Guns on campus, massive crossfire deaths.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Some such silliness was asserted as a reason against CCW permit holders being authorized to carry on campus. I had forgotten about this incident at the Appalachian School of Law.

On Jan. 16, 2002 Peter Odighizuwa, a former student of the Appalachian School of Law, went on that campus and opened fire on students and faculty -- killing three and wounding three others. When Odighizuwa went to leave the building he was stopped by two students who had retrieved firearms from their cars upon hearing gun shots. The two students, along with an unarmed student, then subdued Odighizuwa, preventing him from doing more damage.

David

[villager]

1. why, that settles it! Concealed weapons for every 18 year old male on every campus!

Wouldn't want any "silly" restrictions on unfettered gun use, now would we!?

[DonP]

2. No more than they already have

Since in most states you already have to be 21 to get a CCW permit, I think the rules we already have in place for "every 18 year old" probably cover your fears.

A "silly" restriction is one that someone is clamoring for that is already in place.

But feel free to come up with something else to be concerned about, like spending political capital to ban guns rarely used in crimes. That one seems to work well in some quarters.

[villager]

3. So we agree on reasonable restrictions on gun proliferation, then.

Good.

Welcome to the light.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Guns in the hands of the law abiding is almost always a good thing, glad to see we agree.

[AlinPA]

55. I still don't see why people can't just wear their guns out in the open.

Since they have a permit to own a gun, why should they have to hide it?

[Statistical]

64. You don't. Depends on how free your state is.

In VA you can "open carry" a firearm with no license or permit required.

No license, permit, or waiting period is required for purchase either (only federally mandated instant background check).

If you want to conceal the weapon you actually need a CHP "Concealed Handgun Permit".

Due to some "weirdness" in the laws that the gov refused to correct you currently:
Can NOT legally carry a weapon CONCEALED (even with a CHP) into any establishment that sells alcohol.
You CAN legally carry a weapon OPENLY (with NO permit) into any establishment that sells achohol.

So once a month I participate in a open carry dinner where about 40 of us openly carry into a local restaurant.
We have fliers to explain the reason we legally can't conceal carry (even with a CHP) if anyone has a question.

Of course private property owners are free to restrict firearms on their property.
VA has no legal def of a "club" or "bar" only an establishment that serves alchohol so the restriction also covers any restaurant with ABC license (virtually ever sit down restuarant).

Actually for a long time in this country OPEN carry was legal. Most locations had laws making CONCEALING a weapon a crime.
The thinking was if you are doing nothing wrong why would you want to hide your weapon?

[iverglas]

65. who "we", friend?

So once a month I participate in a open carry dinner where about 40 of us openly carry into a local restaurant.
We have fliers to explain the reason we legally can't conceal carry (even with a CHP) if anyone has a question.

Not, perhaps, the charming "Virginia Citizens Defense League"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50416-2004Jul14.html

Yours are unloaded, I trust:

Virginia law 18.2-287.4 expressly prohibits "carrying loaded firearms in public areas."

But then ... how would anyone know? given as how it's police harassment for them to inquire ...


http://www.vcdl.org/localities/culpeper.html

Pretty funny. ;) That Mike, he's a real progressive's progressive, he is.

http://www.FairfaxCountyPrivacyCouncil.org

Check out the links.

If you've never seen a lunatiac right-wing asshole up close before, that should do the trick.

[X_Digger]

66. Bzzt, wrong..

Most handguns are legal for open carry, as are most shotguns and hunting rifles. You'll also notice that this restriction is only in certain areas.

18.2-287.4. Carrying loaded firearms in public areas prohibited; penalty.

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a loaded (a) semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine that will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock or (b) shotgun with a magazine that will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered on or about his person on any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way, or in any public park or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public in the Cities of Alexandria, Chesapeake, Fairfax, Falls Church, Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, or Virginia Beach or in the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Henrico, Loudoun, or Prince William.

[iverglas]

67. I guess if I had cared enough

I would have bothered to look it up.

I'll just have to wait for answers for the rest, I guess.

Or just review a little history.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=143086&mesg_id=143089

Yes, fine fellows all, those militant open-carry assholes in Virginia are.

[iverglas]

6. "That one seems to work well in some quarters."

Kinda like the diversionary grooming and ad locutorem crap that passes for rational discourse hereabouts.

This thread doesn't appear to be about banning assault weapons, which does appear to be the subject of your comment:

But feel free to come up with something else to be concerned about, like spending political capital to ban guns rarely used in crimes.

I'm pretty sure there are lots and lots of threads where you can post away to your heart's content about that one. Hell, you could even start your own.

Meanwhile, maybe you can tell us something.

If I were a university student or faculty or staff member in the US, and the carrying of concealed firearms were permitted on campus, and I spotted a bulge under somebody's jacket / in somebody's pants that was plainly a firearm, or saw the firearm when a jacket blew open ... how would I know that the person had a permit to carry it? I don't believe that anyone with a permit has any obligation to produce the permit just because someone in the vicinity wants to know whether s/he is looking at Joe Law-Abiding Gun Owner or Jane Suicidal Mass Murderer.

An interesting new paper:

http://www.aascu.org/media/pm/pdf/pmdec08.pdf

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

A Higher Education Policy Brief • November 2008

Concealed Weapons on State College Campuses:
In Pursuit of Individual Liberty and Collective Security

by Thomas L. Harnisch
Research Associate
Government Relations and Policy Analysis

... Conversely, most college administrators, law enforcement personnel, students, gun-control advocates and editorial boards have expressed serious reservations about allowing concealed weapons on campus. Foremost in their reasoning is that the challenges that are often inherent in college life (including drug use, alcohol abuse, stress and social obstacles), when overlapped with weapons, could have potentially lethal consequences for all people in the campus community. Given these stresses, opponents argue that introducing guns onto college campuses may increase the safety risks to students, faculty and staff. The presence of firearms could lead to conflicts between roommates, classmates and others on campus, escalating to the point where one or more individuals could be injured or killed as a result of gun violence. As Bill King, chief of public safety at Florida International University suggests, “Students having weapons on campus could make a volatile situation worse.” The presence of these weapons may also invite gun theft; resulting in potential misuse and exacerbating the likelihood that physical harm would ensue.

The availability of weapons on campus could also have an adverse impact on the student suicide rate. According to the Suicide Prevention Network, suicide is the second leading cause of death for American college students, and thousands more attempt suicide and do not succeed. Easy access to firearms on campus would likely worsen this serious problem, as suicide attempts involving firearms are almost always successful. Studies show that having firearms in the household correlates with a greater risk of successful suicide. Opponents of easing campus gun laws contend that allowing access to firearms in student residence halls and on-campus apartments would provide an efficient and
convenient method of suicide during a momentary mental health crisis, and thus increase the likelihood of additional human tragedy.

"Access to firearms in student residence halls and apartments" -- of course, under lock and key at all times when not being carried around. Ha.

We don't seem to talk about that bit, do we? That allowing the carrying of concealed firearms on campus means allowing firearms everywhere on campus, at all times, and particularly in residences, where they are obviously vulnerable to theft, present during yer basic student night-time revelry, and accessible without much difficulty by anyone looking to kill him/herself, or someone else.

Yes, university and college campuses awash in guns, it's a grand idea.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Let's see.

We have a documented case of people authorized to carry firearms other places, stopping a mass murderer in progress on a college campus without injuring bystanders or killing the suspect for that matter. We also have speculation by college administrators and others that the sky will fall if this is allowed. By all means we should just shout at the top of our lungs and squelch the debate. That's a lot better than discussing it logically.

David

[gorfle]

13. Well said.

Well said.

Also, the simple fact is that CCW permit holders already deal with the issues of responsible ownership and storage and suicide, and seem to do so very well. It would seem to me that if you are going to claim that CCW on campus is going to lead to increased negative consequences you would try to show how this has already happened with CCW permit holders off campus, if you could. My guess is you can't.

[iverglas]

16. yeah?

if you are going to claim that CCW on campus is going to lead to increased negative consequences you would try to show how this has already happened with CCW permit holders off campus, if you could. My guess is you can't.

Sure. Pile some oranges into that apple barrel.

If you want to show that the situation on campus is the same as the situation off campus, you go ahead and do that.

My guess is that you will not find another situation in which there is a large population of very young people, not living in a situation that includes a mix of ages and relationships (family, neighbours, etc.), newly emancipated from adult oversight, most under considerably more stress than the average person.

Those are the apples. Not middle-aged people, not employed people, not homeowning people, not parents, not people with years of experience with firearms, not people with years of experience with life and all its problems and the maturity that comes with it.

Doesn't matter if you don't like them. Them's the apples.

[gorfle]

19. Heard it before.

Whatever the fruit in question, Iverglas, the name of the story has always been the same: "The sky will fall if we let people 'X' have guns!"

It never pans out.

I just refuse to believe that you can take your average 21 year old person and they can be a fine CCW carrier, but make them a college student and suddenly they are imbeciles incapable of responsible CCW carrying.

Those are the apples. Not middle-aged people, not employed people, not homeowning people, not parents, not people with years of experience with firearms, not people with years of experience with life and all its problems and the maturity that comes with it.

Does this mean that college students who are middle-aged, employed, homeowning parents with years of experience with firearms and life can have concealed firearms on campus? If so, where do I sign up?

[iverglas]

34. fruit and straw

I just refuse to believe that you can take your average 21 year old person and they can be a fine CCW carrier, but make them a college student and suddenly they are imbeciles incapable of responsible CCW carrying.

If only someone had said that ...

If only you would address what someone did say ...


Does this mean that college students who are middle-aged, employed, homeowning parents with years of experience with firearms and life can have concealed firearms on campus? If so, where do I sign up?

Goodness gracious. Discrimination on the basis of age, employment status, class ...

[gorfle]

35. The usual shuck and jive response, I see.

"I just refuse to believe that you can take your average 21 year old person and they can be a fine CCW carrier, but make them a college student and suddenly they are imbeciles incapable of responsible CCW carrying."

If only someone had said that ...

If only you would address what someone did say ...

This is precisely what I inferred from what you did say. It's not my fault that you can't express yourself clearly. Of course anyone who's been around long enough knows that you do this intentionally. When someone correctly redacts your verbosity into plain language you just cry, "Oh, but I didn't say that!

Beevul pegged you the best here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166774

when he said:

""No one understands what I say, everyone deliberately misunderstands what I say Blah blah blabedy-blah."

You don't want to clearly be understood. Anyone that does, makes an honest and obvious attempt at doing so, and you don't. The a full 3/4 of any argument or discussion with you, is getting past your verbiage and the fact that you could say clearly and unambiguously convey any message you liked using a simple sentence or 3, yet you don't. You dont want people to understand you clearly, any more than someone whos playing catch wants thier partner to catch thier throw when its thrown deliberately long or short of where thier partner is. Thats your game. Throwing deliberately long or short, and complaining when your throw isn't caught.

Your favorite gambit is old tired and transparent, and its hardly something anyone would call good faith, and everyone hereabouts knows it."

"Does this mean that college students who are middle-aged, employed, homeowning parents with years of experience with firearms and life can have concealed firearms on campus? If so, where do I sign up?"

Goodness gracious. Discrimination on the basis of age, employment status, class ...

So is that a yes or a no? I wouldn't want to get accused of attributing things to you that "you didn't say".

[iverglas]

39. listen

The whole lot of you are obviously incapable (I'd say unwilling, but there would have to be the odd exception in that event, and there just aren't enough) of engaging in DEBATE.

In DEBATE, you do not go off on tangents that have fuck all to do with what the person you are talking to said.

In DEBATE, you actually address what the person you were talking to said.

In DEBATE, you do not just say whatever you happen to feel like saying and pretend that it has something to do with what the person you are talking to said.

In DEBATE, you do not constantly drag up something the person you are talking to said ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE, in a DIFFERENT DISCUSSION, when it has NOTHING TO DO with what the person you are talking to said that you are allegedly replying to.


If you READ the passages I quoted from the recent position paper I linked to -- preferably, read the entire position paper -- and READ what I said in that regard, and at least make an effort to UNDERSTAND what was said in the position paper and by me, you will have taken the first step.

The next step is to THINK ABOUT what was said.

And then, you formulate a REPLY to what was said -- you can dispute the evidentiary foundation for it, or challenge the logic by which the conclusions drawn from that foundation were reached, or deny the assumptions made in drawing those conclusions.


Even in this last screed of yours, you haven't done that.

I DID NOT SAY No one understands what I say, everyone deliberately misunderstands what I say.

I said YOU DID NOT REPLY TO WHAT WAS SAID.

You invented something that no one said -- neither the author I quoted nor myself: I just refuse to believe that you can take your average 21 year old person and they can be a fine CCW carrier, but make them a college student and suddenly they are imbeciles incapable of responsible CCW carrying.

NO ONE SAID THAT. You invented it and pretended someone -- the author? me? -- said it.

The author, and I, DID say things. They are there on your monitor in front of your nose. Read them. Think about them. Reply to them. Dispute the evidentiary foundation, challenge the logic, deny any assumptions you see.

Inventing things that people did not say and pretending they said them is not honest, and is not what reasonable people of goodwill do when discussing matters of public interest.

[gorfle]

43. So...

So after all that blahbedy blah blah,

"Does this mean that college students who are middle-aged, employed, homeowning parents with years of experience with firearms and life can have concealed firearms on campus? If so, where do I sign up?"

Goodness gracious. Discrimination on the basis of age, employment status, class ...

So is that a yes or a no? I wouldn't want to get accused of attributing things to you that "you didn't say".

[TPaine7]

46. Of course,

iverglas would never dream of not replying to what was said.

Never.

I, for one, cannot conceive of her making up her own strawman argument to refute when there are plain, straightforward points to be addressed.

[iverglas]

47. poor widdle Tommy

You may want to note the distinction between "replying to what was said", i.e. by someone who chooses to respond, and answering moronic questions having nothing to do with any topic under discussion just because somebody feels like typing them.


But hey, allow me:

me: Of course, it would be a logical fallacy to say that someone who said "no decent person would carry a fire extinguisher in her car" had a phobia of fire extinguishers.

That is true. It is a fallacy--iverglas' fallacy. I said that a phobia "could" lead to a nonsensical position. Could.

Nope. It wasn't anybody's fallacy. You at all familiar with things like the conditional tense?

It WOULD BE a logical fallacy. Look it up if you need to.

So ... who was replying to something nobody said there?

And why would anyone bother to reply to a reply to something s/he didn't say?

Ta. You pretty much made my point there.

You spewed out some straw and tried to make an issue of it. It didn't work.

[gorfle]

52. Yet another Iverglas classic.

You may want to note the distinction between "replying to what was said", i.e. by someone who chooses to respond, and answering moronic questions having nothing to do with any topic under discussion just because somebody feels like typing them.

Whenever you get pinned down by a question you find uncomfortable to answer you always hide behind the "It's a moronic question that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion".

We all know it well. When the crickets chirp we all know you've taken your ball and gone home in a huff. Not the most graceful way to concede defeat, but we recognize your defeat nonetheless.

[iverglas]

53. I don't think anyone is in the dark here, least of all you

Whenever you get pinned down by a question you find uncomfortable to answer

In the case of the question you are referring to, I do not feel the least bit uncomfortable answering. If I didn't volunteer to answer PMs on the subject, by PM, I will now.

I am simply not willing to violate the rules of this message board by posting my answer in this forum.

How much clearer would you like that?

[iverglas]

15. you are so in need of a dictionary

I offered an opinion with which I agree, and the basis of that opinion.

You really don't seem to like the free exchange of ideas, do you?

Look up "debate".

It generally involves the expression of differing opinions.

Not just the ones you like.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. I hope the procedures went well.

Yes, university and college campuses awash in guns, it's a grand idea.

That just doesn't seem much like constructive debate to me. It's seems utterly dismissive that something other than what you think might actually work. In regards to your question, pot meet kettle.

David

[russ1943]

38. There are facts and then there are ...............

http://timlambert.org/2003/11

The Ted Besen version of events is at odds with the now infamous tale you repeat as knwn fact.
Your claim that this is

“a documented case of people authorized to carry firearms other places, stopping a mass murderer in progress on a college campus without injuring bystanders or killing the suspect for that matter”

carries no more weight than another version by the fellow (Besen) who reported that the shooter had already placed his (later to be determined as empty) firearm down when Besen unarmed, charged, tackled the shooter and was eventually helped by those gun toting (off duty police officers) and held for regular on duty police.

I wasn’t there and can’t claim to know exactly what happened but the people who originated the claim have shown themselves to fabricate to further their agenda.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Peter-Odighizuwa
http://www.legaled.com/shooting.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/hi_christy.htm
http://timlambert.org/2003/11

The folks who maintain the version you claim as fact were Bernard Goldberg, Mary Rosh, also known as John Lott, and a huge number of gun enthusiasts who simply repeat it ad nauseum.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. and then there's....

So the 2 off duty police officers, whose stories match, are lying? and the unarmed college student who says he tackled the murderer all by himself, is telling the truth because he has no agenda? I personally don't know who's telling the truth, I would be more inclined to believe the 2 police officers though. I know that doesn't fit your agenda though.

David

[iverglas]

42. and then there's knowing what you're talking about

From Tim Lambert's blog:

This is interesting. Last year Bridges said he spoke to over 50 reporters. Now the number has grown to a hundred. If Bridges embellished his account of the number of reporters how do we know he didn’t embellish his account of his gun use? After all, the first time he told it, he didn’t saying anything about pointing his gun at the killer.

With links.

There was a link to this right there in the post you replied to.

But hell, why bother knowing what you're talking about?

Nobody engaging in public discussion of a serious public issue has any responsibility to do that!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. I'd hoped to find out more information.

I remembered very little of the event and posted what I had come across. Notice I didn't post a link because I couldn't really find one I considered solid enough to post. All I wanted was for people to post what they knew and what there opinions were, I think it's been fairly successful. I guess we should take an anti-gun australians blog as fact.

David

[iverglas]

54. as usual: do what you like, Davey

I guess we should take an anti-gun australians blog as fact.

You are the only one, once again, suggesting that anyone should do that.

I didn't do it, the person who posted that link AND MULTIPLE OTHERS didn't do that.

But you do it if you like.

Whatever the hell an "anti-gun australian" might be.


You take the changing word of a total fucking yahoo if you like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, N.C., pulled his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe.

What kind of an anti-social asshole leaves a loaded handgun under the fucking driver's seat of his pickup truck in a public parking lot?

Here's the version you think should be ignored:

Before Odighizuwa saw Bridges and Gross with their weapons, Odighizuwa set down his gun and raised his arms like he was mocking people. Besen, a former marine and police officer in Wilmington, North Carolina, then charged, got into a scuffle with Odighizuwa, and knocked him to the ground. Bridges and Gross then arrived with their guns once Odighizuwa was tackled. Bridges and Gross then arrived with their guns once Odighizuwa was tackled. Additional witnesses at the scene stated they did not see Bridges or Gross with their guns at the time Besen started subduing Odighizuwa.

Oh look. A former marine and police officer acting rather heroically. But "we" should not believe him.

S/he who does not read what is offered to him/her on a plate often looks a fool.


As for the "anti-gun australian", what Tim Lambert actually is, is "a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales". Huh; he devotes an entire section to the revolting Mark Steyn, sadly one of mine own:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/politics/steyn/

and nothing to do with guns at all. Just fr instance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. as usual do what you like, ivy

You are the only one suggesting that anything be ignored. I didn't say it, and nobody else here said it. Once again, pot meet kettle. Bridges was likely following the law. He couldn't carry his gun on campus, off duty officers almost always carry firearms so he left it in his truck to obey the law. I'll leave it to you to call a police officer an anti social asshole for following the law.

David

[Tejas]

63. FMD, you keep forgetting to do as the antis say, not as they do

Even if they suggest "free exchange of ideas".......








.........don't do it!

:rofl:

[iverglas]

41. thank you

Hadn't got around to that fact-checking yet ... although it did look familiar ... (edited, oops; names, dates and places were in the opening post.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=181872&mesg_id=181954
(worldnetdaily, no less, as the source)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=183190&mesg_id=183268

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=161431&mesg_id=162053

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=157074&mesg_id=157095
(posted by a tombstone, applauded by a couple of tombstones ...)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=156316&mesg_id=156353

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=155451&mesg_id=155484

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=152386&mesg_id=152708
(tsk tsk, BenEzra)

... Search gives a page of results in this forum for "appalachian", some of which are about hiking and rural folk, of course.


I'm sure we can look forward to seeing the fabricated version repeated ad nauseam for years to come, here and all over the internet.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. So which version is fabricated?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. 18 year olds aren't eligible for CCW permits in most states.

Why am I not surprised by you mischaracterizing an issue, when you have nothing substantive to say?

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Guns in the hands of the law abiding seems to have prevented more deaths in this case.

[rrneck]

9. I can't say I'm against CCW on college campuses and I understand

how issues regarding the right to self defense apply there as much as anywhere else.


(Begin Rant)
But damn, a university is supposed to be a place where ideas are exchanged, not bullets. I can't help fearing that if students get in the habit of carrying guns at universities the quality of education will suffer. How can you have a direct and candid exchange of important ideas if you know somebody is packing heat? And if you are carrying there is also an incentive, due to the responsibility of owning a gun, to pull you intellectual punches because of a concern, however remote, that a real confrontation will start? I've seen some pretty heated exchanges fueled by passionate ideas. The knowledge that there might be a gun present is bound to throw a certain amount of cold water on intellectual exchange.

What would have happened in the sixties if ten percent of the students were carrying guns? A lot of skulls got cracked anyway, so in that kind of politically charged atmosphere what sort of bloodbath would the addition of guns have created? Four dead in Ohio? How about forty? Or four hundred?

I guess I had this delusion that there might be a place left in this country where people could figure out serious stuff without even having to consider the possibility of having a life ruined for it.
(End Rant)

Shit, I had a bottle of Tequila around here someshere...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. A few points.

Only students 21 or older would legally be allowed to carry so it would be highly unlikely that 10% would be carrying concealed weapons legally. Since those weapons would be carried concealed then how would another student or professor know if the student they were having an exchange with was armed? I should say I don't have a CCW permit and haven't carried a firearm for protection in over 15 years.

David

[rrneck]

11. Point well taken, and like I say

on balance I see no reason to keep what amounts to graduate students from carrying. But just like the knowledge that a person might be armed may change a criminal's decision to attempt an assault, (part of the tactical advantage of CCW and the strategic advantage of firearms ownership in general) the knowledge that there may be a firearm present can have a deleterious effect on what universities are supposed to be all about.

I've taught just a bit at a university and I know from experience that those kids are vulnerable as hell and at the edge of the envelope in almost every way imaginable. That's a bad combination to drop a firearm into.

But I realize I owe you an attempt at a solution.

The problem here is an intensified version of the same problem everywhere else. How can society close the gap between the necessity for self defense and the defense of the citizen by the state? How can we fix it so that the citizen (or student) can get aid in what amounts to an eye blink of time rather than arming themselves to possibly defend against an attacker without resorting to some sort of Orwellian solution?

For a start, I would say that rather than trying to make the guns go away, how about banning booze? Busted on a DUI - you're expelled. Frat house has booze at a party? You're shut down. The last I heard in the news there was a bit of a movement to go the other way. It seems a roundabout way to avoid gun violence, but we really need to control the people, not the guns.

I know that if we can send 18 year olds off to fight and kill people, it seems right to at least them let them drink. But if you are in the military and you screw up it goes a lot harder on you. Why shouldn't it be that way in college? Or am I being too dogmatic?

(edit)

Sorry, I missed one. Ten percent was an arbitrary number. What if just one stupid kid opened fire on those national guard troops? I still think it could have been a helluva lot worse.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. I hadn't thought about that.

I wonder though. I know police officers that take classes off duty and carry concealed while on campus. I carried a large pocket knife when I was in college. Do you think they would have the same effect on learning? I would bet that those willing to pursue a CCW permit would be willing to go through extra training to be able to do so on campus. Most of the college kids I know who have CCW permits are former military. Being in the business I don't believe you can make a society safe enough where people will never have the need to defend themselves. The college I went to is an open campus in the middle of a medium sized city, the crime rate is quite high. It takes me a minimum of several minutes sometimes over 10 minutes to get a police officer on scene when I call for urgent assistance on the radio. I appreciate the thoughtful and respectful discussion.

David

[rrneck]

20. Good idea

"Do you think they would have the same effect on learning?"

No. Police officers are trained to carry a weapon and are held to strict standards for their behaivor on and off duty. If an officer screws up it goes hard on him/her too I'll bet. The presence of an officer carrying would (or certainly should) be welcome anywhere he/she went. It helps close the impossible gap. Your suggestion regarding the additional training for students carrying is a very good idea. I would add that increased personal power (the firearm) plus additional training equals increased responsibility. How that would play out in terms of public policy I don't know.

"Being in the business I don't believe you can make a society safe enough where people will never have the need to defend themselves."

Agreed. Totalitarian societies can usually brag about their low crime rates. Ten minutes sounds pretty good to me. It's more like a half hour where I live.

Come to think, the notion of extra training for college students sounds pretty good when I see something like this: www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=971 Southern Poverty Law Center
(snip)"Two years ago, the Intelligence Report revealed that alarming numbers of neo-Nazi skinheads and other white supremacist extremists were taking advantage of lowered armed services recruiting standards and lax enforcement of anti-extremist military regulations by infiltrating the U.S. armed forces in order to receive combat training and gain access to weapons and explosives."

Sometimes I wonder why the smart people shouldn't be a lot better armed and trained than they are. But then again, a squad of armed art students is a little more surreal than I can without that missing bottle of Tequila.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. I'm talking about 10 minutes when I hit the emergency button on my radio.

The police take well over 10 minutes to respond to felony calls in my area for civilians. A lot of the CCW permit holders that I know are former military or people who shoot IPSC competitively. Unfortunately I'll have to say they shoot better than most of the cops that I know. Except the cops that also shoot IPSC matches. I really don't think it would be much of an issue. Like allowing CCW in National Parks, nothing will change, except a few more crimes may get stopped.

David

[iverglas]

18. dogmatic? no.

It seems a roundabout way to avoid gun violence, but we really need to control the people, not the guns.

Doesn't it just?

Interfere in the freedom of everybody because a drunk with a gun might do something untoward.

If I were still a university student living on campus (which I once was), I can tell you what I'd be doing if that happened. Same as I did about the rules governing women in residence in my day: organize a protest, and break the rules daily.

"Control the people." I know what word would be getting thrown at you if you weren't such a firearms fan.


But if you are in the military and you screw up it goes a lot harder on you. Why shouldn't it be that way in college?

Uh, how about because your personal life has precisely fuck all to do with what you have contracted for with the university?

Heard of due process?

[rrneck]

22. When you were in college it sounds like you were doing

exactly what you were supposed to be doing.

To my experience (and one for which I am grateful) college is about pushing the envelope. It's research. It's testing your ideas against your peers, your professors, history, and yes, the powers that be. But it's also about putting your money where your mouth is and being responsible for what you say and do. Unfortunately, the impulse to push the envelope is also manifest in inappropriate and self destructive behavior that is not - here comes that word - being properly controlled. Yes, I've heard of due process. I'm suggesting we need more of it. When a student screws up he or she needs to be introduced to it quickly and throughly. Students need to understand that they are there to learn and they are responsible for a great deal more than their own economic advancement. I think the villain here is excess. Unchecked excessive behavior that helps to keep the bars open, the sports stadiums full, and the alumni dinners well oiled.

In too small a nutshell I'll rephrase in my native (southern)tongue, "If you ain't here to learn and make a damn difference shut the fuck up and take yer drunk ass home."

"Control the people." I know what word would be getting thrown at you if you weren't such a firearms fan."

I don't think that'll be a problem while I've got you around. :)

[TPaine7]

26. "A drunk with a gun"

Personally, I would favor a policy under which gun permit holding students were not permitted to drink at all on campus, or be on campus while under the influence.

Campus is a special environment, and there are special considerations.

I would also favor special policies on securing weapons on campus; off the top of my head, one weapon per eligible resident student, a specific specification for weapon locker, special rules regarding reporting stolen weapons...

[jeepnstein]

27. I floated an idea once to a Dean, he looked at me...

as if I had sprouted two heads and had a "Surf Area 51" shirt on.

Qualifying graduate students, upon graduation from the State's police academy, could be sworn as "reserve" or "special" police officers under the jurisdiction of the Campus PD. They would be required to volunteer one shift a week of regular duty. As peace officers they would be entitled to CCW on campus. Oh, and the State would pay the tuition for any grad student while they are taking part in the program. You'd be able to pick and choose from the best for a deal like that. A bonus would be that you would be creating a pool of educated professionals who understood police work and crime in a way that the text books just can't describe.

As far as citizen CCW on a campus, I don't see the big deal as long as they meet the State's criteria.

[gorfle]

31. That's a fantastic idea!

Any school with a Political Science or Criminal Justice program should jump at that opportunity.

I would think the campus police department might resist it though. They would probably rather see more real police officers hired.

[tburnsten]

30. Those look like eminently reasonable rules

Now let's see if we can sell the idea to some schools, I'm quite sure after the first couple of them tried it the format would take off like wildfire.

Not sure how I feel about the one weapon per though, sometimes the weather changes quickly and requires different clothing entirely. A gun that is a joy to carry six months out of the year can become an impossible burden quite quickly in spring time. Or at least not very discreet.

[TPaine7]

49. If the weather changed quickly,

you could carry the weapon to the student union in a backpack and trade it out, carrying the preferred weapon away. Or you could go off campus and trade.

Multiple weapons in ordinary dorm lockers is not good policy, imo. Multiple weapons on responsible adults is.

[raimius]

44. Why one?

Why should the campus limit students to 1 firearm? I use 3, when I compete. Also, forcing students to lock up their firearms in some campus storage locker really defeats the purpose of CCW. The firearm might as well be a thousand miles away, should a life-threatening assault take place.

At a more foundational level, what makes college campuses different from everywhere else? Being intoxicated while carrying is still illegal (in every state I know of). Stress, drinking, and debate certainly aren't exclusive to campuses.

[TPaine7]

48. If you have one weapon and you usually carry it when you are out,

it's much harder to steal. If you have five weapons, some irresponsible punks could go to town with four of them, even if you were carrying one.

A student should lock her gun up when not in direct possession of it. I support her right to carry, not her right to provide too easy access for drunken, immature, teenagers.

In a home, parents are responsible for policing arms. Dorms have a lot of immature, stoned and inebriated folks who should not have access to weapons. And no parents.

Those who live off campus have the same rules as the rest of society in their homes, of course. On campus, they should have direct physical control of their weapon at all times.

My $.02.

[tburnsten]

59. Wouldn't the rooms have to have good safes anyway?

Some sort of built in safe, one that is just about impossible for your average burglar to walk off with?

[iverglas]

60. I understood that to be what was proposed

Of course, a safe is only as safe as the person who uses it. Or doesn't.

[TPaine7]

61. Yes,

and the payoff for breaking in to it should be a low probability of getting exactly one gun--the gun most likely being on the student.

[gorfle]

14. Four dead in Ohio.

What would have happened in the sixties if ten percent of the students were carrying guns? A lot of skulls got cracked anyway, so in that kind of politically charged atmosphere what sort of bloodbath would the addition of guns have created? Four dead in Ohio? How about forty? Or four hundred?

I have often wondered about this myself. Probably more people would have died. But you know what? Defenseless people being gunned down by government troops is precisely the sort of reason we are supposed to be armed. Perhaps it would have been better fight back in kind, regardless of the consequences. It could have even been the spark of revolution, for good or ill.

And here's something else to ponder: Would they have even sent in troops to some place where it was known that ten percent of the students were armed? And if the answer was no, wouldn't that be the point of being armed?

[rrneck]

23. Yes, we think we are living in evil times and it sure

hasn't been a picnic, but those days were scary and those students were in the streets for a reason.

"But you know what? Defenseless people being gunned down by government troops is precisely the sort of reason we are supposed to be armed."

I agree. And having said that I guess I would have to say was that demonstration, at that time, for that reason, worth the potential loss of life?

"It could have even been the spark of revolution, for good or ill."

Ever notice how you cant go to the loo without being harassed with advertising? That's because the people that generate that crap know that people don't do what you tell them if you only tell them once. You have to tell them again and again. I think that "spark" only happens in hindsight. To my mind, real social change happens when people push, and keep pushing. Dead martyrs can only speak through the voices of the living, and I think that the more living voices we raise in unison the more effective we will be.

Would the troops come in the face of armed protesters? Absolutely. It would have been a public relations coup for Nixon. I think they would have sent more heavily armed troops with itchier trigger fingers. And instead of a few martyred college students the violence that would have ensued would have set the cause of peace back a hundred years.

[raimius]

24. That assumes those with firearms cannot argue without resorting to violence.

It is an assumption I don't buy, as a generality. Sure, there are idiots everywhere, but history has shown those with CCW licenses tend to suffer from a lower proportion of violent idiots.

I've had a couple good discussions at firing ranges, and no one got upset or violent. This argument against CC on campus relies heavily on the notion that these people will somehow lose the ability to act rationally on campus (while they can do so nearly everywhere else). What changed?

Personally, I'd say when people turn to violent arguments, the educational value has already disappeared. Arguments usually don't lead to an exchange of ideas (at least, not effectively).

Four dead in Ohio did involve guns. A whole unit of military personnel with 7.62x51 battle rifles, if I recal correctly. Fortunately, violent riots are not commonplace in society or college settings!

[rrneck]

25. It's not so much that

the arguing will lead to violence, but that the knowledge that there is a firearm present will take the heat out of the argument.

I seem to recall, and I don't know if it is true or not, a custom among the members of some warlike tribe where if a sword was drawn blood had to be shed before it could be sheathed. When I first heard it it sounded like a bunch of macho bullshit, but on reflection, it makes a lot of sense. If there has to be a fight when the weapon is deployed, you will think twice before you pull it out. I guess today we would call it rules of engagement.

The vast majority of people who own guns understand that. That's a lot of why everyone at the range is so courteous. Guns is dangerous and rules is rules.

[one-eyed fat man]

28. Kent State

The Ohio National Guard at the time was armed with US Rifle, caliber .30, M1 (7.62x63 if you want to be metric.) My tank crew heard the news in Cambodia over Armed Forces Radio.

Sixty-seven rounds were fired and a dozen people were hit, 4 fatally. It is interesting to note, that only 29 Guardsman fired their weapons, fully two-thirds did not shoot. Considering that some of the people hit were beyond the sight of the Guardsmen, they really weren't trying very hard or they have managed better than 18% hit ratio at the ranges involved.

Unlike the protesters, I'd wager the Guardsmen really didn't want to be there, they had likely joined the Guard to avoid the draft and confrontation. Forty years on one can only wonder why firebombing ROTC buildings was and is still considered within the realm of 'peaceful' protest.

If they had really been intent on shooting students Kent State would have looked a lot more like Mexico City in 1968. The Tlatelolco massacre, the full extent of which is still becoming known, resulted in at least 40 killed and as many as 3,000 wounded.

[gorfle]

32. Thanks, fat man.

Thanks for serving our country, fat man.

Years ago I used to play a tank simulation on my PC called "Steel Beasts". At the end of the booklet that came with the game there was a section that said, "Don't think because you've played this simulation you have any idea of what it is like to operate a tank. If you want to know what it's really like to operate a tank, douse yourself with diesel fuel and spend 8 hours a day stuffed inside a gym locker." :)

[gorfle]

33. For reference

Tlatelolco massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre

[tburnsten]

37. Absolutely right.

I think many people have a hard time understanding that soldiers (our soldiers anyway) are not drooling waiting for a chance to massacre people, and firebombing buildings is not an acceptable way to 'protest'. Sixty-seven rounds fired from 29 soldiers means that the ones who fired only fired an average of slightly more than two shots apiece, they did not just lay down fire indiscriminately into the crowd because they thought they could get away with it.

[raimius]

45. Thanks.

I was thinking they were using M14s.

[57_TomCat]

62. Here is a link...

to one of the rifles used in the May 4th incident currently held by the Smithsonian.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=659

[X_Digger]

29. This was in my hometown..

Grundy, Virginia- coal town, population 975. The building that houses this 'college' was my junior high school.

You still see gun racks in the back windows of trucks, and schools are ghost towns the month of November for kids going deer hunting with their families.

[jeepnstein]

36. Grundy?

I can't help but associate the name of that town with kindness and giving. I'm a supporter of the Mountain Mission located there. It's been too long since I've made the trip to visit.

[X_Digger]

58. Mountain Mission? Wow, small world

The kids who went to MM were always novel for us- we never mixed except at the YMCA pool. In a county that was 99% white trash when I was growing up, it was the only opportunity growing up to interact with an 'other'.

Would you believe that google maps actually has a street view of Grundy now?

[virginia mountainman]

50. I live relatively close by...

Used to date a gal from their, would have been almost 20 years since I have been their.