We dont even have fire drills.

cold dead hands...

A few things, first is that I have no desire to become a LEO but sometimes do shiver when I come across an obvious CHL holder...wearing a windbreaker with a huge bulge on the right side with an IDPA T-Shirt and NRA hat on on a sunny 102 degree Texas Day.

I do have full confidence in myself in that I know when I will shoot, when I will not shoot, and that I am at peace with anything that happens as a result of my decisions. I am a good enough marksman under simulated pressure (competitions and a shooting buddy randomly shooting cap guns and fireworks) that I know my own limitations and adjust those limitations for real world conditions when I am truly scared out of my mind.

I did not make that policy...actually State policy says no guns except for LEO's period point blank. Any school that wants state funding pretty much has to accept those rules as far as I know, I actually wanted to bring more guns into the school by ensuring they were in competent hands.

Follow my line of thought here:

There's another post somewhere on here about 16 year olds being able to get a CCW. The response from being AGAINST CCW at that age were overwhelmingly high.

I cannot speak intelligently about all schools but a huge majority of our student body was fresh out of high school, most not even legal to drink (age 18 to 20). So that equals almost no legal gun carriers. Out of 3,000 students on campus at any given time (we had more enrolled but scheduled so we wouldn't have ALL our students there at the same day and time) we might have had 30 adult students on campus at any given time. While a lot of these were former military there were also a few "rehabilitated" criminals. Our age/race demographics were in line with most other Texas schools.

So out of those adults 30 there'd be 25 that could get a CCW and let's say 10 to 15 of them did. Out of those 15 maybe 5 or 10 carry on a regular basis and half of those train and take self defense as seriously as any participating member here does. So you might have 3-8 people on campus to help prevent a disaster in addition to whatever campus police you have (we had three at any given time, it was a small campus).

On the other hand you have roughly 70 instructors on campus plus another 30 or so for administration. That equals 100 people who's background was clean enough to pass a state background check AND most of them were military. Of those 100 let's say 45 of them have CHL's (maybe high for an average school but that's pretty accurate for where I was). State laws require all employees work 40 hours a week so the odds of all 45 of them being on campus together during the day is pretty good as most of us didn't like night classes. Out of those 45 a total of 20 want to become "deputized" (very low from my experience). That is 20 armed and trained individuals to act with campus and local police to eradicate any threat.

At the end of the day it's a numbers game, faculty/staff being armed and trained would be of more benefit than the handful of legal students CCW'ing. I was not trying to make policy for the state or country, just my school.
 
Continued...didn't know what post limit was and didn't want to lose anything

Finally your "I can't believe you're 2A" comment.

I suppose everyone interprets the second amendment differently. I do not get into analyzing it much because it's so vague that the people who either say "only for military and LE" OR "anyone can own and carry anything they desire" can reason their point of view.

I believe in my God given right, privilege, and responsibility to protect myself and my family. I honestly do not care what any governing body says but I will adhere to the laws as my family and I are better off with me carrying a rock and stick than rotting in jail for a federal firearms violation.

I believe every human walking this earth has that same right, privilege and responsibility unless they've used that right to do unjustified damage to another individual.

Having said that I do not think our forefathers envisioned us with fully auto weapons, grenades, and other weapons that are capable of clearing out an entire street corner, shopping mall, or classroom in one fatal swoop. Even if they did I do not want fully auto weapons available at the local gunshop or hardware store, I do not want just anyone to be able to buy a firearm without having some kind of rudimentary background check done, and I do want anyone caught with an illegal firearm or someone who uses a firearm to commit any crime to be charged and sentenced with the stiffest possible consequences and see them put to work for society in a federal penitentiary.

I do think if someone can buy a firearm they should be allowed to carry without a permit...I still haven't made up my mind on the logic of open carry BUT I suppose if you want to you should be able to. I do not want to see any limitations on ownership or bearing (carrying) other than criminal/mental history and fully autos, I have absolutely no logic to back that up, it's just how I feel. Sure it creates a black market for guns but that black market for the "good stuff" is ungodly expensive and usually only the semi-major players can afford to shop there (or have contacts there).

The world is far too complex to make blanket statements about anything, gun ownership and availability included. The "you're either with us or against us" argument is pretty elementary school in my opinion. If you want to know anything else feel free to ask...do not tell me what I am though.
 
I remember having this discussion with some liberal college professor types in the wake of the VT massacre.
Gun control on campus is not about the safety of the students and never has been. It's about the faculty being uncomfortable around guns.

If you take a look around (the stories get buried quickly) the students aren't the ones fighting concealed carry on campus, they're the ones lobbying for it.

But yeah, it'd be a hoot to practice your real life response during one of their "duck and cover" drills.
Grab the fire extinguisher and hide behind the door. if anyone comes in, point it at 'em and yell "FOOOSH" :D
Probably get suspended, but it'd be worth the laugh.

[edit] or better yet, go up to the dry-rase board and draw a bullseye right between your eyes. When the professor asks what you're doing, say "as long as you're making sure I get shot, I may as well make sure I don't suffer"
 
GoSlash,

Maybe the school I taught at is a rare exception but a huge number of instructors and administration were firearm competent and had CCW's. There's a lot more people on the other side of that desk pushing for allowing CCW'ing on campus (anyone legally eligible for a CCW of course, not just faculty/staff) than meets the eye.

I honestly met very few college students (attending day class at a 2 or 4 year school) who were of legal age to own, much less carry a firearm. Again I just might have been in an out of the usual place.
 
Sigma,
My opinion is really just formed by news snippets and personal interaction on the 'nets.
We've all seen the student protests for CCW access, but here's the kind of exchange I've had with faculty (note: this is not intended to cast blame universally on any group.)
I recommended doing away with campus-wide CCW access bans. The response...


He:
Are you interested in having any professors on your campus to teach the students? What in the names of the gods do you think is going to induce people to want to teach of class of armed students? What value will education have when all grades are determined at a point of a gun?

I cannot think of anything as imbecilic as what you are suggesting. These are schools you are talking about. Schools.
Click to expand...

I:
Well maybe, maybe. Then again, maybe not.
Maybe you can back up the assertion with facts? 'Cuz I think we could still find faculty. In fact, what prompted this is the fact that a faculty member at that school had a CCW permit and was barred from carrying on school grounds.

I'd thank you to keep the discussion civil tho'. Notice that I have not derided any of the gun control solutions as "imbecilic".
Click to expand...

He:
You might answer the damn questions I asked.
Click to expand...

I:
I will. Will you? (note: this is in reference to the original question posed; exactly what is the gun control advocate's solution to averting the next VT)

Question #1:Are you interested in having any professors on your campus to teach the students?

Answer: Yes.

Question #2: What in the names of the gods do you think is going to induce people to want to teach of class of armed students?
Answer: This fairly begs for the obvious return question, but I'll refrain. Because they want to teach.

Question #3: What value will education have when all grades are determined at a point of a gun?
Answer: None, but that doesn't apply here because there's no reason that the grades would be determined "at the point of a gun". I'd maintain that the presence of guns does not require their "pointing" at anyone. If you disagree, please prove your assertion. Or disprove mine.

Now insult and invective are clearly not necessary. I have answered your questions. Please accord me the same courtesy.

What would you propose to keep this sort of thing from happening again?

I'm really not interested in hearing anything else from you in response to this post. If you have nothing material to add, you may expect no further response from me, as I am only interested in candid, rational discussion.
Click to expand...

He:
Have you bothered to consider the viewpoint of the teacher and the educational process in your analysis of the situation?

Given the answers you have supplied so far, I must infer that the answer is, "No. Teachers have no place in this discussion."

I suspected this might be the case, which is why I asked the questions I did.

No. I will not answer any of your questions...not until you can think critically from the teacher's point of view.
Click to expand...


I:
I see you chose not to return the favor. Why am I not surprised?

"Have you bothered to consider the viewpoint of the teacher and the educational process in your analysis of the situation?"

Yes. My conclusion is live kids make better students than dead ones.

I think I understand your viewpoint quite clearly. Actually I'm afraid that I do, because if I'm correct it'd be pretty reprehensible in my eyes.

My idea of your viewpoint is this:
"I don't care if it makes the kids safer or not. I don't want to be around guns"

Please tell me I'm wrong, because that's a pretty disgusting viewpoint to me. It says that in your eyes, gun-free zones aren't about the kids at all, but about you. Which means that you know that you are consigning the kids to death and don't care.
I'd rather not have such a low opinion of another person without confirmation, so please clear this up.
Click to expand...


he:
I've been with my students in dangerous situations for 31 years. I'm an ex-MP. None of my students has ever been harmed while in my care.

But if you think teachers are interchangeable and it doesn't matter who is teaching the class, because you can always get someone else to teach in her or his place, you have no respect whatsoever for our system of higher education. You would trash it in order to promote gun ownership.

That is what I call reprehensible.
Click to expand...

And so it goes...
 
I have the answer. 20 foot high barbed wire topped electric fences around the whole campus with a main gate where everyone is wanded and frisked with every bag thoroughly searched. Then school will truly be safe and maybe those who are offended by such fascist type tatics will gain a new appreciation for the liberty they cast aside to ''feel'' safe.

The truth is that most university kids are too immature to carry as well as being too young to satisfy the legal age minimum. After 21 and permited by the state should mean that schools do not get to tell us to leave our guns at home. Fact is that less than one percent of CCW holders commit any kind of firearms crime and that should tell the school admins to shove it where the sun don't shine when they start spouting off about student safety.

All that is needed to save lives is empowering those willing to defend life. I would hope that you understand that some would lay down their life to defend others because they believe it would wrong to allow a slaughter at the expense of saving their own skin. These are the heros our society needs. Let them carry the guns that may save your life.

Imagine the guilt of just person who carries a gun everywhere else but school and is forced to watch and hear others die because they afraid to break the rules and left their gun home. How much more therapy is that person gonna need over the amount of therapy that a non-CCW is going to get because of the nonstop thought "I could have stopped him and I was powerless to it when I chickened out and left my gun in the car like a good little drone"?
 
Slash -

Very interesting. I worked with a handful of guys like this one...a sad fact of the matter is that some teachers get into teaching for POWER, and CONTROL. These types (I hope to God that they are the minority...but I'm afraid they may not be) cringe at the idea of armed students. They don't like it for the mere fact that the power continuum is no longer on their side even though it's not likely a law abiding citizen would shoot them over an insult (like he gave to you).

These types are also generally jerks and are disrespectful to their students. Also keep in mind that teachers are threatened and often verbally and sometimes physically abused. That does create a bit of fear among those types of instructors...add guns to the mix and they're terrified.

cold dead hands

I see where you're coming from, from the perspective I was sitting in I was simply trying to determine where the greater good for the greater number of people would lie. Or more specifically which fight might be more winnable and do better to protect the schools. It's all a numbers game like I said, it's less than ideal but better than nothing. Progress also comes in small steps from my experience.

I agree with you in principle, I dislike having to disarm when going to certain places because they are typically places that are likely targets for crime (banks, hospitals, schools, clubs (sportsbars for me...no more night clubs). None of these places ever have adequate security if something big were to go down, I know I stand a better chance surviving with a few other like minded people around me.

When I wrote my original response I have to admit that I was a little disgusted at some of the "kill 'em let God sort em out" and "I'm a protector of the sheeple" stuff I had read here...I know I was probably (and still am) way too harsh on other CCW'ers who equate a burglary with a violent crime. I have to keep reminding myself that not all of us are like that AND they may well be right even though I disagree with them.

But I think you hit on the what the solution will have to be to keep schools safe without an increase of people who are determined to defend themselves. Limit anything from the outside coming in, keep the campus locked down, and monitor every interaction with extreme intensity. Sounds like prison huh? In all reality metal detectors, limiting entrances and exit points are a decent step towards security but still do nothing whatsoever for protection if something happens. Discussions like this are what will help us find the solution...I just try to keep in mind that progress comes in small steps and change is gradual. We have to find a way to kick that progress off and instigate change ourselves.
 
To tell the truth I love to debate the merits of owning guns vs. disarming society because it helps me to understand that the situation as a whole is hopeless and neither side can come up with a satisfactory answer. I can guaranty that there has always been some opposition to firearms ever since they were invented because humans or just that way. There are people in this day and age who believe that carrying a knife should be illegal (check out England's fabulous knife laws designed to ''protect'' the public). Yeegads man, there is always some schmuck who will oppose anything, if for no better reason than to cause a stir and create an issue out of nothing.

I actually do equate burglary to a violent crime. Sorry, but I think I have an inkling of how a raped woman feels after coming home to find $20000 of my life gone forever. If a man chooses to enter my home assuming I am not home and discovers I am...well... I'll leave it that and you can ponder the results. If he is in my home and I discover him, I am not going to think he is there to make my dinner. My first thought is going to be that he is now going to try to hurt me and my kids before I hurt him. Why else has he violated the sanctity of my home.

Anyone who commits a crime against another needs to removed from society permenantly. I am willing to do my part.
 
I've been robbed at gun point and "burgled" once also...I was not home for the burglary and they didn't get much so I can't relate to that feeling. Now that I have a family to protect (was single and no kids at the time) I am seeing that perspective...I'm still wrestling with what I'd do in that situation if the intruder was unarmed, armed or show of aggression = bad day for him/her. Unarmed and trying to flee...I'm still out on that one. In Texas I feel pretty confident that I'm covered in that situation no matter what.

To the OP and others, sorry I got so far off of the original topic, not trying to thread jack but thought I had to clear up a couple of things. I'm out of this one but still reading to see other's thoughts.

I thought cold dead hands made a good point that someone will always be against something just for the sake of being against it. On the other side of that thought...Why do so many people advocate CCW'ing on campus? A constitutional right? A legitimate need for added security on college campuses? A personal need for added personal security? A school shooting is so unlikely to happen I think you have a better chance of being hit by lightning twice...so it is about principles OR practicality or both???

And yes I know most CCW holders period will never use their weapons...not saying it would be useless due to the likelihood of needing it, just posing a question.
 
Sygma,

I have lived in two states where famous school shooting occured. Columbine, CO and Jonesboro, AR. Since I wasn't a die hard gun owner until I moved to Arkansas I know very little about how guns were treated as far kids with guns were concerned in CO except to say that they are forbidden in metro schools and have been since my parents were kids (they are 54 and 56). As far as rural areas went I have no idea. I am a city kid.

I came to AR in '93. No guns for kids either. But it wasn't always that way. turns out it was pretty normal for kids (especially high school age) to take rifles to school and go hunting (hunting is really popular here) after class let out. The guns were to be unloaded and left at the front the bus and turned into the office on arrival. At the end of the day guns were picked up kids went their merry way, often taking a different bus with their buddies for some quality time in the woods. This was the norm not even thirty years ago. Try to take your rifle on a bus now!

The point is that when guns were a normal part of life and most kids had them gun violence was a not a problem. Most fights were settled with fists and everyone got to live. Now there are too many kids who think of guns as the ultimate tools for revenge.

I am not for CCW because I believe you shouldn't have to hide your gun if you do not want to just because it makes someone uncomfortable...tough. People yacking on their phones in their cars makes me uncomfortable, but no one is trying to ban them. In short, the Constitution provides a guaranty for any one over the age of 18 (some say 17 per definition of militia age) to own firearms. This means anyone over that age gets to carry without having to get permission. The 2A mentions nothing about needing permission.

Above all else, even the Constitution, is the basic right to defend your own life. Unless a property owner has made every effort to insure you walk off out of their property alive and unscathed, then their right as property owners is null and void when compared to right of self preservation. Schools do not take steps to truly provide a safe enviornment. They just want you ''feel safe".

Where I go, my gun goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top