Apr 03 2008
Students Fighting for Guns on Campus PT2
Recently, my roommate “NO” ranted about Guns on Campus and apparently it sparked some controversy: Stephen J. Feltoon, a Midwest Regional Director from http://concealedcampus.org, decided to write a rebuttal.
No bother finding me on facebook, here I am! It’s too bad you said you’re from Texas. If you were from WA, PA, CA, VA, CO, IN, MI, KY, or a few other states that I can’t remember right now, I’d tell you to pack your bags. Why? Cause those states allow concealed carry on campus by law (in the sense that they don’t forbid it by law…and if they don’t forbid it, it’s legal) so I can take a trip down to Kentucky, do a jig in the middle of a college campus with a concealed firearm, and would be committing no crime. I feel so unsafe walking around campus without a firearm, so since this is a battle of who feels safe, who wins? I’d much rather you be uncomfortable but have me able to better defend myself than leave me relatively defenseless but have you feel warm and fuzzy inside. I’m surprised you don’t feel unsafe considering that criminals break laws and that a criminal intent on committing murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and rape isn’t going to care about the (most likely) lesser crime of illegally bringing a concealed firearm (which, in all honesty, they’re probably concealing illegally too) on campus.
If you’d like to discuss this further my email address is Stephen.Feltoon [at] ConcealedCampus {dot} org but chances are you’re content with being uneducated on this issue and just spouting off opinions without facts to back them up. You think this group is idiotic? What about the college administrators and law makers who think that a sign that says “no guns allowed” keeps criminals from bringing guns on campus (since law-abiding license holders will abide by the law)?
I have a few statements to make. First, I have no problem with guns; I’m actually getting a concealed handgun license when I turn 21. I fully support the 2nd amendment and value my rights to own a firearm. Second, I checked the first state he listed, for the states that allow handguns on campus, and indeed it’s doesn’t say anything about prohibiting firearms on campus; however, Washington’s laws are very cloudy, when it comes to guns. Although, their statues prohibit the sale of guns at least 500 feet away from schools. Why would they prohibit from selling guns 500 feet away from schools, but allow people to carry them to school? I can’t answer that: It’s not written specifically in Washington’s state statues.
This quotation is taken from USA Today’s article on guns on campus.
“School is the only place I’m not allowed to carry my weapon,” says Washington State University senior Kristin Guttormsen,
Apparently, Kristin goes to Washington state and isn’t allowed to carry a gun.
I did some more research on Washington State University’s policy and I found this.
Illegal possession, carrying, or discharge of any explosive, firearm, or other weapon (including shotguns, rifles, pistols, air guns, and pellet guns), is prohibited at Washington State University. No student may possess any firearm, explosive, dangerous chemical, or dangerous weapon while on the campus or in other University residence halls, apartments, and approved housing except in transit to approved storage (located at the WSU Vancouver Department of Public Safety in the Physical Plant building) or to leave campus.
If Fletoon ” [did] a jig in the middle of a college campus with a concealed firearm” he would be breaking school policy.
Oregon, like Washington, also doesn’t specifically ban guns from public places, but a highschool teacher was denied permission to take her pistol to school. This proves that even if law doesn’t specifically prohibit were guns can be possessed, the courts decide if it’s legal or not.
And now for the combo breaker. 18 USC § 922
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
Just another example of Congress stretching its interstate commerce power. The act has been turned down twice, but revised and re-enacted. You can argue all day with interstate commerce, but this is the law of the land right now. Federal Law supersedes State laws, so it seems that even if a state doesn’t have laws prohibiting guns on campus, it has to obey the United States Code. This translates to guns on campus are illegal! Again, if Fletoon ” [did] a jig in the middle of a college campus with a concealed firearm” he could be “jigging” his way to jail or a big fine.
Finally, I disagree about how Mr. Feltoon’s stance on guns on campus. This section is dedicated to him personally.
I don’t know how much safer I would feel if everybody was allowed to carry guns. In fact, I would be even more worried: Anybody could be carrying a gun and I would have to watch what I say. If somebody’s temper flares up, he/she can easily pull out a gun and end a life, or start a firefight. Imagine how many innocent people would be killed in the crossfire if everybody had a firearm and uses it during a confrontation.
The fact is, you’re not trained to fight a terrorist or a gunman; so even if the situation arises and you need to use one, you won’t know what to do. You might end up getting killed and your gun taken, or possibility shooting somebody innocent. There are reasons why people -like police officers- get trained for situations like that; it’s takes lot of tactics to gunfight and trap the enemy. It’s better for you to remain as a student, and let law enforcement take care of it, instead of playing hero. I believe the solution to school shootings is to have better prepared local law enforcement and maybe even campus security. You probably won’t agree with this and cite Virginia Tech, as a failure for the law; however, hopefully we learned from that and in the future, the police will be better prepared for those terrorist situations.
Bottom line is banning guns on campus is the right choice. We can’t ensure that there wont’ be guns. But what sense does it make to let everybody carry them? It’s exactly like fighting fire with fire; it doesn’t work. The best way for our schools to minimize casualties-in a school shooting- is to have trained professionals on the spot, and a definitive emergency plan.
Feel free to add ya’lls opinions on this matter.
Yeah.
Related posts:
(3 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Hey, Kristin Guttormsen here. Being a Washington resident as well as closely connected to the movement I thought I’d chime in and spark some debate.
Washington isn’t obscure in its laws, it’s obscure in its judicial system and politics. It’s a drastically democratic/liberal state that is among the first and most liberal gun allowance states in the nation. RCW 9.41.290 clearly prevents any body less than the state legislature from regulating guns except as allowed in RCW 9.41.300. That law allow lesser political bodies to enact only limited restrictions that must fall in line with existing state mandates. Furthermore all mentions of ’schools’ within Washington state laws are specifically addressing primary and secondary schools, not post-secondary institutions (the same is also true of federal gun laws btw). In other words, not only is there NO law preventing carrying on colleges/universities, there is a very clear prohibition against schools trying to make policy regarding this issue. Unfortunately the powers that be have looked the other way while the law is broken. That may soon change.
Here in Washington 4% of those eligible carry a concealed weapon legally. That means if you go to a movie theater with 400 people in it, 4 of them have a gun on them right then. This is true (within a couple of percentage points at least) in all 48 states which allow concealed carry. In other words, you are already going through life with people who are lawfully carrying guns. Do you feel uncomfortable in the theater? In the mall? You never did before. Why? Because concealed means concealed. You don’t know anyone has a gun in day to day life. That’s why it’s done that way. If you’re feeling uneasy about this just remember that in more than forty years of allowing concealed carry, with 300,000-2.5 million defensive gun uses annually, you almost never hear of a problem with it. In other words, statistically we’re as safe as it’s possible to get.
Please don’t think to tell me what I’m trained to do. After during the military during the first gulf I entered the private security field for the next ten years. I have more training and education than 90% of law enforcement officers in America. Just because you have never bothered to find out if the people around you are trained is no excuse for claiming they’re not. Many states require training that is every bit as rigorous as law enforcement training. Therefore if you accept that police can carry guns you need to extend that right to individuals…especially in light of state and federal constitutional guarantees to that right.
There’s a saying: when seconds count police are only minutes away. If you choose to rely on law enforcement that’s your right. However they cannot get to a shooting scene in time to save your life. Only you can do that. You don’t have to, but neither do you have the right to tell me I can’t.
Small edit:
Second to the last paragraph, second sentence should have read:
After JOINING the military…
Thanks.
I would ask you to check the definition of a “school” in the federal code. I am pretty sure you will find that it is specific to k-12. Post-secondary education (colleges and universities) are not covered under that section of federal law. If you would please see Utah state law, which forbids public colleges and universities within the state from banning conceal carry, for proof that federal gun-free school-zone laws do not affect colleges and universities.
As for the Washington student who said she can carry everywhere, save her school, it is not state law that keeps her from doing so. It is the schools policy. Mr. Feltoon does not have to abide by school policy because he is not a student/faculty member/or staff at the university. What are they going to do? Suspend him?
There is no reason to assume students with their Concealed Handgun License (CHL) would start shooting someone over an argument. These people who wish to carry on campus already carry in their lives off-campus. They don’t get into gunfights over car accidents or disagreements at the grocery, why would they get into a gunfight while on campus property?
The training concerns you have are also not something that fact and logic support. To get a conceal carry license (in most states) the person must have training in the use of firearms and the laws concerning conceal carry. It does not take perfect, sharpshooting accuracy to shoot an attacker in a defensive situation. According to the FBI most shootouts occur within 21 feet (or 7 yards). Not exactly a distance that requires steady aim to hit someone in the chest. Discerning the “good guy” from the “bad guy” is also not to difficult for the victim. The person who comes into the classroom and starts shooting people is the criminal, the people running from him/her are the victims.
The long history of legal conceal carry in this country support that people who go through the training, background checks, and certifications required to receive the license are the people society can trust most. The question a person must ask themselves whenever they think of campus carry is simple. “What causes a person to act differently when they are on campus, compared to when they are off campus?”
This keeps coming up, and people seem to conveniently not see it. SCCC advocates only those people who already (I’ll emphasize *ALREADY*) can legally conceal and carry a weapon. This is about 1% of a given population, thanks to the time and paperwork involved.
Again:
1. Not arming everyone.
2. The argument that tempers flare and all that has never panned out before. Utah students aren’t having shootouts in parking lots.
3. No one’s expected to run a counter terrorism operation. If someone gets up and decides to shoot up my lecture hall ten feet away, then he can be shot then and there, rather than execute people as they hide behind their backpacks.
Thanks for the feedback everybody.
Kristen, the majority of student’s are not trained to combat crime. I don’t believe that even if you have CHL license you are trained for counter terrorism, especially in a situation like school shooting. Can you show me where you get your statistics from? I doubt CHL license training is as close as law enforcement.
Bob, there isn’t a definition of what a school is. I don’t see why it shouldn’t include Universities. It doesn’t matter because whatever deals with interstate commerce is under that law. Congress has a strong grip lock on that and can mold the law accordingly. Also, show me a school where it’s in their policy that students can bring guns to school.
Everybody, arguing rarely always results in violence, but occasionally it does. I’m saying people that have sporadic tempers- and if they have a gun- can kill on the spot. True, this can happen anywhere, but don’t you think this should be avoided at school? It is the place were lots of discussion and debates happen, that could lead to violence. I agree this would be a very rare case, but you could argue for this.
When it all boils down, a learning environment should be as safe as possible. It’s really paranoid to bring a gun to school, like you expect something to happen.
Colorado State University in Colorado, Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia, and all nine public universities in the state of Utah allow conceal carry on their campuses. As for the federal regulations pertaining to universities as well as K-12 schools (as opposed to what I suggested as just K-12) please refer to the 11 public colleges and universities I referred to in my previous sentence.
I want to say that this article is not doing a very good job at showing that having concealed weapons on campus is a bad idea. You presented no facts that show that it is a bad idea or that it is dangerous. We only have your opinions. If you want to convince people that it is a bad idea then you need to present an argument that has more than just thoughts but instead has facts to back it up. Thanks.
Those 11 schools have a combined 60 semesters of allowing conceal carry on their campuses. As of now there have been no instances of a person with a CHL acting improperly with their firearm, no instances of firearm theft, and no instance of firearm abuse, (all to the best of my knowledge) at any of the 11 public colleges and universities.
I have answered your questions, I think, please answer mine. What would cause a person to react to a situation differently when they are on campus as opposed to when they are off campus?
Sorry to Stephen for calling the CHL idiotic, but I have had a personal situation. Two years ago my cousin shot and killed himself and his girlfriend over an argument. He was intoxicated and obviously that caused him to overreact. He had a concealed handgun license and if it wasn’t for laws allowing such a thing he would still be here today. I think it is completely irresponsible to allow civilians to carry hand guns in public.
Regarding your general statements, let me point out a few things. First, federal law (18 USC § 922) and, in this case Washington law, prohibit firearms in schools meaning K-12, so me dancing a jig on a Washington campus would be legal, albeit against policy. Considering I am not a student, let alone one in Washington, they can’t threaten to expel me, but they can ask me to leave and charge me with trespassing if a refuse. As for the Oregon case, that was in a K-12 school (SCCC is fighting for college campuses only) and I believe she was trying to get an exception to the law because she had a restraining order against her estranged husband who had threatened her life or something.
“I don’t know how much safer I would feel if everybody was allowed to carry guns.”
We’re not talking about everyone. SCCC isn’t about changing the CCW requirements or actively arming anyone. Everyone in roughly 36 states that meets the requirements can carry a concealed firearm. In some states (such as Ohio) you don’t even need to meet those requirements to openly carry a firearm (so in Ohio, anyone 21 who isn’t prohibited from having a pistol can literally walk up and down main street with a gun fully exposed on their hip, license or no). I also don’t care how much safer you feel. I *DON’T* feel safe on campus, so in that case, our feelings of safety cancel each other out. Carrying a concealed firearm is a right (an absolute one or otherwise is a debate for another day) so why should I be allowed to carry a firearm into a 300-person movie theater but not a 300-person lecture hall? In both cases, you’d expect only 3 people to have a CCW license, in both cases you’d expect to find everyone either asleep or paying attention to what’s going on in front of them. So what’s the difference?
“Anybody could be carrying a gun and I would have to watch what I say.”
Do you worry about that off-campus? No? Then why would you worry ON campus? CCW opponents have said for years that shouting matches and fender benders would lead to bloodshed, yet in 48 states that has not been the case. Everybody having guns? Try 1%.
“The fact is, you’re not trained to fight a terrorist or a gunman; so even if the situation arises and you need to use one, you won’t know what to do.”
In Ohio, I was forced to be taught how to use a firearm properly as required by state law. If 3 conditions are met in Ohio, I can use deadly force, so in a sense, I WILL know what to do: if someone has my life or someone else’s in immediate danger of death or severely bodily injury and I (or the person I’m about to defend) isn’t at fault for starting the argument (or whatever), then I am justified in using lethal force. If someone walks to the front of a lecture hall with a shotgun in a guitar case and starts indiscriminately firing, I think the decision’s pretty easy. You too will not be trained how to expertly take out a bad guy off-campus, yet that’s not going to stop you from getting a CCW license when you’re of-age. It seems awfully hypocritical to NOT assume that innocent bystanders will be hit in a crowded movie theater if the shit hits the proverbial fan.
Play hero? No. I’d rather just stay alive.
Local law enforcement, according to MANY federal courts, have ZERO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOU. Police were on scene in two minutes at NIU, yet still at least 5 people died. How many times do you know of police actually responding to a crime in progress and are able to PREVENT crime? It’s not so much a failure on the part of law enforcement, it’s the fact that they can’t be everywhere. What about on rural campuses or colleges without an armed police force or without a police force altogether?
Again, you’re being very hypocritical. If you put so much faith in the police, why do you want a CCW license? You think all crime that happens on college campuses is murder? What about rape? armed robbery? assault?
“We can’t ensure that there wont’ be guns.”
You kinda prove my point. Who will listen to a “no guns allowed” sign, the law-abiding citizen or the law-breaking citizen? Even if it’s a 1-in-a-million chance that I’ll be in the right room at the right time to stop an assault, rape, robbery, murder, etc. it’s better than the 0 chance currently.
“But what sense does it make to let everybody carry them?”
By giving people the freedom to choose how to defend themselves. What sense does it have in having fire extinguishers if that’s what we have a fire department for?
“It’s exactly like fighting fire with fire; it doesn’t work.”
You do realize that firefighters DO light small fires ahead of a larger one in order to use up combustibles and oxygen, right? You DO realize that smallpox was eradicated thanks to people getting injections of cowpox, a disease.
NO, I’m sorry to hear about your cousin. I hate to disappoint you, but IIRC, Texas law prohibits CCW while intoxicated. There was a law in place and your cousin broke that law. It’s as bad as CCWing without a license. Had your cousin not had a gun, he could’ve used a pipe, rope, baseball bat, hammer, fists, etc. If he had used a baseball bat, would you be calling to outlaw the game of baseball?
Your arguments are irrational. He lived in Ohio not Texas, but to argue “If he had used a baseball bat, would you be calling to outlaw the game of baseball?” That is satirical and a little disrespectful. But besides that, does a law that says you can carry a gun in public only if you are sober make sense? If some one is so drunk that they can’t tell right from wrong they are not going to remember that they can’t carry a gun while drunk. He did not drink in public, but he had his weapon in public when the incident happened. Therefore, he obviously could not make a rational decision once he decided to go out.
By the way, you contradicted yourself earlier. “In some states (such as Ohio) you don’t even need to meet those requirements to openly carry a firearm (so in Ohio, anyone 21 who isn’t prohibited from having a pistol can literally walk up and down main street with a gun fully exposed on their hip, license or no).” “In Ohio, I was forced to be taught how to use a firearm properly as required by state law.”
Stephen, I think you are having a hard time discerning between theory and reality. In theory your ideas should work, and everything would be a lot safer. However, in reality, things are different. It will encourage people to carry guns who shouldn’t be carrying guns. You used the example, “Are you scared to get in an argument off campus? No. So you shouldn’t be scared to get in an argument on campus.” In reality a lot of people DON’T get into arguments and fights ANYWHERE because they ARE scared that the other person will pull a gun and kill them. In Houston we had a case where someone took too long to drive off from a stop sign, so the person behind them got out of the car and killed them. And this isn’t a one time thing, ridiculous stuff like this happens all the time, and why? Because people who shouldn’t be carrying are carrying.
You say ONLY the people with licenses will be carrying; in theory yes, in reality no. Allowing some people to carry will just encourage others to do so. If guns were illegal period, a lot less people would have them, including the people who currently have them illegally. If you apply this to university campuses, it follows that allowing some people to legally have guns will just lead to a lot more people illegally having guns.
So take your gun to school with you if you want, it’s concealed, no one will know, no one will stop you. But don’t try to tell students across the entire US that they should be taking their guns to school too. That will just lead to unnecessary violence as well as schools losing money because parents won’t want to send their kids to schools that allow guns.
I would like some hard statistics from those against that show that people carrying concealed WILL lead to violence. In fact, I’ll give you a paypal payment of $100 if you can do it.
I can offer that because no one in the world has EVER been able to show a statistically significant correlation between firearms and crime/violence. The absolute best minds in the world, with unlimited time and funding, can’t show you ANY support for that claim. That’s because it’s a load of crap.
Again, for forty years people have been carrying concealed and it’s almost been without incident. Yes, there are exceptions (as there are to everything), but statistically we’re safer than even law enforcement officers with regards to carrying weapons. Hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses annually versus a pitiful few incidents.
It is those against this that live in the world of what ifs, while we have all the data and statistics on our side in this debate. Until you acknowledge that and come up with something to counter it, the argument is effectively over.
Kristin, why do we want to have concealed guns, besides supporting the 2nd amendment? I think it’s because of fear right? Like Stephen J. Feltoon said, he wants to have guns on campus because he is afraid of people that’ll misuse them. The keyword is “fear”. So if your argument is to have guns on campus. Wouldn’t that cause more fear, thus adding to the problem? I don’t see how guns solve the problem.
I never said guns will lead to violence. I only said if provoked there would be an opportunity to use it. For instance, instead of fighting you could just shoot somebody.
How are you getting your facts? You seem to know a lot about gun history. Also, I asked you to support your statistics and your rebuttal was to ask me for some statistics. That’s a very unorthodox way of argument.
*For the great idea that you are trained when you get the license:
New Findings From The FBI About Cop Attackers & Their Weapons-Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% “regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year,” the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and “street corners in known drug-trafficking areas.”
* In the United States during 2007, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms.
By the way, Stephen Fultoon must be pretty paranoid and holds a lot of fear. He needs to carry a gun at school because he is paranoid and he works at Aflac where he can protect himself with as much insurance as possible. Sorry, just had to put that out there
Stephen, Fire with Fire is an idiom; using aggression against aggression. Don’t take everything I say so literally. I think you’re trying too hard to prove everything I say is wrong.
Fire Extinguishers don’t require a license to use, nor are they meant for deadly use. I don’t see how fire extinguishers can elevate the situation like guns can.
How did I prove your point saying “We can’t ensure that there wont’ be guns.” So because there will always be people with gun regardless of law, we should make it legal to hold on campus? I don’t see how that’s a valid argument.
How can I be hypocritical when I admitted the fault of the police? There are times were police fail, but with experience they learn and prevent future mistakes. We’re talking about college campuses here, there are many other places people can have have a concealed gun and that’s fine. If I get a CHL license, doesn’t mean I’ll have a gun everywhere I go. Rape, Armed Robbery, and assault, all can have different scenarios where the use of deadly force isn’t acceptable. You can only use deadly force when your life is in danger and there isn’t a way to escape. Gun isn’t always the right solution, so I don’t know why you listed those crimes.
Yeah, innocent bystanders will get hurt, but don’t you think with more than 2 people shooting there would be more chaos? What if somebody else had a gun too and decided he’ll play hero. Suddenly, everybody is shooting and who knows who the bad guy is.
Why wouldn’t I worry on campus? Because college campuses are different from the outside world. It’s a place of trust and integrity(at least I think so), where the main goal is to get educated.
Let me ask you a few questions. First, if we people to carry concealed weapons in campus, can we allow people to carry weapons everywhere? If you’re going to allow weapons in campus, might as well allow them everywhere. Second, if we’re allowed to carry concealed handguns would it be alright for concealed axes too? Basically all weapons that can be concealed? Because I don’t want to be scared. Finally, should private institutions decide if guns are allowed or not?
I don’t know where you’re getting school meaning K-12. Can you show me where in the USC it states that? Because like I said, interstate commerce can be a whole lot of things and I have no clue why it would exclude universities.
Like I said to Kristen. “The keyword is “fear”. So if your argument is to have guns on campus. Wouldn’t that cause more fear, thus adding to the problem? I don’t see how guns solve the problem.”
Yeah.
“Kristin, why do we want to have concealed guns, besides supporting the 2nd amendment? I think it’s because of fear right? Like Stephen J. Feltoon said, he wants to have guns on campus because he is afraid of people that’ll misuse them. The keyword is “fear”. So if your argument is to have guns on campus. Wouldn’t that cause more fear, thus adding to the problem? I don’t see how guns solve the problem.
I never said guns will lead to violence. I only said if provoked there would be an opportunity to use it. For instance, instead of fighting you could just shoot somebody.
How are you getting your facts? You seem to know a lot about gun history. Also, I asked you to support your statistics and your rebuttal was to ask me for some statistics. That’s a very unorthodox way of argument.”
They save lives, and often stop crimes. Not that there is a significant proven correlation between gun proliferation and lower crime rates, but there are are between hundreds of thousands and millions of gun uses every year
***There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU’s) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck’s survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU’s annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU’s annually.
Subsequent to Kleck’s study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck’s, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU’s annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU’s annually.***
No matter which set of data you accept as accurate, the fact remains that there are many, MANY times as many lives saved (and/or crimes stopped) by defensive gun uses as there are wrongful injuries and deaths.
Fear is the province of those opposed to guns almost exclusively. There is no reason for us to fear…we are armed and know how to protect ourselves. Fear is the outreach of ignorance. People who don’t know the facts fear what they don’t know. Hence, people who don’t understand guns, or crime, fear them. The arguments of the anti-gunners are almost entirely fear-mongering, while our arguments are almost entirely logic and statistic based.
It would only cause more fear if people remain ignorant of the truth. There is a big difference between feeling safe and being safe. Again, I direct you to my comments about how many people carry daily in almost every state in the nation. If you aren’t afraid 100% of the time everywhere you go then there is absolutely no logical reason to suddenly become afraid on campus - because those same people who will carry there ALREADY CARRY EVERYWHERE ELSE in the country. Again, the fear is your ignorance, not a lack of safety. Furthermore being allowed to carry our weapons would REMOVE our fear…the fear of being helpless for absolutely no logical reason. In other words you’re telling me that it’s more important to relieve your fear (bred entirely from ignorance) than to relieve my fear (bred entirely from facts, experience, and logic).
For your argument about arguments to be true you MUST be able to show that it has happened with statistical significance. Unfortunately for you, this has not happened except in very rare extreme instances. In forty years of concealed carrying, in 48 states, hundreds of thousands of people in each state, with hundreds of thousands to millions of uses each year…there has not been a significant problem from citizens carrying concealed. Period. This is the effective end of the argument. You’re trying to argue what if’s against absolute established statistical fact.
I get my facts from a number of sources: I served in the military, spent ten years in security working with law enforcement, am a regional director for a national gun rights organization (Students for Concealed Carry on Campus), my undergraduate degree is in History with a minor in political science, I am a nationally and internationally awarded debater, and I have dedicated a good portion of my free time over the last 13 years to learning about this topic. Any specific facts you want citation for just ask and I’ll be happy to provide for you. It interrupts the flow of writing on internet boards, and all of the information is readily available with a simple google search so I tend not to bother unless asked.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000921—-000-.html
If you go to section 25 you’ll get the definition of school as primary and secondary. This is also common knowledge, and readily available at absolutely EVERY source of information on this topic that’s available including court documents, academic papers, and so on. In other words, any person who as ANY knowledge about this topic whatsoever will confirm that it’s primary and secondary ONLY. Otherwise how could Utah be acting in violation of federal law? It’s really not rocket science to figure out.
Concealed weapons are already allowed almost everywhere. There is almost no place which is off limits to carry in most states.
I have no idea why anyone would want to carry a concealed axe…but if its legal in your state and you really want to, go ahead. A lifetime of martial training tells me you’re a lunatic for wanting it though.
ooops, i meant section 26 in the post above…not 25. Hit the wrong button.
hahahahah, I just realized I typed http://www.concealedcarry.com instead of http://www.concealedcampus.com. I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired.
“There are times were police fail, but with experience they learn and prevent future mistakes.”
They arrived MUCH faster at NIU, but how many people were still killed and wounded. If you have a police officer whose only obligation is to respond to a shooting, its still probably going to take him time to get there, because he cannot be everywhere at once. Like Kristin said, when seconds count, police are only minutes away. Think of how many times a deranged killer can pull a trigger in just ONE minute. Let’s say he takes his time and aims (3-5 seconds per shout). That is still at least a dozen people dead or wounded.
If you want facts, go to the following site:
http://www.concealedcampus.org/campus_handout.pdf
Be sure to look at all of the little * after each statement for actual sources.
As for concealing any weapon. Concealed handguns DO NOT draw attention. An axe would. I think you should be allowed to carry any weapon that does not draw attention and that you feel comfortable with. If it’s a concealed handgun, a folding-knife in your pocket, or a hatchet in your backpack. Handguns just happen to be the most effective tool for self defense. If it doesn’t distract anyone from the purposes of being where they are, you will be better off for having something then nothing should a situation arise. I would much rather carry a gun (or weapon) everyday and everywhere and not need it, then to forget it once and need it. If you could have put 1 or 2 guns in the hands of the students at Virginia Tech when Cho was carrying out his plan, would you?
When CHL laws were first being passed in the states, the same arguments arose of who should feel safe…those that wanted to carry, or those who felt uncomfortable not knowing who was carrying. After laws were passed to allow concealed handguns, the fear of not knowing who was carrying diminished. Why? Because life went on as normal without incident. I feel the same will happen if concealed carry is allowed on college campuses. There might be some fear at first because the novelty will makes things salient, but any continuous fear will only be fostered by anti-gun media constantly bringing it to their attention with fear-propaganda. Guns in the hands of the right people make the world a safer place.
Ok…quick post…
1) It’s not paranoia, it’s realism. You want college crime statistics, go look ‘em up. Count up how many rapes, armed robberies, and assaults there are on campuses (and not just the ones in the middle of nowhere). Those are all violent felonies where use of a firearm would be prudent. Forgive me for not wanting to get the crap kicked out of me, for not wanting to be robbed, for not wanting to die, and for not wanting to get raped (possible) or to have my girlfriend be raped (more likely). I don’t actually suffer from paranoid delusions because I don’t believe that someone is out to get me, I just realize that crime happens and I’d like for it to not happen to me. If you don’t think something can happen to you, then you are pretty naive. The students at VT and NIU thought their campuses were safe too.
2) Every one of your “OMFG THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!” scenarios doesn’t happen, at least not on a frequent enough basis that states are getting rid of CCW. This includes in the 11 colleges where both school policy and state law allow it. No one’s been shot over a petty argument, no one’s gotten drunk at a frat party and shot up the place, no one’s been shot in any sort of crossfire. Speaking of crossfire, if someone’s in the front of a classroom shooting someone and I pull out my own gun, shoot the bad guy, only to be shot by another licensee, then the person who shot me would be going to jail because they’d be breaking the law against (attempted) murder. It’s quite easy to identify a bad guy: they’re the one shooting indiscriminately against unarmed people.
3) Students for Concealed Carry on Campus about–you guesed it–carrying on college campuses. I’m not going to argue for carrying in other prohibited places because that’s outside the scope of the organization.
4) To be ok in using deadly force in Ohio, you have to have reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury. Rape is also acceptable. I included armed robbery and assault cause if some guy’s waving a baseball bat at me, charging me (for example), guess what? I can shoot him. If I’m at another job and someone demands all my money or he’ll shoot, I can shoot him (if I get the opportunity to).
5) College campuses are NO DIFFERENT than the real world, and I can say that living in the real world. Once again, you can bring a gun onto 11 campuses without worry, you can bring a gun onto thousands of campuses in more than a dozen states without fear of arrest (except for trespass…), so clearly this isn’t as crazy an idea as you might imagine. A place of trust and integrity? So if I wanted to teach a CCW class, where students are trusting me with teaching them the laws properly so that they comply with the law, can I not carry there? If a prof decides to have class off-campus (field trip, his/her residence, starbucks, a park, etc.) where the integrity and trust are still there, should I not be allowed to carry anymore? If I’m taking paramedic classes, where trust and integrity should be more present cause lives could hang in the balance of what I know, should I not be allowed to carry there?
There’s no use in this comment battle between the 4+ of us. Kristin and I aren’t going to stop fighting for what we believe in (Kristin’s a guy, by the way) and you certainly aren’t going to be able to show definitively that firearms in the hands of licensees cause problems on college campuses.
To UltraYeah, I suggest you seriously reconsider getting your CCW license. Again, you don’t seem all that worried about the 300 person movie theater (with lots of little children!) and the 2 other people (besides yourself) that could be carrying there (statistically). If you have a chance to take out a deranged individual, would you not out of fear of being shot by another licensee? You completely write off rape, armed robbery, and assault, but if you don’t think your life can be in danger of death or severe bodily injury from those three crimes then you need to think again.
Gentlemen (I’m assuming you’re all male), good day.
Stephen, what you just posted contradicts your previous arguments.
2) The reason that hasn’t happened is because guns on campus are illegal. If they were legal, that WOULD be happening.
5) You’re right, they are NO DIFFERENT from the real world. Shootings over petty arguments occur in the real world, thus they will occur on campuses if people on campuses have guns.
Thank you for proving us right.
Lets remember that only in about half of states is it illegal to have a weapon on campus. Otherwise its merely a matter of school policy, which does not have the force of law. Moreover there is a very real debate about the legality of allowing policy to trump law in several states (WA and OR for instance).
Now, Swoll, please provide statistics showing that it WOULD be happening…because I have 40 years of statistics in 48 states that PROVE you wrong. Mind you, I don’t want to hear that it might happen once or twice, because there are always outliers…but those are statistically insignificant. Show that it would happen more than occurs with non-cpl holders, or that it would happen more on campus than off. In other words, I’m asking you to disprove history and reality. Good luck on that.
You’re right that shootings do occur off campus, but ALMOST NEVER by cpl holders. All studies have proven that cpl holders are 5 times less likely to be involved in violent crime than non-cpl holders. Furthermore if you’re admitting it’s no different then you are admitting we should have the same rights as everywhere else, and that means we should be allowed to carry…just like we already do everywhere else without incident.
Anyone who would shoot another human being over an argument would stab that same person, or choke them, or beat them with their fists until they die. Guns don’t cause murders; a gun equalizes a small, lightweight woman and a 6′3″ 200# jail-buff rapist quite nicely, though.
The logic is as follows:
1. I’m allowed to carry firearms concealed for defensive use in public areas.
2. A publicly-funded college campus is by definition a public area.
3. Therefore, I am allowed to carry firearms concealed for defensive use on a publicly-funded college’s campus.
If guns cause so much crime and murder and such, why am I allowed by the government to carry one anywhere? You can argue all you like about the rightness or logic of allowing citizens to receive concealed carry licenses, but as it currently stands, there is no legally consistent reason I should not be allowed to carry on a college campus.
Get a clue:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 921Prev | Next § 921. Definitions
(25) The term “school zone” means—
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.
(26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.
Also, not that SCCC is fighting for carry in K-12 Schools, but not ALL carry in school zones is prohibed:
Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license.
IE! If you have a state authorized concealed carry permit, federal law does not prohibit you from carrying in a school zone!
Why don’t you post the entire statute instead of cherry picking the part that SEEMS to support your opinion…
Kristin, I don’t need to provide statistics, it’s common sense. At a school where guns are illegal vs. a school where guns are legal, who do you think will have more shootings? Obviously. Also, your last paragraph is valid, but you have to take into the account that if there are people with licenses carrying guns on campus it will just motivate the people with illegal guns to bring theirs to campus too.
“Concerned,” just because someone would shoot someone doesn’t mean they would have the ability to stab them or beat them to death. Everyone is a tough guy when they have a gun but without it, raw aggression won’t help them against someone bigger, someone stronger, or someone who knows how to fight. It’s also a lot easier and faster for some stupid street thug to pull the trigger of a gun than winning a fist fight to the death without anyone intervening. And lastly, colleges are not publicly funded. If they were I wouldn’t be paying $20,000 a year to attend school, it would be paid for solely from taxes.
Swoll:
You do need to provide statistics when you’re making an argument which is in opposition to established fact and statistics. It was common sense that blacks could only be slaves. It was common sense that jews were responsible for the decline of German dominance. But these things eventually were accepted as wrongs. You’re contradicting absolute facts so the burden is on you to prove why.
You’re 100% wrong. Absolute proven fact. There have been NO incidents at schools where guns are allowed. There have been shootings at schools where guns are banned. Period. You sir, are WRONG. Proven. Not opinion, absolute and total fact. Irrefutable. It’s not logical, it’s not reasonable, it’s not supportable, it’s not right. I don’t know how many other ways I can say it. If you refuse it at this point I strongly recommend you seek therapy because you have serious issues.
Please provide me links supporting your claim that people carry illegally because people carry legally. Either statistical support or psychological evidence or something to go on. Because I can show, through peer reviewed research, that there is NO correlation between those things. So unless you can provide us documented support then once again you are fear-mongering, and WRONG!
Once again, you are WRONG. Your tuition pays only a VERY small portion of your costs at a public college. The state provides a majority of the college costs, with money raised through taxes. Moreover they are almost always public land grants, establishing them as fully public entities under most state laws. This isn’t my opinion, you can find this information through a simple google search, or by asking anyone at a college or law firm. Private universities aren’t even funded entirely by student costs…they’re supported through alumni fund raising, endowments, etc. They also receive various government breaks which could be equated to public support, even though so far it hasn’t held up in court. While this doesn’t make them public property under any laws that I’m aware of, it still negates your arguments. But then again, we don’t argue that private universities have to allow firearms. We believe they SHOULD, but it’s not the governments place to order it. Regardless, once again you are misinformed.
Look, I don’t mean to come across harsh, or as an asshole. But I get tired of people refusing to do any research on these topics. Everything argued here is in direct opposition to all facts readily available from any number of sources (government sources, academic source, private sources, etc) with just a simple google search. If you can’t be bothered to even do that why should we take you the least bit seriously?
You have a right to an opinion such as: I don’t like guns, I don’t want to be around guns, I’m afraid of guns, etc. Those are totally valid, and you’re welcome to them. But you are NOT allowed to suggest that your opinions are factual without being able to provide some sort of support. If you want to close yourself off from learning and declare that you just want things the way you want them, no matter what the truth is, then say that openly. If you think to join in debate with people who have dedicated their lives to becoming experts on the topic in question then you’d better learn real quick to differentiate between opinion and fact or you’re going to look VERY foolish by comparison.
Kristin, here’s an example. In Singapore guns are illegal, period. Very few, and I mean very few, as in ALMOST NO ONE carries them illegally. Unless you are involved in organized crime you probably will never encounter someone who has a gun. In the US, guns are legal. LOTS of people carry them illegally, because they are widely available and if someone has a gun no one cares because it’s such an ordinary thing. I have friends who own guns and it doesn’t bother me at all, but if I were in class and everyone around me was packing I’d be very uncomfortable, even if I had mine too, because it’s just something that’s not done, it’s totally ridiculous.
Like UltraYeah said, a better answer would be to invest more in law enforcement so they can get there faster and things like school shootings don’t happen. Potentially they could make exceptions for ex-military and such, but the average student should NOT be carrying a gun everywhere they go.
Singapore is not a good example. It’s not valid to use other peoples cultures, unless perhaps they’re somewhat similar to ours. Also, it doesn’t matter how fast the police get there. At NIU the police were there in two minutes. That was enough time for six people to die and twelve others to be shot. Second of all the police have no duty to protect individual citizens (Warren V. the district of columbia) The police are not responsible criminally or civilly for our safety. If they’re not responsible, how can you try to deny people the right to their own self-defense. Also, not everyone would be carrying. The current rate of people carrying legally is between 1-4% And to be honest, no one cares what makes you comfortable or uncomfortable or makes you feel safe. Being safe and feeling safe are not the same thing. People have a right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. There is no right to feeling safe, and there is certainly no right to deny others rights so you can feel safe. When you think of a valid argument feel free to reply.
swoll,
To compair two seperate countries is compairing apples and oranges.
Your extra law enforcement theory was also proven wrong in a school shooting. At VT, Cho left, the police came, SWAT came, and they stayed. Cho came back while the police were there. He was able to take 30 more lives AFTER the police were on the scene. This is a FACT also. More police did not, and does not stop a person from taking more lives.
You should also look up the research done where felons were interviewed. Most felons fear armed citizens much more than they fear police. These felons realized that an armed victim was a much bigger threat than a police officer. This is also a FACT.
Your theory of having more law enforcement in schools has been PROVEN not to work.
What about rape? Can police prevent a rape in someones dorm room? Sure, more police on campus means that the report could be filed sooner, but they cant really stop a rape when they dont know its happening. And yes, rape is a reason to use deadly force. It is defined as great bodily harm
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/statute/statute_toc.php
Statute 609.02 Subd 8 defines great bodily harm.
Statute 609.06 defines the abilities for using force against a person.
Statute 609.065 states that deadly force is justified if used to prevent great bodily harm or death.
So yes, a person with or without a permit use authorized to use deadly force against a person who is trying to rape them. However, a 100 lbs female, may find it dificult to defend herself with a knife, or fists, but a firearm does allow her to even the odds.
Oh, by the way, rapes on campus are much more common than most people think. Check the stats at your school about that.
Unfortunately international studies have proven that availability of guns has no significant correlation to crime, violence, etc. This again, is not opinion, this is the accepted fact by academics, governments, etc. There are a number of countries with equal saturation of firearms that experience next to no crime, or violence. There are also many nations with complete bans on guns that experience higher crime and/or violence. The US crime and violence rates have been reducing even as concealed carry and other liberal gun laws have increased, while UK crime and violence has skyrocketed despite a gun ban (and some of the most nannyist government observation and law enforcement tactics on the planet). Furthermore you are committing a serious logical fallacy: correlation does not equal causation.
Do you go to the movies? Do you go to the mall? If so, then the people around you are packing. Are you uncomfortable there? Why is a classroom different? It is done, we do it every day, everywhere we go. It’s not ridiculous in any way. You have yet to provide a single valid argument against it. The only thing you’ve done is describe your ignorance and fear thus far. I’m not saying your fear isn’t real, or that it isn’t valid to express those opinions…I just want people to understand that it’s an Irrational fear and has no factual support.
It’s only a better answer if it has ANY hope of significantly impacting the existing harms…which it doesn’t. It’s also not an answer if cost-benefit analysis shows it to be a failure…which it would. A campus that coveres a thousand acres with 50 buildings and 25,000 students may only have 5 officers on duty at a time. That provides a best case response time of 3-15 minutes to a shooting. In 3 minutes I can accurately empty about 30-50 magazines of ammo…roughly 450-750 rounds. That’s a LOT of dead people before the first officer shows up. The costs of employing additional security is enormous. Budgets are already stretched thin. Just to put 1 officer in each building for 16 hours a day would cost about $5,000,000 annually, to say nothing of increased administrative and equipment costs. In other words, no school in America has the money to do it, and no students in America have the extra money to absorb the costs.
You don’t get to decide who should carry what, where. You can offer your opinion, but you have yet to offer any substantial argumentation against it. I can (and have) shown the factual, supportable benefits of concealed carry legislation. You have yet to offer any factual negatives. In a free society we have our rights by default. If you can’t offer factual reasons for us not to be armed we must be allowed to retain our rights. Remember that we already carry almost everywhere we go. It’s already happened everywhere but this imaginary land called ‘campus’. Unless someone can demonstrate supportable reasons that this should be allowed then we will continue to demand our rights.
“Second of all the police have no duty to protect individual citizens (Warren V. the district of columbia) The police are not responsible criminally or civilly for our safety. If they’re not responsible, how can you try to deny people the right to their own self-defense.”
Sure they’re not legally responsible, but hey are trained and paid to do one thing: protect individual citizens. I have never seen a police officer at the seen of any crime or accident decide to walk away because he or she is not legally responsible. Try to have some arguments that make sense.
Also, to say that CCW brings down crime is not true. There was a study of Canada (very similar culture) and the U.S. after states began enacting the laws and the crime rate did not drop at all.
For someone who has devoted their life to this you should be able to debate much better than this.
First of all, we’re debating an issue, not how smart we are. Insulting me as a person rather than providing proof to invalidate my argument does nothing to help you and instead makes you look like an inexperienced debater who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So let’s stay on topic.
The rape example isn’t very strong because for that girl to protect herself she’d have to be strapped all day every day, including and especially in the privacy of her own room as well as when she’s sleeping, taking a shower, and brushing her teeth, so if someone snuck up on her she’d be ready to defend herself. I’ve never raped anyone so I don’t know exactly how it works, but I highly doubt the rapist introduces himself and gives her a warning that he’s going to rape her so she has time to get her gun.
Let’s also look at the idea that a lot of people WILL be uncomfortable with others carrying guns. If I’m uncomfortable with it, I know for a fact the majority of people at my school will be uncomfortable with it. “But who cares if ya’ll are uncomfortable, it’s our right,” is your reply. Well, a lot of people will be so uncomfortable that they’ll be willing to go to mediocre schools that don’t allow guns rather than good schools that do allow guns. How many PARENTS do you think would send their kids into a classroom knowing a nice percentage of teenagers in there are carrying guns? How many parents do you think would rather send their kids to a school where any random person could be carrying a gun and pull it out at anytime, versus a school where guns are banned? And if no one goes to these schools, they’ll lose money and eventually close down, and taxpayer money will have been wasted, not to mention all the other consequences of shutting down some of the top colleges in the country.
“How many PARENTS do you think would send their kids into a classroom knowing a nice percentage of teenagers in there are carrying guns?”
Get your facts straight before you attempt to continue your arguements. Most states require you to be 21.
I dont know what was seen as an insult, but I do believe I did show some proof. I also dont know how rape as an example wasnt a strong arguement. No one knows when they are going to be shot at. So according to your logic, because they arent going to anounce themseleves, we shouldnt be allowed to carry, because we wont know when its happening. Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
You also say that sending your kid to a school where guns are banned is safer, or makes you feel better. Do you think that there are no guns there? NIU had a ban on weapons, but a person was still able to get a handgun in there. Aparently he didnt know how to read because of course if he read the policy, he would see it was against state law and school policy to shoot people there. Yes there is a legal “ban” there, but there is also a “ban” on drugs. We have seen how well these “bans” work.
And is one persons discomfort more important than anothers? I feel uncomfortable when I have no security to speak of on my campus, and no means of defence, or safety, but no one cares about that because they would feel uncomfortable if I were allowed to carry and be comfortable. How is it your decision to say who’s discomfort is more important?
So you’re 21. 2 years older. They’d still feel exactly the same.
You completely twisted the rape example so it wouldn’t make sense and then accused me of using circular reasoning, thanks Johnnie Cochran. Here’s how it was supposed to be interpreted: You said girls need guns so they can defend themselves against guys going into their dorm rooms and raping them. If that’s the case, the only solution would be for them to have their gun on them 24/7. If not, I’m a rapist, I sneak into her room while she’s in the shower, I rape her because her gun is sitting on her desk. How would taking it to class with her help at all in that situation?
Obviously if you illegally have a gun you won’t care about signs. But a lot of people will be uncomfortable with the simple fact that you have a gun, regardless of whether you got a license for it or not. You as an individual being uncomfortable is less important than the general population being uncomfortable (a) because your group is a minority, and (b) read the last paragraph of my last post.
Now, your primary argument of wanting guns at school as a means of protecting yourself against school shootings is valid. Of course you’ll be safer than without it, and it will make you and most likely the other students in your class safer, I’m not denying that. But solving the problem in that particular way just leads to more problems as a result of it, thus it’s infeasible and wouldn’t work in the real world.
Actually my responses have completed obliterated every argument raised against us. You’re just too close minded to accept it. What you’re experiencing is known as cognitive dissonance, and it’s a natural human response. You just have to work hard to overcome it. Please list any argument made against us that has not been completely refuted and I will point out where you’re mistaken.
I never said concealed carry reduced crime, or at least I didn’t mean to. I said concealed carry has been used to combat or stop crime many hundreds of thousands of times a year, and it has.
Your argument about rape is ridiculous. Very few rapes are going to occur via break-in while the victim is showering. There’s nothing stopping someone from carrying more or less 24/7, a number of holders do including myself. If it didn’t work as a response to crime there wouldn’t be hundreds of thousands of uses every year that effectively stop crimes in progress. Not that it’s ALWAYS effective, but it can be. Since there are very few negatives, and some positives, the end result must be acceptance of the benefits of carry.
No, you actually don’t know that for a fact. If you would like to conduct a poll that can withstand peer review and then post the statistical results we’d be happy to take a look at it though. In fact, that’s a GREAT project which could be used later in a number of classes. Statistically most people in the US believe in private firearm ownership, and most support concealed carry in general. While it is true that that number is smaller with the ‘on campus’ focus, there are plenty of indications out there that show it’s still nearly a dead heat.
I never meant to say who cares, I meant to show you that it’s already happening all over so your fear is irrational. Though it’s also true that just having a fear isn’t enough of a reason to make something illegal. Please link me your studies or polls that show that people will choose a college based on their concealed policy in any numbers large enough to be significant. Furthermore why is that ANY different than us currently having to choose to go to school in Utah, Colorado, or one of the other few schools that permit concealed carry? Why do you get what you want, but we don’t, especially when we have all the facts on our side? No teenagers will have guns because you have to be 21 to get a permit (in most states). Furthermore we doubt that there would be much (if any) increase in the number of people with permits…just the places that those people already licensed would be carrying. It’s possible we’d see a small increase, but fortunately there are NO negatives to that, as demonstrated by more than forty years of experience with it. I am a parent however, and I would MUCH rather send my child somewhere that she, or someone else around her, could actually act to save her life…rather than sending her to her execution with absolutely no chance to prevent it whatsoever. Please link me proof that this will bring about the downfall of a college as you fear-monger. Again, it hasn’t happened yet, despite all the campuses that allow concealed carry across the nation. So why is it suddenly going to start happening? Please show me proof that reality will suddenly alter itself for no good reason.
Every hour you have your weapon is about 4% of the day that you are prepared to respond to a crime. Even if you only carry twelve hours a day you’re protected for half of every day. Being smart enough to carry at least when you’re the most likely to be a victim (information easily gleaned from taking a class or doing basic research).
It is true that only 1-4% of the population carries…but that’s still 1-4% that carries everywhere else. It isn’t a problem anywhere else, so why is it suddenly going to be a problem at a college…especially when no one knows who’s carrying (if anyone) anyway.
Please demonstrate with facts and statistics that it WILL in fact create more problems. I have already shown with full support that it has not, and therefore logically will not. You will need some VERY convincing support to prove this fear-mongering in any way valid. Just a warning.
Students can bring guns to school in 11 universities nationwide. Every public university in Utah, Colorado State, and one community college which I believe is in Virginia. There has not been one gun incident of any kind there in over 60 combined semesters (how long this policy has been implemented) Secondly, CPL holders are not meant to go after bad guys and do not need to learn counter-terrorism. The purpose of a CHL is if the shooter is near to you and your life is in immediate danger and you need to stop him. CHL holders are typically trained to deal with threats that are within ten feet. CHL training is not a crash course into law enforcement or anything like that. It teaches you when it’s appropriate to shoot and when it’s not, and how to do so safely. That’s not a lot of training, but it doesn’t take a lot of training to defend one’s life from a threat that’s 10-15 feet away. It’s not for CHL holders to “play hero” it’s for them to stay alive. And also, we’re not just talking about mass shooting. We’re talking about people who are victims of more common crimes like robbery, rape, and assault. And you say that most 18 year olds are too naive to carry. I might have to agree, but in most states the CHL law requires that you be 21 years old.
You did nothing to rebut my rape example, you just brought it up and then provided a totally irrelevant statistic. You just proved you know nothing about successfully arguing your views. Another thing you need to work on is not blatantly insulting the person you’re trying to convince. Anything you present after you do this will be irrelevant because they will already be apt to ignore you, and it does nothing to further your point, just makes you look childish.
The other thing you don’t understand is that this is a democracy and if the majority of people don’t like the idea of kids bringing guns to school, it will never work anyway. Regardless of the facts and statistics and percentages, people will be uncomfortable with it, period. If I had a kid I would NOT send them to a school where their classmates were carrying guns, and yes, I am a lot more open minded than most people, so if I’m uncomfortable with it, I know the vast majority of people would be too.
If you aren’t prepared for honesty, you probably want to abandon debate. I say nothing except the truth, fully supportable. If you’re insulted by that truth the problem is on you, not me. I’m not here to be nice, I’m here to be right. Your opinion of my debate skills is, quite frankly, irrelevant. I think I’ll trust the pile of trophies in my closet, and the various positions I’ve held that say otherwise.
I did respond to your rape example quite clearly in a number of ways, but I will reiterate here for you:
1. People who carry can do so enough of the time to have the ability to defend themselves a large percentage of the time. Many/most people who carry do so at least most of the time. Personally mine is on me unless I’m asleep or in the shower. Then it’s ready to go in a bedside quick access box.
2. There are between 300,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually. Those uses stop crimes that might otherwise be committed. Weapons have been used frequently in the prevention of rape in these instances. This information is readily available by researching civilian gun uses to stop rape. You’ll find a large number of stories reported by various media sources. If rape wasn’t stoppable through concealed carry these statistics would not exist.
3. (new argument for clarity) The problem with YOUR examples of rape is that you seem to presume that since they have a gun these women will leave their doors wide open, or at least unlocked; and that they will take no other precautions against rape. That’s silly. If you shut and lock your doors and windows (as any reasonable person should when they are in a victimizable position) you should receive plenty of warning if someone is breaking in. The loud bang or crash is a dead giveaway. That leaves plenty of time to clear leather (if carrying), or retrieve the weapon from its ready access point.
Actually this is not, and has never been, a democracy. It’s a democratic republic. Very large difference. Majorities aren’t always right. Read up on ‘the tyranny of the majority’ for an explanation. It’s no different than every other abuses of the majority such as slavery, native american abuses, racism, etc. That’s why we have constitutions here, so that the majorities cannot remove the rights of the minorities. Furthermore in this case it’s a bare majority in most instances. Even then we acknowledge that the decision of the masses is being based on ignorance and fear, and not facts or law. That’s why we formed the group: to educate the masses.
I understand that people are uncomfortable, but as we’ve said in the past it’s irrational. They’re already doing EXACTLY what they claim to be afraid of every day, all over the country. Their arguments are ludicrous, they lack any understanding of the actual facts, and perhaps most importantly: why is it ok to make gun owners uncomfortable but not non-gun owners? Especially since we have constitutions and laws on our side so frequently? You are wrong that it won’t ever happen, and we have support for that position. Everyone said the same thing before Utah voted it in, and now we have it. They said the same things about shall-issue and castle doctrine in each of the states which have adopted them, but now we have them in the majority. The arguments are the same EVERY TIME, and every time truth and reason eventually win out. No you really don’t know that for a fact and until you provide actual research supporting your position you have no valid argument…just an opinion. You’re free to feel and do what you will, but laws should be based on facts and reality and not the confusion and fear of the ignorant.
Once again I submit to you: there is not a SINGLE argument against that has withstood our presentation of fact. That means that while those against have no support for their position other than personal fear and what-ifs, the for side has numerous examples, precedent, and supportable arguments.
I want to carry a gun for the same reason I wear a seatbelt and have fire estinguishers in my home.
Just in case.
Actually, you’ve written a number of responses but have done nothing to change my views or the views of any of the other anti-”guns on campus” people in this post, so apparently your debate skills aren’t as great as you think they are. It would also help if your website looked at least somewhat professional, so viewers don’t confuse it with a 5th grader’s homework project.
So again, in the rape example, how did taking her gun to class prevent the rape? Having a gun in the privacy of your own home isn’t the same as bringing it to class with you.
Also, as NO has pointed out on numerous occasions, fights and arguments are quite common on a college campus. If someone has a gun, they can easily pull it out and end someone’s life, in what would otherwise have just been a stupid fist fight that would have been forgotten the next day.
I understand the “tyranny of the majority” but unfortunately for you, it’s still a majority, and if we vote you out, that’s just too bad for you.
“fights and arguments are quite common on a college campus. If someone has a gun, they can easily pull it out and end someone’s life, in what would otherwise have just been a stupid fist fight that would have been forgotten the next day.”
…yup, because this happens all the time outside of the sanctity of “gun free zones” where statistically an obviously violent and rowdy gun-slinging 1% of the general population is armed at all times. Boy, if I had a dollar for every time I have ever, or ever will for that matter, “ended someone’s life” with my concealed weapon over a stupid fight…
Changing your views is up to you, not me. All I can do is present you with the facts of the matter, and point out where logic and illogic lies. Everything else is up to you.
Since you have been incapable of presenting ANY rational, supportable argument you have decided to now cast derision upon the group for the quality/type of website they have. This does more to prove my case than you could possibly realize. However, to answer your point, we are still a new and growing organization with little funding. What money we do have we tend to spend on the most imperative matters. The new website is being developed, but since it’s volunteer work it’s going to take time to get deployed.
Before you claimed that in order for the gun to prevent rape it had to be on her 24/7. I pointed out why that was untrue, and detailed that firearms have in fact been used to prevent rapes. You now ask how taking it to class prevents rape. Very well, I’ll play your game of misguidance:
1. Taking it to class doesn’t prevent rape in and of itself…it provides a tool to use should someone attempt to rape her. Without that tool she would be a significantly more vulnerable target. With it, she gains a chance.
2. Specifically it provides protection for the period of time going to or coming from class. Obviously no rapes are going to occur in class, with the professor and 30 students there. However coming home from class is often a very vulnerable point in a single womans life…especially if it’s a night class and there is a mostly uninhabited bit of dark area to cover between class and home. That’s a frequently occurring scenario.
3. Rape is not the only reason to carry a gun. We merely pointed out that it is an added benefit of allowing law-abiding citizens their already existing and constitutionally protected rights without artificial and useless limitations.
Fights and arguments are quite common everywhere. Campuses have, in general, a lower per capita amount of crime (including violent crime) than the outside world. This isn’t to suggest it’s perfectly safe on campus, but neither is a campus a concentration of arguments and fights. If someone has a knife they can easily pull it and end someone’s life. I can do the same thing quite easily with my drivers license, a pencil, a stick, or my bare hands for that matter. So can millions of other people. However, we don’t. Why? Because we’re law abiding citizens who, even when forced into physical confrontations, don’t respond with more force than is necessary. For your argument to be supportable you have to show us that:
1. Fights are more common on campus, or at least very common
2. People who carry weapons legally WILL pull them and use them in these fights
I will counter that:
1. Statistically I have already disproven 1 above
2. 40+ years of concealed carry in America by millions of persons in 48 states, with hundreds of thosuands (or more) defensive gun uses each year have proven that this absolutely does not happen with ANY statisitical significance. In fact I can go on to prove through numerous studies that concealed permit holders are 5 times less likely to be involved in such crimes.
In other words, you are absolutely 100% proven wrong on this matter.
You are actually quite wrong about voting out our rights. Since gun rights in general are constitutionally protected you would have to achieve an overwhelming majority to enact a constitutional amendment repealing those rights. That majority does not exist. In fact the clear majority of Americans fully support the individual gun ownership. Therefore you’ll never ‘vote it out’. The same is basically true of concealed carry. We have been expanding our rights for the last 40 years and now are firmly entrenched. 48 of fifty states have legal protections in place for concealed carry, and it is largely supported by the masses, so you’re not going to be able to vote that out either. While you may be able to resist concealed carry on campus for a short while, we’ve already got Utah and other schools outside of that state as well. Furthermore we’re growing 1000 members a week, have partnerships with numerous other pro-gun right groups, and are increasing our funding and political clout rapidly. In the end the fact that your side has NO supportable arguments, while we have absolutely all facts on data on our side will win out. We’ll get it approved in first one state, then another. It’s almost certainly unstoppable. The truth is like that.
So again, you do not have a single argument with support yet, while we have many. Still waiting for ANY of your arguments to stand up to even cursory analysis.
Thanks for twisting everything I said. Shows you really know what you’re talking about.
Let’s see. The website. You expect people to take you seriously yet do nothing to convince them. Having something so unprofessional and ridiculous associated with your name just makes you look like a group of amateurs who don’t know what they’re doing.
The rape. You use the example of being attacked at night to justify everyone everywhere being allowed to carry a gun at every time. If anything you should only be arguing for circumstantial exceptions to no gun laws, not an outright throwing out of them. A girl being raped at night when no one is around does nothing to justify her carrying a gun in the middle of the day with thousands of people around.
Fights. I don’t have to show that fights are more common, only that they do occur. And obviously they do. Also, it doesn’t matter how “less likely” you are to be involved, you’re still involved. Saying you have the right because you’re “less likely” is like me saying riding a motorcycle with no hands isn’t dangerous because it’s less dangerous than jumping out of a plane. Totally ridiculous.
You also attempted to twist my views on gun control to suit your argument. I never said I was against the second amendment. I never said I was against concealed carrying in general. I said I was against people bringing guns to class. Very different.
In reality your entire argument is bad, because you use isolated examples to justify such radical views. How common are school shootings? I didn’t look up the statistics but I don’t think they’re that common. Taking such ludicrous measures is like taping mattresses around my body when I ride my bike just incase I fall. Maybe you should also argue for the right to take your gun onto a plane with you, just incase someone tries to blow it up. I’m sure everyone will agree with you on that.
are you stupid? as if there isnt enough school shootings! we might as well let them bring drugs to school and deal to the teachers!!
YOU GUYS ARE STUPID!! GUNS IN SCHOOL!!! WHAT IF SOMEONE KILLS SOMEONE I MEAN WHAT THE HECK THEN WE CHARGE THE PERSON WITH MURDER AND THE STILL LET THEM CARRY GUNS OR SOMETHING!!! THINK ABOUT 9/11 AND VIRGINIA TECH AND EVERYTHING ELSE BAD IN THE WORLD!! SCHOOLS TRY TO PREVENT VIOLANCE NOT START IT!!!! PEOPLE NEED TO THINK!!!! ARE YOU GUYS MENTALLY RETARDED I MEAN OMG WE CAN KEEP THIS CONVO GOING MESSAGE ME AT
http://www.myspace.com/alexsexbby
THEN WE WILL TALK FOR REAL WHEN YOUR NOT HIGH OR DRUNK LIKE U ARE NOW!!!!
Once again, since you can’t formulate any kind of supported argument you attempt to attack something else. It’s a common fallacy, so in the end it just hurts your cause. Feel free to bring it up all you want. It has nothing to do with the concealed carry argument.
No one has EVER said everyone should carry. In fact, I don’t even think we’ve ever said EVERYWHERE. We merely argue that those who can already carry almost everywhere else be allowed to carry on campus - since there is absolutely no reason not to, and a number of very good reasons to allow it. Why would we create an entirely new class of laws based on time of day? That lacks precedent, and is still an artificial limitation of otherwise guaranteed rights. Since there is no significant negatives to allowing the same form of carry as we enjoy everywhere else, it is the most logical to merely carry that over. Furthermore, rape is hardly the only reason to carry, as we’ve already pointed out a number of times. Why not throw out gun laws when it’s been repeatedly shown that they accomplish nothing they set out to?
This last paragraph is the clincher. How can you say our argument is bad when we have ALL FACTS AND STATISTICS and you have NOTHING BUT FEAR AND IGNORANCE? Please answer that question. I have easily defeated every argument you have attempted to make. Our examples weren’t isolated, they’re overwhelming. They come from academics, government, and private sources. They span 40 years. They utterly obliterate everything you’ve tried to say. You’re just closing your eyes, and covering your ears, and stomping your feet and refusing to acknowledge it. Cognitive dissonance.
There are plenty of people who have argued for concealed carry on planes, but that’s not what our group is about. Our group is about correcting a wrong, and increasing safety. Our group is about educating. There is nothing radical about it, because we have absolutely logical and wholly supported arguments.
For about the fifth time I’ll ask you: name one argument that has been made against us that our facts and statistics don’t decimate. Give me any argument we haven’t fully refuted already. Or make a new one if you’ve got one. I’m happy to explain each argument any number of ways so that there’s no doubt whatsoever.
Shawny: maybe you should actually read the arguments listed here before you toss out things like that. It just makes you look ignorant.
Lindsey: same thing. Oh, and two words for you - Caps Lock.
swoll,
I’m glad that you are twisting all of Kristins arguements. I have not seen him twist in anyway an arguement you have made, but every time you fire that “you twisted you twisted” back out there it shows that you are not trying to even understand the pro-carry side. You say that we have insulted you, but you spat needless baseless insults back into our faces. You say that we are not good debaters because we have not changed your mind, but you have not changed ours either. You say that our group is a “5th graders project” but have not taken the time to realize that we do not have a paid webmaster. We have a number of things on our plates. You have also not taken the time to realize that SCCC knows our website needs to be redesigned and is looking for a full time webmaster. What does it matter if our website doesnt look fancy right now? None of us are yelling at you for being childish and not using your real name. I dont think its childish, but I do however see a number of childish things comming out of your “arguements”. There is currently a very large double standard going on here.
Yes maybe I’m not an experienced debater. For that I understand how someone could point that out. I think it shows how inexperienced a debater you are however by saying that I look inexperienced and trying to write off anything I say as irrelevent.
There is one very common thing being asked in this post. Can you provide ANY data to back up anything you have sugested? You said parents wouldnt send their kids to schools that allow CC, but Utah schools are still open, Colorado schools are still open too. You say that people would feel uncomfortable if they knew other people around them had a gun. Where is the evidence that supports this? I have carried every day since I recieved my permit. I have been around a great number of people that were very anti-carry who never felt uncomfortable around me. They even knew I had a firearm on me but were not uncomfortable. You keep yelling that our data and statistics mean nothing, but you can find nothing to disprove them. Even the research I’m doing about crime and CC shows that there has been no drastically bad effects from it. Every article I have read (and yes, peer reviewed articles, not wiki sources) has had to say that it is true that CC has no negative effects. We just ask one simple thing. Can you provide support for your thoughts?
Oh, one last thing. You said we are a democracy, but when Kristin reminded you that we arent, you still say that “the majority” will vote us down. The majority of law makers do not feel your way, or we wouldnt have 47* states with people carrying.
[*I say 47 because even though Hawaii is may issue, they have never issued a permit.]
I’ve been watching this debate. It’s not hard to pick the winner. Concealed carry advocates clearly show respect, patience, logic, and facts, whereas the opposition is purely emotional and without reason. As a professor and a parent, I would be glad to see both my students and my children to carry for protection, and arguments like this really support that conclusion.
Actually, you lose again, because you jumped in without reading the previous comments. We don’t have 47 states with people carrying on campus, we have 47 states with people carrying off campus. I specifically said I don’t care if people carry off campus but I don’t want them to carry on campus. Next time, pay attention before rushing to give your opinion.
Evidence that people would feel uncomfortable? Well, I’d feel uncomfortable. The other 5-6 people in these comments would feel uncomfortable. If you want evidence, go around your campus and survey 100 people, asking “would you feel uncomfortable if random strangers brought guns into your classes?” and give me the results. If they all say they’d be perfectly fine with it, I’ll post a new story on the front page with the results and a link to your site to sign up.
Yet we do have one full state allowing it, and numerous other campuses which allow it. All of them without incident.
Once again, they don’t feel uncomfrotable out in the world with the same people carrying under exactly the same conditions, so if they’re uncomfortable they need to ask themselves why. Actually they wouldn’t be uncomfortable however, because they’d never know that anyone was carrying (just that they could). Furthermore remember that gun carriers are uncomfortable NOT carrying…so why is it ok for us to be uncomfortable, and not you?
Because from my point of view it’s alright for other people to be uncomfortable at my expense, and from your point of view it’s alright for other people to be uncomfortable at your expense. There’s no way to settle that.
I think people would be uncomfortable with it in the classroom vs the outside world because it’s too radical a change and it really does seem like too much.
Not at all, I don’t want anyone uncomfortable when it can be helped. When there must be discomfort this is what I’d like:
Try to alleviate as much discomfort as possible from as many as possible, without infringing on rights, acting irrationally, or lowering safety. In this case that means educating those around me until they admit that their fear is irrational. Only then can they begin to conquer it. I’m happy to spend as much time and energy as necessary to help them on this journey.
The situation is factually no different than any where else in the country where we already carry. There is no appreciable danger presented by allowing us to carry (as statistically proven). No one will ever KNOW who is carrying anyway. There isn’t that big of a chance of anything bad actually happening to anyone. If anything bad were to happen, and we were allowed to carry, there is at least a chance that we could act to stop it; versus absolutely no chance for it to be effectively stopped otherwise.
You see, the difference is really that our fear is rational and supportable. The opposing side is only fearful out of emotion and ignorance. I don’t mean that as a slam, I really don’t. It’s just the bottom line truth. Our way grants people their rights, your way restricts people’s rights. Our way your fears can still be dealt with and reduced/eliminated. Your way nothing can remove our fears.
One other thing to bring up:
It didn’t used to be illegal to carry on most campuses. If you do some research back into history you’ll find that gun control is a fairly modern thing in America. At least in so much as restricting where people can carry.
Our high school parking lot had more guns in it than non-four-wheel-drive vehicles. No one was ever hurt, and in fact no one was ever bothered in the least. When I first started attending college I carried every day with no issues at all. No one thought twice about it back then, because it wasn’t a problem. Today it still isn’t a problem, except that a bunch of fear mongers decided to make people think it was a problem.
What I’m getting at is that it ISN’T a radical idea in the least. Nobody was worried about the change when they suddenly started banning guns, but now they’re worried about returning things to the way they were. It’s once again an illogical argument.
Addendum:
In my previous post I used the word ‘illegal’ incorrectly. It still isn’t illegal to carry on post-secondary campuses in many states, just against the rules.
When i said it I was in a hurry, but it should have said illegal or against the rules.
“I think people would be uncomfortable with it in the classroom vs the outside world because it’s too radical a change and it really does seem like too much.”
We don’t want you to feel uncomfortable. Wasn’t it more of a radical change when they took guns OUT of schools? My father grew up taking his shotgun to High School so he could go bird hunting afterschool. The lockers were a better place to leave his shotgun than his car that didnt lock.
Do you feel uncomfortable when you drive in bad traffic, or feel uncomfortable standing up infront of a class to give a presentation, or when you ask someone out? You still do these things don’t you? Saying that your discumfort is more important than mine, or vise versa is not, as you said, going to solve it. Why won’t you then look at the side of true safety.
People who have permits are 5 times lesslikely to be charged with a crime. If you really want to look at safety, you should be more uncomfortable around people who DONT have permits, becaues they are 5 times more likely to rob you, or assult you. I dont want people to think of it this way truely, but just take a min to reread that.
Were the people at VT safe? No. Were they comfortable? Many were, yes. Many were not. There was only one thing that held true for all students there. It did not matter if they were comfortable or uncomfortable, every single one of them were in danger. Allowing CC on campus has never put a person in danger.
You already said that wh