One case, I'm a sitting duck. The other case, I might have a fighting chance. I'll go for Door #2

I'm not talking about some 17yo that is armed. Basically someone that would be legally allowed to carry a gun in society. Background checks, age limits, etc, etc.

Better idea. Lock them up. That way they have no access to a knife or gun or rope. Well, rope if they want to hang themselves is fine with me.

I don't know how you figure there's any difference. In both cases you are a sitting duck. In one case there are more bullets in the air. And you're in the middle of shots coming from multiple directions and not just one.

So freshman are SOL? Guns for 300level classes only? Not to mention, a junior in college is not much different from a freshman in college in terms of maturity and wisdom.

In the 2nd case, the fire is pointed at that guy.

Never said we should give guns outside of school to people. What is the age for handguns? 21? Works for me. What is the difference between Joe Dropout at 21 and Joe Kollege at 21?

You realize the kids won't be standing right next to the crazy guy, right?

Joe Dropout lives in the real world.

Right. Still, I'd feel a lot better with a gun in my hand under these circumstances. If nothing else, I have a chance at taking him with me.

Still not telling me much. We have tons of whack jobs in the real world too

Police are the most highly-regulated gun-toting people in the USA. Even so, they commit gun crimes with alarming frequency. I'd be interested in how their stats match-up against CC stats. Anybody know?

TPC 42 (Unlicensed Carrying of Weapons) makes it an offense if it is plain view (or not concealed)...see below.

A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person
or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01.

When i talk about firearms on campus...i do not mean we should give out guns at orientation. What I mean is that those who choose to get their CHL and have gone through the background checks, proficiency qualification, dispute resolution training, and written test on the laws regarding carrying and deadly force…then those people should be allowed to carry on campus. Here in TX, those that have CHLs can carry on campus (parking lots and etc), just not in the buildings.

I do not think it would be a distraction in the class room because concealed is concealed…you would never know I even have a pistol on me.

Texas Law
 

I'll have to admit possible error until I can check my previous statement about Texas law. I assume the above reference is accurate.

Here's my perspective:
1. Vietnam combat veteran
2. Texas CH permit holder
3. College professor

Each campus can impose restrictions just as allowed by independent business owners.

I am not allowed to carry my handgun to class. I am not allowed to even leave it in my car in the campus parking lot. Local university restrictions.

If your son or daughter were in my class would you rather I be armed or unarmed?

Armed.

Might help academic achievement
 

Maybe they'd also pay better attention to the subject being taught.

I would much rather you be armed than your students.

Screw that, I'll leave it in my car regardless, and take my chances.

I don't like the idea of being defenseless on the way to and from school or work because of someone's feel good anti gun parking lot policy.

That's another issue that ticks me off as a ccw holder.

Parking lot policy that forces you to have your rights suspended on your daily commute, no, no ,no wrong in many ways.

All I got to say is thank God for the NRA or we would be so screwed right now.

By the way, It is legal for ccw holders in Georgia to carry their weapon in their car even in gun free safe zones as long as it stays in your vehicle.
I don't see why it could not stay on my person as well if I had no bad intent, because the bad guy may already be waiting in the school with his gun regardless.

Seems like all the gun control laws do is punish and restrict the good guys, and the bad guys are not scared one bit because the punishment is not harsh enough for them to bat an eye.

First off...thank you for your service to this country. I appreciate and respect all veterans...combat or not.

Here in TX, public schools, including college campuses, can not make up their own rules regarding guns. TX has a preemption clause in the constitution which only allows the state government to regulate the carry and sale of guns. Currently the state government does not allow CHLs to carry on the premises of a school. Premises for these purposes are defined specifically to exclude parking lots, sidewalks, and roads on the campus. A public school, can not post 30.06 signs in the parking lot and etc. If they do it is un enforceable. Private schools can legally post 30.06 signs if they choose and it is enforceable.

To answer you question. If you are a CHL holder, absolutely with out a doubt, I would want you armed.

I think if the media just refused to cover these things it would help a bit. This was a copy cat crime.

No media coverage=no "fame"=off themselves in the basement.

I will completely agree with you Brian! What you will also find is the dudes with the large chips on their shoulders usually have a prior arrest record that will negate their ability to obtain a CCW.

That said, if you want states with excess testosterone Texas and Florida has New York beat, any time, any day. CCW programs there were fought by law enforcement initially for the same reasons you cite. The fears have been proven unfounded and now law enforcement is either neutral or actually promotes the permit system. I hear your fears but they are simply not reality. RT

That's quite interesting. The Texas and Florida scenarios definitely have NY beat..........so, I'd expect that random gun violence would be rampant in those areas.

What's the deal?

If such individuals are permitted to carry a weapon, do they not pull it and threaten folks at every conceivable opportunity?

Getting a CCW is not that easy. They make you jump through hoops and its not a gimme. Prior record and you can forget it. Loose cannons are not even likely to go through the process of getting the permit and just carry illegally. The people that do get a permit and then break the law, even for minor infractions like "brandishing" (waving a gun around), will get the maximum penalty as the Judge will assume since you are a CCW you should know better! Maybe what I should have said is 99.8% of the people who pursue and obtain a CCW permit are honest, levelheaded folks. I carried for years and nobody knew when I was carrying. I never drank more than one beer if I was carrying. I was always very careful. I have a great respect for firearms and in my case the act of exercising my CCW right INCREASED my awareness even more. Again, this is my experience and my opinion of the other CCW's I have met. RT

That's interesting. Yep, if the effort involved to get the CCW is significant and they can reject it if any background check comes up "questionable"...........it would explain why the "problems" don't manifest themselves in a big way.

Here in NY, you cannot get a full carry without a justifiable cause. No problem with a home permit or a target permit.........but full carry permits are not given unless there is a good reason.

Huh? You mean you need a permit in NY to keep a gun at home or go target shooting?:eek: The only things you need permits for here are concealed carry (open carry is legal w/o a permit) and class III weapons (full auto).

I find it very interesting that whenever these shootings take place, each side of the gun control issue steps up to explain how the incident proves their point. School shooting? Wouldn't have happened if more people carried weapons. More guns! More guns! (always a great idea to have more lethal weapons among the populace). Mall shooting? Ban the guns!! As if it would even be possible to eliminate guns from society (imagine the great black market economy that would develop).

The thing that freaks me out is knowing that there are so many unhappy, lonely, sick, desperate people in this country. Does anybody stop to wonder what the f**k is wrong with our society? Where did we go so wrong that a person could feel so disconnected from their fellow man that they would choose to take people with them when they decide to end their lives? I swear, I think I would prefer the occasional politically-motivated suicide bombing than these random acts of desperation. Heck, at least the suicide bomber believes in something! The only thing the suicide shooter believes is that he has no more options left. Something is wrong with this picture and it isn't guns or lack thereof.

Well, we keep paying people to have kids. Come time to take care of them, they don't have the time.

Can't do that. You can't really punish the kids because the law prevents you from doing that

I agree with you completely. I am not really arguing for more guns, just that restricting persons that have already been duly authorized to possess and carry weapons, doesn't really make sense. Statistically these people are no threat at all to you or me and MAY make a difference in a situation where a lunatic starts shooting randomly. Does that make sense?

Regarding the societal problems a small study was done recently that showed a very interesting correlation between the abandonment of state institutionalized mental care and violent attacks by persons with mental problems. Many of the previously committed persons that are now out on the streets and responsible for the violence. There are plenty of activist groups that think people with mental illness should be able to do whatever they want. I am not advocating wholesale "incarceration" of mentally diseased persons but there are many, many examples of doctors highly recommending treatment for patients. The patients are under no obligation to seek treatment, they don't feel they need it, and are generally left alone until they hurt someone. Its too damned late at this point. I'm sorry, but if you are psychotic or schizophrenic then you need to be medicated and forced by the State if necessary. The VT shooter is a prime example. He was ordered to seek care by a judge and he refused to comply. Of course, the NICS should have been notified once he did not but the system is full of holes when it comes to mental issues. The unfortunate truth is far to many people do not get the care they need and this is a tragedy that is greater even than the actions of a few random shooters. RT

Yep........no handguns without a license. And it takes a good six months to get said license.........even for a home permit or a target permit.

If you tried to do an open carry, you'd get about five blocks before being arrested.

More likely to be shot dead in the steets by the cops in NJ.

........or that........

Part of the problem is also idiot parents not locking their guns away and kids bringing them to school. I didn't even hear of this story until today, but I've seen incidences like this many times.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/13/boy.shot/index.html#cnnSTCText?iref=werecommend

How did this work in yesteryear when the "lock" comprised of a gun cabinet only?

I don't know, maybe back then people were more responsible with their kids and taught them gun safety. Or kids weren't so spoiled and self-righteous back then.

Well, I guess it's official now, the gunman in question was on 3 drugs, including an anti-depressant that he stopped taking shortly before the massacre. This seems to be another case of broken gun control. Someone who recently used psychiatric care should not be able to pass a background check or be allowed to keep his or her gun permit. :mad:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/20/shooter.girlfriend/index.html

My father had loaded guns in the house since I was an infant. Growing up I knew exactly what they were, where they were and what would happen if I touched them. Death would be better than the beating that would have resulted. Its called discipline and respect for your elders. Parents today could learn a lot from it.

You are correct, he should not have been able to pass a background check. But unfortunately some folks think that doctor-patient confidentiality and privacy is more important. But its perfectly okay to step on my rights and ban the bad guns since some whackjob may get ahold of them. RT

Unfortunately these days it's not called discipline, it's called child abuse. Shrinks cops and lawyers would be all over the parents who attempted such. And indeed. Horror of horrors if a kid actually learned, discipline and respect - that would be just too much. Rather have the nauseating nanny state and its minions step in an erode citizens rights even more.

- Peter.

The mindfawks (shrinks, psychologists, psychiatrists) tell people what supposedly works and what supposedly doesn't. Hence the laws (child abuse) and the enforcement (cops). And people wonder why I think tying a rock to 5000 mindfawks' necks and pushing them off a deep pier is a good start.

On second thought, I don't know if allowing people to carry guns on campus would help at all. I see Utah allows it, and some of the reader comments made me rethink this, especially this one:

I think that's a perfectly valid concern. I can easily see law-abiding CCW holders who are trying to take life-saving action getting killed by police or other CCW holders who mistakenly identified them as a target. The scene could easily erupt into a chaotic war zone with lots of innocent people getting killed.

I think a better solution, in addition to more rigid background checks, is to have more security guards / campus police roaming the campuses.

If you can't determine that, you might try a different career. I'm sure there are career counselors in the police force. Maybe instead of being on the consumption end of the coffee and donuts, he could be on the making end? Dunkin Donuts hires now and then. How about Starbucks or Gloria Jeans? They make coffee. I'm sure they have an employee pricing program. Either way, he could have conversations with his ex buddies when they are on break.

Yeah, direction the gun is pointing doesn't matter. :rolleyes:

Not to me it doesn't.

That is like 911, isn't it? Mostly after the fact? That is unless you have a guard at every corner.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The police are not obligated to protect you, just try suing city hall when they don't and you will find out. Dial 911 and see how long it takes for them to respond. They only show up to fill out paperwork and chalk out corpses. That cop is exactly the kind of cop I don't want around, he shoots first and asks questions later. Training for the situations he describes would include announcing their presence and instructing an armed person to drop the weapon BEFORE shooting them. Any reasonable CCW holder would immediately comply and likely have placed the weapon on the ground before the police had a chance to say a word.

Everyone is under the impression that these things leave time for a thought out response by authorities. They don't. The authorities want you to believe they are equipped and can respond effectively. They can't. Events like this are over usually in less than 30 seconds. Unless you plan on putting armed guards/cops in every building on a campus it won't do any good. Even one in every building would not be a guarantee. A shooter could enter a building, walk into one room and kill many people before the guard/cop even got to the room.

So spend all the money you want on "improved" security. Anyone who has half a brain could figure out to wait until the patrol had passed to do violence. I'm all for improving the background check system and the reporting mechanisms that back it up.

I'd rather have a CCW citizen sitting next to me in the lecture hall when some lunatic walks in with evil thoughts then to be completely at the lunatics mercy.

RT

I see your argument and I can't say I disagree completely. However, you're assuming that every CCW holder is an honest citizen who's well trained and means no harm. Well guess what, the shooter in question was one of them until just prior to his death. He had a permit and no prior criminal history. He just didn't take his pills and got angry. Even people who don't take pills can get angry and do something they will regret. When bullets are flying there's always going to be some confusion and little time to think. I remember reading about the Utah mall shooting. The off-duty cop who was confronting the shooter had to yell several times to the approaching cops that he's one of them because they couldn't hear him or didn't believe him. Imagine several people confronting the shooter and the chaos that would result. Also there's no guarantee that a "CCW citizen" sitting next to you would have the time to pull out his gun or the desire to use it. He might chicken out and try to flee like everyone else or get killed.

Arming everyone is definitely not a panacea. I'd say it's more of a double-edged sword. Some of the most heavily-armed societies are also the most violent. Africa and Iraq come to mind. I think what we need to address is the root of the problem. Why does this crap happen more often in this country than most other countries? Could it be that in this country too many people feel self-righteous, isolated, under severe pressure and/or hopeless with nothing to lose? There's definitely something wrong with too many people in this country.

Me too. And that's how I raised my kids. Each of them, all girls, is gun-safe and knows how to fire several weapons.

Anybody who tries to sell you that is absolutely nucking futs. No "Ands, Buts or Ifs". However, what are the odds? So far, few crimes are committed by CCW people.

True. However which gives you better odds? A "maybe, maybe not" CCW guy in the situation or no CCW guy?

Well, we can't lock everybody up and we can't fix all the problems of people or give them IV valium to calm them down. Life goes on as it does.

BTW, was this nutball a CCW guy or somebody with a permit to own a gun?

As to your last question, I don't know, the guns were supposedly purchased and owned legally, however only Utah allows on-campus guns so it doesn't matter if this guy had a CCW or just a standard permit as either way he was breaking university / city regulations. As to your other comments, I will not argue. I already stated what I stated and haven't changed my opinion regarding the fact there's no magic bullet for this problem.

You said: That is why I asked if he was a CCW. You see there was that report that showed that CCW people committed very few weapons crimes. Odds are way better than Joe Citizen

Odds are way better that one legged hippies have committed less weapons crimes than Joe Citizen, too.


You can mock cops re: Dunkin Donuts all you want, but if you don't see how cops running into a room full of people brandishing weapons is more dangerous than cops running into a room with one clear villain, then you're being deliberately obtuse. But then, you ignored my comments about the increased danger of friendly fire incidents with more friendly fire in the air, too.

Don't want them, don't need them. All I have needed them for is to fill up my reports so I can claim insurance. Oh, yeah, that and try impress me with their power. Note, I don't mind you writing me a ticket. Write the ticket, ask me if I have any questions, STFU and go off. Don't try impress me on what you can do or harass me. Or is that too much to ask?

Well, if your goal is to make their life easy by being the sheep lead to the slaughter, go for it. I prefer to defend myself. Is your scenario going to make it more difficult for the cops? Probably so. Assuming it isn't over by the time they get there. However, since they will take several minutes at the very best, I'd rather have a fighting chance than just hoping and praying that none of those shots hit me.

Which place would you rather stand? Next to the perp or next to the few people with a gun trying to get the perp? Friendly fire and all? Somehow I think I am safer with the larger group. Again, I am not for shoving a gun into everyone's hand. You want to CCW? Sure. Get certified and trained. Oh, whats that? You are a felon? Sorry. Had a violent past? Nope. Don't want to go thru training and certification? Stand aside

I'm not a big fan of cops either. I just don't want more bodies on the ground because a cop shot a couple CCW holders because they had their guns out.


This is where it seems you either can't get it or don't want to. You are not safer in the middle of two sides shooting at each other. And given the fact that CCW holders don't all sit next to each other, you're really in the middle of five or six or seven sides. Now here come the cops. Come on, you can't tell me a couple kids don't get dropped by some friendly fire ever. Considering 80% of the bullets flying aren't coming from the villain.

So it is ok that cops shoot first and ask questions later?

Again, I agree it makes it harder for the cop. Sure, it would be nice for them that there is one guy with the gun and they can shoot him and be done with it.

Assuming that it isn't over by the time they get themselves there? OK. What is the alternative? Wait for 911 to show up and hope you don't get shot by then? Sure, things might be riskier but would you rather take your chances by waiting for help? Think it would be less risky? How about a stampede when people are trying to get out of his way? Understand this. From the time the first shot is fired to the time someone gets out and calls the cops, it could be about 5 mins. Say another 5 mins for them to come. 10 mins is an eternity when you are being shot at. Trust me, I have experienced that. She had 5 shots and one was a dud. It felt like a long long time waiting for her to run out.

People need to realize that with most any (if not every) gun related scenario, there is a never ending list of outcomes that can rightfully promote either side of the gun control issue.
To see only the outcomes that promote ones own stand, is nothing shy of selfish, narrow-minded stupidity.

With that said – Everyone feel free to go back to seeing who can bang their head on the wall the hardest.

Who was that som***** sneaking in here making sense? Lock the dang door!

I assume you are referring specifically to shootings on college campuses. I can not comment on whether or not school shootings occur more per capita in the US than other countries, However, I can comment on the fact that countries with stricter gun laws usually have a higher crime rate per capita than countries with less gun restrictions. In fact we see this trend in our own country. A case in point is Warsaw, GA (I could be wrong about the town…I will have to find the link), which at some point had fairly high crime per capita for that size town. The city made it mandatory that every head of household own a gun. Since then the city has enjoyed a virtually crime free city.

Case in point, Washington, DC has some of the most restrictive guns laws in the country and also has some of the highest crime rates per capita in the country.

I will leave you with this:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson Quoting Cesare Beccaria)


EDIT...It was Kennesaw, GA....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Right - That would be Kenneshaw Georgia. Seems to work for those folks.

But, if anyone thinks that what works there (and I am by no means saying it doesn't) would work everywhere else, particularly DC, they're a fool.

Are you saying what they are doing now in DC works? What is your solution to the DC crime rate?