Concealed carry on university campuses

[Spedz]

Sorry to sound troll-tastic But I did and I failed in defending myself, but knowing the circumstances and the consequences a gun would of probably made it worst.

[Stealthbomber]

Ok man... side step the issue all you want

Eh?

 

What issue?

 

Point is your comfortable not being armed, fine so be it.... But im also willing to bet that you have never been in a situation in which you honestly had to defend yourself or those around you

Almost right. I have been to places where I have used firearms to defend myself.

 

However, I've also spent 20-odd years travelling to places like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Chad, Congo, Tanzania, Mozambique and New York without the need of a weapon.

 

I'll grant you that, where only your safety is at issue, it's up to each individual to decide whether to carry a gun or not.

Personally, I would almost always choose not to carry a gun simply because I'd rather not add to the potential for lethal violence.

 

However, the issue here is NOT simply one of "personal choice". It's a communal issue.

As I've also said before, it's like smoking. If I want to smoke then you're also free to not smoke.

If we're in a room together then our choices are mutually exclusive. If I smoke then you're forced to smell it. If you get your way then I'm denied my right to smoke.

Same thing applies to guns in public buildings.

If some people don't want to be around guns while they study then why should their POV be any less worthy than the POV of people who want the ability to defend themselves?

 

At the end of the day this IS a situation where the only fair answer is a genuine compromise.

That's why I suggest that the logical course of action would be that, in any public building, the only people who should be allowed to carry weapons would be people who are trained to respond in a crisis and who all know each other so there's no potential for mistaken identity during a crisis.

[Kraut]

Ignoring the rest of your trolling...

 

You guys have it all wrong.

 

As I'm sure you're aware, you have a constitutional right to arm yourself.

You DO NOT have a constitutional right to formal education though.

Consider that.

 

I'm also wondering how you get on with your need/right/duty to protect yourself when you travel abroad?

Or do you guys just stay home a lot?

I've only been to three countries; England, Ecuador, and Canada.

England was a school trip, we were in groups all the time. Plus I was 13 at the time.

Ecuador was a TDY. Again, traveled in groups.

Canada doesn't really count. It's pretty much a 51st state.

Sorry, but anywhere else is going to rip the bank apart (no, enlisted don't get paid well at all, bringing to mind car, insurance, bills, etc. Maybe if you sat in a dorm/barracks all day, you'll be rich), considering we don't have ten different nations within a few thousand miles of each other. Although some states could count as foreign countries...

 

None of those times I was armed. Nor do I travel around the US armed. In fact, I hardly travel armed at all. But I like having the option to be able to care for myself. I also like having the option to say what I think about the government, and the option not to say anything during police questioning, and the option to an attorney, and the option to worship as I see fit, etc etc etc.

 

Now, if you could come back to the topic at hand, which was the option to legally carry concealed weapons on a college campus (more specifically, a US campus in a state that permits CCW, in any fashion)...

 

 

[Stealthbomber]

...considering we don't have ten different nations within a few thousand miles of each other.

Mexico?

AFAIK, there's a whole continent below Texas.

 

None of those times I was armed. Nor do I travel around the US armed. In fact, I hardly travel armed at all. But I like having the option to be able to care for myself. I also like having the option to say what I think about the government, and the option not to say anything during police questioning, and the option to an attorney, and the option to worship as I see fit, etc etc etc.

That's the point, though, isn't it?

If you genuinely DO feel like you NEED to be armed all the time for self-defence then there's something of a conflict at work when you travel, isn't there?

You're either saying that it's actually not necessary to actually carry a gun or you're saying that the places you visit are less dangerous than the USA.

 

Now, if you could come back to the topic at hand, which was the option to legally carry concealed weapons on a college campus (more specifically, a US campus in a state that permits CCW, in any fashion)...

That is what I AM discussing from a number of different POVs. Try to keep up.

[Kraut]

Mexico?

AFAIK, there's a whole continent below Texas.

And it's totally not within my budget to go there. And I've been to South America. And I wish I was armed when I wasn't on base. But that's beside the point.

 

 

That's the point, though, isn't it?

If you genuinely DO feel like you NEED to be armed all the time for self-defence then there's something of a conflict at work when you travel, isn't there?

You're either saying that it's actually not necessary to actually carry a gun or you're saying that the places you visit are less dangerous than the USA.

Who said anything about being armed ALL the time, or even feeling a NEED?

If I go to a foreign nation, I abide by the laws of that nation, and hope that it's citizens abide those laws, too. Most European nations have laws against firearms, before even considering CCW, not to mention any other nations worth traveling to. Do I feel safer? Not really. But the best I can do is make myself less of a target and hope for the best.

Really, you seem to be creating false arguments.

 

 

That is what I AM discussing from a number of different POVs. Try to keep up.

No, your past posts were baiting Wayneard3413, not one was relevant to the topic. Also, I fail to see how traveling to Mexico is the same as going to Oklahoma State University. It's legal to conceal carry in Oklahoma, if you pass the required test (which includes firearm safety training and range time), you can be issued a CCW permit. But it's illegal to CCW on OSU, even with a state-issued permit. The argument is what difference does it make if you're in downtown Oklahoma City (legal) or the campus (illegal), in terms of CCW-holder's behavior?

[Agent47]

However, the issue here is NOT simply one of "personal choice". It's a communal issue.

As I've also said before, it's like smoking. If I want to smoke then you're also free to not smoke.

If we're in a room together then our choices are mutually exclusive. If I smoke then you're forced to smell it. If you get your way then I'm denied my right to smoke.

Same thing applies to guns in public buildings.

If some people don't want to be around guns while they study then why should their POV be any less worthy than the POV of people who want the ability to defend themselves?

 

At the end of the day this IS a situation where the only fair answer is a genuine compromise.

That's why I suggest that the logical course of action would be that, in any public building, the only people who should be allowed to carry weapons would be people who are trained to respond in a crisis and who all know each other so there's no potential for mistaken identity during a crisis.

 

Forgive me, I'm going to come off a bit blunt...

 

1 - Smoking. I can smell the smoke, and I can see the cigarette/pipe in your mouth, or in your hands - unless you have a more creative way of smoking and I don't want to know what that is. There's really no way for me to avoid it other than move out of the room. Unless you've got a jar of camphor on you, you aren't shutting off your olfactory senses whatsoever. With guns, you can just look away, and not even think about it. A lot of people in the US CCW everyday, including undercover cops, yet no one really is being set off by them unless they are freakishly paranoid and antigun. Heck no one is really set off by cops themselves - they carry guns, too. Campus cops walk around campus all day - no one gets bothered. Or better yet, as I've stated before, go ask the University of Utah people and see what they think - and please phrase the question correctly, too.

 

2 - Concealed weapons. The whole point, again, is "concealed." How do you know if it's there or not? You don't. Unless I tell you, or you touch it, or I accidentally flash it because my shirt is too short. You say restrict it in public buildings. Why don't you say, restrict it everywhere, because everywhere in the street is public domain. And you think some people don't want to be around guns. Then you say you want the compromise of having teams/police with the guns.

 

Well then that defeats your first argument. Some people are afraid of guns. Yet you say they'll trust them in the hands of trained individuals/cops. What makes them more trustworthy than a normal ccw carrier? If an ordinary citizen and a cop/team member get the exact same training, on the exact same frequency, on the exact same routine/drills, then what is the difference between them? It's the same knowledge. Just like this. I will be going to the Medical College of Virginia this fall. Apparently MCV is not as "good" as, like John Hopkins or Rice University or UCLA for medical education. It's good, but ranked below those universities by swanky news magazines. But we're taught the same medical knowledge everywhere. Should I not be allowed to practice medicine everywhere just because my diploma says "Medical College of Virginia" rather than "John Hopkins Medical School" because MCV isn't good enough? Should patients in an ER kick out doctors because they conveniently were all trained at Albert Einstein Medical College which is "not as good" as Northwestern? Just like that, permit holders received pretty damn similar firearms (and perhaps) training to a police officer, why are my rights restricted when their rights aren't?

 

3 - "Less worthy viewpoints" Every belief system has things that state that opposing viewpoints seem to be always less worthy for some odd reason. We can go back and forth about all the irrational/rational fears and sling mud all you want. Communal issue. Fine. But a community is always made of individuals who can think for themselves.

 

Another example. And I apologize in advance.

 

The Civil Rights movement + segregation. The irrational fear of African-Americans, and the irrational thought of inferiority. Slowly we got the attitudes changed around. But why was there such a huge struggle? Did people say, "What if people don't really want to be around black people, how are their viewpoints less worthy?" Well people really didn't know much better at the time. All that the African-Americans were really guilty of were, if you could call it that, a different melanin concentration and perhaps a different culture than the normal WASP culture. We can change minds, too with guns. Because there really is no reason to be scared of an inanimate object. To put this crudely, and perhaps making a stretch, this whole restriction on ccw, is akin to segregation. Put those who think differently away, and make a different lifestyle choice away, because we don't know much about them other than distortions and lies.

 

4 - Teams. Well actually I do have something to say about this. With all the war on terror stuff and homeland security hoopla, the government/agencies want to get civilians involved in helping out in case of a crisis, because, well, civilians are there. Civilians have shown up at drills (I am a former paramedic) to help out and learn, and paramedics, officers, firemen, are all trained to anticipate some level of civilian participation in a crisis. They train for every. single. possible. scenario. That's what makes them capable of responding to everything. That's what makes most of them extremely responsible and efficient individuals.

 

Better yet, go view this article about civilians and CPR - believe it or not, there was some resistance to this whole concept.

 

(Another thing: some public buildings/places actually do allow ccw, and nothing's gone wrong there since...state parks, stores, etc...)

 

I'm not sure if you know this, but the whole CCW on campus (and anywhere else) did not start with Tech alone. Or any of the school shootings. There has always been crime everywhere, and college campuses are no exception. The press, the antigunners, and the CCW people all ran with the images of massacres and ways to prevent them. More or less, to everyone's detriment. There should be no restriction on CCW anywhere, period. Personal defense is always associated with mano a mano (or several others) encounters, or perhaps dealing with a threat in a confined area and the threat is not exactly mobile. The book on dealing with active shooters is still being written - and there is a difference between just some robber with a gun and the actual active shooter - which is why there are even classes DEALING with active shooters for police officers.

 

More or less, what you also can do, (this is my own point of view), in an active shooter situation - unless you have a clear view of who did it - ie you SAW the dude pull the gun/knife, or stormed in firing, engage. You didn't see it? Don't draw. And get the heck out of dodge. Don't go looking for the guy. Get others to safety, and make it a little easier for the actual responders to assess the threat. If you can't ID your target, don't draw.

[Stealthbomber]

Who said anything about being armed ALL the time, or even feeling a NEED?

Erm, several people in this thread.

 

people want to arm themselves when they're in public areas. I'm going to assume this is to protect themselves.

 

I was making the point that people seek to arm themselves when they go to school but, by contrast, are happy to go unarmed in a foreign country.

It just seems, to me, that a person who sincerely believed that it was necessary to carry a gun in a school might be wary of travelling without one.

 

No, your past posts were baiting Wayneard3413, not one was relevant to the topic.

Blinkered, much?

"I don't agree, thus all your posts are trolling."

 

Newsflash: Other people have different opinions.

 

Also, I fail to see how traveling to Mexico is the same as going to Oklahoma State University.

Eh?

 

You said "considering we don't have ten different nations within a few thousand miles of each other" with reference to the reason why americans don't travel and I was pointing out that there's a whole south-american continent next door.

 

My comment was nothing to do with gun ownership. It was do do with geography and, specifically, the way you seemed to forget about the dozen or more countries right on your doorstep to the south.

 

It's legal to conceal carry in Oklahoma, if you pass the required test (which includes firearm safety training and range time), you can be issued a CCW permit. But it's illegal to CCW on OSU, even with a state-issued permit. The argument is what difference does it make if you're in downtown Oklahoma City (legal) or the campus (illegal), in terms of CCW-holder's behavior?

The difference, as I've said, is that in a public place then your actions have a limited impact on others whereas in a school your carrying a firearm can have a greater impact (both psychological and physical) on other people.

 

To put it bluntly, a lot of people would rather risk being caught in another Columbine rather than spending every day knowing that any person they meet might be armed. Whether that's a logical choice or not is debatable but, if the people who fund the schools want it that way then gun owners have no choice but to pack up their 2nd ammendment rights and go elsewhere.

 

perhaps the NRA should sponsor a college where CCW IS allowed?

[Agent47]

It just seems, to me, that a person who sincerely believed that it was necessary to carry a gun in a school might be wary of travelling without one.

 

The difference, as I've said, is that in a public place then your actions have a limited impact on others whereas in a school your carrying a firearm can have a greater impact (both psychological and physical) on other people.

 

To put it bluntly, a lot of people would rather risk being caught in another Columbine rather than spending every day knowing that any person they meet might be armed. Whether that's a logical choice or not is debatable but, if the people who fund the schools want it that way then gun owners have no choice but to pack up their 2nd ammendment rights and go elsewhere.

 

perhaps the NRA should sponsor a college where CCW IS allowed?

 

"wary of travelling without one"

 

Yes, I would be, but the thing is this - "law-abiding" goes a long way. Don't you think? Having a spotless record is something that every person who wishes to bear arms peaceable must do. Mostly voluntary, and somewhat by force. Because apparently every antigunner out there is chompin at the bit to find a peaceable gun owner who violates ANY law. "Law-abiding" - the double-edged sword.

 

And how is a school different from a public place?

 

"rather risk columbine than knowing that any person they meet might be armed." Well then the US must be full of these paranoid people then...except one is a situation where people WILL get hurt, and the other is a situation whereas absolutely NOTHING has occurred. It's their paranoia that they've placed on us wrongly, put back onto them where it originally came from.

[Stealthbomber]

Forgive me, I'm going to come off a bit blunt...

No need for apologies. I think your post is very well written.

 

1 - Smoking. I can smell the smoke, and I can see the cigarette/pipe in your mouth, or in your hands - unless you have a more creative way of smoking and I don't want to know what that is. There's really no way for me to avoid it other than move out of the room. Unless you've got a jar of camphor on you, you aren't shutting off your olfactory senses whatsoever. With guns, you can just look away, and not even think about it. A lot of people in the US CCW everyday, including undercover cops, yet no one really is being set off by them unless they are freakishly paranoid and antigun. Heck no one is really set off by cops themselves - they carry guns, too. Campus cops walk around campus all day - no one gets bothered. Or better yet, as I've stated before, go ask the University of Utah people and see what they think - and please phrase the question correctly, too.

 

2 - Concealed weapons. The whole point, again, is "concealed." How do you know if it's there or not? You don't. Unless I tell you, or you touch it, or I accidentally flash it because my shirt is too short. You say restrict it in public buildings. Why don't you say, restrict it everywhere, because everywhere in the street is public domain. And you think some people don't want to be around guns. Then you say you want the compromise of having teams/police with the guns.

 

Well then that defeats your first argument. Some people are afraid of guns. Yet you say they'll trust them in the hands of trained individuals/cops. What makes them more trustworthy than a normal ccw carrier? If an ordinary citizen and a cop/team member get the exact same training, on the exact same frequency, on the exact same routine/drills, then what is the difference between them? It's the same knowledge. Just like this. I will be going to the Medical College of Virginia this fall. Apparently MCV is not as "good" as, like John Hopkins or Rice University or UCLA for medical education. It's good, but ranked below those universities by swanky news magazines. But we're taught the same medical knowledge everywhere. Should I not be allowed to practice medicine everywhere just because my diploma says "Medical College of Virginia" rather than "John Hopkins Medical School" because MCV isn't good enough? Should patients in an ER kick out doctors because they conveniently were all trained at Albert Einstein Medical College which is "not as good" as Northwestern? Just like that, permit holders received pretty damn similar firearms (and perhaps) training to a police officer, why are my rights restricted when their rights aren't?

The metaphor regarding smoking is more psychological than physical.

 

At the end of the day you ARE (as I hope you'll concede) going to be some people, possibly a lot, who simply don't want to go to school with guns around, regardless of the physical presence of guns.

Surely you can see that, democracy being what it is, the wishes of the majority should be followed?

 

If a majority of students and teachers are happy with the idea of CCW, after objective consideration, then I guess that wish should be followed. If not then things should stay as they are.

 

Interestingly, I wonder what would have happened if this had been discussed the week after Columbine?

I wonder if people would have voted overwhelmingly for the right to defend themselves or not?

I wonder if, for example, an incident like that would cause a similar response in the USA and UK? I suspect that, in the UK, people would be crying out for less guns rather than more.

Please don't read anything into that comment. I just mentioned it because it popped into my head.

 

3 - "Less worthy viewpoints" Every belief system has things that state that opposing viewpoints seem to be always less worthy for some odd reason. We can go back and forth about all the irrational/rational fears and sling mud all you want. Communal issue. Fine. But a community is always made of individuals who can think for themselves.

 

Another example. And I apologize in advance.

 

The Civil Rights movement + segregation. The irrational fear of African-Americans, and the irrational thought of inferiority. Slowly we got the attitudes changed around. But why was there such a huge struggle? Did people say, "What if people don't really want to be around black people, how are their viewpoints less worthy?" Well people really didn't know much better at the time. All that the African-Americans were really guilty of were, if you could call it that, a different melanin concentration and perhaps a different culture than the normal WASP culture. We can change minds, too with guns. Because there really is no reason to be scared of an inanimate object. To put this crudely, and perhaps making a stretch, this whole restriction on ccw, is akin to segregation. Put those who think differently away, and make a different lifestyle choice away, because we don't know much about them other than distortions and lies.

It's nothing to do with "irrational fears".

It's simply that a person with a gun can directly affect the life of another person. If that other person doesn't want to be in an environment where that can happen then they should have that right... unless they elect to forego that right.

 

If a black person sits on a bus next to me it's not going to have any effect on me.

 

4 - Teams. Well actually I do have something to say about this. With all the war on terror stuff and homeland security hoopla, the government/agencies want to get civilians involved in helping out in case of a crisis, because, well, civilians are there. Civilians have shown up at drills (I am a former paramedic) to help out and learn, and paramedics, officers, firemen, are all trained to anticipate some level of civilian participation in a crisis. They train for every. single. possible. scenario. That's what makes them capable of responding to everything. That's what makes most of them extremely responsible and efficient individuals.

 

Better yet, go view this article about civilians and CPR - believe it or not, there was some resistance to this whole concept.

 

(Another thing: some public buildings/places actually do allow ccw, and nothing's gone wrong there since...state parks, stores, etc...)

 

I'm not sure if you know this, but the whole CCW on campus (and anywhere else) did not start with Tech alone. Or any of the school shootings. There has always been crime everywhere, and college campuses are no exception. The press, the antigunners, and the CCW people all ran with the images of massacres and ways to prevent them. More or less, to everyone's detriment. There should be no restriction on CCW anywhere, period. Personal defense is always associated with mano a mano (or several others) encounters, or perhaps dealing with a threat in a confined area and the threat is not exactly mobile. The book on dealing with active shooters is still being written - and there is a difference between just some robber with a gun and the actual active shooter - which is why there are even classes DEALING with active shooters for police officers.

 

More or less, what you also can do, (this is my own point of view), in an active shooter situation - unless you have a clear view of who did it - ie you SAW the dude pull the gun/knife, or stormed in firing, engage. You didn't see it? Don't draw. And get the heck out of dodge. Don't go looking for the guy. Get others to safety, and make it a little easier for the actual responders to assess the threat. If you can't ID your target, don't draw.

 

Interesting point regarding the whole CPR thing.

If only a school shooting was as easy to predict as the ABC of life and CPR.

That's my point. CPR training is a small thing which works on all people for a single event. What do you do if a person loses an arm? What if they're poisoned? What about if they're gasping for breath? Electrocuted?

More training is required, right?

 

Seriously, I'm trying to help here.

I think if all the under-25 gun owners in the USA lobbied their congressman for the right to take guns to school they'll get laughed out of town. I suspect the majority of parents (who pay the wages for the schools and their employees) might not be too keen either.

However, I think if somebody came up with a plan whereby a bunch of teachers and students were trained in various ways (medical, firefighting, evacuation and armed defence for example) then it'd be much more likely to gain approval.

 

In that case, everybody wins. Nutcases get the message that anybody in a school might be armed, students get safer schools, parents get minimal fear of uncontrolled presence of guns in schools and the emergency services get a huge dollop of proper assistance.

The only people who lose-out are those who just want the warm-fuzzy feeling they get from carrying a gun and, frankly, those people should never be allowed to own a gun in the first place.

[Stealthbomber]

And how is a school different from a public place?

 

The difference, as I've said, is that in a public place then your actions have a limited impact on others whereas in a school your carrying a firearm can have a greater impact (both psychological and physical) on other people.

 

To put it bluntly, a lot of people would rather risk being caught in another Columbine rather than spending every day knowing that any person they meet might be armed. Whether that's a logical choice or not is debatable but, if the people who fund the schools want it that way then gun owners have no choice but to pack up their 2nd ammendment rights and go elsewhere.

 

Round and round and round it goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

[Agent47]

No need for apologies. I think your post is very well written.

 

Then be prepared to accept more.

 

The metaphor regarding smoking is more psychological than physical.

 

At the end of the day you ARE (as I hope you'll concede) going to be some people, possibly a lot, who simply don't want to go to school with guns around, regardless of the physical presence of guns.

 

There are people who will always have a fear of something. These people are also capable of thinking for themselves. This is where education comes in.

 

Surely you can see that, democracy being what it is, the wishes of the majority should be followed?

 

And what happens to protection of the minorities? There is also a reason why democracy's main criticism is "mob rule."

 

If a majority of students and teachers are happy with the idea of CCW, after objective consideration, then I guess that wish should be followed. If not then things should stay as they are.

 

Interestingly, I wonder what would have happened if this had been discussed the week after Columbine?

I wonder if people would have voted overwhelmingly for the right to defend themselves or not?

I wonder if, for example, an incident like that would cause a similar response in the USA and UK? I suspect that, in the UK, people would be crying out for less guns rather than more.

Please don't read anything into that comment. I just mentioned it because it popped into my head.

 

Everyone tries to control the message. Governments. Activists. Organizations. Everyone. The truth is always lost in the struggle. I wonder who let the Bradys run their message of "redneck gun owners..."

 

It's nothing to do with "irrational fears".

It's simply that a person with a gun can directly affect the life of another person. If that other person doesn't want to be in an environment where that can happen then they should have that right... unless they elect to forego that right.

 

You don't need a gun to directly affect the life of another.

 

If a black person sits on a bus next to me it's not going to have any effect on me.

 

Well good. They didn't think that way 50 years ago. And some people are still stupid today.

 

Interesting point regarding the whole CPR thing.

If only a school shooting was as easy to predict as the ABC of life and CPR.

That's my point. CPR training is a small thing which works on all people for a single event. What do you do if a person loses an arm? What if they're poisoned? What about if they're gasping for breath? Electrocuted?

More training is required, right?

 

The active shooter scenario is in of itself, a single event. Training for it is only going to add another scenario to the roster, aside from personal defense.

 

Seriously, I'm trying to help here.

I think if all the under-25 gun owners in the USA lobbied their congressman for the right to take guns to school they'll get laughed out of town.

 

Which has happened before and not all have been laughed out of town...and think about it - many people pass through college campuses, not just students.

 

I suspect the majority of parents (who pay the wages for the schools and their employees) might not be too keen either.

 

However, I think if somebody came up with a plan whereby a bunch of teachers and students were trained in various ways (medical, firefighting, evacuation and armed defence for example) then it'd be much more likely to gain approval.

 

Then you will train EVERY SINGLE CCW holder in this nation how to deal with active shooters. And the training will be FREE OF CHARGE. That should teach the government on how to spend on a shoestring budget and quit throwing pork into bills. Unify EVERYTHING on CCW into one giant program. You train only a few and you will meet very stiff resistance, because CCWs want their rights protected wherever they go, and they want the rights extended to each other as much as possible.

 

In that case, everybody wins. Nutcases get the message that anybody in a school might be armed, students get safer schools, parents get minimal fear of uncontrolled presence of guns in schools and the emergency services get a huge dollop of proper assistance.

 

Or we can also win hearts and minds.

 

The only people who lose-out are those who just want the warm-fuzzy feeling they get from carrying a gun and, frankly, those people should never be allowed to own a gun in the first place.

 

Alright, this is where I'm going to try and figure out all this "trolling" stuff. You think it's just a different opinion but look at the way you say it. Everyone tells you to be tactful, and say different things when appropriate. You see a girl with big boobs, well you don't say "LOOK AT THOSE MAGUMBOS" and make like Krusty the Klown but you could say "dear you are quite well endowed" and you probably would be fine. You also have loaded words in some of your arguments which can probably set off a few people. In the CCW's case, there's a ton of loaded words, and more that can be turned into loaded very easily.

 

Try not to be too condescending, if you really wanted a civil world (I don't claim a halo for myself), do be considerate, and know what really is going on in the first place.

 

 

That is what I AM discussing from a number of different POVs. Try to keep up.

 

Well, you do imply that someone's a little slow...come on now. People don't like their intelligence to be insulted...I think. You can say "thin skin" but everyone has their pet peeves.

 

I'm trying to help here

 

Help, with what? I don't know about others but some do feel like kids when it comes to that statement.

 

Warm-fuzzy feeling

 

You might want to clarify that, I feel "good" when carrying because I know I have an effective tool I can use when danger arises. I do feel slightly "helpless" without it, but it's something we all can manage. I'm not some psycho who wants to murder everyone in my way. However, people latch onto the idea of "sickos fingerbanging guns" or the "penile insecurity" falsehood way too quickly - which undoubtedly riles up many ccw people.

 

Go read what happened here. Look for the commentor named "Tom Ferda." Now read this. In short, you coming dangerously close to what Mr. Ferda is doing, and look at the responses he got.

 

[Wayneard3413]

It's simply that a person with a gun can directly affect the life of another person. If that other person doesn't want to be in an environment where that can happen then they should have that right... unless they elect to forego that right.

 

Not to be a ###### here but no, they dont... Why should i give up my second amendment right because someone is uncomfortable with it or doesnt like it?

 

Im not asking to be able to walk around with a rifle or carbine all day... I have been carrying everyday for quite awhile now and most people who i have been around everyday never knew i was carrying (including my ex for the first 4 months we were seeing each other)

 

I have had to work security while ###### white supremacists held a rally... Do i wish i could have beat their dumb asses over the head with a blunt object? Of course, but its their right to say all that ######

 

 

 

 

[Chimpy]

As I'm sure you're aware, you have a constitutional right to arm yourself.

You DO NOT have a constitutional right to formal education though.

Consider that.

 

This is mostly handled by State Constitutions along with other issues like affordable housing. Arguments about whether these things are better done at the State or Federal level would be an interesting discussion for another thread.

 

Also how about addressing the topic. CCW rights exist in most states and this is about extending the ability for people who have the permit to do so on campus. Raising side issues about foreign travel or the validity of CCW at all are completely at odds to the topic. So rather than dragging this completely off-topic and making it "just another gun carrying thread" we might actually hit new ground rather than rehashing the same tired arguments.

 

You do address it here:

The difference, as I've said, is that in a public place then your actions have a limited impact on others whereas in a school your carrying a firearm can have a greater impact (both psychological and physical) on other people.

 

To put it bluntly, a lot of people would rather risk being caught in another Columbine rather than spending every day knowing that any person they meet might be armed. Whether that's a logical choice or not is debatable but, if the people who fund the schools want it that way then gun owners have no choice but to pack up their 2nd ammendment rights and go elsewhere.

 

It's obviously not a logical choice as they have the same issue in any public space. Some people obvious hold the irrational viewpoint you mention and are entitled to that opinion but it in no way makes it correct or based on a rational thought process. Why is a college campus special?

 

As for the second point, you are right all private businesses can at will prevent people with CCW permits from entering whilst armed. However that doesn't mean people have to give up and go home. This is why we are discussing this topic at all, people such as RedRaptor are campaigning for change and attempting to change peoples minds as they should in a democracy. They aren't advocating changing the rules by force or coercion by a minority. So saying that the majority don't want it at the moment is rather stating the obvious about why it isn't currently allowed and isn't really advancing the rational debate about the merits of allowing CCW on campus.

 

I'm also not sure how we have drifted off from colleges to include schools? No one is advocating changing the rules for the eligibility of CCW permit holders.

 

Edit: Sorting out the spelling of foreign here as well.

[Chimpy]

I'm bored so I'll tackle the foreign travel argument.

 

People have to make a decision when they travel abroad to abide by the countries rules, be it rules about firearms ownership, self-defense or women covering their head in public and only leaving the house with a male relative. Generally speaking they don't have the ability to do anything about these rules.

 

The same is true on campus. When people go to a college and walk on campus they are in effect agreeing to the campus rules and have often signed something to that effect. This currently means for the majority of campus' that people with CCW permits will have to disarm to walk onto campus. Many agree to do so to gain education or they choose to go to a campus with more liberal laws regarding CCW. However they can change the situation on campus via democratic means. They can protest by walking around with an empty holster, holding meetings, distribute leaflets and raise motions in the various democratic organs available both at the University, City, State and Federal levels.

 

Foreign travel is a good analogy for the current status quo. But it is a non-existent argument for not changing the status quo.

 

Edit: Cause I *fruitcage*ed up spelling foreign!!!

[Sale]

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!

That's why metal detectors and security guards isn't the solution: It would be public knowledge, so the shooter would simply start with them. If the security guard was armed, then the shooter would continue with an extra weapon. The same goes for other "only this person can carry"-schemes. However, allowing regular people to carry concealed weapons does work. There's no known person for the shooter to start with, and there's a possibility that there are more than one CCW holders. There are several examples of armed people fighting back against an assailant with success.

 

We are really discussing this in a way too complicated matter. The way I see it is this: If you can carry elsewhere, you should be able to do that in malls, campuses, churches etc. as well. There's absolutely no reason to make these places "gun-free". If someone is up to no good, they are going to bring the weapon on site regardless of the "no guns allowed"-signs, and they will know everyone else was a model citizen and left their firearm in the car.

 

Mass slayings like VT are very rare, so the possibility of that alone would not be an incentive for me to carry. But CCW allows you to fight against lots of other kind of crime like robbery, assault and rape. Even if there's no statistical reduction in crime rates (because the criminal still commits the crime after finding a suitable non-armed victim) on an individual level the additional security is real and effective. I'm talking from personal experience here, having stopped a mugging while I was carrying a handgun.

 

-Sale

[Chimpy]

We are really discussing this in a way too complicated matter. The way I see it is this: If you can carry elsewhere, you should be able to do that in malls, campuses, churches etc. as well. There's absolutely no reason to make these places "gun-free". If someone is up to no good, they are going to bring the weapon on site regardless of the "no guns allowed"-signs, and they will know everyone else was a model citizen and left their firearm in the car.

 

Absolutely Sale, this is the crux of the issue. Given that CCW permit holders are trusted to carry in a variety of analogous situations there is no reason to prevent their carrying on a college campus.

 

The closest argument we have got against it so far has been 'the majority of people don't like it' which is more of a statement of the current situation rather than a rational explanation of why they don't like it. The problem for groups like SCCC is that they can have all the rational arguments in the world but are fighting against prejudice and irrational fears. Most people aren't going to give those up very easily even in the face of this pretty water-tight example of a stupid rule.

[Sale]

If some people don't want to be around guns while they study then why should their POV be any less worthy than the POV of people who want the ability to defend themselves?

Let's say that the POVs are equally important. Then it comes down to democracy, as you often point out in these discussions. I'll agree with democracy, but of course I try to push my view forward and argue for carrying. Makes sense, no?

 

If "not being around guns" could be really really enforced, then no-one would have a point when they say they need a firearm to protect themselves from a psycho shooter. But the track record of "gun-free zones" is undeniably really, really bad. It's an incredibly stupid theory to begin with, and completely failed in practice.

 

On the flipside CCW is supported by a reasonable theory, and even if you don't agree with the theory, practice has shown that it works better than anyone would dare to imagine. The only arguments against CCW are things that could happen – but never have. It's prejudice, lies and irrational fears.

 

I was making the point that people seek to arm themselves when they go to school but, by contrast, are happy to go unarmed in a foreign country.

It just seems, to me, that a person who sincerely believed that it was necessary to carry a gun in a school might be wary of travelling without one.

I wear a seatbelt when I'm in a car. However, certain buses don't have seatbelts, yet I ride them because I need to go from one place to another. These are not absolute questions for most people.

 

To put it bluntly, a lot of people would rather risk being caught in another Columbine rather than spending every day knowing that any person they meet might be armed. Whether that's a logical choice or not is debatable but, if the people who fund the schools want it that way then gun owners have no choice but to pack up their 2nd ammendment rights and go elsewhere.

It's very much debatable, and debate is the option for going elsewhere. I play by the rules where I am even if I don't agree with them. I try to change what I can, and accept the things I can't.

 

If it was actually enforced like on aeroplanes, then I'd be cool with that. But putting a sign "no guns allowed" outside a building to make some people feel secure, while actually only making them an easier target? That's just stupid. I really want to see the school shooter who stops at the door after seeing the "no guns allowed"-sign, turns around and goes home.

 

-Sale

[Wayneard3413]

From now on I am shutting up and letting Chimpy and Sale take over the pro side of the argument haha

[Stealthbomber]

Go read what happened here. Look for the commentor named "Tom Ferda." Now read this. In short, you coming dangerously close to what Mr. Ferda is doing, and look at the responses he got.

Sorry if I hurt your (communal) feelings.

You should be aware that calling people with moderate views "narrow minded", "illogical" and worse, as well as comparing a dislike for guns with racism hurts my feelings too.

 

Not to be a ###### here but no, they dont... Why should i give up my second amendment right because someone is uncomfortable with it or doesnt like it?

Welcome to democracy.

You elect politicians, they make decisions on your behalf.

If I set up a pole-dancing club and have a no-gun policy then that's it. You leave your gun outside if you want to see the nekked laydees.

Your 2nd ammendment rights don't mean a flying *fruitcage* to me in my little club.

At the moment the same applies to other gun-free areas such as colleges.

Obviously, the whole point of this thread is to discuss how those changes might come about but, in the mean-time, simply bleating that "it's my right" isn't going to do you any good.

 

Also how about addressing the topic. CCW rights exist in most states and this is about extending the ability for people who have the permit to do so on campus. Raising side issues about foreign travel or the validity of CCW at all are completely at odds to the topic. So rather than dragging this completely off-topic and making it "just another gun carrying thread" we might actually hit new ground rather than rehashing the same tired arguments.

Sorry if people have latched onto this.

 

It simply occured to me that, having read so many people make a fuss about the right to carry a gun for self-defence, that it must impede their ability to travel abroad.

 

I just wondered how people deal with that.

 

It's obviously not a logical choice as they have the same issue in any public space. Some people obvious hold the irrational viewpoint you mention and are entitled to that opinion but it in no way makes it correct or based on a rational thought process. Why is a college campus special?

 

We are really discussing this in a way too complicated matter. The way I see it is this: If you can carry elsewhere, you should be able to do that in malls, campuses, churches etc. as well. There's absolutely no reason to make these places "gun-free".

 

I disagree with this.

 

Given the choice, I WOULD deliberately try and avoid places where I thought people might be armed.

If I had the choice of going to school in a gun-free college or one where people were armed I'd pick the school where there are no guns.

If it became a law that people are allowed to carry guns on college campuses then that'd discriminate against me.

 

Don't misunderstand me. I think schools should be able to decide for themselves if they allow guns on campus.

That way it would be left up to the school and, hopefully, there's always be somewhere I could be happy while learning.

If, on the other hand, the government sanctioned CCW in all schools then it over-rides the schools' choice.

[Chimpy]

I disagree with this.

 

Given the choice, I WOULD deliberately try and avoid places where I thought people might be armed.

If I had the choice of going to school in a gun-free college or one where people were armed I'd pick the school where there are no guns.

If it became a law that people are allowed to carry guns on college campuses then that'd discriminate against me.

 

Don't misunderstand me. I think schools should be able to decide for themselves if they allow guns on campus.

That way it would be left up to the school and, hopefully, there's always be somewhere I could be happy while learning.

If, on the other hand, the government sanctioned CCW in all schools then it over-rides the schools' choice.

 

The problem for people like yourself then is that you are discriminated against in almost every public space in the USA.

 

I'm unsure how you'd cope travelling there!

[Chimpy]

Besides which I'm not really sure it's not really a form of discrimination. You would be discriminated against if you were forced to carry a gun to join the campus or if you were segregated into an 'easy meat' section of a campus.

 

It's actually your own prejudice that's the problem. I could agree with you if CCW permit holders were actually a big cause for public concern and other Universities were experiencing major issues with it. You'd have a rational reason for your prejudice and if you could demonstrate such things here there would be a decent argument against allowing CCW permit holders to carry on campus. The current 'CCW permit holders with guns are scary' or 'CCW permit holders with guns make me uncomfortable' arguments are no better than any other prejudice like 'men with beards are scary'.

 

Really this ban on CCW permit holders carrying on campus is an exemplar of special pleading once you consider the CCW situation in the US.

[Wayneard3413]

Welcome to democracy.

You elect politicians, they make decisions on your behalf.

If I set up a pole-dancing club and have a no-gun policy then that's it. You leave your gun outside if you want to see the nekked laydees.

Your 2nd ammendment rights don't mean a flying *fruitcage* to me in my little club.

At the moment the same applies to other gun-free areas such as colleges.

Obviously, the whole point of this thread is to discuss how those changes might come about but, in the mean-time, simply bleating that "it's my right" isn't going to do you any good.

 

But that wasnt your argument... You were saying that each and every student has the right to not be around guns if they are not comfortable with it

 

It is not the students (or titty club patron or WalMart shoppers) choice... True if a certain establishment doesnt allow weapons thats their call

 

Honestly i think the best recourse is for everyone that wants to carry concealed become an auxiliary officer on a local department... We get more part time officers on the street and you get to carry anywhere in the country (including your school or StealthBombers strip club )

 

 

[Elliot]

 

The concept of a "Gun Free Zone" is flawed.

The only people who would, will and do obey the rules, are the people who are no threat to anyone, except the people who don't obey the rules (Rapists, muggers, mass murders etc.).

The idea that somehow a sign on a wall that only the law abiding follow, and those of a different frame of mind will see as an invitation to a "Kill all the unarmed people you want" fest will some how make me safer is just not a convincing argument to me.

 

I understand that some people have a fear of guns, fulled by ignorance and a sensationalist media. I myself have a different point of view as I am a former real steel firearms instructor, who since '97 has not been unable to work in my chosen profession, due mainly in large to that media fulled (In my opinion incorrect) fear, but however incorrect or irrational that fear is, the fear is very real, and that fear is what prevents people from thinking rationally about guns and gun laws.

The closest parallel between the fervent anti gun camp and any other type of irrational thinking I can think of is religious fervor. Imagine a atheist trying to explain to a religious fanatic bomber that there is no God, no matter how many facts figures and home truths he tells the fanatic, the fanatic still holds onto the one truth they know to be true, in the case of the religious fanatic that is the existence of their God, in the case of the anti gun person that is that guns are evil.

 

If the law states that some one who has done what ever the law requires them to, to carry a loaded gun in public, and that person is NO threat, then how is it logical to say that they may carry every where except here. Simple it doesn't, the success of concealed carry is a matter of public record, all the anti gun camps clams that it would result in "A return to the old days of the wild west." or "People will end up shooting at each other for miner fender benders.(That small car crashes to those of us out side of the US)" have been proved false. The statistics are a matter of public record, wherever CCWs are issued on a will issue basis, crime falls, and to say that some how preventing the right kind of people form having a gun, and telling the wrong kind of people (even going as far as putting signs up to show them) where there is no need for them to worry about being shot back at, is just plain crazy.

 

Still when have the facts ever stoped a fanatic?

Elliot.

[Mike_West]

Given the choice, I WOULD deliberately try and avoid places where I thought people might be armed.

If I had the choice of going to school in a gun-free college or one where people were armed I'd pick the school where there are no guns.

If it became a law that people are allowed to carry guns on college campuses then that'd discriminate against me.

Then, someone would come to your school, packing enough heat for 4 people, shoot you and50 other people dead and then shoot himself in the head "because he ate too many Twinkies". For *fruitcage*'s sake, STEALTH! You seem to underestimate the matter at hand until it happens to you, but then it will be too late. Anyway, interest in airsoft and being "afraid of those evil real-steel guns" at once is either schizophrenia or hypocrisy.

[Chimpy]

The closest parallel between the fervent anti gun camp and any other type of irrational thinking I can think of is religious fervor.

 

Hell yeah.

 

I was going to make a comparison between the anti stem cell research lot or anti-abortion lot and this anti-CCW on campus argument. Both are fuelled by irrational fear and anxiety in the face of a lot of rational argument.

 

Unfortunately a lot of the staunch pro-gun lot are also staunch anti stem cell research, proving people can be morons no matter how rational their opinions on other issues are! Although I think the absence of god in their pro-gun arguments has a lot to do with it.

 

I'm far from sold on CCW as a pancea to criminality as a general case. However in the US it seems to work pretty well without the doom and gloom prospects some predicted.

 

That doesn't detract from the fact that given the situation with regard to CCW in the US it makes no logical sense to ban guns from a college campus.