Which campus?


PDA






Oleg Volk
July 13, 2008, 05:12 PM
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/25096-2/which_sign1682.jpg

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/which_sign1682.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

If you enjoyed reading about "Which campus?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Schmidlin
July 13, 2008, 05:20 PM
i know which one id enroll at...

Kino74
July 13, 2008, 05:46 PM
nice one. Now if a university would just offer a range and CCW as a class.

Kind of Blued
July 13, 2008, 05:52 PM
I like what you did with the wrap of the gun with the red circle a lot, Oleg.

I think people opposed to campus carry would be more open to this under a certain condition. One uninformed complaint I hear often is "How could anybody concentrate if they knew everybody had a gun?"

The truth is, one or two percent of people would be carrying, and you wouldn't know it when you saw them. This notion is much less "frightening" to anti-carry folks.

I don't have a suggestion that retains the brevity, however. "Concealed weapons permits acknowledged on campus" would work if it was made to look like a legal, rectangular sign one might see in a perfect world.

armoredman
July 13, 2008, 06:16 PM
Be nice to see those red stickers on the front doors of businesses who discrimiate against law abiding firearm owners.

Nice pic, sir!

3KillerBs
July 14, 2008, 04:59 PM
Nice!

I know where I'd rather send my teens.

CountGlockula
July 14, 2008, 05:03 PM
I like it!!! Send that over to the University of UT...the one on the left!

God bless UT.

Just noticed the Hk USPc used.

Thernlund
July 14, 2008, 05:10 PM
Pfff. He'd pick the one with armed staff and students. How else would he get on campus with the gun in the first place?! :D

(The gun is only illegal when he starts plugging folks with it, eh?)

I joke.

Nice job.

Gun on the left is a CZ. Gun on the right is a USP. ;)


-T.

Navy_Guns
July 14, 2008, 06:56 PM
Oleg - you have violated one of the sacred gun image safety rules...

"Keep your diagonal red slash off the trigger until you are ready to capitulate."

Mr White
July 14, 2008, 07:35 PM
How about just armed staff? I deal with college students on a daily basis and the thought of them being armed scares the hell out of me! :eek:

KiltedClaymore
July 14, 2008, 07:50 PM
NAU allows carry i belive. i know you can have guns in your car, but not in your dorm. smart move eh? make them easier to steal.

tigre
July 14, 2008, 08:08 PM
How about just armed staff? I deal with college students on a daily basis and the thought of them being armed scares the hell out of me!
I understand the sentiment, as I teach undergrads, but the only students carrying would be those who already have permits and can carry everywhere else. And since they'd have to be 21 in most states, they'd be older students as well. Aside from that, the idea really is that if a person can carry everywhere else, they should be able to carry on a college campus as well. There isn't anything specific about a university that makes it incompatible with firearms - there aren't children running around, there isn't alcohol being served, etc. There's just this idea that students are inherently incompetent and/or dangerous, even after they've gone through the same process as everyone else who has a carry permit. I generally think that if you treat someone as if they're incompetent, they're more likely to act that way. Start treating them like adults with the same rights and responsibilities everyone else has and maybe they'll surprise you.

Brian Dale
July 14, 2008, 08:10 PM
How about just armed staff? I deal with college students on a daily basis and the thought of them being armed scares the hell out of me!...and Voting! Think of the carnage from that one! :rolleyes:

I like the poster.

TexasRifleman
July 14, 2008, 08:11 PM
How about just armed staff?

What's the difference between armed staff only and armed campus police only. Unless you're planning on carrying an armed teacher in your backpack it's not much difference.

Thernlund
July 14, 2008, 08:11 PM
...and Voting! Think of the carnage from that one! ;)Guns at the polls should be mandatory.


-T.

cwsample
July 14, 2008, 10:37 PM
Here's to hoping the 2009 Texas Legislature goes how I'd hope it will... check out the website below...

romma
July 14, 2008, 11:03 PM
Oleg, I wonder how the low and ready position would look for the sillouette.

Can you whip up a test figure?

RPCVYemen
July 14, 2008, 11:40 PM
Having just finished sending the 1st one to one of the 5 most expensive schools in the country (ouch :uhoh:), I have to say that the campus weapons policy was not very much of a consideration.

The college in question does have a silly "No Weapons" policy, but I let my son make the choice to go wherever he wanted to - urging him to decide for himself what he wanted out of an undergrad education. Quality of education was nearly the sole concern. I say "nearly" because I also urged him to go to a campus where 90% of the students lived on campus - so he would be walking to/from parties, instead of driving. :) If I had to guess, drinking and driving, and general stupid stuff while full of beer are much more of a risk than being shot by a crazed student.

He did very well, and got a full ride to grad school in a field he loves. So I am off the financial hook for that one. :)

I think that it's important not to over-react to these events. Your child's chances of being shot by a crazy person at school have to be vanishingly small. Yeah, it's scary, and most schools have stupid policies. But I wouldn't send them to a school other than the best educational match due to weapons policies.

My daughter has her heart set on NYU - in the middle of Manhattan. But what she wants is theater, and that may very well be the best theater department in the company. So if that's where she wants to go, that's where she will go.

Mike

Deer Hunter
July 14, 2008, 11:53 PM
I like that the chick has a CZ. :)

neviander
July 15, 2008, 12:06 AM
Your child's chances of being shot by a crazy person at school have to be vanishingly small.
I still like the quote I found on here. "It's not the odds, it's the stakes"

People buy lottery tickets for basically the same reason people carry guns (don't get me wrong here guys) For a small cost, they can win an enormous sum, but with unbelievable odds. For the gun owner, also for a small price, also at huge odds, can defend an even bigger sum, life.

TexasRifleman
July 15, 2008, 12:12 AM
Your child's chances of being shot by a crazy person at school have to be vanishingly small.

And if an armed teacher would lower that by 1/10 of a percentage point I'm really happy about that.

Why would you NOT want EVERY advantage? That's just silly.

Phil DeGraves
July 15, 2008, 10:01 AM
Pfff. He'd pick the one with armed staff and students. How else would he get on campus with the gun in the first place?!

But then he wouldn't get to be a mass murderer. He might get only one at which time his future existence might be questionable...

Frizzman
July 15, 2008, 10:13 AM
Preaching to the choir methinks...

Dragonmom
July 15, 2008, 10:26 AM
nice

FCFC
July 15, 2008, 10:40 AM
I think that it's important not to over-react to these events. Your child's chances of being shot by a crazy person at school have to be vanishingly small. Yeah, it's scary, and most schools have stupid policies. But I wouldn't send them to a school other than the best educational match due to weapons policies.

This makes a ton of sense. Weapons policy is not going to be a choice factor for anyone but the die-hard 2A or gun advocates. Minor.

But the problem of susceptibility to a Cho/VT-like incident remains.

That is the problem that should concern everyone (students, parents, staff, faculty, BOR, UP, etc.).

The university is clearly and directly responsible for the safety of the people on the campus. I question whether the average university today has an adequate plan to deter and/or prevent Cho/VT incidents.

Universities are simply not being pressed enough to make them have an effective defense/deterence plan. This is astonishing, considering the stakes involved and the actual political and cultural power of the two most important constituencies involved--parents and students.

Seems to me that even if one is now totally in favor of arming students/staff in any manner, to any degree, that they should be pressing the universities to explain and justify their current plans and defenses against a Cho-like attack.

And pressing hard.

Even if the university system will be changed to allow students/staff to be armed (which I doubt), it will take years for that to happen. What about the students' risk NOW? Today?

I see no reason why another Cho-attack can't happen this fall semester. Or a terrorist attack. Universities always tout a very low safety risk on their campuses. And history does support those kinds of claims. But historical data are neither relevant nor useful for anomalies like Cho.

Sebastian the Ibis
July 15, 2008, 11:09 AM
How about just armed staff? I deal with college students on a daily basis and the thought of them being armed scares the hell out of me!

I deal with college staff on a daily basis and the thought of them being armed scares the hell out of me!!!

Remember this old joke:

Two university professors walk down the street and see a guy crawling out of an alley who has nearly been beaten to death. One professor looks at the other and says "you know the guy that did this really needs help."

RPCVYemen
July 15, 2008, 11:26 AM
The university is clearly and directly responsible for the safety of the people on the campus.


I am not sure that's the case. I suspect that they are responsible avoiding negligence, but not much more than that. My guess is that as long as they have a policy more or less like most other universities, they are in the clear.


I question whether the average university today has an adequate plan to deter and/or prevent Cho/VT incidents.

I don't have any question about it - I am 100% certain that the average university does not have an adequate plan to deter and/or prevent Cho/VT incidents. :)

Mike

FCFC
July 15, 2008, 12:19 PM
Quote:
The university is clearly and directly responsible for the safety of the people on the campus.

I am not sure that's the case. I suspect that they are responsible avoiding negligence, but not much more than that. My guess is that as long as they have a policy more or less like most other universities, they are in the clear.


The universities are are clearly and directly responsible on an ethical basis.

And on the basis of justice.

These responsibilities cannot be shirked. Even after all the lawyers in the country are done with their machinations.

CNYCacher
July 15, 2008, 01:43 PM
Mr. White, in what capacity do your "deal" with college students?

RPCVYemen
July 15, 2008, 01:54 PM
The universities are are clearly and directly responsible on an ethical basis.

Can you be more precise about ethical basis?

I am not arguing, I would like to understand more about your thinking.

My initial thoughts would be that I contract with the university for two services:


Educational services.

Housing (if I am living in university provided housing).


I am not sure how I see that any legal, ethical or moral contract about my personal security has been entered into with the university.

It seems to me that I have an ethical claim against the university if they don't specify the educational services to which we have agreed, or the housing to which we have agreed - and that's about it.

I think that there are often some ancillary services provided (health clinic, career counseling, etc) - but I don't see any contract for my personal security.

What is your reasoning on this issue? From what ethical principal does their responsibility derive?

Mike

CNYCacher
July 15, 2008, 02:13 PM
This poster works great at reinforcing the types of sentiments that we here all share. In other words, it is great at "preaching to the choir".

I fear that it can do little else.

The message that you are sending is an assertion that potential mass-murderers would rather attack a disarmed locale than an armed locale. This is not a particularly strong message in support of our cause. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is a non-issue in the campus carry debate.

The issue that comes up over and over and over again when debating campus carry is the responsibility level of your average college student. When you start talking about arming students, people think that you want to pass out guns at the campus entrance. Sadly, some of we pro-gunners, in our zeal to provide counter-examples, state that we would do just that ". . . if it were up to me."

The vast majority of people who are anti-campus carry are so because they believe that normal students allowed guns would be more dangerous that a VT massacre every few years. If you could wave a magic wand and totally convince 100% of the population that arming students would prevent all mass-killings, you would not have made any progress in the debate.

People see college as a large mixing bowl where you "mix" certain "ingredients" like alcohol, drugs, stress, "emotions" and if you are going to "throw guns into the mix" it is a "recipe for disaster", like the corner of your giant spatula is going to get caught on a trigger.

If you want to have an effect on the campus carry debate, you need to start framing the debate in the proper ways. This includes addressing the responsibility angle, make it clear that we don't want to arm students, we want to prevent students who are normally armed from being disarmed. Provide counterexamples like the state of Utah, and that campus in Virginia that allows guns.

As soon as you find yourself saying "if one goes berserk, another will take him down", you have lost.

tigre
July 15, 2008, 03:32 PM
I do like the poster, but I don't really know if preventing or stopping mass murders is the most important aspect of concealed carry on campus anyways. It's an angle you can use, sure, and the more ways we can attack these laws the better. But, as someone who works on a college campus and sometimes comes in very early and leaves rather late (and many undergrads have class until 9pm, too), it's not some nutcase Rambo type I'm really worried about, as that's pretty darn rare anyways. It's the walk to the parking garage in the dark, and the crummy neighborhood right next to campus, combined with a police presence that's so low I forget there are university police. I think focusing on the safety of female students particularly could help this cause. But instead of being able to defend ourselves in the same manner we'd be able to almost anywhere else, we're told to blow a whistle and use rudimentary "martial arts" to stop an attacker that might be twice our size. :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Which campus?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!