Concealed carry on university campuses

[MCXL]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

 

How do you determine who's the loony shooting up the college and who's the responsible firearm owner when all hell breaks loose?

Do you, as a responsible firearm owner, shoot the guy across the yard who's waving a Glock around or is he doing the same as you?

 

A far better compromise, IMO, would be to introduce teams of people (made from the faculty and student body) who ARE authorised to carry firearms and also trained to work together and do stuff like guide people to safety and brief the police when they arrive etc.

 

I'm pretty sure this is the idea behind campus police...

 

*EDIT*

Beyond that, personally, I'd feel less comfortable at a school where I KNOW any idiot could be legally carrying a gun rather than at a school where I'm unarmed and open to the 1 in a million threat of a school shooting.

Agreed.

[Wayneard3413]

The PD does a pretty good job patrolling around, so it seems unnecessary to me.

 

If you are comfortable with the thought of expecting someone else to be responsible for your safety and well being then thats fine... Some of however understand that the only person that is solely interested in your safety is yourself

 

I know it is cliche to say but "When seconds count the police are only minutes away"

 

Im glad that my current status allows me to carry concealed anywhere across the country but i have to say that no matter the circumstances i would never go somewhere without the ability to defend myself and those around me

 

Forget about the stereotypical VT massacre situation and think about the current incident with the scrote who decided to behead a girl in the middle of a coffee shop... 7 people were able to be great witnesses but apparently couldnt do anything to save that young girls life

 

Think of the outcome that could have happened if just one of them were armed AND trained in the responsible carry of a weapon (to the above poster referencing their cop buddy getting shot with his weapon after handing it to a drunk person, all i can say is Burger King is hiring because thats where he belongs)

[slu]

I personally do not think that more guns is the solution. A nut will still shoot people and if they know you are carrying...they will shoot you first!

 

If everyone carries and everyone knows how to use what they carry, the nut will have a much shorter life expectancy than if no one had a weapon. How many lives will that save? If everybody decides to be a hero in such a situation, I don't know. But honestly, I'd feel better in such a situation if I were armed, who wouldn't.

 

Both sides of the argument have their faults: those for "gun-free" zones, well, you can't always rely on the police. Those for arming all students, well, you can't expect accidents to not happen.

 

IMHO, the solution is to allow CCW with training, but the alcohol issue a lot you mentioned makes it seem like a bad idea.

 

sekiryu:

 

The age depends on your state. Where I am, it doesn't matter how old you are, you're probably not going to get a permit for CCW.

 

meppie:

 

You make a good point. I think, at least in college campuses, it will be the minority that will carry weapons if given the right, a rather self-selecting minority, I would believe. I would also suspect that those who honestly wish to legitimately carry firearms to protect themselves also would tend to train and be competent. Not only the the technical sense of "competent," as in the proper stance or grip, but the realization that firing a weapon at some person is not something to be taken lightly.

 

I'm not saying what you describe would not happen, I just think, maybe hope, that those who decide to take action during something like a VT are competent and responsible enough to do so.

 

What would really be dumb is to require carry. Almost as dumb as openly declaring places "gun free zones."

 

Stealthbomber:

Beyond that, personally, I'd feel less comfortable at a school where I KNOW any idiot could be legally carrying a gun rather than at a school where I'm unarmed and open to the 1 in a million threat of a school shooting.

 

As opposed to any idiot illegally carrying? I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. I see your point, had such a law not been introduced, certain idiots would not have been motivated to carry.

 

 

[Wayneard3413]

Here is my look at the VT shooting.... You have students that had no option other than to hide in a classroom and wait it out

 

Im not saying that students should attempt to gun down the attacker (although thats always an option) but if your hiding in a classroom wouldnt you feel better if at least one person in the room was armed?

 

Active shooters are like terrorists, they WILL kill you... If you are there and not capable and willing to defend yourself then you are going to die... The answer is to aggressively eliminate the threat

 

I couldnt imagine laying there helpless as some POS proceeded to walk along shooting people one by one without fear since its a "gun-free zone".... Gun-free zones do nothing but assure killers that no law abiding citizen there can fire back at them

[Kraut]

I'm on the fence with this issue. I agree that it would prevent massacres and other armed robberies, however I see an age and maturity problem:

 

CCW, or owning a handgun in general, requires you to be 21. Just by guessing, half of the college demographic is between 17 and 20. Not legal for handgun ownership, or a CCW. 21 is also the legal age for drinking. "Dry" campuses don't really do a good job keeping alcohol away from the students on campus (at least here). And we all know how drunk college students can get.

 

In order for this to work, the requirements for college CCW should be different, more involved, and nationally standardized unlike the standard CCW.

Nationalized CCW is just wrong. Currently it is up to the States, and that is the way it should be. When you start nationalizing things, you get messes.

On the 'maturity problem', is there currently a problem with 21 year old gun owners? I'm 21. I love to drink. I also love to shoot. I never mix the two. Why should I be penalize for something someone else may or may not do? Please cite incidents where alcohol led to massive firefights. Now please cite incidents where alcohol lead to fatality from drunk driving. You're pointing out a non-existent problem.

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

 

How do you determine who's the loony shooting up the college and who's the responsible firearm owner when all hell breaks loose?

Do you, as a responsible firearm owner, shoot the guy across the yard who's waving a Glock around or is he doing the same as you?

 

A far better compromise, IMO, would be to introduce teams of people (made from the faculty and student body) who ARE authorised to carry firearms and also trained to work together and do stuff like guide people to safety and brief the police when they arrive etc.

 

 

Considering armed students have apprehended an active shooter before, I think again you're bringing up a non-existent problem.

There are people of authority who carry weapons on campus. They're known here as 'cops'. But it's been said again and again, they're not everywhere and they're not your personal bodyguard. Frankly, I don't trust half the cops anyway. A lot couldn't tell you the name of the manufacturer of their sidearm. Also, the rate at which they hit innocent bystanders is much much MUCH higher than lawful citizens.

 

*EDIT*

Beyond that, personally, I'd feel less comfortable at a school where I KNOW any idiot could be legally carrying a gun rather than at a school where I'm unarmed and open to the 1 in a million threat of a school shooting.

ANY idiot? Any idiot who purchased a firearm, took safety training, took CCW training? That idiot? Yeah, sure. Ok. Keep building those strawmen.

 

[Chimpy]

A far better compromise, IMO, would be to introduce teams of people (made from the faculty and student body) who ARE authorised to carry firearms and also trained to work together and do stuff like guide people to safety and brief the police when they arrive etc.

 

Now this is a totally great idea but one that would only work if such people were given the ability to do so. Which is what this thread is about.

 

The inability to identify a fellow CCW permit holder versus an active shooter is an interesting thing to ponder. I'm not sure as a thought experiment you can really 'game' it. Do you wait to see if they start shooting people or challenge them or anything in between? There is certainly more options than the false dichotomy you present between shoot and not shoot.

 

As a secondary point your characterisation of 'any idiot' is I think unfair as generally it's not 'any idiot' carrying a gun it's someone who has invested time, money and considerable personal information to do so. As I mention before the idea that if everyone can obtain guns only morons will have them is a total fallacy. It's easy to only consider the worse case scenario but that ignores the actual chances of that case occurring, A sensible risk analysis would look at the current issues surround CCW permits in the USA and then attempt to apply it to the particular situations found on campus. Not imaginary situations you can conjure up.

 

meppie - Can you point to a single example of what you suggest (people pulling guns and blatting each other down) has actually happened? Otherwise it's just an poor appeal to probability as I'm sure you are aware. Just because something can happen doesn't mean that it will.

 

sekiryu - As far as I'm aware people aren't talking about changing state law to do with age restrictions and are talking about allowing CCW on campus. That may well discount most of the student body but certainly doesn't exclude older students and staff.

[sekiryu]

Do you, as a responsible firearm owner, shoot the guy across the yard who's waving a Glock around or is he doing the same as you?

 

If he's waving it, no. If he's pointing it at you with intent to shoot, yes.

 

Nationalized CCW is just wrong. Currently it is up to the States, and that is the way it should be. When you start nationalizing things, you get messes.

On the 'maturity problem', is there currently a problem with 21 year old gun owners? I'm 21. I love to drink. I also love to shoot. I never mix the two. Why should I be penalize for something someone else may or may not do? Please cite incidents where alcohol led to massive firefights. Now please cite incidents where alcohol lead to fatality from drunk driving. You're pointing out a non-existent problem.

 

I guess being a sane gun owner automatically puts me on the anti-gun shitlist, despite the fact I'm a gun owner just like you.

 

Messing things up by nationalizing? I see a mess by not nationalizing it. Your CCW is valid in this state, this state, and this state, but not valid in these states. In this state, you can walk in, pay some money, and walk out with a permit. In this other state, you have to have mandatory classroom instruction and range practice. In that state way out there, you can open carry at 18 without a permit.

 

If college CCWs were to be allowed, we need madatory classroom instruction, range practice, and teaching of the laws concerning self-defense; when you can shoot and when you can't.

 

BTW, I'm 21, a gun owner, and I don't drink because the smell of yeast makes me want to vomit, and I have a liver disease.

[Kraut]

I guess being a sane gun owner automatically puts me on the anti-gun shitlist, despite the fact I'm a gun owner just like you.

No, but if you think that college students are going to start blazing away, then yes, you are on a list.

 

Messing things up by nationalizing? I see a mess by not nationalizing it. Your CCW is valid in this state, this state, and this state, but not valid in these states. In this state, you can walk in, pay some money, and walk out with a permit. In this other state, you have to have mandatory classroom instruction and range practice. In that state way out there, you can open carry at 18 without a permit.

I point to our school system as an example of nationalizing. Also, speaking from both a political and first-hand witness to the federal gov't, I really don't want them messing about with any of this. The less control over our rights, the better we'll all be. Or we could let the Federal gov't control it, and have our newly elected president do away with CCW as a whole. Great idea.

BTW, most CCW licenses that are acceptable in other states have higher criteria for application. A lax criteria CCW is not accepted in most states.

 

 

[sekiryu]

But there are states where lax criteria exist.

 

Now, I never said that college students would "blaze away" or cause a "firefight". From personal experience, I've seen how immature, stupid, and crazy college students can be. There is no 100% assurance that something won't happen.

[The Crunchy Bunny]

CCW is absolutly a good idea. on Collage Campus'. Accidental discharges raily if ever happen unless your using a flintlock for your CC weapon, or your using 90 year old rusty ammo somebody found in thier basement in Croatia. And anyway, if your weapon is holstered facing downwards, even if in the off chance it goes off, you probebly won't injure anyone except maybe your self. Campus shootings would greatly diminish because of this legislation. I mean, in one of the more recent campus shootings (I forget exactly which one) the dude walks casually out on to a stage during a lecture, pops off a few rounds, stands there, reloads, and continues. Anyone with even mediocere shooting skills could have eliminated the threat.

[TheMightAdam]

I believe that concealed carry is a right to protect oneself. You always have to think of it that way. We had a recent gun fight in our mall(gangbangers), they wernt after other people, just that person who had a grudge against them. Now think of yourself in that situation. Your walking into Best Buy and then all of a sudden shooting occurs. I personally wouldnt jump to be the hero/vigilante that people think guys with concealed carry will be. No, its there to protect yourself. Sure if you see that guy shooting/stabbing/beheading innocent civilians you can help, but that not the reason to get. The reason is so that you can GTFO with your life and screw all the rest of those high and mighty anti-gun people; the we're-too-safe-to-own-a-gun. They come second, because at the end of the day you/our girlfriend/wife/family are alive.

 

Also remember that guns don'y only have to be used against shooters, there are a bunch of crazy people in this world(Gray Hound) that want to kill people. I think I myself would rather be armed and never have to use it then hide in a hole while I see loved ones then myself killed. Just thoughts and oppinions.

 

One more thing Id like to point out is that there are many ways to kill people, someone with a truck can plough into your parade, someone can build a bomb, start stabbing people if thats their thing, or just use objects in the room to kill people.

 

Are crossbows banned in california yet? Seems like a better weapon that a gun.

[Azulsky]

From personal experience, I've seen how immature, stupid, and crazy college students can be. There is no 100% assurance that something won't happen.

 

And somehow this gets better as you get older?

[Danke]

This team would need a special name so you'd know who to call for.

 

I suggest "Firemen" since they'll be firing weapons, and men well because let's just be realistic.

 

I would have said to call them police too, but I hear the other police are touchy about who gets in the door.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

 

How do you determine who's the loony shooting up the college and who's the responsible firearm owner when all hell breaks loose?

Do you, as a responsible firearm owner, shoot the guy across the yard who's waving a Glock around or is he doing the same as you?

 

A far better compromise, IMO, would be to introduce teams of people (made from the faculty and student body) who ARE authorised to carry firearms and also trained to work together and do stuff like guide people to safety and brief the police when they arrive etc.

 

*EDIT*

Beyond that, personally, I'd feel less comfortable at a school where I KNOW any idiot could be legally carrying a gun rather than at a school where I'm unarmed and open to the 1 in a million threat of a school shooting.

[sekiryu]

And somehow this gets better as you get older?

 

For normal people, yes.

[Wayneard3413]

Of you can be a police officer at the age of 21 (18 in some places) and sign up for the military at the ripe old age of 17 im not buying into all of that... On the flip side i know plenty of 40 year olds i wouldnt trust with a sharp pencil

[Agent47]

But there are states where lax criteria exist.

 

Now, I never said that college students would "blaze away" or cause a "firefight". From personal experience, I've seen how immature, stupid, and crazy college students can be. There is no 100% assurance that something won't happen.

 

And I wonder how many of those "immature, stupid, and crazy" college students have the stones and coordination to actually pass a ccw exam and live fire test for licsencing, one error on the range, and the instructor has all the reasons to take them out...

 

as has been said before...ccw is self-selecting.

[DesertFoxRomel]

1) You are many times more likely to die of being hit by a car than an accidental discharge.

2) Cars are allowed on campus and driving licenses are not as heavily regulated as firearm licenses.

3) There are lots of idiots driving cars.

4) Stop worrying about everything and get on with your life.

Couldn't of said it better myself.

 

And the "real" statistical factor that there are more deaths by pedestrian and automobiles versus "accidental" discharges is because there are more cars in "use" then guns being fingered or out of their holsters.

 

Take my city...800,000 cars in use every day...versus 2000 pistols being carried. Of course there are going to be more fatalities for cars and peds.

 

I personally do not think that more guns is the solution. A nut will still shoot people and if they know you are carrying...they will shoot you first!

 

And yes, IMHO...cops are far more competent then the average CCW holders, because in some jurisdictions the CCW criteria is pretty pitiful. As a matter of fact, 26 days ago...an Officer I knew was shot in the arm by his own duty weapon. The individual that shot him was a CCW holder and wanted to "see" his duty piece. But, he failed in two of the four rules of gun safety in that incident immediately when he grabbed that pistol...it did not help per se that they were also both "drunk".

 

Hint, hint...college students likes to "enjoying a refreshing brew of grains more often then not..."

1. Getting a license to drive isn't as hard nor rigorous as getting a CCW nor the training to use a pistol. Those who care to get and pay for a CCW for personal protection tend to be more careful than the average person, and are often well trained in the use and safety of their weapon. The age range for drivers are from 16 and above, while a CCW holder is 21 and older. Yes, their are more cars on the road, but there are also lots of people on the road with anger issues, criminal records, and who have otherwise reckless behavior, who tend not to care nor are eligible to get a CCW.

 

2. CCW stands for CONCEALED WEAPON permit. A random criminal, mass murder, etc. won't know a CCW owner is armed unless he draws his piece or had a previous conversation where he tells him. The beauty of the CCW is that he or she can stop a nut with a gun before he can deal significant damage.

 

Don't forget that criminals will carry guns regardless of legality *since when felons can buy handguns legally anyway?*, and are afraid of armed citizens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg

 

3. Some cops are more well trained than others. The fact that they were violating the safety rules and that they were both drunk makes an accidental discharge inevitable, regardless if one is a CCW and the other is a cop.

Example:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDfNV9bJoSg

[Fin]

Building full of gun toting students? No thanks

[Azulsky]

When does it sink in. Just because it is legal, doesnt mean that everyone will carry. By that logic everyone in the USA has a CCW and actively carries. Do you not think after all of the school incidents we have had that some people dont illegally carry already? The only way you will get a building full of CCW college students is the National Convention of Collegiate CCW permit holders.

[Azubi]

I don't think it is those who are carrying legally that you should be worrying about. It is those who are carrying illegally that are the problem. You can restrict the law all you want but all this leaves is the law abiding citizens unarmed and unable to defend themselves and the criminals/murderers still armed.

[MCXL]

I'm 21. I love to drink. I also love to shoot. I never mix the two. Why should I be penalize for something someone else may or may not do?

 

College students are among the highst rates of "dangerous" drinking habits.

 

Please cite incidents where alcohol led to massive firefights. Now please cite incidents where alcohol lead to fatality from drunk driving. You're pointing out a non-existent problem.

 

How is a massive firefight even similar too drunk driving? This is one of those things that makes me scratch my head and go, "Really?"

 

Drinking and driving is Stupid.

 

Drinking and carrying a gun is Stupid.

 

It doesn't matter if the person even starts a entanglement. Alcohol makes your motor skills worse, this is a fact. If you cant hit your target, you shouldn't take the shot. Alcohol impairs your judgment. I for one, don't want a drunk guy too have a gun in his hands, anywhere NEAR me, even if hes trying too defend against some assailant. This is how you get incidents where he misses and hits some poor gal just sitting there, or whatever.

 

College students are not an Ideal group for CCW. I am a college student, Im in the process of getting a CCW, and I wouldn't DREAM of carrying on campus, because I wouldn't trust the other people there to do so.

 

I don't care how much training you have, the last thing I want is for someone who is emotionally unstable with a gun on campus. And anyone who has been in college (or a teenager for that matter) knows how emotionally volatile they can be.

 

Faculty on the other hand. If a faculty member was properly trained, and there was a refresher course 1 time a semester, I would be ok with teachers being ALLOWED to have/carry a gun if they wished. Most teachers would not do this, but that is there prerogative.

 

EDIT: I pre-apologize for my bad grammar and spelling, Ive had a bad week, its late, I'm emotionally volatile, and grammar is not a strong suite of mine.

[Chimpy]

But there are states where lax criteria exist.

 

Now, I never said that college students would "blaze away" or cause a "firefight". From personal experience, I've seen how immature, stupid, and crazy college students can be. There is no 100% assurance that something won't happen.

 

But this is already the case as there is nothing stopping college students that are old enough from making use of their CCW permit off campus. Since it doesn't and hasn't kind of points to this not being a very likely occurrence at all.

 

Building full of gun toting students? No thanks

 

Hi, this isn't an argument anyone is actually arguing in favour of. Nor is it a likely outcome of the legislation that we are discussing.

 

MCXL - You kind of shoot down your own point by admitting to be a college student who does appear emotionally mature enough to get a CCW permit. Hence this fallacious argument that college students are too immature to have one doesn't make any sense. Sure you might have someone immature buy a gun, pass the required exams and carry a pistol everyday *fruitcage* up and shoot someone else but that exact same situation can happen off campus now anyway. What's so magic about crossing the campus property boundary? You further shoot it down by suggesting faculty members (who have not been shown to be more emotionally stable) should be able to carry guns but admit most wouldn't choose to. Surely most college students wouldn't choose to carry either?

 

Your argument does have validity the other way around though as spree shooters are looking for an unprotected target (even on a military base the spree shooter went after people PT'ing who were unarmed) so having an area where it is guaranteed most people won't have guns versus anywhere else makes them a prominent target. Such events are thankfully themselves rare occurrences and the threat of crime is probably a better reason for carrying a gun. However there is a deterrence value there.

[meppie]

meppie - Can you point to a single example of what you suggest (people pulling guns and blatting each other down) has actually happened? Otherwise it's just an poor appeal to probability as I'm sure you are aware. Just because something can happen doesn't mean that it will.

Here we go again .... the asking for proof statement is there again.

The first sentence of my post is: "Possible and very fictional scenario (and lets hope it does not happen for real)". Therefor I am not referring to any past occurrence what so ever. So why should I provide you with any proof?

 

If you have to be 21 to be able to apply to a CCW permit. How many students are at the age of 21 or older at a campus? Can somebody enlighten me with what the general age of students is at an American university? Where I want to go is how large is the group of people that is 21 years or older and is going to apply for a CCW? And do you recon that group is large enough to give your campus adequate coverage against the "rogue violent student" on campus?

Like for the example where the student was beheading in the coffee-shop with 7 witnesses. 7 people is a real small percentage of the campus population. How big is your chance that one of these 7 witnesses is having a CCW permit?

 

So if you want to feel saver: how about giving more courses in self-defense like Aikidio or Krav Maga? There is no age-resriction for that. What if one of these 7 witnesses was average in Krav Maga then he/she could have disarmed that guy within the coffee-shop as well and safe the girl.

[Azubi]

Where I want to go is how large is the group of people that is 21 years or older and is going to apply for a CCW? And do you recon that group is large enough to give your campus adequate coverage against the "rogue violent student" on campus?

Like for the example where the student was beheading in the coffee-shop with 7 witnesses. 7 people is a real small percentage of the campus population. How big is your chance that one of these 7 witnesses is having a CCW permit?

 

If you go down that route of thinking then the idea that an entire room is gonna start pulling out thier concealed firearms and blasting each other away isn't gonna happen then, is it? You are pretty much saying hardly anyone will have CCW permits.

[Chimpy]

Here we go again .... the asking for proof statement is there again.

The first sentence of my post is: "Possible and very fictional scenario (and lets hope it does not happen for real)". Therefor I am not referring to any past occurrence what so ever. So why should I provide you with any proof?

 

Well I was really making the point that it was a poor appeal to probability. I recognised that you probably knew that in the sentence, "otherwise it's just an poor appeal to probability as I'm sure you are aware". It was a rhetorical way of saying that your point is bad as it exhibits poor logical deduction. I then went on to explain that this is the case as, "just because something can happen doesn't mean that it will". Therefore the idea of a massacre being set off between legal CCW holders is a bad argument against allowing CCW permit holders to carry on campus. I've also expanded this point in discussion with others pointing out that this doesn't occur off campus where people do carry concealed guns.

 

Your point about self-defense training is a good one. More people probably should take it and perhaps one of the people present would have overcome the bystander effect and done something about the murder. Seven people could have restrained the guy, probably whilst sustaining some injuries themselves but it would have required one of them to act in the first place. Very often people join in after they see someone taking a lead and self defense training could bestow the mindset that would see them acting rather than watching.