Controversy in the Texas Senate with Student CHL


PDA






chuck_in_texas
February 20, 2009, 04:52 PM
This will, I'm sure, cause some heat from both sides.

the Texas State Senate, as at least us Texans are aware, is considering a bill to allow students with CHLs to carry on campus.

Some responses to this have been positive, and some may believe that it may prevent tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech.

I'm a retired guy who teaches part-time at two local colleges. And, by the way, am a legal CHL holder and carrier. But I don't, following the law, carry into a campus facility.

Now, as someone who stands up in the front of the room of 25 to 50 students, the thought of any one of them having a .45 in his backpack makes me uneasy. And I sure has hell don't want that the be the arena for a gunfight.

If you've spent a lot of time around college-age students, you must know that the VAST MAJORITY are young people trying to better themselves, but there are always a few who are under under the influence of various kinds of exotic chemicals. On more than one occasion, I've had to contact security to get an EMT in because a student was losing consciousness or unable to speak clearly.

It would be nice if everyone of us who had a CHL was rational, clear-thinking, and had it only in interests of self-protection. But we sure can't count on that. And the fact that faculty would be allowed the same privilege--that doesn't make me feel any better. A room full of people is not a good place to start a gunfight. and think about this: if such an altercation started, would you want 20+ innocent bystanders in between you and your adversary?

Many people seem to take the postition that had students or faculty been armed at Virginia Tech, perhaps the shooter could have been taken out sooner. Maybe. But how many more possible shooters could be sitting in how many more classrooms?

There's probably no right answer to this. But think about one thing: IF one of the legally carrying students decided to have a "bad day", and there were other legally carrying students who decided to stop him or her---is there any kind of happy result? Anyone who has served in the military must know about the old term: "crossfire".

Just something to think about.

If you enjoyed reading about "Controversy in the Texas Senate with Student CHL" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
almostfree
February 20, 2009, 05:25 PM
My wife teaches part time at an urban university in Texas. Recently a guy at a bus stop was shot and killed sitting there across the street from the campus. I knew three people personally that were robbed a gun point in and around campus when I was a student there. I also remember one incident where two men tried to rob a student with a butcher knife. He beat them both up and took the knife away, so that ended well for him. Right before I left there was a female student sexually assaulted in an empty class room. They never caught the guy. I'd sure feel a lot more comfortable if my wife was allowed to carry.

I really don't think allowing campus carry would result in any more violent incidents than already occur. The vast majority of people that pursue a CHL are not the type that are going to suddenly go nuts and start shooting up a room full of people. For that matter, school shootings that make the headlines are very rare, and it is far more appropriate to consider the above described incidents when considering this legislation.

Additionally, I don't think the passage of this kind of legislation is going to cause a bunch of students and teachers to run out and get a CHL.

Why should we have to check our rights at the door?

GonHuntin
February 20, 2009, 05:35 PM
Chuck

I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree........

You seem to be suggesting that a person, old enough to apply for and receive a license, is responsible enough to possess a firearm off campus, but isn't responsible enough to carry it on campus??? So, it's alright to carry in a crowded mall, but not in a classroom??? What changes to cause that person to be responsible enough to carry one place and not in another???

Deer Hunter
February 20, 2009, 05:46 PM
Racist Elitism.

Why?

Let's think saturday night specials...

They got a bad rap back in the day. Cheap handguns are nothing new. Public favor was against them. Jim Crow laws didn't even allow Blacks to own guns.

Because you see, you just can't trust a negro with a gun. Right?

I mean, you, the law-abidin' white male teacher-folk can carry a gun because we trust you. But not those blacks. Nope.

It's a bit of a stretch, yet It is essentially the same argument.

Well, Some college students drink and party, and if this bill passes Some students will be carrying a concealed gun in class. Therefore, it seems logical (to some, at least) that the irresponsible students will be the ones carrying guns.

So irresponsible people = CHL holders.

Great picture you're painting for the rest of us, my friend.

As a college student myself, I am completely behind CCW in the classroom by anyone with a CHL.

There are plenty of fairly good arguments against CCW in classrooms. Yours, however, is not one of them.

chuck_in_texas
February 20, 2009, 05:48 PM
almostfree:

when it comes to the campus environment and neighborhood, I'll AGREE with you. 100%. Our campus provides escort service for any female student who wants it.

I taught in another TX town a few years back and many a night on my way to my car at 10:00pm I got some uneasy feelings because the campus neighborhood wasn't exactly an ivy-leauge town. It was one of the things that made me go legal and get my own CHL. Even today, I occasionally do "on-site" teaching for businesses that want their employees trained. they're not in the best neighborhoods, and I damnded straight DO have something on my hip when I go down there.

It's the CLASSROOM that bothers me. Female students, and male students, have EVERY RIGHT to protect themselves on campus and to and from wherever they go. And they should. So do faculty.

I just don't cotton to the idea of armed students in a confined classroom.

Sure the law would make it easier for me---I could just start toting my own CW, and I'd feel more comfortable. Right now I can't do that, because I don't want to lock it up in my car. It's just the classroom, my friend. that's the scary part. By the way, if students had to identify to faculty that they were carrying, I'd probably be a happier camper.

chuck_in_texas
February 20, 2009, 05:57 PM
gonhuntin:

many years ago, in another country, I learned something in Corps. Being part of a patrol is sometimes bad, sometimes not so bad. But when it's your turn to walk point, it's always bad, because you're always the number one target.

My point was, and I guess I didn't nmake it clear, is that the guy or gal in the front of the classroom is always walking point

GonHuntin
February 20, 2009, 05:57 PM
Chuck

Again......what is the difference between sitting next to an armed student in a restaurant or a movie theater....or in the classroom???

By the way, I'm not a student......but I have one son in college and another that will start in the fall......

I do respect your opinion, but I think you are off base..........

chuck_in_texas
February 20, 2009, 06:01 PM
deer hunter:

I sure don't recall mentioning race at all----mine or that of my students, and it's irrelevant. But you implied racism.

Perhaps now you can see, as a student yourself, why I get uneasy.

We started out talking about one topic: whether or not it was good to have students carry. And you jumped my case about racisim. Which was the furthest thing from my mind.

So my point is: something I wrote pissed you off. Just as some things I say in class often piss off--I'm sure--my students. I just want to make sure the dis-agreements don't turn into the OK Corral.

chuck_in_texas
February 20, 2009, 06:06 PM
gon huntin:

I reckon I'd better quit while I'm ahead. (If I was ever ahead)

I tried to make the point with deer hunter that teachers often have disagreements with their students. (Maybe it's just me, maybe other teachers are always nice.) that happens, and sometimes it gets heated.

I was trying-----and I guess I missed the target way too much-----that teachers are potentially the number one target

I hope to hell I'm wrong, and I guess I'll say no more about it

Mr. James
February 20, 2009, 06:11 PM
chuck in texas,

Oh, I get it, if we allow hot-headed students to carry in a classroom, "there'll be blood in the streets - er, the corridors. Disputes over that last vacant seat will escalate into gunfights. Students will shoot their instructors" That hoary old nugget gets resurrected every time someone suggests taking liberty seriously. Most recently, the antis have recycled it in demanding the Obama administration rescind the properly enacted regulations concerning concealed carry in national parks. What rot.

And did you really miss deer hunter's point that badly, or are you being coy?

As you may suspect, I reject your premise entirely. It is the thinking of an anti. Who will decide which adults (we are talking about folks over 21 years of age here) are and are not worthy of carrying a concealed handgun?

This liberty stuff is risky business. Sometimes it even requires us to gulp once or twice and be . . . well, uncomfortable. Considering what price "comfort," I can live with that. So should you.

tulsamal
February 20, 2009, 06:15 PM
I taught at OU in Norman and RSC in Claremore. I strongly support these types of changes to the CCW laws. Unfortunately, Oklahoma already considered it and shot it down....

Anyway, one thing always seems to be overlooked by detractors of these changes. We used to tell incoming freshmen at OU that one third of them would be gone by the end of the year. Grades, partying, whatever. Far fewer sophomores would drop out. Etc. CCW laws affect those old enough to own and carry a handgun. That's 21. If you are 21 and want to go through all the bureaucracy to get your CCW, more power to you! I'm not going to worry about the 19 year old frat boys that fail out after two semesters!

Gregg

Dravur
February 20, 2009, 06:15 PM
Some have said they respect your ideas.... Sorry. It is an elitist position and deserves no respect whatsoever.

You don't want armed students in your classroom because it makes you feel uneasy.....Tough.

but, you don't mind them sitting next to you in the movie theater, or on the subway, or any place else.... Just not where you are the focus of attention. Awww, cuz you are more important than them somehow?

If they can pass the Background check and have shown themselves to be mature enough to carry, then more power to them and less to you.

If you are uneasy with Concealed Carry Permit holders in your class, then I suggest you teach at a prison, or in a nice, safe country like Mexico where you can know that no one there has a CCW permit.

Otherwise, it is time to jump off the high horse, realize that you feeling uneasy does not trump the right of OTHERs to protect themselves and mosey off into the sunset.

CoRoMo
February 20, 2009, 06:20 PM
I couldn't disagree more.

...the thought of any one of them having a .45 in his backpack makes me uneasy.

Feelings vs. logic. The thought of someone like the VT shooter in your classroom should certainly make you feel uneasy, but another student, or yourself armed and able to repel the attack should certainly make you feel better.

A room full of people is not a good place to start a gunfight.

Seems like criminals bent on a massacre would disagree with you. They'd greatly prefer a room full of people, helplessly unarmed and ready for execution.

Many people seem to take the position that had students or faculty been armed at Virginia Tech, perhaps the shooter could have been taken out sooner. Maybe.

Maybe is always better than what took place. Making that option nonexistent assures that the story will end badly every single time, without fail.

But how many more possible shooters could be sitting in how many more classrooms?

We could wring our hands with 'what-ifs' until we stay locked in our homes, shivering in the fetal-position. Eventually you've got to resist the feelings that impair good judgment.

There's probably no right answer to this.

I completely disagree. There seems to be a clear and logical answer to this.

But think about one thing: IF one of the legally carrying students decided to have a "bad day", and there were other legally carrying students who decided to stop him or her---is there any kind of happy result?

Nothing like that would end 'happy'. It could definitely end better than how it currently ends. WHEN illegally carrying students decide to have a "bad day", there is only one way that it ever ends... innocent people die without ever having a chance to fend off the attack. Gun free killing zones need only one thing... armed citizens.

IMHO, your feelings are clouding the issue. Logic illustrates that there is only one answer, and that is to add the only variable that could ever prevent, fend off, or equalize the situation.

I apologize for the criticisms, but I think our nation's school campuses have experienced enough massacres to prove that the gun-free idea is an absolute failure.

GonHuntin
February 20, 2009, 06:20 PM
Dravur

Point of fact, I said I respected his opinion, not his ideas.......he has a right to his opinion, and I respect that right........if you read my posts, you would find it difficult to see any support for his position.......

Fburgtx
February 20, 2009, 06:23 PM
Chuck,
This is the same kind of thinking we get from people who want to ban CCW altogether. They said the streets would turn into the "OK Corral". Why are you afraid of 21 year-old students who want to get a permit to LEGALLY carry a gun????
I'd be much more afraid of the students who have no intention of carrying a gun legally (illegal carry). I don't know what kind of people you hang around with or what you have read, but folks with a CHL are LESS likely to engage in the kind of behavior you describe.
I'm not for sure where you teach, but it must be a pretty rough place. In all the time I spent getting my bachelor's and advanced degree, I NEVER saw an extremely heated argument, much less any physical altercations in the classroom. What are you teaching that is so controversial that you expect gunfights to break out??? Do you think that 21 year-old college students are so immature that they are going to whip a gun out at the drop of a hat????

Prince Yamato
February 20, 2009, 06:25 PM
Drunk and hopped up students... what a load of crap. Most students who are inebriated don't come to class. Most students who are high during the day, fail out of school. Most (if not, nearly all) of those students you are talking about don't have CHLs and probably can't even get a gun legally.

I've taught in a college setting too (as a TA and an instructor). Crossfire? Please. If you don't have a clear shot, you don't take it. Period. No crossfire. That's CCW 101.

Next, some of us don't teach in huge classrooms. If you teach one-on-one, like a classical voice, piano, or instrumental teacher, you get a nice small studio; one that's too small and confined for pepper spray to be effective.

Why do people always assume that we're only talking about class time? What about the walk to and from classes? What about extracurricular activities like student government, salsa dancing, anime club, Queer Studies, the Vietnamese Student's Association, or whatever else college students participate in, that meet after 7pm? How about commuters that park in the parking garage or in a far off lot and return to their cars after dark?

If you shoot someone during a heated discussion, there is something psychologically wrong with you. Someone who is apt to shoot their professor over an ideological difference is probably someone who won't respect the current laws with regard to campus carry anyway.

And speaking of current laws... I can drive up and down the roads on your campus all day, with a loaded gun on me, I can walk up and down the sidewalks too. The only thing preventing me from carrying in school buildings is an unjust Texas law, supported by people like you. :fire:

CoRoMo
February 20, 2009, 06:41 PM
Post #13 pretty much knocked this one out of the park.








:p

Seminole
February 20, 2009, 06:50 PM
As someone who teaches full-time at a college, allow me to disagree.

As in every other social situation, it is the responsible, law-abiding individuals who have CCWs. There is nothing to fear from them carrying anywhere.

The irresponsible, immature individuals who are disinclined to follow the law will will carry without CCWs if they desire, even if the law is not changed.

Therefore, the only difference resulting from the change in the law is that responsible, law-abiding adults whom you have no logical reason to fear will be able to carry in the classroom.

Logic is fun! ;)

Rmeju
February 20, 2009, 07:17 PM
Chuck, think about it this way:

If you think that someone is dumb enough to do anything with their hidden handgun other than keep it hidden until their life is in danger, what in the world would make you think that they're going to wait for a little plastic card with their picture on it for permission to take that gun into the classroom at all?

As much as you seem to be a polite, clear thinking guy, you're essentially using the argument that banks use to post "No-Carry" signs on their doors. Is that sign gonna stop a robber? Or is it only going to make law abiding citizens not carry guns in?

When you think about it, the argument is terribly weak.

Rmeju

ArmedBear
February 20, 2009, 07:37 PM
What we really need is a complete change of our culture.

College should not be a place where legal adults go to prolong their adolescence as long as possible.

BUT, by and large, IT IS THAT (with the exception of GI Bill students and a few "OTA" students of course).

So I can see both sides here.

My proposal has little to do, directly, with concealed firearms. I think it's probably the foundation necessary.

Age of criminal responsibility: 15. Death penalty, life in prison without parole, EVERYTHING.

Age of consent: 15. Sorry but you don't get to use my tax dollars to put your slut daughters' boyfriends in jail.

Drinking age: 15. European kids grow up with beer, and they have fewer binge-drinking problems BY FAR.

Last year you're a tax write-off for your parents: 18.

Then you can issue CHLs to college students on campus.

As it stands now, many people, and by far most college students, don't learn adult responsibility until they're in their 20s.

It's just a fact. We create it. Many of the pioneers who populated the American West were far younger than the students who get arrested for having a beer these days.

Until we solve this problem, there is no good answer IMHO.

daniel1113
February 20, 2009, 08:02 PM
Well, I think everyone up to this point pretty much destroyed your argument, chuck. I can only hope that you take a minute and think about what's been written and why your argument is weak.

I'd also like to take a moment to say that gun owners and CHL holders like chuck are the type of gun owners that I dislike the most, even more so than hardcore anti-gun crowd. You claim to be in favor of gun rights, but in reality, you only support the ones that make you feel comfortable and that meet your needs. It's no different than being in support of free speech, as long as the speaker agrees with your point of view. At the end of the day, you do far more harm to gun rights than the anti-gun crowd ever could.

But then again, I'm just a stupid 24 year-old looking to attend law school in Texas. I certainly can't be trusted.

TexasRifleman
February 20, 2009, 08:09 PM
The argument is weak, extremely.

These students, if they can qualify for the CHL, will be carrying everywhere else anyway, the classroom is just one more place.

The idea that somehow they might snap in class but not anywhere else is ridiculous.

Sorry, this argument doesn't pass the smell test.

Is that really the only argument against this you can come up with?

DHJenkins
February 20, 2009, 08:53 PM
You voice your concerns as if none of your students aren't already packing.

At least now you might actually know which ones they are.

Deer Hunter
February 20, 2009, 08:59 PM
I sure don't recall mentioning race at all----mine or that of my students, and it's irrelevant. But you implied racism.

So you see one word and base the entire counter-argument with that?

And you're teaching at a university?

Your feelings have no right in this argument. Leave them by the wayside and you will see that the argument is extremely weak.

Wolfebyte
February 20, 2009, 09:28 PM
Didn't we have this argument back in the early 90's when Granny Annie didn't want to pass the CHL because there would be blood in the streets with everyone carrying?

I'd be worried about the "kids" carrying without a permit..

TexasRifleman
February 20, 2009, 10:01 PM
I'd be worried about the "kids" carrying without a permit..

If someone is gonna carry without a permit, one more law won't really stop them will it? :)

That's pretty much what the word "criminal" means last time I checked.

Shockingly, criminals don't tend to obey laws.......

Double Naught Spy
February 21, 2009, 12:45 AM
My point was, and I guess I didn't nmake it clear, is that the guy or gal in the front of the classroom is always walking point

So you think that if you have legal CHL students who carry that you are apt to be shot by one? That sounds a bit paranoid. Maybe a little too paranoid to be carrying? Then again, I have no idea just how you interact with your students.

jester_s1
February 21, 2009, 02:46 AM
It would appear the original arugment is dead, but the situation does have a few other facets worth discussing. The OP does bring up a matter that is not black and white and there's nothing wrong with conceeding that there are issues. We are better than the anti-gunners who will stoop even to ignoring safety concerns and truth in general to push their agenda. Here are a couple of potential problems I see with college students carrying.

1. Greater likelihood of guns being stolen.
It's a known fact, especially if you live in the dorm, that your life isn't nearly as private as most other people's. If it's known that you have a piece to carry, then the same screwballs who steal your Polo shirts out of the dryer have a much bigger temptation.

2. The intellectual roller coaster.
Maybe it's a small point, but a few deep thinking classes and one's values can change drastically and rapidly. College kids can get some wacky ideas in their heads during those days and one of the reasons that college is a great place for being challenged like that is that it's a safer environment than the real world. Add to that the emotional roller coaster of love interests and rapid life changes and you get a few students who aren't really in control of themselves for a while.

3. Appearrances.
Yes, these do matter. Colleges live and die on endowments and enrollment numbers. If Texas passes this law and enrollment in the state colleges drops by a few percent due to the fallout, then that is a real problem for the school. On a smaller note, the free exchange of ideas that good campuses have is stifled as our liberal fellow Americans head out.

As a side note, Dr. Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (my alma mater), has been an avid promoter of on campus carry and, in fact, can occasionally be seen with a Colt SAA on his belt on campus. Several professors carry concealed on campus and Dr. Patterson has been taken a very hard stance pro RKBA and even has spoken in chapel about a man's duty to stop violence, even if stopping it requires the use of deadly force. To date, no one has been hurt and it's generated a lot of free publicity for the school.

gc70
February 21, 2009, 02:48 AM
This is an elitist argument. In the last century, our country was consumed with one or another segment of the population viewing other segments (whether defined by race, class, or ethnicity) as too irresponsible, violent, or untrustworthy to permit to carry weapons. We have overcome a lot of that elitism in the last couple of decades. With luck, we will eliminate the remaining bastions of irrational fear and hypocrisy in the years to come.

Trebor
February 21, 2009, 02:59 AM
I just don't cotton to the idea of armed students in a confined classroom.

So, it would be better if the students in the classroom are not allowed to effectively defend themselves against some copycat "school shooter" who decides to get on the news by killing a buch of his classmates?

Remember, the "No gun zone" isn't going to stop him.

Personally, I think if you are *that* afraid of your students, where the idea of licensed permit holders carrying a gun in your classroom scares you that much, you should switch careers to something where you only have to interact with people you *know* can not possibly have a gun, no matter what.

I suggest you teach inside a prison instead. That way you'll know 100% that none of your students could possibly have a gun. That means you'd be safe, right? Because, after all, it's the presence of the gun that makes people violent, right?

WTBguns10kOK
February 21, 2009, 06:26 AM
Charles, I'm not entirely sure you should carry a gun.

HeavenlySword
February 21, 2009, 07:20 AM
Glad to see so much support for this bill

devildog66
February 21, 2009, 08:49 AM
Damn! This freedom thingy sure can be uncomfortable. What with havin' to trust people, respect their individual right to self-defense and let them arrive that their own conclusions on self-protection. The OP's points come across as very reasonable sounding at first blush but then when one starts to dissect them it comes down to a lack of trust and respect for the other fellow.

I'll make no analogies to attempt to refute all of the finger wringing concerns. Because in the end it is an individual responsibility for self-defense not just a right. And are our institutions of higher learning not part of building this individual responsibility?

esquare
February 21, 2009, 10:42 AM
Well, my 0.02. I've thought a lot about this, and I think everyone needs to head over and read the SCCC website. It seems to me that they make a great, logical, case for concealed carry for students.

I can understand how some people would get nervous about this at first, and I do think there are some special issues to work around, but I think the benefits outweigh the perceived negatives by a long shot.

First, some people think that there is one huge drunken crazy party going on on college campuses all the time. I hate to say it, but most of our young adults are a lot more self controlled than that - it's a minority that give the scene bad press, and the problem is compounded by the administrations treating the students like children instead of like the adults that they are (that goes both ways...)

Second, the type of illegal behavior that does happen on campus is controllable. My question is, instead of restricting the rights of adults 21 and older because of the bad behavior of a few, why can't the administrations control the bad behavior to begin with? That's a bad example to set for the students to begin with, and the bad behavior only happens because the administrations are inept to control it. My solution - if you are caught doing something illegal, you're expelled, no questions asked. It worked well in the high school I went to, and one or two people a year provided a good reminder for the rest of us.

(Personally, I don't agree with the 21yo drinking law... it's artificial and I think kids need to be taught to drink responsibly in the home while growing up, but like it or not, that's the law, and students should respect that - if they can't obey that rule, then they really shouldn't be at a higher education institution to being with...)

Third, I think most people use VT and other mass shootings as a reason for CC on campus. I think that's a stretch. If people know other people carry weapons, it may be a deterrent, and it could potentially help control a situation faster. However, a much better argument is all the violent crime that normally happens that gets no press; rape, muggings, assault, stalking, etc. Why shouldn't a young woman (or man) have the right to defend herself while going to and from class? For those of you who think campuses are a safe environment where this stuff doesn't happen, go check out u of chicago, u of penn, etc. There's a Mcdonalds close to u of penn that the students affectionately call mcdeath... When my sister was there, she has at least three FRIENDS become victims of violent crime.

Fourth, for those that fear that CCW folks age 21 are going to have an argument with a prof and snap and shoot them, well, no one has pointed to any stats that show that ccw folks age 21 are any different than the rest of ccw folks, and as a whole, ccw holders have a better track record than police when it comes to bad shoots. As a side effect, maybe the few arrogant professors on campus might be a little more respectful of their students if they thought they could be packing.

The one problem I can see is that of theft - so I think a good compromise would be to not allow students to keep firearms in dorm rooms (they can still carry into dorms, just not store them unattended there), but instead, provide a safe storage area close in the dorms that students could rent. Really, safe storage lockers should be provided in dorms anyway - there are other things than guns that student should be able to secure (passports, important documents, valuables, collectables, jewelry, etc...)

I also think that each campus should have an active competition shooting team and a provide firearm self defense courses.

As a side note, why hasn't a victim of violent crime taken a university or state to court for restricting their ability to defend themselves? I would think that would be an effective way to encourage change...

jester_s1
February 21, 2009, 10:58 AM
esquare- very good post. Creative solition on the problem of theft too.

One argument that I see popping up in this discussion repeatedly is the issue of elitism. Everybody is elitist to some degree, using the definition that the posters here seem to be working with. I supervise teenagers on church outings. I make rules that limit their freedom for their safety and to make the outing go well, and I require they be followed. By the judgments I've seen in this thread, that would make me elitist against teenagers, but it would be ridiculous to demand that I not make rules.

Trust has to be earned, and like it or not, groups earn or ruin trust together. The college life could be potentially problematic for concealed carry. As an educator, the OP knows this better than most and to be nervous about concealed carry because of what he has seen in the students isn't an unfair elitism, it's common sense and natural reaction. I'm sure colleges could solve the potential problems and safely allow concealed carry, but to condemn anyone who doesn't advocate full trust for a group that needs more supervision than typical adults as being unfairly elitist is wrong headed.

BunnyPuncher
February 21, 2009, 11:15 AM
As an academic living and teaching in south Texas I wholeheartedly support extending CCW to college campuses.

Firstly for selfish reasons - right now I would either have to leave my weapon at home (leaving me without for the day), in my car (I really do not like doing this - I'd feel horrible if it was ever stolen - likely with the car) or ignore the rule (opening up tremendous liability issues, let alone professional ones.)

Secondly - Many of my off-campus students have the same concerns I do. Many of my students (particularly the state campuses) live in - how should I put it - economically challenged parts of town to which the kampus kops cannot provide for their safety. Yet the same institution is the one that disarms them. These students have a far greater danger in their commute than I do to my pasty white upper-middle suburb.

Thirdly - Rights are hard to acquire and easy to lose. Any 2a victory is one to be celebrated. We'll need as big a cushion as we can get to emerge from the next decade.

Finally - By academic standards of ideology I am a right-wing knuckle dragging fascist who should not be allowed anywhere near children! In the real world that makes me a moderate independent with liberal views on social issues :neener: So perhaps it is a bit immature, but I'd sure like to give the "progs" some heartburn over this. Texas needs to generate some more native profs - you are importing too many burned out hippies from Boston and Cali - I'm a native born Canadian redneck so I fooled em good.

And an additional note: My students are all what I would say to be "good kids". Sure some of them have issues. But the majority are folks I would prefer to see have gun training and being allowed to carry. If I consider only the ones over 21 - solid citizens in my book. Seems to me some here are thinking all campuses are like Berkeley. They ain't.

jester_s1
February 21, 2009, 03:28 PM
I have to take exception to the mentality that we have to win every battle we can in order to make it harder for the anti-gun types to take away the right we really care about. Logically speaking, that's no different than the way groups like PETA or the Brady Campaign operate. The question shifts from "How should things be?" to "What battles can we win?" I don't think any of us want to be in the same category as those groups in the public mind.

What we pro-self defense thinkers really need to do is look at every question as fairly as possible and then push for the best laws to maintain an orderly and safe society. We do not need to decide as our core value to push for the laxest gun regulations possible, regardless of the consequences to others.

IMO, if the gun owning/using community can show itself to be primarily concerned with public safety instead of maximizing our freedom to do what we want, I tend to think we'll have a better time at preserving those freedoms that make our society safe.

RP88
February 21, 2009, 03:37 PM
well, on paper, which headline seems better?:

"Crazed gunman kills 32 people before committing suicide; police could not reach shooter to stop him; shooter could have kept going on for several more minutes and killed more"

or...

"Crazed gunman stopped by gun-wielding student; one student dead, died in crossfire between armed student and gunman; if it wasn't for gun-wielding student, entire classrooms could have been slain"

also, Jester: you should really take a look at the Brady Campaign's website. You sound a lot like their 'sensible' policy. They run an agenda against your freedoms. They don't think you should even have a right to self-defense (keep gun locked up and disassembled until a threat is perceived? Do you really want to try and argue with that?). We cannot compromise with them anymore; the fact that the NRA did compromise is how we can so close to pretty much losing most of our gun rights to begin with.

TAB
February 21, 2009, 03:47 PM
Another headline could read...

"wanbe cop trys to stop shooting, kills innocent by standers."


Like it or not, most people that carry have little to no effective training in handling firearms.

indoorsoccerfrea
February 21, 2009, 03:51 PM
I am a college student, only 19, and I have my Handgun permit from IN. I can understand where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree. I go to a college where we get muggings/robberies 3 or so times a week in the student neighborhoods. Being at a college right next to a city where murders are a common occurrence does not make me feel safe. Would you strip me of my right to protect myself just because it makes you feel uneasy? Do you think about how others feel when you carry? Say some lady in a store sees your carry gun when you reach for something on the top shelf. If she were to tell you that you shouldn't carry because it makes her feel uncomfortable, would you listen? I agree that there are students in college who drink and abuse drugs. However, the vast majority of students are not like that. It is the few addicts/alcoholics who party hardcore that give a bad rap to the rest of us. Similarly it is the few idiotic permit holders who give US a bad rap. Don't try to restrict the rights of the many based on the mistakes of the few. I am a student. I feel the need for protection. I should be allowed my right to defend myself. I am the SCCC Campus Leader for my school, you would be surprised by the number of upright and good people on campuses.

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2009, 05:24 PM
Like it or not, most people that carry have little to no effective training in handling firearms.

Yes, all the accidental shootings in the states with CCW clearly show this reckless disregard for safety, and the blood is flowing in the streets isn't it?

Yep, think of all the hundreds of thousands of people killed each year by undertrained citizens carrying firearms.

Oh, wait...... uh.... hang on..... that doesn't happen..... How can that be? Oh my GOD. You mean law abiding citizens, mostly untrained, don't randomly kill people every day throughout the nation?

Well we need to pass some stricter laws to do something about these deaths that are not actually occurring. This can't be allowed to not continue. Think of the children!





Do some of you even read what you type before you click <submit>?

TAB
February 21, 2009, 05:37 PM
could ask you the same question... how many ND threads do we get on THR? those are just the ones that admit they had them.

How many shots are fired by CCW holders in a year?

Come to think of it, has thier been any mass shootings where a CCW holder has stoped it that has not had decent training? I can't recall any. So either every one that was CCW during a mass shooting were well trained, or people that had guns did not use them. Which is more likly?

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2009, 05:41 PM
Come to think of it, has thier been any mass shootings where a CCW holder has stoped it that has not had decent training?

So you're changing your story again, nothing new there......

You said that it is dangerous for mostly untrained citizens to have guns, yet the statistical number of incidents vs guns owned is insignificant.

Whether or not it's likely that a CCW will save someone is not and has never been the point, yet you are grasping that one?

You are abandoning your original argument since it has no validity at all and moving on to the "well it hasn't actually saved anyone" line.

That one fails as well since you've basically admitted there's no danger.

So, if there's no additional danger, there is no harm. If there is no harm there is no reason NOT to allow CCW by students.
Even the tiniest chance at all that a legally carried concealed weapon might, maybe, on a good day, when the stars align, save one person is enough reason.

It is not necessary to prove increased public safety to allow this, it's simply enough to prove there would not be a DECREASE in public safety.

And given the number of CCW's out there, that is already proven. It's a fact that increases in citizens with CCWs has not resulted in an increase in accidental shooting deaths.

So as usual, you anti's have no arguments other than your "feelings".

Doesn't this make you tired? Go save the spotted tree frog or something where your "feelings" actually matter to the debate. They do not help you at all with this one.

punkndisorderly
February 21, 2009, 05:56 PM
What you think of CC on campus tends to revolve around which you put more focus on: students or concealed carry. If you view them as Concealed Carry Permit holders who happen to be students, which is how I view it, I can only see one reason NOT to allow it.

If however, you view them as students that happen to want to carry, you start to envision a bunch of drunken, immature Animal House types with guns. However, I don't really see that as reality. To be a 21 year old college student you have to have al least some maturity to have made the grades and stay out of trouble to get into college and stay there.

I'd be more concerned about some of the 21 year olds that didn't make it to college. There were four 21 year old knucklheads in my CCH class last year. All four were dumber than a box of rocks and immature as all get out. While they could shoot well, the though of them carrying didn't leave me with a good feeling.

The only thing I worry about is armed civilians perhaps flocking towards and active shooting rather than away from it and making responding officers job more difficult and perhaps being mistaken for the shooter.

I also don't think allowing guns in dorms is a great idea since you don't generally get to pick your roommate and security in a dorm situation is minimum.

twhitson87
February 21, 2009, 06:23 PM
man some people here are vicious! telling a guy his feelings don't matter! harsh! haha but really, as a student legally able to carry, i would prefer the ability to protect myself from active shooters. from the point of view of the teacher in a tough area, it might be a little disconcerting to know that people you're lecturing to are packing heat, but i agree that people in a college classroom are just as likely to be composed and self-restrained there as they would be in any other public area. anyone know why the restriction was placed on educational institutions in the first place? i can understand places where alcohol is sold, but...i'll have to go back and read all the posts if someone already explained this.

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2009, 06:25 PM
anyone know why the restriction was placed on educational institutions in the first place?

Someones "feelings" :)

There was never any actual rational reason for it.

Not a good basis for lawmaking huh?

jester_s1
February 21, 2009, 06:59 PM
The law was based on the very real concern of the image it would create. Feelings yes, but the feelings of parents who pay the bills at the universities.

I'm a bit disappointed at how this thread has developed. So many posts in this thread have dismissed the opposition's attitude as based on mere feeling and therefore invalid, yet so many posts also in this thread use exactly the same tactics- I like to call it the "River of Blood Argument." It's total sensationalist crap coming from either side, IMO.

We who are pro freedom and pro self-defense have an advantage in the argument that I haven't seen used much. That is the fact that we are right! Statistics generally show that armed populaces are safer, that CCW in states that chose to issue permits has generally resulted in crime reduction, and that nearly all criminal shootings are committed by illegally acquired/ carried guns. If we stick to the facts instead of the drama, we might get some respect in the grand scheme of things.

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2009, 07:08 PM
The law was based on the very real concern of the image it would create. Feelings yes, but the feelings of parents who pay the bills at the universities.

In Texas that is not why this restriction was originally put in the law.

When Texas got concealed carry there were many who felt (sorry, that's simply how it was) afraid of this because of the "blood will flow in the streets" stuff. At the time there were not many states going down the CCW road. Florida was really the basis for the data collection, and some people thought that not enough data. Maybe they were right.

So, the writers of the original carry laws put in all kinds of restrictions on where people could carry simply to get the law on the books.

Since then we've removed churches, hospitals, and other places that were originally off limits.

Schools will simply be one more "fix" that should have been in from day one if not for the fear mongering.

Now that the data has shown that having armed law abiding citizens does not harm the safety of the populace in general, those "feel good" policies are being re-visited with cold hard facts, and as long as it's about facts these policies cannot stay in place. Problem is it's clear from this thread and watching the debate unfold that there are many people unwilling to look at this solely based on facts, they still "feel" like it's a bad idea even though it is very difficult for them to explain WHY in a rational manner. They say things like "students will go crazy and shoot their teachers". That's not based on any remote real life data at all, that's pure fear mongering and frankly pretty insulting. They then resort to the "well it's not like it would save anyone's life anyway" argument. This one, being a future act not historical, is easy for them because it's difficult to PROVE it's not true. But, it actually doesn't matter. The chance, however remote, that it MIGHT save someone still overrides the 'feeling' that it is a bad idea.

I remember very well when all this was being debated the first time, and parents that might stop paying tuition was not the reason, nor any other "rational" reason. It simply scared people and some legislators felt better voting for a very restrictive carry law just to 'test drive' things. Now it's time to clean all this up. We recently cleaned up the carrying in a car without a permit, one more "scary" thing that didn't turn out to cause any harm at all.

Then it will be time for open carry, and do away with all this pretending. The FACTS are in and they show that an armed citizenry, trained or untrained, poses no MORE danger to the general population than an unarmed citizenry did. That's reason enough to be done with all this and move on to important things. We have a failing economy and a jacked up border situation. That time is being spent debating this silliness at all confuses me to no end.

TAB
February 21, 2009, 07:44 PM
So you're changing your story again, nothing new there......

no I was making a point that headlines could just as easily hurt as help.

esquare
February 21, 2009, 07:53 PM
It simply scared people and some legislators felt better voting for a very restrictive carry law just to 'test drive' things.

Which, I think is a prudent way to go. Most change is evolutionary. There's nothing wrong with testing the waters, and if we really think about it, the success stories about states adopting ccw speak very highly of the American people - the VAST majority of us aren't violence-loving criminals.

But, I can understand how people get scared about this. If you believe the stuff that hollywood shows in the movies about guns, what the media report, the stuff that gets taught to kids in schools about gun violence, and the info that brady people spread, then you would be really afraid of hand guns. The first time I went into a gun store in the US, I felt like I was committing a crime. In Academy (the store), I had a really hard time asking a clerk if I could look at a couple hand guns --- why? ...and this is me who was taught the constitution, the individual right to keep and bear arms, taught to shoot when I was in 5th grade by my dad, shot sks rifles at a friend's ranch in college... but no hand guns. No, those were bad...

BTW, this is the best rational I can think for open carry. When people don't see firearms being used by upstanding citizens, where else are they going to get their opinions?

So, back to the thread, I can understand people's fears about firearms and particularly carry on campus. But, policy is better formed from facts, and it appears that allowing good people to carry legally isn't all that bad. This would be a revolutionary concept, except that our founding fathers shared this same idea. ... hmmm

TAB
February 21, 2009, 08:01 PM
OC is a distraction, for most people in the US. Its not something you will see at a college anytime soon.

esquare
February 21, 2009, 08:01 PM
They then resort to the "well it's not like it would save anyone's life anyway" argument. This one, being a future act not historical, is easy for them because it's difficult to PROVE it's not true. But, it actually doesn't matter. The chance, however remote, that it MIGHT save someone still overrides the 'feeling' that it is a bad idea.

Even better, we can prove that it will help. In Israel, they decided that adults can carry in K-12 schools in response to terrorist attacks on their schools. It has worked...

http://gunowners.org/op0218.htm

If you (collective) search on google, there are other, independent sites that support this.

And, if you think Israel is a special case, and just as violent and crime-loving as the US is perceived to be, check this out, and search for Thailand:

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/firedup/Israel.htm

Kleanbore
February 21, 2009, 08:06 PM
Seems like criminals bent on a massacre would disagree with you. They'd greatly prefer a room full of people, helplessly unarmed and ready for execution.

LEOs evaluating options for dealing with mass murder rampage have concluded exactly that--and that the no gun signs themselves attract the killers.

I wonder how many of the students at Virginia Tech were thinking during the shooting "I sure am glad guns are prohibited in here."

There is some chance that had guns been permitted, the shooter might have stayed away. That he would have been stopped a lot sooner had there been armed students in the classroom is an obvious lead pipe cinch.

TAB
February 21, 2009, 08:36 PM
and that the no gun signs themselves attract the killers.



refrence please.

rainbowbob
February 21, 2009, 09:10 PM
There's probably no right answer to this.

Actually there is: The right answer is that adult citizens with no history of criminal violence have the right to defend themselves with effective tools. Pretty simple really.

The idea presented by the OP that an otherwise non-violent, law-abiding student may have a "bad day" and shoot someone (e.g., the OP) is ridiculous on so many levels. But the primary fallacy, as has been pointed out, is that a student bent on violence is having a lot more that a "bad day" - and they are not going to be deterred by a "gun-free" zone in any case.

It is insulting to students - and to most of us here - to suggest that carrying a firearm for the purpose of self-defense can result in a horrific and senseless murder depending upon how our day is going.

Nonsense!

As for the cross-fire fallacy (again already pointed out by others here) a crowded classroom is no different than a crowded theatre, supermarket, or bus station. All armed citizens must be responsible for every bullet that leaves their fiream. And a responsible gun owner will not discharge their weapon without considering the target and what is beyond it.

No offense to the OP, but I hope you are not instructing a course in logic.

Polish_Pounder
February 21, 2009, 10:04 PM
Several times in this thread people have stated that they were uncomfortable with either specific individuals or a subset of individuals because or perceived ineptitude, emotional instability, intelligence, etc. This exact point came up a few days ago when I was talking about open carry with a friend of mine who has a CPL and is against open carry. His argument was "then anybody can carry a gun, what if they do something stupid" (No CPL required to OC in MI). My reply was, "So what?" Make laws that punish gun crimes harsh (like drug laws), but let everyone own and carry guns. The bad eggs will separate themselves from the pack in short order, and have their right to own firearms taken away. Plus some time in the pen where they can serve as an example to other knuckleheads. The "Opportunity" argument is tantamount to saying that the mere presence of guns in society causes crime. I disagree.

I would love a return to an armed and polite society. I OC, and am a gentlemen while doing so.

-Polish

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2009, 11:30 PM
refrence please.

DOJ study out there that interviewed convicts about firearms, in some pretty specific questions.

They nearly all indicated they would be less likely to approach an area where they believed people might be armed.

National Institute of Justice was, if I remember, the publishing organization. "Armed Criminal in America" or something like that.

A quote from the report:

57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Again, facts vs your "feeling" of how things are.

You need to become better educated on this subject if you want to keep debating it........ this report has been out since the 80's. This isn't cutting edge stuff here.....

TAB
February 22, 2009, 01:06 AM
please provide facts ... not a poll of crimals... they are not exactly known for telling the truth.

TexasRifleman
February 22, 2009, 01:11 AM
Well if the FBI, DOJ and NIJ are not good enough sources for you, too bad.

You demanded sources, you were given them.

EHL
February 22, 2009, 01:29 AM
how come the OP hasn't responded to any of the posts of the various members? I think the arguments offered quite effectively refuted and tore down the common arugment that "there will be blood in the streets" if people have CHLs.

TAB
February 22, 2009, 01:35 AM
Well if the FBI, DOJ and NIJ are not good enough sources for you, too bad.

You demanded sources, you were given them.


57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

that is not what I asked for, I asked for a refrence to a study that said,

and that the no gun signs themselves attract the killers.

your site just said crimals fear armed vic more then the police. Thats like saying vettes are fiberglass when I'm asking what thier top speed is.

TexasRifleman
February 22, 2009, 01:57 AM
You didn't read the document did you....... It's about 50 pages. It's not a website as far as Iknow. You can find a pdf if you look.

dacavasi
February 22, 2009, 02:30 AM
The OP references Virginia Tech. Those of us who teach and live a mandate of warrior mindset cannot sit by and watch such a PREVENTABLE tragedy from becoming a baseline for ANY argument either pro or anti CCW 'on campus'. The bottom line is, if even one small fraction of the students and teachers who were preoccupied looking for 'someplace to hide', took the opportunity, *armed or not* to rush the perp, there might have been FAR FEWER DEATHS as a result. It is a tragic commentary on this generation that pulling the blankets over one's eyes somehow reduces the obvious threat, or diminishes their own responsibility to themselves, their families, and their fellow man. They have far too long had the liberal 'professors' rally cry against guns, against self-defense, beaten into them! I don't know about the rest of you, but if some punk with a 9 ever waltzes into my territory thinking he's got the run of the land, he's going to suffer a very, very terrible awakening, whether or not I have a gun with me!!!! We need to start teaching our young to stand up and defend themselves, instead of cowering behind desks and 'locked doors', thinking that the 'nightmare will pass'. It need not have taken any one student at VT with a gun to stop that PUNK, just one or two with the GUTS to get involved!!!

TAB
February 22, 2009, 02:35 AM
You didn't read the document did you....... It's about 50 pages. It's not a website as far as Iknow. You can find a pdf if you look.


So show me where it says gun free zones attract killers and how they came to that. polling crimals is not a valid method... more so since most of the "killers" are killed or kill themselfs before anyone can talk to them.

DAVIDSDIVAD
February 22, 2009, 03:35 AM
I call BS on this thread.

Low post count + obviously anti RKBA sentiments = troll.

TRGRHPY
February 22, 2009, 04:57 AM
Campus' allowing CC is not going to spur on a rash of new gun owners and new permit carriers. If they don't already have one, chances are that they will not start now. All it will do is allow already responsible permit holders to responsibly carry on campus.

I don't know how many people who argue against CC on campus have actually attended college, but fights just don't break out in classrooms from discussions. Yes, there are heated discussions, but I have seen several fights break out at movie theatres and none in class. In fact, I have not spoken to anyone who has been in a class where a fight broke out.

If the firearm is concealed, then nobody but the owner knows it is there. Therefore no problem.


Why is there an assumption that just because there is not a shooting going on that there aren't students illegally carrying guns on them? That's a bit naive to think that students currently do not carry firearms in class. How many students do you think carry a gun on campus anyway, even though it is illegal, just because the school is in a bad area and they would rather be "judged by twelve rather than carried by six"?

crebralfix
February 22, 2009, 06:58 AM
There should be no controversy.

We've allowed our rights to be legislated away. Since state constitutions currently govern most gun laws (2nd Amendment doesn't apply to state action), it's necessary to look at the Texas constitution:

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm#1.23

There it is. The constitution of the state says they can restrict carry.

I think the other posters have sufficiently covered the reasons why concealed carry should be allowed on campus.

TexasRifleman
February 22, 2009, 08:55 AM
polling crimals is not a valid method..

Since it contrasts with your personal beliefs, of course it isn't.

Again, the standard anti response. Ask for any proof of something then when presented with it decide that the methods or answers are not valid.

There is a 1985 and a late 90's study out there from the FBI, DOJ, and NIJ. You are welcome to read them. They address criminal attitudes toward guns in great detail. They do talk specifically about encounters with armed, non-LE citizens. They were developed to save the lives of LEO's who encounter armed criminals.

You can find copies online and read them for yourself, but this is my last post on this topic.

There's no point in debating someone who decides that any data is invalid simply because it doesn't agree with their point of view, especially data from the top LE agencies in the country, developed over many years by the top experts in the field of criminal justice.

Somehow YOU know better though? That's ridiculous.

Kleanbore
February 22, 2009, 11:19 AM
I asked for a refrence to a study that said,

Quote:
and that the no gun signs themselves attract the killers.

Here it is:

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/When-Seconds-Count-Stopping-Active-Killers/_yls0jTxAkK8QJR1NKbePA.cspx


It really should not surprise anyone. It's common sense--perhaps a rare commodity in some circles.


polling crimals is not a valid method...

Basis for that assertion? Do you believe that that method is not used as one input for the development of law enforcement strategies and tactics?

TAB
February 22, 2009, 05:11 PM
I'll give you 2 very good reasons why polling crimals is a bad idea.

1 they are known to be lairs.

2 most mass shooters are killed before they can be pooled.

lets for get all that... the question in the poll was which do they fear most, not what attracted them to thier targets.


read your own link... it says they may choose them. It didn't say the gun free zone drew them there. it just said they may choose it. They could have just as easily chose it as it was the place that cuased them great pain/anger. Mass shootings generally take place in places where the shooter spends lots of time. you know, like schools, work, the home, thier "hang out"...


I also love how they don't site any stats or even site the study they used to get that from... nice.

Hungry Seagull
February 22, 2009, 05:53 PM
I keep thinking, we can take a Recruit, send that Recruit to a United States Marine Corps Boot Camp on Parris Island, then to infantry school and thence to war overseas. Possibly being promoted and gaining responsibility over other Marines and very expensive equiptment and weapons of war all the while serving this Nation under a Military Code of Justice.

All of this before they hit 21. Maybe they come out with College equivelant education as well being an Officer a few years later.

People who go to College are there to learn and put in the time, resources and effort to make it happen. Everyone else are either going to have problems with thier records, citizenship, history, finances, physical welbeing brought on by drugs, drinking etc and so forth are not going to be good students very long.

Colleges are nice places. Im pretty sure after the recent VA Tech Shootings there are going to be more people in any College or even the surrounding Community able, willing and ready to respond to the next BG who tries to shoot up a college.

I take this example after 9-11. Before 9-11 we sat in aluminum tubes with wings and 140 of your best friends not knowing anything except a select few. After 9-11, if you are in that airplane and start to even look funny, you might find yourself with 140 people unwilling to accept, put up with or condone your problems and make sure that YOU are secured for THIER Safety.

Kleanbore
February 22, 2009, 06:56 PM
the question in the poll was which do they fear most, not what attracted them to thier targets.

Poll? I responded to the following question:

I asked for a refrence to a study that said that the no gun signs themselves attract the killers.

read your own link... it says they may choose them. It didn't say the gun free zone drew them there. it just said they may choose it.

Here's what it says:



The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.

We also conducted our own analysis of mass murders in the U.S. The vast majority [of mass murders] occurred in schools or on college campuses where firearms are banned as a matter of state statutes. Others took place in post offices where firearms are banned as a matter of federal law. Most of the rest took place in shopping malls or other businesses where the owners posted signs prohibiting firearm possession by anyone including those with CCW permits.

Based on data from the SEALE study, an analysis by TDI, and our own painstaking research, we are able to say definitively that most "active killer" shootings have occurred in so-called "gun free" zones. The experts who say they may be "invitations" are also John Benner and Ron Borsch who have six decades of law enforcement experience and training between them.


All of those locations have sighns prohibiting weapons. All of them. So, most mass killings have occurred in gun free zones, and the shooters almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks, and one would conclude that the killers may choose them?

Mass shootings generally take place in places where the shooter spends lots of time. you know, like schools, work, the home, thier "hang out"...

Source for that?

I also love how they don't site any stats or even site the study they used to get that from... nice.

See above--they did cite the sources. As it says in the link, you can get to the SEALE study by registering on PoliceOne.com.

EHL
February 22, 2009, 07:12 PM
I second the BS call. The OP hasn't responded at all. This is a troll posting to get us all riled up. Some of the posts from particular individuals sounds like Soros or Brady are typing out their regurgitated anti-gun rhetoric.

p.s. it doesn't take much imagination to put yourself in a criminal's shoes and imagine what might scare you. If I were a criminal with gun, about to commit a crime, I'd like to make sure my possible victims would be as vulnerable as possible. (i.e. unarmed) If I am unsure as to whether or not they are packing some heat, I might hesitate going in that particular place to commit my crime, for fear of getting shot back by my intended victims. Not too hard to figure that out TAB, don't know why you keep kicking against the pricks.

TexasRifleman
February 22, 2009, 07:19 PM
I also love how they don't site any stats or even site the study they used to get that from... nice.


TAB, I'm not sure what you are looking at. I didn't post a link. I gave you the name of a 50 page study that was put together by the National Institute of Justice. I quoted one line from the study, but didn't post a webpage for it. I am not aware of any webpages with the study details.

There are a few websites with the highlights but those are NOT the study itself. It's available here and there in pdf form and it has the very detailed things you suggest are missing.

That's why I asked you before if you actually read the study, and it's clear that you have not.

The webpages are just bits and pieces. The 1980's study, as well as one done in the 90's, are very detailed in their analysis. The 90's study is the one, if I remember correctly, that specifically addresses criminals avoidance of places where they suspect private citizens might be armed.

They are worth reading. The websites that come up in Google are NOT the study itself, and so they don't contain the actual data. It's going to take a little actual research to find this stuff.
The pdf to the 90's study has been posted here on THR in the past, maybe it comes up in search. I don't have these anymore or I'd put them somewhere for download.

You are desperately trying to discredit a piece of work that you have not read and I'd ask you to actually read the referenced documents before deciding they are not valid. They are currently the source of information for most LE agencies in the US regarding armed criminals.

wyocarp
February 22, 2009, 07:19 PM
Chuck in Texas, what makes you so sure there isn't a student with a gun in his backpack in your class every day of the week? If there is a student that does what is required to obtain a permit to carry, that would prove to me that he is somewhat more responsible than many. Who are you to judge? I might object to you having a permit. Your aurgument has no merit. You sound like an anti gun person with the thought that just because some student might have a permit and be allowed to carry on campus that there will be a gun fight.

wyocarp
February 22, 2009, 07:21 PM
OC is a distraction, for most people in the US. Its not something you will see at a college anytime soon.

Only if you want it to be a distraction.

gc70
February 22, 2009, 07:54 PM
OC is a distraction, for most people in the US.

For the vast majority of people in the US, OC is the way they can legally carry a gun.

Prince Yamato
February 22, 2009, 08:35 PM
Something else I'd like to point out:

In Texas, police are not criminally charged if they miss the assailant and hit an innocent bystander. Who is more likely to engage in a firefight in a classroom where innocent bystanders could be killed by crossfire, a student, who could face the death-penalty when he/she is charged with murder, or campus security, who will not be charged with murder?

TexasRifleman
February 22, 2009, 09:52 PM
Who is more likely to engage in a firefight in a classroom where innocent bystanders could be killed by crossfire, a student, who could face the death-penalty when he/she is charged with murder, or campus security, who will not be charged with murder?

That one has always been kind of fuzzy for sure. Texas law states:

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

If you do NOT recklessly kill or injure an innocent you would not be charged with a crime.

Now, proving you were not reckless might take work, but in general private citizens are afforded some protections if an innocent is hit in a firefight.

TAB
February 23, 2009, 12:06 AM
Out side of your shot passing thru the BG, I would say it would be almost impossable to prove you were not wreckless.

TRGRHPY
February 23, 2009, 02:59 AM
Shooting back and missing an armed attacker who is trying to kill you is considered reckless? Perhaps you don't understand "reckless"

findlaw.com dictionary

reckless
: characterized by the creation of a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the lives, safety, or rights of others and by a conscious and sometimes wanton and willful disregard for or indifference to that risk that is a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in like circumstances

JohnKSa
February 23, 2009, 03:06 AM
...I don't, following the law, carry into a campus facility....It would be nice if everyone of us who had a CHL was rational, clear-thinking, and had it only in interests of self-protection. But we sure can't count on that. People who don't respect the law are already carrying weapons on campus. It's only the people like you (and other CHL holders) who respect the law who don't.

What makes a person more afraid of people who follow the law than of people who don't?For the vast majority of people in the US, OC is the way they can legally carry a gun.Are you sure about that? I think that the majority of people (concerned with legality) in the U.S. have access to shall issue carry permits.

Davek1977
February 23, 2009, 03:36 AM
I just don't cotton to the idea of armed students in a confined classroom.

Why does one's right to self-defense end at the classroom door? Is the idea that you MIGHT be victimized by a student outweigh THEIR right to self-defense? That makes no sense to me. In a classroom or on the streets, arguments inevitably happen. I'd like to think the vast majority of concealed weapon permit holders would be wise enough not to let a simple argument escalate to the point of shots being fired. Furthermore, do you sincerely believe mere rules are going to keep firearms out of your classrooms? Did the shooter at Virgina Tech reconsider his plan after seeing a "gun free zone" sign? Law or no law, the possibility of weapons in the classroom is ALREADY THERE. Now, all thats left to decide is wheter we want ONLY the bad guuys who could give a rat's a$$ about the law to be armed, or do we want to level the playing filed and allow permit-carrying, armed civilians to protect themselves? Furthermore, I honeslty don't believe that most, if any, of the students you've had to have checked out because of their use of "exotic" chemicals fit the profile of the average ccw holder. By and large, its been proven that those with permits are actually m ore likely to follow the laws. Of course, that doesn't mean that such individuals are unarmed, but the odds of them being LEGALLY armed are pretty slim, I'd venture to guess. So, to sum things up, you want guns banne din classrooms because of the poetenial risk...to YOU. HOW IS THAT FAIR to the hundreds of students you teach? They should all remain at risk, because you have an irrational fear of your classroom becom,ing a shooting range if "kids" are allowed to carry concealed in the classroom, but you have no problems with them protecting themselves elsewhere? It seems to me that you are putting your own safety above that of tyhe safety of the masses, and thats something i don't understand.

Kleanbore
February 23, 2009, 10:32 AM
Out side of your shot passing thru the BG, I would say it would be almost impossable to prove you were not wreckless.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

I believe the risk of someone being killed by an errant shot from a law abiding citizen is far outweighed by the reduction in risk afforded by the deterrent effect of having concealed carry legalized.

The legal gun will not even come out unless the threat of death or serious bodily harm is imminent--that is, unless there's someone with a gun in his hand bent on mayhem, in which case many others would otherwise be killed or seriously injured.

Who is more likely to engage in a firefight in a classroom where innocent bystanders could be killed by crossfire, a student, who could face the death-penalty when he/she is charged with murder, or campus security, who will not be charged with murder?

The student, who will be very unlikely to be charged with murder for a lawful act of self defense unless there is evidence that he or she acted recklessly. There are students in the classroom.

What is the chance that anyone from campus security would be in the classroom at the time? What is the chance that a criminal would start anything in the presence of campus security? Both very, very low, IMHO, or the issue would never have been raised.

However, the real question is whether the killer would attempt anything given the possibility of others being armed.

The arguments against concealed carry on campus are the same ones used by opponents of concealed carry everywhere else. They include speculation that more killings would occur, which has always been disproved in the event, and the incorrect argument that the duty to protect individual citizens is that of law enforcement personnel.

Question for a Texas attorney or LEO: is a peace officer in Texas indemnified against criminal or civil liability in the event of injury or death caused by his or her reckless conduct?

TexasRifleman
February 23, 2009, 10:50 AM
Question for a Texas attorney or LEO: is a peace officer in Texas indemnified against criminal or civil liability in the event of injury or death caused by his or her reckless conduct?

There doesn't appear to be, the coverage for LE is basically the same as far as I know (not a lawyer or LE but I can read)

Once you get reckless or negligent there is simply no coverage for anyone.

Prince Yamato
February 23, 2009, 11:24 AM
Folks, someone of you are commenting on my post like I'm against campus CCW. What I was saying is that a student is less likely to engage in indiscriminate cross-fire than a police officer, because the student, not wearing a badge, is more apt to be charged with murder than a police officer, if the student accidentally kills a bystander. The police officer would probably be reprimanded, where as the student would be charged with murder. Knowing that the police are rarely charged with murder when one of their bullets misses its intended target, I'd much prefer a room-full of students CCWing than a bunch of police intent on "hitting their target".

Kleanbore
February 23, 2009, 12:06 PM
if the student accidentally kills a bystander.... the student would be charged with murder.

Ya think so?

The law as I read it doesn't deny the self defense justification as a defense if the actor accidentally kills a bystander.

The gun is no different in that regard than a baseball bat, a blowtorch, or an automobile.

You won't be charged with murder if, while driving prudently and while not under the influence, you accidentally kill a person, but try reckless driving and see what it could net you if it results in the death of an innocent person.

And by the way, it the death penalty wouldn't even be on the table, as I read the code on capital crime in Texas.

lightbulb0413
February 23, 2009, 12:50 PM
I dont know if this was mentioned before or not but one thing to keep in mind is that even if a law passes that says you can carry on campus, doesn't necessarily mean you will be able to carry on campus with no repercussions.

Let me explain.

In the state of KY (where i live) i can technically carry in a college campus. However, the university i attend doesn't not allow deadly weapons in side their buildings, AKA they have small signs saying no weapons.

I believe in KY if i walked in the building anyway with a concealed weapon, all they could do is ask me to leave. However, they could also expel me from the University.

Im not saying that i wouldnt take that risk, but thats still something you should think about.

I believe Virgina is similarly set up.

bdickens
February 23, 2009, 01:20 PM
Chuck. I wonder if you've ever seen this:

GC 411.172. ELIGIBILITY.

(a) A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

(1) is a legal resident of this state for the six-month period preceding the date of application under this subchapter or is otherwise eligible for a license under Section 411.173(a);

(2) is at least 21 years of age;

(3) has not been convicted of a felony;

(4) is not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or of a felony under an information or indictment;

(5) is not a fugitive from justice for a felony or a Class A or Class B misdemeanor;

(6) is not a chemically dependent person;

(7) is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun;

(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code;

(9) is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun;

(10) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making a child support payment administered or collected by the attorney general;

(11) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, the tax collector of a political subdivision of the state, or any agency or subdivision of the state;

(12) has not been finally determined to be in default on a loan made under Chapter 57, Education Code;

(13) is not currently restricted under a court protective order or subject to a restraining order affecting the spousal relationship, other than a restraining order solely affecting property interests;

(14) has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony; and

(15) has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

(b) For the purposes of this section, an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States is:

(1) a felony if the offense is so designated by law or if confinement for one year or more in a penitentiary is affixed to the offense as a possible punishment; and

(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is not a felony and confinement in a jail other than a state jail felony facility is affixed as a possible punishment.

(c) An individual who has been convicted two times within the10-year period preceding the date on which the person applies for a license of an offense of the grade of Class B misdemeanor or greater that involves the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory element of the offense is a chemically dependent person for purposes of this section and is not qualified to receive a license under this subchapter. This subsection does not preclude the disqualification of an individual for being a chemically dependent person if other evidence exists to show that the person is a chemically dependent person.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:

(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;

(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that:

(A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or

(B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;

(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs; or

(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):

(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in the preceding five-year period;

(2) psychiatric hospitalization in the preceding two-year period;

(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;

(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; or

(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:

(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;

(B) bipolar disorder;

(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;

(D) dissociative identity disorder;

(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or

(F) antisocial personality disorder.

(f) Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a person who has previously been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d) or listed in Subsection (e) is not because of that disorder or condition incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person provides the department with a certificate from a licensed physician whose primary practice is in the field of psychiatry stating that the psychiatric disorder or condition is in remission and is not reasonably likely to develop at a future time. ( http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/txchlaws.htm )

Your post sounds like it was cut-and-pasted from the BradyBunch's racist, sexist, homophobic and elitist propaganda.

The movement is afoot to allow adults who have met all of the above quoted requirements to legally carry their sidearms on campus just like they do in the mall, at the grocery store, in the park and at church. What in the world, are schools under some kind of Black Magick curse that makes people's brains vanish as soon as they step onto the property?

I suggest you should do some basic research and then apply some logic to what you learn. Surely you know how to do that, don't you Mr. college professor?

daniel1113
February 23, 2009, 06:47 PM
I believe in KY if i walked in the building anyway with a concealed weapon, all they could do is ask me to leave. However, they could also expel me from the University.

You must attend a private university, in which case the administration is free to make any rules that they please regarding firearms on campus. Any bill that is passed in Texas, or any other state, would only affect public universities.

I was in a similar situation while attending college in Pennsylvania. While the state has no rules regarding firearms on college campuses, my university had a standard anti-firearm policy... and I carried my pistol nearly every day. I also know for a fact that I wasn't the only one that did so.

lightbulb0413
February 23, 2009, 07:02 PM
Actually I do not attend a private university. In KY you can post a sign saying that no firearms are allowed in a certain building.

For instance a movie theater that i frequent has this sign. The most they could do is tell me to leave. But at the university they could expel you even if you were legally carrying.

My point was there are other things to take in to account, besides the legality of such a act.

Personally I think i would take the risk and conceal carry.

daniel1113
February 23, 2009, 07:41 PM
I find it hard to believe that your state allows concealed carry in universities, but then allows public universities to forbid students from doing so. Unless I am missing something...

A public university is much different than a private movie theater.

EDIT: Nevermind. I am guessing that in KY, the state allows representatives at each public university to set its policies regarding firearms, correct?

TexasRifleman
February 23, 2009, 07:47 PM
Actually I do not attend a private university. In KY you can post a sign saying that no firearms are allowed in a certain building.

That would not be the case with this proposed Texas law. Public schools couldn't post signs or do anything else to punish people that carried.

Private institutions may of course do whatever they want even if this law is passed. that isn't addressed by this.

lightbulb0413
February 24, 2009, 01:29 PM
527.070 Unlawful possession of a weapon on school property -- Posting of sign -- Exemptions.

(1) A person is guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon on school property when he knowingly deposits, possesses, or carries, whether openly or concealed, for purposes other than instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, or the purposes permitted in subsection (3) of this section, any firearm or other deadly weapon, destructive device, or booby trap device in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field, or any other property owned, used, or operated by any board of education, school, board of trustees, regents, or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. The provisions of this section shall not apply to institutions of postsecondary or higher education.

However, I believe it is an internal policy, probably buried within something you sign when you apply to the university.

I will take a picture of the sign. Not that I am trying to hijack this thread, but for my own personal interest.

I am pleased that this TX law will not allow for public institutions to skirt the issue. Even if the worst that could happen in KY is expulsion.

BlayGlock
February 24, 2009, 02:32 PM
Having just graduated form a Texas university (Sam Houston) I would say that I am all for it. Sam was a relatively peaceful univeristy in a quite town, and we still had our fair share of robbery. In my last semester there, there were a few armed robberies and a shootining on a campus of 18,000.

Ill just sum it up with the words of a former Texas state Rep who survived the Kileen, TX massacre: "Let me make a point here, in case this isn't becoming extremely clear. My state has gun control laws. It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody! What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family! That's the only thing that cotton pickin' law did! OK! Understand that! That's ...that's so important!" Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp

boom boom
February 24, 2009, 03:25 PM
Having been a professor at a large public university (ironically teaching constitutional law/criminal law) for 5 years, I can certainly understand that some students can make professors nervous. Just yesterday, I suspected that one of my students was high in class. Nevertheless, I support the right of students who have CHL/CCW etc. licenses being able to carry into the classroom. First, I have a substantial percentage of non-traditional students who are often older than I am. Many of these individuals have prior service with our military. Banning these individuals from carrying with a proper license does nothing whatsoever to increase my "danger" in the classroom. Second, those students who are twenty one and above and qualify for CHL/CCW represent an extremely law abiding group in general and thus not likely to propose much of a threat to me either. Instead, my worries are more directly at those like my student who is high in class that simply ignore those laws that they don't like. These sorts constitute the type that are most likely to pull their "illegal" guns and shoot others regardless of what any state or federal law dictates.

A better solution to violence on campus would be eliminating Student Judiciary systems from having any power to punish things other than academic crimes. Stalking, harassment, etc. are better dealt with by the traditional justice system with police and prosecutors. Current law and policy on campuses let many that have substantial mental illnesses remain on campus as "disabled".
For example, one friend of mine dealt with a student who threatened a "Columbine" type massacre on a student evaluation form. It turns out after his handwriting betrayed him that the campus counselors and cops knew exactly who he was. A second example was another friend who was physically threatened in front of the class after he ignored her instructions about putting away his newspaper in class. He claimed that he had fetal alcohol syndrome and thus was "incapable" of restraining his outbursts. Confidentially my student was told by the counseling dept. that their staff refused to meet with this student alone. Furthermore, he had already thrown an object at another teacher in another class etc. etc. Needless to say, this student also had a history (ignored by the administration) of this type behavior. Last, but not least, I had contact by a newly admitted student who threatened me over the phone, came to my office while I was at lunch, and then proceeded to force her way into my department chair's office past a secretary. She then proceeded to the dean's office and we had to bring in campus security. Needless to say, she lasted another year before she threatened another instructor with violence in class before finally being expelled. These are the people that instructors fear and that should be expelled but yet manage to stick around for a while until they go too far.


For these reasons, those such as the VaTech or Northern Illinois mass murderers are better dealt by a swift and immediate expulsion rather than coddling. In my experience and those of other professors, these violent and behaviorally disordered individuals with delusions of mass media martyrdom are the real threat to safety on campus as well as your traditional rapists, robbers, etc. that campuses attract from the outside. Responsible gun owners such as those obtaining carry permits don't bother me at all. In fact, I would feel safer in such a context given that schools don't seem to be changing their policies with keeping violent behaviorally disordered individuals in check.

jester_s1
February 24, 2009, 10:56 PM
I suspect this will be my last post in this thread, but if there's a compelling response I may join back in. I gotta say I'm really disappointed in the general tone this thread has taken. In four pages of posts, I can't find 1/2 a dozen that portray gun owners in a positive and respectable light. Between the quick and vicious personal attacks against those with dissenting opinions, the emotional bs (major hypocrisy there), and the lack of serious dialogue with the issues raised by the OP, this thread is a quote mine for the anti gun movement to portray us as the knuckle dragging shaved apes they think us to be.

We can do better, because we have solid logic, history, and classic ethics to back up our positions. The founding fathers didn't use these teenage girl arguments so prevalent in this thread to establish the second ammendment. They used solid thinking and the best ethicists of their day to arrive not at what suited their needs and wishes, but at what would be best for the nation.

So, in that spirit, I'd like to offer a different way to look at the issue than what I've seen so far. All sensationalism aside, will or will not allowing concealed carry in colleges be good for the nation? There are several facets to the question worth considering- human rights, economics, public opinion/image, crime potential, and safety come to my mind. Others may think of something else. A few have addressed some of these, but it would be alot easier to follow them if the "blood in the streets" crowd would give it a rest. Ditto for their brethren, the "you're working for their side" crowd.

It's pretty safe to assume that we are all on the same side seeing as how we've all taken the time to find this forum and have taken the time to make posts here. Perhaps we would do better to have intelligent conversations about these sometimes complicated matters so as to have sharp wits and solid arguements when the real enemy shows up?

Sage Thrasher
February 26, 2009, 03:10 AM
Wolfebyte is right, it's the "kids" without a permit you need to worry about. Any place where guns are banned becomes a magnet for criminals, and a free-fire zone for murderous losers looking for their Sam Peckinpah moment. In Oregon we have a spate of local "policies" or bureaucratic rules/mushrooms that pop up in opposition to the actual laws all the time, law which are supposed to allow CHL holders to carry just about anywhere. Recently at Western Oregon University a student with a CHL was arrested by campus police for carrying on campus. Last I heard, he is suspended awaiting both legal and administrative appeals. This is a good law proposed in TX.

4Freedom
February 26, 2009, 03:29 AM
It would be nice if everyone of us who had a CHL was rational, clear-thinking, and had it only in interests of self-protection. But we sure can't count on that. And the fact that faculty would be allowed the same privilege--that doesn't make me feel any better. A room full of people is not a good place to start a gunfight. and think about this: if such an altercation started, would you want 20+ innocent bystanders in between you and your adversary?


Just my 2 cents, but you are advocating the same type of deal that all gun control supporters have been stating for years. Just remember bad guys don't give a rats arsh about whether they can carry a gun onto campus. If they are doing illegal drugs, they are already breaking the laws of the country and laws banning guns won't deter them one bit. Did Cho at Virginina State care that he wasn't allowed to conceal carry, did it stop him? Who did the CHL ban on campus apply to? Guess who, all of Cho's victims. Yes, they were the only one to follow the stupid law, which helps empower cimrinals and make law abiding citizens victims.

However, I will state this, I think all college age people who will CHL on campus should first undergo some type of official training and also be disciplined in the dangers of firearms. If they are forced to save someone or their own's life, it would be good they don't take potshots into a crowd of students. However, in majority of cases, if they have to use the gun, it will be because there isn't much to lose.

daniel1113
February 27, 2009, 07:51 AM
However, I will state this, I think all college age people who will CHL on campus should first undergo some type of official training and also be disciplined in the dangers of firearms.

Let me get this straight. You first call out the OP for wanting to treat colleges different than any other place with regards to concealed carry, and then you proceed to single out college-aged students for forced training? This whole idea that college students are somehow different class of people when it comes to concealed carry is ridiculous. Considering you must be 21 in pretty much every state to carry a concealed handgun, it should would be nice if people would treat us like the adults we are.

esquare
February 27, 2009, 09:42 AM
However, I will state this, I think all college age people who will CHL on campus should first undergo some type of official training and also be disciplined in the dangers of firearms.

Frankly, I think we should have firearms classes in elementary (safety) and middle (shooting) schools. There are so many guns in this country, I think it's completely irresponsible that elementary schools do not provide mandatory firearms safety classes in the curriculum. Plus, it's not like it takes that much time. I would think, one 30 minute session per year would do it...

...but having special rules for chl on campus sort of defeats the purpose of being able to get a permit and carry at all times.

Hungry Seagull
February 27, 2009, 01:32 PM
Omg. Firearms training to 5th grade on up?

You are going to recieve total 120% focus from everyone involved and intense interest.

But, I can see about two generations worth of teachers and faculty that will faint, swoon and tremble at the thought of children handling GUNS inside a school classroom.

Suppose we did that.

I hope that we will have a Nation of correctly trained people with guns, legally. But right now I see a few states where this will be a flat NO-GO. Mass being first in line.

Drusagas
February 27, 2009, 01:34 PM
I am a student at a univ. in TX and dearly hope this passes

New To Knives
February 27, 2009, 01:42 PM
I'm not a student, however I do think this is a good thing. Basically the same points as everyone else. If they are eligible to get the Concealed Carry License, what makes them any less responsible when they enter a school campus?

On the subject of gun safety/shooting in elementary/middle school, it really isn't that far fetched, the middle school I attended as a kid used to have a shooting class. .22 long rifles. The program was shut down before I ever got a chance to enter, but there was never an incident involving injury in that class. Wish they would bring that back, but no need considering I will be teaching my kids this long before they get to middle school.

Hungry Seagull
February 27, 2009, 01:52 PM
Our Daddies teach children to shoot since guns were made long ago. Schools should do the same.

My problem is with the Thugger who does NOT follow the law and could CARE LESS about safety, in fact would prefer to ensure his or her own safety by eliminating all humans within eye shot that so much as gazes a certain way to the BG.

In the human barrel there is always a bad apple.

THAT is what Im worried about.

4Freedom
February 27, 2009, 04:31 PM
Let me get this straight. You first call out the OP for wanting to treat colleges different than any other place with regards to concealed carry, and then you proceed to single out college-aged students for forced training? This whole idea that college students are somehow different class of people when it comes to concealed carry is ridiculous. Considering you must be 21 in pretty much every state to carry a concealed handgun, it should would be nice if people would treat us like the adults we are.



The OP said he wanted all guns banned for college students. Training never hurts anyone, I advocate training 100%. If the person cannot display any previous proficiency with a firearm, since they are on a campus and one day may be forced to use their gun in a crowded environment, such as a class room against a deranged school shooter, I think some training can make the difference between life and death. I personally think there is lot of irresponsible people out there and guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. So, I don't see anything wrong with school giving a short training course on handguns for students who wish to conceal carry. I myself am fairly new with guns and I am going to be taking some handgun courses. I don't think this applies just to students, but teachers too. This is just my own personal opinion, take it or leave it.

TexasRifleman
February 27, 2009, 05:16 PM
I myself am fairly new with guns and I am going to be taking some handgun courses.

That's good, they can be very valuable.

Problem is, what is being talked about here is some government mandated minimum shooting class.

In Texas, for example, there is already a class required for a concealed permit. A legally blind person could pass the minimum qualifications. I'm not joking, in Wisconsin which has a similar test a legally blind shooter passed the test.

When you talk about a government mandated program you need to understand that it will be developed to be inclusive of wildly varying skill levels.

What do you propose? A 100% passing score in some high end shoot house or simulation? Most police academy graduates couldn't pass 100% of those.

So the reality ends up somewhere in the middle; a training course developed and run by some state agency. You and I both know where that will end up. That will end up with piles of money spent for little benefit.

So then what, would you have the law mandate a week at Gunsite? If so, there will be exemptions added to the law for people who cannot afford to attend Gunsite. Maybe you want your state taxes to pay for it?

You see where this goes anytime you try to legislate things like this?

Look at the DOT and how incredibly complicated the commercial drivers license system is. Yet, we still have truck crashes all the time. Cops still shoot innocent bystanders on occasion even with all their training.

What you are hoping for is some kind of guarantee of 100% safety and you will never get it.

If an armed madman comes through the door I'd rather take my chances in a classroom full of untrained armed law abiding citizens than a room full of unarmed victims.

4Freedom
February 28, 2009, 08:08 PM
TexasRifleman, You have a good point. In a more conservative society where truth, justice and the constitution rules the populace, I think a government mandated gun course would be fine. However, with this government and society, I say just a basic course that anyone could pass should be issued. Sure, a lot of people will not gain anything from it, but many others will gain something from it. It is better than nothing. At least people will have some lecture about gun safety and training in shooting firearms, which is better than nothing. I was not talking about a course that only a Navy Seal could pass.

This kind of reminds me of the conceal carry laws we have in our state. Its legal to carry a gun, but if anyone reports that you have a gun or it becomes noticeable in any way, you will be arrested and charged with a felony. So, in some way or anohter, conceal carry is not really that legal in the state I live anyway. More tricks and manipulation of the government to make us appear like we are free and not.

So, in the current light of things, I just think making everyone go through a basic course, regardless and not forcing them to pass anything. The courses I am taking are not ones you pass, they are just ones to help educate you on the safety issues and proper techniques of shooting firearms. I am doing it for my own good.

theotherwaldo
February 28, 2009, 11:11 PM
Colleges are so schizoid about firearms. The last college that I attended had a firing range although it was technically illegal to carry a firearm onto the campus. A community college that I helped to start actually built a gunsmithing shop and had staffed and planned a gunsmithing program before they realized that their charter banned guns from the campus.

And now for concealed carry

I suspect that professors could learn to accept that their peers may be armed. But lowly students? Armed in class? NEVER!

TexasRifleman
February 28, 2009, 11:54 PM
At least people will have some lecture about gun safety and training in shooting firearms, which is better than nothing. I was not talking about a course that only a Navy Seal could pass.


But Texas CHL holders have to do that already. Why is the current training requirement all of a sudden not sufficient once a person sets foot on campus?

ChemicalArts
March 1, 2009, 12:01 AM
I'm a chem prof at a local community college. Personally, I'm not opposed to people with CHLs carrying legally on campus as long as everyone follows the rules that apply everywhere else.

However, if college Chancellors, Presidents, and campus police have their way, it will never happen. They will seek the same right to exclude firearms from their campuses that businesses have.

4Freedom
March 1, 2009, 07:42 AM
But Texas CHL holders have to do that already. Why is the current training requirement all of a sudden not sufficient once a person sets foot on campus?

Well perhaps they can be given some class in crisis or hostage management. I mean, if someone is going to be shooting a gun in a crowded class room, at least they can have some training on how to shoot the gun. I agree we should not force students to pass a course that will make it so difficult that they cannot carry a gun. Better any gun than no gun, if some madman goes on a rampage on campus. I am a bit ignorant on your training classes. IN the state where I live, we don't have any training classes. We just sign up for the permit and get it. There is a conceal carry class in the neighboring state but I don't know if they teach you on the proper handling of a firearm. An untrained person shooting a firearm can pose a threat in themself. I think a person should at least be able to fire a gun from 5 yards and hit something before they go armed into campus. If people are trained in very basics of firearms, I think they should be able to carry on campus.

But as I said, rules and regulations in this country can turn ugly. Something innocent may turn into communist red tape, prevening us from carrying weapons.

Heres the catch-22.. In my state, if anyone sees you carrying a firearm or thinks you have one, they can call the police and your will be arrested and charged with a felony. So in many ways concealed carry is not legal where I live, regardless of where you are, school or anywhere.

Gamera
March 1, 2009, 07:54 AM
At my school the campus security is a joke. In the time that I've been here, we've had three armed robberies literally right outside the dorm complexes, and a drive by shooting (not involving any students, but it was near campus).

In my freshman year, some girls were held at gunpoint in their dorm room after a thug knocked on their door. Fortunately he just took some stuff and didn't rape them. So is it any wonderment that I want to be able to use my CWP on campus?

I'm a responsible adult. I get good grades, I don't drink, I don't go out and party. The whole idea that I might go on a rampage because the school library didn't have the book I was looking for is just absurd. Sadly, common sense seems to be missing from our "higher learning" establishments...

DAVIDSDIVAD
March 1, 2009, 10:57 AM
Texans have to hit something from 15 yards, 4Freedom!

how's that! :)

bdickens
March 1, 2009, 11:00 AM
What makes schools different?

I mean, why not have an extra training requirement for people who are going to be carrying in crowded malls, restaraunts, churches and the like?

Owens
March 1, 2009, 08:37 PM
As a CHL and college educator, I see no problems at all from allowing cc on campus. If anything, the environment just went up a few notches on the safety ladder.

There are enough statistics regarding CHL holders to more than adequately document that they are not the ones to be concerned about. Laws just keep honest people honest, in much the same way locks function. Words on paper don't stop someone bent on causing problems. If they did, there would be no crime today as we know it.

I spend the day, all day, 5 days a week with about 30 or more students. Any of them that could obtain a CHL and carry would be welcome to do so in my mind. Out of the number that I am around, there are only about 4 or 5 that legally qualify on age alone to carry. Small number. I haven't checked campus wide, but I imagine that the percentage doesn't change much. Consequently, there will not be a gun at every desk staring back.

As Governor Perry said (paraphrased): You are already licensed to carry, why shouldn't you be able to do so?

Just my (rather simple) thoughts on this.

And oh yeah...Letters outbound to state representative and senator. Are your's ready to mail?

Owens

esquare
March 2, 2009, 08:49 AM
However, if college Chancellors, Presidents, and campus police have their way, it will never happen. They will seek the same right to exclude firearms from their campuses that businesses have.

I think if SCCC plays their cards right, they won't get their way. :-) Start with state schools first, since they are not protected under the same rules as private owners (after all, we all own the state schools since they are public property). The private schools can ban CCW if they want, but once state schools have it and it's not an issue, SCCC can go after private schools that receive federal funding or research dollars. Also, I bet that once CCW passes on a few inner-city campuses, crime will drop there and it will be hard for the hold-outs to argue that their students shouldn't have the right to self defense.

Wishful thinking maybe.... but one could hope.

Deltaboy
March 3, 2009, 09:12 PM
What Chuck doesn't realize is that many have and are carrying College rules be damned. I carried in my backpack all through college.

Yellowfin
March 4, 2009, 01:19 AM
Esquare, the stakes are much higher than that. The real long term benefit of campus carry is that it will squash a major recruiting nest of the anti gun movement. That's the real reason why they fight against it so hard.

bensdad
March 4, 2009, 01:22 AM
Esquare, the stakes are much higher than that. The real long term benefit of campus carry is that it will squash a major recruiting nest of the anti gun movement. That's the real reason why they fight against it so hard.

Now THAT'S a good point!

Double Naught Spy
March 4, 2009, 08:34 AM
What Chuck doesn't realize is that many have and are carrying College rules be damned. I carried in my backpack all through college.

If you did so in Texas, it wasn't just against a college rule, but a 3rd degree felony under PC 46.02.

If you enjoyed reading about "Controversy in the Texas Senate with Student CHL" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!