Campus Carry

I just love it when folks change their argument when faced with information contrary to their original claim. First you claimed that everyone on a college campus was an adult and backed up your claim by saying there are more kids at Wal-mart than on a college campus...

They are all adults. There are more kids at Wal-Mart than on a college campus.
Click to expand...

If the people on campus are all adult, that is 100% adults, but then you waffled and stated that there are more kids (not a higher percent, but more actual kids) at Wal-mart. So I countered with information on all the children that may be present on college campuses and then you changed your argument to percentages.

The percentage of children is higher at Wal-Mart more than likely. With what you said I could say there are more children in the USA than in
Click to expand...

If you are going to play this line of reasoning, get your facts and justifications straight. It is a poor line of reasoning to use and so does not make for an effective argument.

---

It didn't work that way with the Fort Hood shooter; he shot and wounded Sergeant Kimberley Munley, one of the two police officers who rushed him, after she began shooting at him. And he didn't kill himself -- as I recall, he's now paralyzed, and awaiting trial.
Click to expand...

Right, lots of campus shooters (although I don't think I would put Fort Hood into this category) do not kill themselves. Some fight to the death and some try to escape.
 
There are millions of CCW holders in this nation that go into businesses and public places every day carrying a weapon. Explain to me how a college campus is any different or the CCW Holders will act any different. Every time those opposing CCW raise the specter of a bloodbath it never happened.

the argument against it is a sham....
 
The answer is absolutely. A licensed (yes, I believe in CCW licensing) law abiding citizen should be able to carry their weapon anywhere.
 
It is the case that some rampage shooters will do themselves in. But some don't. It will be hard to discern the motivations of the shooter during the action.

God forbid, we run into a deliberate Mumbai style action. Those people won't fold and you would be in an intensive fight.

Also the Tacoma Mall and Tyler TX rampage shooters took out the intervening civilian. Both might have been brave but failed from a sensible tactics point of view.

While SD against standard criminals is a wonderfully legit argument - the rampage has grabbed the center of the debate. That might have been a mistake, who knows. :confused:

Perry is taking his own sweet time on signing the parking lot bill and didn't use his powers or influence on campus carry. Might remember that when you see him posturing. :rolleyes:
 
While SD against standard criminals is a wonderfully legit argument - the rampage has grabbed the center of the debate. That might have been a mistake, who knows.
Click to expand...

It is a mistake, at least in part. Every day there are multiples of people attacked on college campuses. We may fear the grand attacks. We may fear zombies, but there are very few people here that have ever been present, either involved in or actually witnessing a college, lower school, mall, or business rampage sort of attack. Even fewer that did anything to stop it. By contrast, there are a lot of people here who have been present for violent acts, robberies, home invasions, rapes, etc., either as a victim or as a direct witness. I am one. There are undoubtedly some of us who have been somehow directly involved with such acts on a college campus even. I would be one of those, too.

While it may be great to be prepared for "the big one," it isn't "the big one" that is going to cause harm to the vast majority of us and so maybe should not be our justification for needing to be able to better defend ourselves. The real problems most of us will face day-to-day are very localized, yet happen everywhere.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
While SD against standard criminals is a wonderfully legit argument - the rampage has grabbed the center of the debate. That might have been a mistake, who knows.
Click to expand...
I think it probably is a mistake. Rampage shootings always seem to get national attention, which makes them seem more frequent than they actually are, compared to "run-of-the-mill" assaults, rapes, etc. -- which occur with regrettable frequency around the "U." in my city.

It's also a bit ironic: we spend a lot of time here discussing the risks and problems involved in intervening on behalf of others, and yet the "save-many-lives-in-case-of-a-rampage" argument seems to carry more weight in this debate than the plain old "right-to-save-yerself" one... which is far less problematic, both in theory and in practice.
 
Tennessee Gentleman said:
Vanya said:
It didn't work that way with the Fort Hood shooter
Click to expand...
I think he was a different breed of cat from Cho, Kazmierczak or others who want to kill themselves and take a few with them. I think the Ft. Hood guy was not that type. Or was he suicidal?

Anyway, I don't know hat for sure but have read of it.
Click to expand...

The shooting-while-Muslim aspect of that case leads a lot of folks to label Maj. Hasan a "terrorist," and to want to leave it at that, but in many respects he was a fairly typical workplace shooter, if there is such a thing -- unstable mentally, harassed and bullied by co-workers because of his religious beliefs, very unhappy with both his current job and his upcoming work assignment (in a war zone where his co-religionists were "the enemy"). And he had tried unsuccessfully to get out of the Army, paying back his student loans and hiring a lawyer to help him, but the Army had refused to let him go...

I don't know if all that added up to being suicidal in his case, but he was, with some reason, a very unhappy camper.

As Glenn notes, motivation is hard to discern -- during and after the action. But I suspect that few if any such shooters expect to walk away after the rampage.
 
I think Vanya is correct on Hasan, he reads like a workplace shooter but he channeled the ideology in the runup to his action.

Certainly, rampage shooters show cultural influences that interact with their basic motivation. What do I know but once he went off the straight and narrow I suspect he started to seek out justifications for his actions that egged him on. Those were in the context of his cultural and religious backgrounds.

All religions produce such folks, it seems. There are analyses of Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim and other rampagers. The fundamentalist streak in all major religions (and other causes) can be taken up by disturbed folks.

Note, not all rampagers are classically disturbed though. It's a subset.
 
Oh, after watching the campus carry show in TX. I think it will be hard to get such bills passed in most states.

While shall issue was a success, I don't think OC and campus carry will be that successful. Just my take on the issue.

Note, I was the only big mouth at work who actually protested our school's opposition to campus carry. Many of the talk the talk progun folks were noticeably silent on raising their voices. :mad:
 
Glenn, I think you are right about campus carry. Tom Gresham said it best when he advised to frame the issue as not one of giving guns to kids.

However, the idea of stupid drunk college kiddos (I once was one) resonates thru when this is brought up. The public for some reason cannot see this as responsible adults with CCWs but can only envison idiots in the frat house.

Side note. I kept in my apartment and frat house a loaded handgun for three of the four years I was in college with nary an issue. But I was an outlier :)
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
...I was the only big mouth at work who actually protested our school's opposition to campus carry. Many of the talk the talk progun folks were noticeably silent on raising their voices.
Click to expand...
Bummer. What do you think accounts for their silence -- the drunken-frat-boys-with-guns thing, or...?

Certainly, rampage shooters show cultural influences that interact with their basic motivation. What do I know but once he went off the straight and narrow I suspect he started to seek out justifications for his actions that egged him on. Those were in the context of his cultural and religious backgrounds.
Click to expand...
Very well put. That's exactly right, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Just because someone walks onto certain property dont make them go wacko-students, parents visitors.

We always hear about all the alcohol and students!! I guess the univ is admitting that they cant control their borders-it is illegal for most students to drink.. Ill bet most of the same univs saying NO-also dont allow drinking and we all know they cant enforce that.

University prop is no different-carry should be allowed anywhere in the state that the licensees license is good--CHURCHES also!!

From post #23

The answer is absolutely. A licensed (yes, I believe in CCW licensing) law abiding citizen should be able to carry their weapon anywhere.


Someone who supports infringements.
 
I start Law School in August and I was hoping Missouri would get campus carry. It just seems to be an uphill battle. As we all know prohibiting guns will have no effect on a person determined to commit a mass shooting but people like me will leave our guns in the car to comply with the law.

When you have the intent to kill you will surely ignore any law regarding your preferred means of causing death.
 
vranasauras: There was a student at the University of Idaho who did sue the university on CC his last year of law school. Use you college training to focus on that yourself.

Anyway, campus rape and armed robbery etc. is what the focus of Campus Carry should be. A weapon, or even the possibility of a weapon can put of a criminal intent on doing you harm...One of the reasons I am all for carry anywhere, OC or CC, what ever the individual decides.

Using a weapon in a crime should be an enhancement, never a charge on it's own. When one person did something they did not like did your parents punish the whole family? Because someone is a violent felon, ok, take his right away as part of his punishemt, leave the rest of us alone.

BTW: I grew up before the GCA 68. I was 21 and in Vietnam in 68. I never grew up with the buggy man syndrome. People were just people, some good and some bad. There are a lot more "bad" people these days only because there are more laws to break. Just like in the 20's with the equally stupid Prohibition.

I don't know how many, but I would be a large portion of the prison population today, would not have been in prison if the had committed their "crime" in 1911 instead of 2011.
 
Last edited:
talk about pulling the tiger's tail...

I live in Illinois where ALL ccw is illegal. Since I am a student at a public U, after enrollment (ie: later this week) I intend to either join or offer support/start a local chapter of this group: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus - ConcealedCampus.com. Let's put pressure on Springfield from a surprising direction!
 
Hermannr, that case is Tribble v. Board of Regents. It is currently pending. A hearing has been set for 9/12/2011 on Motions for Summary Judgment.

Neither party has yet to file an MSJ.
 
I don't think anyone has addressed the two main arguments against campus carry, which seem to be:

1) Guns don't belong in schools.

2) Students are uncomfortable potentially sitting next to hidden guns that they will never see or know about; or might not even be there at all. But still...


Counterpoints?
 
I depends upon whether or not a college accepts govt funding as to how private they are. For example BJ Univ refused gov funding to keep their rules regarding dating.
If a university or college is truly private then they have the right to restrict.

Everyone who attends college is not mature, but the laws of the state regarding CCW should dictate who can carry. I believe that CC should be allowed without interference by the college. But is a hard row to hoe to get college liberals to see the obvious.
Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top