Bill would abolish gun free zones.

[MikeNice]

Are you going to check the mental stability of those carrying the guns in the school??

In North Carolina you have to pass a mental records check to get your CCHL. So, yeah the sheriff will do it every time he gets an application.

 

[MikeNice]

And realistically, how many would take that opportunity, seriously? If there was a school shooting, chances are you'd be panicking, and I can guaran-dam-tee you that a janitor or teacher would be too or wouldn't want to try to be the hero.

A Principal and His Gun

Well it looks like you are more than a little wrong. Read the article and do a little research.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Its part of my Religion as a Christian to stop evil such as a mass shooter and I would do just that. Its the way I think and I'm sure the way I'll act, after all most soldiers shoot back instead of run don't they? Same with Police officers and other CCWs.

 

[MikeNice]

Pearl, MS shooter was also stopped by the vice principal when attempted to flee to the junior high school to continue his mass murdering.
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

I guess I should have read the whole thread.

I had that one in my favorites just for a moment like this. Too bad you beat me to it.

 

[Warp]

All I know is this: Very rarely is a mass-shooting stopped by a CCW holder, and I do not mean school shootings by that.

1. Criminals and mass shooters alike often select locations that are illegal for carry.

2. Carry is not as common as it should be...though more common now than it has been in a long, long time.

3. Continuing to make locations...especially prime targets like colleges and schools...off limits is not going to do anything to help the fact that carriers rarely stop shootings. In fact, using the logic that they rarely do that to argue against something that would give them a better chance sounds pretty screwed up.

 

[MikeNice]

perhaps I am just stubborn and old fashioned.

Nope. It use to be that kids wanting to hunt after school could bring their guns and lock them up at school. Old fashioned is having "hunter education" class and using .22lr rifles at school. Old fashioned is not needing to ask permission to carry a gun.

My maternal grand mother carried a .38spl in her pocket book from 1950 until she died in the 1990s. When she started carrying it was just expected that a woman working nights might carry a gun. If anybody had told her she would one day need to go get a permit, she wouldn't have believed them.

That is old fashioned.

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ ***loud cheers and applause*** ^^^

 

[Cal-gun Fan]

Alright, I concede. You guys have made some very convincing arguments, and they make a lot of sense. At first glance, it seems very radical, but when you look deeper into it I have to agree-locations that do not allow carry are more than often targets of attacks than areas that allow carry. People who legally have CCWs being allowed to use them at school does actually seem fine, so long as they went through the safety training associated with that.
Thanks-you've given me something to think about, good night for now

 

[Warp]

Outstanding!

 

[shiftyer1]

If someone is authorized to carry a gun he should not be limited to where he can do so. It just doesn't make sense to me, It's already been decided thru the chl that he's competent and capable to carry the gun.

If someone has their mind made up to shoot up a school the only thing laws preventing gun carry in schools does is hinder the ability to stop the shooter. There are enough laws regarding the use of your gun and how to buy your gun. Why allow someone to purchase a firearm and then be scared of what they may do with it? If someone can legally purchase a firearm he/she should be able to carry it as they see fit.

I can understand places like prison, court houses and things like that.

 

[TexasBill]

Okay, I perhaps should have been more clear. Right now, in many, if not most states, a person legally allowed to carry a handgun cannot carry their weapon while in a school zone, even if all they are doing is giving their own children a ride to school and never exit the vehicle. Which "madman" threat is this one?

School personnel do not have the option, even if they possess a concealed handgun license, to bring their handgun into the school or even store it in their car (at least in Texas) because they park on school property. Another group of "madmen" (and madwomen) foiled by the savvy legislators!

There is no threat posed by either of these groups. We have never, not once, had a parent drop off their child and then run into the school and begin shooting.

Do we want armed teachers? Or, at least, school personnel with the option to be armed? If not, are we willing to pay for enough police to ensure that every school has adequate security, on each campus at all times, capable of delivering lethal force if required?

Perhaps people are worried that students will wrest teachers' handguns from them. Well, whatever happened to "concealed means concealed?" Maybe teachers could go back the to the dress code they had for all the years I was in public school. Some of my "old maid" teachers could have hidden a bazooka under some of their fashions.

 

[Navin R. Johnson]

It's very unsettling to read some of these posts about CCW and school grounds.

What in the world makes a school ground some kind of sacred land or evil property that cohering firearms to jump from there concealed holsters and start firing at innocent children?

Carrying around children is no different than carrying around anyone else. Concealed is concealed, what's the big deal??

 

[Davey Wavey]

Why would you want to carry in a school?? I can see having police available in schools, which some schools already have, but not to allow the public to carry in schools.

Really? Really?

Any person that thinks gun free school zones are beneficial is straight up delusional. It is as simple as that.

 

[snubbies]

Repeal Happens????

Now for argument sake lets say the law is repealed. Who will be allowed on school property with a gun?? Will the carrier of the gun be subjected to a screening and background check?? I know the CCW license does that, but what about the bad guy who doesn't bother to apply for the CCW because he will be rejected??? What about the Kook who has yet to be ajudicated mentally ill?? We only know some of these "weird ohs" are that after they have done a Columbine. Our law is still repealed, who among the school staff, students do we allow to carry?? All of them?? The shooting starts, how do we tell the good guys from the bad guys?? To some the fact that it is illegal is a deterent to carrying a gun in a gun free zone. If the law is too restictive then change the law don't abolish it. There will always be those who will commit atrocities. This has been a good discussion but lets not let it sink to personal attacks because "Johnny" doesn't agree with us.

 

[rbernie]

Any person that thinks gun free school zones are beneficial is straight up delusional. It is as simple as that.

Actually, they are pretty much just statistically impaired. Moving past the logic of 'but criminals don't obey laws and won't obey the gun-free zone laws' (a la Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech), the simple fact of the matter is that we had better than a century of history in which teachers and students could (and were) armed if they so chose, without significant issue. In fact, Charles Whitman (the 1966 UT/Austin sniper) was significantly hampered in his shooting spree by the fact that students and faculty were able to retrieve their personal firearms and return fire until the police could scale the tower and kill him.

The argument being used to support gun-free schools is akin to TSA claiming success due to the fact that we've had no more 9/11 style attacks in the last decade - completely ignoring the logic that we'd had none like it in the previous seven decades of commercial air travel and all without the security measures that they insist are keeping us safe. Some folk just don't seem to understand the logic that correlation does not equal causality.

 

[snubbies]

Not Stopped

The shooter at the Texas Tower was "signicantly hampered" but he was not stopped by the armed students. No law or policy is ever going to stop the type individual that did Columbine or Virginia Tech. Why is it that one side of an issue is 100% correct and the other is either "delusional" or "statistically impaired" Could it be that they have a different opinion and are free to express that opinion. Some of the statements above tend to be more devisive than informative. Bottom line is the law will more than likely not be repealed.

 

[MikeNice]

Who will be allowed on school property with a gun??

The people tha are legally allowed to carry now. It doesn't create a new class of people that are allowed to carry.

Will the carrier of the gun be subjected to a screening and background check?? I know the CCW license does that, but what about the bad guy who doesn't bother to apply for the CCW because he will be rejected???

Do you always answer your own questions. Better yet, do you listen to yourself. If somebody is carrying illegally, because they know they can't pass the check, they are a criminal. Posting a sign will not change their criminal behavior. If they violated the law or were too crazy to get a gun, telling them not to carry it in to a school will not change their inclination to do so.

We only know some of these "weird ohs" are that after they have done a Columbine.

What stops the same person from doing it at Taco Bell or Mall of America? We don't know who some of these "weird ohs" are untill they shoot up immigration offices, fly a private plane in to an IRS building, or truck bomb a federal building. We can't weed out all of the crazy people in society. The world will never be 100% safe. We can give people the chance to fight back though.

Freedom isn't safe, freedom is scary. If all men are allowed to achieve that which is their highest self, some will seek their lowest self. That means things will be dangerous, they will be risky, but the rewards will be much greater. I propose giving every adult the right to stay free from the tyrany of all criminals both civilian and government.

Our law is still repealed, who among the school staff, students do we allow to carry?? All of them??

The same ones allowed to carry now. In most states that would be anyone over 21 that can pass the back ground check and is not prohibited from carrying under state or federal law. In other words the same people that carry in the mall, at Pizza Hut, and in the lirbrary. The same people that have proven they are at least 5.5 times less likely to commit any crime than the population at large.

Nobody is saying that the licensing laws would change.

To some the fact that it is illegal is a deterent to carrying a gun in a gun free zone.

But, it doesn't stop everybody. So,

There will always be those who will commit atrocities.

and those that will be defensless to stop them.

If you are uncomfortable with abolishing the law what is your compromise?

 

[M-Cameron]

Some of the statements above tend to be more devisive than informative. Bottom line is the law will more than likely not be repealed.

im willing to bet MLK heard similar statements.........

just because its the law, doesnt make it right....or even legal(oddly enough).........

The shooter at the Texas Tower was "signicantly hampered" but he was not stopped by the armed students. No law or policy is ever going to stop the type individual that did Columbine or Virginia Tech. Why is it that one side of an issue is 100% correct and the other is either "delusional" or "statistically impaired"

so because students who didnt have firearms in their immediate possession couldnt fully stop an armed threat.......that means that legally owned guns on campus are dangerous and ineffective....


ill tell you what, ill take a "significantly hampered" threat....over a "fully functioning" threat.......any day.

 

[MikeNice]

No law or policy is ever going to stop the type individual that did Columbine or Virginia Tech.

Then what is the argument again? The falling murder rate and violent crime rate of the last thirty years shows that access to guns doesn't increase either. So, what is the logical argument?

Please forgive any abominations of gramar or spelling in my last two posts. I am posting from the bed as I fall asleep. It was a busy weekend.

 

[Mike1234567]

I've had plenty of teachers that I didn't like... some even hated. But I can't think of any that I wouldn't have trusted with a firearm.

 

[snubbies]

Where to Bar Guns??

Is there anywhere you would bar the carrying of firearms??? The operative word is stop. Sensible rules and regulations can serve to deter. I am not qualified to formulate any policies that would stop the massacre that happens. News just had such a report. Any reference to the distant past fails to recognize that times have changed. In the "olden days" except for mobsters there were no "drive by" shootings. Differences were settled with fists not "smith & wesson". How many CCW holders carry for the macho feeling of power. I know that this is not a popular stance for the gun devotees.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Okay, I perhaps should have been more clear. Right now, in many, if not most states, a person legally allowed to carry a handgun cannot carry their weapon while in a school zone, even if all they are doing is giving their own children a ride to school and never exit the vehicle. Which "madman" threat is this one?

My understanding that its okay to have your gun if you don't leave the car.

Is there anywhere you would bar the carrying of firearms???

Bars, if you're actually drinking.

 

[scythefwd]

snubbies - why. The geographic location on a globe doesn't change the act being committed. Carrying in a bar, as long as you dont drink (like you can here in VA, no blood baths as of yet) is no different than carrying in the local starbucks. The ONLY place I would severely restrict the carry of firearms by licensed people is a jail... where only the guards get guns for obvious reasons.

 

[M-Cameron]

Any reference to the distant past fails to recognize that times have changed. In the "olden days" except for mobsters there were no "drive by" shootings.

......im pretty sure that still holds true today.........i dont know many people, except for gang members......who engage in drive by shootings.

Differences were settled with fists not "smith & wesson".

apparently dueling is a modern invention...

back in ye' olde days.....people used guns just as they do today......people used guns for protection......and scores were "settled" with a duel.

How many CCW holders carry for the macho feeling of power.

none that i know of.....we carry for protection.......not because its "manly".......there is nothing particularly "macho" about an LCR, P3AT, PPK, S&W body guard.....
if we lived in a world with absolutely no crime.....i dont imagine ide carry at all......they are heavy and uncomfortable.

 

[Walkalong]

Love the idea, but it won't ever happen.

Exactly. If they want to try, they should try it with business's that prohibit carry. They would have half a chance there, but schools, no way.

.im pretty sure that still holds true today.........i dont know many people, except for gang members......who engage in drive by shootings.

So true, just different types of criminals, but criminals still.