hard to sneak a weapon on to most college campuses to begin with...still, I think allowing concealed carry on college campuses is a bad idea.
Double edged sword? Think this through and read the following very carefully, people that bring unlawful (no legal CCW) onto campus are the ones that have the ill intent. There has not been one recorded incident of a CCW initiating any type of massacre. Not one, your fear is unfounded.
Illegal carriers tend not to pay attention to those things called laws. That's why law abiding citizens with a CCW are so effective a deterrent. Now think about this real hard, you want to "make a name" for yourself by killing as many as you can then capping yourself.
Now if your intended victims are all unarmed and you know this, then you know that you can succeed and since schools are stupid because they tell students to play dead or not fight back. In other words instead of teaching survival skills they are training students to be lambs at the slaughter. Anyhow so since there is no credible threat, they can go on killing spree and most likely succeed.
Now the same scenario but the rules are changed in that the targets you have selected have the right to carry. You don't know who is packing and who isn't. Your odds of getting far are pretty slim. Slaughter is stopped before it even happens, and not one person had to pull a gun. Just the thought that armed resistance was a real possibility would be enough for any rational person.
Oh and last bit, almost every massacre in the United States and Europe (Germany just had another one... and they have strict gun control!) has happened in a gun free zone. Think about that next time you go someplace where guns are not allowed...
- GlockG20
March 16, 2009 11:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Concealed Carry Would Make Campuses Safer
Just as in our neighborhoods, there are not enough campus police officers to protect every individual student, nor is that their job. Most states that allow concealed carry allow any law-abiding citizen 21 and older to carry. If we believe 21 is the magic age then why not allow a college student that is 21 to protect themselves if they so choose. Concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law abiding citizens in the nation and there are numerous cases when CHP holders have stopped an attack without firing a shot. College campuses are safe but in those rare instances when an attack occurs, an armed student can save lives.
- vssa
November 12, 2008 8:13AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It Doesn't Seem Safe
I don't know much about this situation, but I think carrying concealed weapons would precipitate more accidents and violence, although, I suppose it depends on the type of weapon or the definition of "weapon". But, broadly, I think we should keep weapons out of schools.
- nonplus22
February 8, 2009 8:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not Even Close
I mean come on, you hear about students that carry a gun to school illegally and shut other students. You also hear about students that have "hit lists" but have never done anything about it. Letting them carry a gun would just make it that much easier for someone to shoot people on their "hit list".
- AW2010
February 11, 2009 9:16AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
HMM
Allowing students to carry weapons would provide them with self defense, however it would also give the shooters easier access to shooting. I do think it would be safer if they could carry weapons because if a shooter is gonna do a shooting they are gonna get the gun and shoot no matter what. So it would be nice for people to be able to defend themselves.
- kumquat
February 11, 2009 11:54AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gotta love the Liberal emotional decision making!
Sorry but after reading many of the pathetic comments in response this topic, I have to wonder about the intellectual capacity of the people making the comments. First off it has been proven on many occasions that guns are not the problem and that more guns in the hands of Law Abiding citizens actually deters crime. You don't have to take my word for it, do your due diligence and go no further than the FBI crime statistics and right to carry states.
Your fear of guns stems from a complete ignorance of facts which is readily displayed in many of the postings here. It would behoove you to actually do some research on the subject at hand before your write something that will be published for public scrutiny. And keep in mind when you go to battle based on emotional hearsay with no facts, you generally lose.
Fact 1. Your math is incorrect. Again I refer to actual crime statistics and right to carry comparisons. Every state, county, city that has restrictive gun control has a higher violent crime rate than those that exercise right to carry. And again that is based on facts in evidence from the FBI, not some emotional knee jerk reaction... as 99% of the anti-gun rhetoric is wont to be.
Fact 2. Gun control does not solve the problem, education does. Watch these three clips and begin to understand your stance is one of ignorant emotional fear.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT9SIkQw - John Stossel 20/20
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA - Canada's failed gun control
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec - England's failed gun control
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A&NR=1 - The woman is on the phone with the POLICE! When she has to use her recently acquired hand gun to save her life. Proof that when you have a choice between 911 and 1911... 1911 is a sure fire way to stay alive.
Fact 3. Over 2,000,000 crimes are deterred annually by legally armed citizens. Again these facts can be verified by FBI crime data.
I am not going to provide you with the links to the FBI crime data because you can easily find it yourself. That is if your are truly an open minded individual that is ready to accept that maybe your stance is not only based on lies but untenable at best.
Thing is I can pretty much with a 99% certainty guarantee you won't even watch any of the videos provided either Mainly because most Liberals I have run into cannot and will not deal with facts. They would rather deal in emotion and use yelling and name calling to attempt to derail a debate or argument that is going against them. Saw that when Ron Paul was kicking arse in the debates, and again with Obama and McCain. Anyhow you will continue to cower in fear due to your ignorance, which you could easily remedy by doing some solid fact searching, while good honest law abiding citizens are out there protecting you by exercising their right to carry.
The bottom line is you and your agenda are not the solution, you are part of the problem. But you are incapable of admitting or seeing that since you use emotion instead of logic, reason and intelligence guide your through life. Too bad too, you are in a position to actually provide a solution through education, but you chose instead to use fear. Just like the last administration did and the current one will continue to do.
Sincerely a law abiding gun owner and a veteran.
- GlockG20
February 25, 2009 7:38PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not the guns.
It would help but there is a simpler cost free solution.
In June of 2008 a video game playing temp worker in Japan rented a two ton truck, drove it into a crowd, jumped out and stabbed seventeen killing seven. He could not get a gun.
It's not the guns or video games. It's a problem discovered and solved forty years ago, Sublminal Distraction.
Telling schools and students about Subliminal Distraction and Cubicle Level Protection would prevent these mental events leading to shootings.
The cubicle was the solution when these mental breaks appeared in offices after a design change in workspace.
Contact your school administration and send them to my site. Every student should have this information,
http://VisionAndPsychosis.Net
- Researcher
April 21, 2009 12:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reality Check
"The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. It's documented that they had guns . They built the first schoolhouse in 1625. We went about 350 years in this country before there was a school shooting . Obviously, guns aren't the problem."
--James Gregory
Myth: Gun availability is what is causing school shootings
Fact: Schoolyard shootings have been occurring since at least 1974, so it is not a new phenomenon due to increases in gun ownership. Fact: More than ½ of these terrorists start thinking about their assaults two or more weeks before the shooting, and ¾ planned-out their attacks. Thoughts: In rural areas, guns are everywhere and children are taught to shoot at young ages – yet these areas are almost devoid of schoolyard shootings. Clearly, availability is not the issue.
copied from http://www.gunfacts.info /
These facts should not be surprising. Gun-free zones are magnets for killers bent on maximizing their body count. These "Gun-Free Zones are literally "Victim Preserves"!
- ursamajor2004
June 18, 2009 8:27AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sure, why not
In the grand scheme of things does it really matter? I mean, if someone wants to carry one concealed they will, permit or not. Just like getting a gun to begin with, the laws mean nothing to a criminal and they will carry one regardless of any law on the books. Its the law abiding citizens that end up getting screwed, or killed because they could not defend themselves against the criminal that could care less. So, lets quit having fear of the unknown. I myself have a conceal and carry(but hardly ever carry it) and part of the process is to take an education class and at that point it is the instructors duty to pass/fail as applicable. After this class, the individual should at least know how to handle the weapon safely and responsibly.
I feel that if any criminal had any intentions of going into a classroom to do ill will and he knew that it was legal and very possible that he could be outnumbered and out gunned by the students themselves, I believe the criminal would think twice if he knew what he was going up against in the beginning. Just like terrorists will probably not hijack a plane again for the fear of the passengers turning on them. Same principal.
Then there is the other point. In order to get a permit, the first requirement is that the person be 21. Now, if I am not mistaken people that are 21 and in college are pretty much a minority and about ready to graduate anyways, the majority would be the ones under 21 and they cannot get a carry conceal to begin with. So allowing students to carry conceal on campus would be relatively a very small number in consideration to the entire student population.
- rkm
July 29, 2009 12:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I have an idea
How about Teachers/Student's can apply for a concealed weapon's license on school grounds from that point they go through a scanning that checks criminal record, family history, and mental stability. If they pass the screening then they go to a week long gun control /safety course. That way it reduces the risk of gang members or mentally insane people being able to carry a gun on campus. Maybe 1/4 of student population and 1/2 of teacher/staff population is able to carry a weapon on campus?
- Dylandts
August 15, 2009 8:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How is that different?
I fail to see how this is different then obtaining a concealed weapons permit in most states already? All states require a background check, most require you to have no history of mental illness(I am assuming this is all states but I couldn't find statutes for all 50 states so I am just saying most), you must be 21 or older, and most states require some type of firearms safety course before you can get a permit. So the chance of gang members and those that are mentally insane getting a permit anyways are incredibly remote if not impossible already. You are just adding another layer of ridiculous requirements onto something we are supposed to have a right to anyways.
You also forget that those who wish to carry a weapon illegally on campus will do it no matter what the law says, so those that are going to get permits aren't the ones you need to worry about. Those gang members and/or mentally insane wont go through all those requirements they will just carry on campus anyways, they don't care what the laws are. If they are planning on hurting or killing someone why would they care about the laws saying they aren't allowed to carry a weapon on campus?
As for the population numbers you must remember that the ratio of concealed weapon permit carriers and normal citizens is about 1 out of 100. So while I believe campus would be safer if over a 1/4 of campus carried as you propose it would never happen. Also you have to take in account the fact that you have to be 21 to obtain a permit so that takes about 80% of the student population out of the equation to begin with. That doesn't even bring in the part about why you are restricting the rights the other half of teachers (or 3/4 of students). What makes them any different from the others? Also why do you believe teachers deserve their rights more than the student body? Like I have said on here before what makes a 27 year old first year teacher different or more deserving of their right to defend themselves than a 25 year old veteran coming back to school?
I am not saying its a completely bad idea its just that everything you stated is already being done at a state level so why repeat it. Its just another level of government restriction on our right to keep ourselves safe.
- tenmaster96
September 6, 2009 2:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well
I agree why shouldn't we all be allowed to carry a concealed weapon on campus. I believe everyone should have that right. But what I meant was more along the lines of lowering the age requirement for college student's just so everyone can have that security if they so choose.
- Dylandts
September 26, 2009 9:33PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
time is a MAJOR factor
In times of need, such as self-defense , when seconds count you can count on help being minutes away. If you are not in a city, make that hours.
Now maybe we need to outlaw crimes? Or even punish those who do them?
- Explorer1
November 13, 2009 12:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Responsibly Armed
How about the drunks, wasted, and incompetents remain unarmed and the rest of us stay armed. A lot of us carried about far more dangerous ordnance in Iraq and elsewhere in defense of our country. We should be allowed to exercise our constitutional right to keep and...bare...arms here at home. Gun control is useless and about dead. Remember, 45+ states already allow for the concealed and/or open carrying of arms by law abiding citizens. According to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, those areas experienced a reduction in violent crime with no increase in accidents. The problem now are the so-called “gun-free” zones like college campuses, military bases, shopping malls, elder and child care centers, offices and other work places where mass shootings still occur.
- OIFtoUSC
November 17, 2009 8:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
yes, for the most part
i agree that licensed people's who already carry their weapon's rights to protective themselves should not cease simply because they cross over into a university setting. they have the right to protect themselves and having trained armed people may deter shooters or stop one in progress, and given the difficulty it takes to get a CCW the liklyhood of these people commiting the crime is very low if not non existant. and the shooter who is bent on shooting is going to obtain their weapon legally or not, and armed people would really be an asset in protecting everyone. however, there is one problem that may or may not arise with allowing the carrying of conceled weapons on campus: there are many people who have guns legally or not, who do not have a CCW. however if the presence of liscensed gun carriers increases in a campus setting those who have a gun and do not have a lisence may negate the fact that they need a liscense and have it on there person anyway. it is these people who we need to worry about because they are the ones that might misfire do to inexperience or the ones that "got drunk at a party" as previousally mention. i do support liscensed carriers having guns on campus but i can see this problem emerging from it.
- munchkin15sec
December 15, 2009 3:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.