Proposed Bill Would Allow Students To Carry Concealed Weapons On Campus

Status
Not open for further replies.

harmonic

member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
1,247
There is now a plan to allow college students to carry weapons on any public campus. The legislation is on its way to the state house.

The text of House Bill 2513 says any student who is at least 21 years old and has a concealed carry permit would be allowed to bring a firearm to school. It comes as campus violence seems to be on the increase.

Everyone at OSU-Tulsa we spoke to about the plan doesn't like it. They already have a lot of security on campus. One example -- push a button on a phone and it immediately connects to police. Students say things like that are enough.

OSU-Tulsa Police Chief Melvin Murdock showed us the complex system already in place -- security cameras inside and outside all of the buildings send live video back to the command center. The school also has an emergency alert system and a full police force.

Now, some state leaders want colleges to take things one step further -- allowing students who have concealed carry permits to bring their weapons on campus.

"It certainly causes immediate concern from a law enforcement point of view," Murdock says. "And one of those concerns is it doesn't allow us to distinguish between the good guy and the bad guy when we go into a situation."

The proposed bill surprised Murdock. It was introduced by Representative Jason Murphey after the latest college shooting at Northern Illinois University. He says enough is enough and we have to do something to make our campuses safer.

But, do the students agree?

"You're providing them ammo and I don't think that's appropriate in schools," says Natasha Meza.

"I don't agree at all," adds Arrica Bailey. "I think that puts a lot more students at risk for danger."

"It doesn't sound like a good idea to carry guns on campus," says Kerri Ishel. "Not necessary."

Everyone we spoke with sides with the police chief. With or without a concealed carry permit, Murdock says people could still make bad decisions.

"Just your average citizen doesn't have the level of training a police officer has," Murdock says.

We checked with other universities in our area. OU-Tulsa and TCC did not want to comment on the proposal. Rogers State University says it does not have an opinion one way or another.

The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill. In a few weeks, it will go to the full House.

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0208/499579.html
 
Everyone at OSU-Tulsa we spoke to

Typical fascist journalism. "Everyone we spoke to..." How about speaking to literally "everyone,", Einstein?
 
There's no sense trying to persuade an anti with logic or fact, if they were interested in the truth they would have seen it plain as day staring at them already. If they had any sense at all there wouldn't be any "discussion" about whether people who have shown themselves capable of not starting gunfights EVERYWHERE ELSE while off campus, should be allowed to carry on campus.

What a stupid article.
 
OSU-Tulsa Police Chief Melvin Murdock showed us the complex system already in place -- security cameras inside and outside all of the buildings send live video back to the command center.
 
Last edited:
When the James Gang got their ass handed to them by the citizens of Northfield, Minnesota or when the same thing happened to the Daltons in Coffeyville Kansas how many of the citizens ended up shooting each other?
 
Obviously they have not in fact read the "text" of the bill, as they claim.

It actually allows any concealed permit holder to carry onto campus, not just students. Actually most college students would be too young to get a permit, and most faculty wouldn't want one, so I don't think it would produce that many guns on campus. But a few would. Like me!

And colleges might try to keep enforcing student codes and employment codes that prohibit guns, so they could expel students or fire employees who carried.

Here's a poll to hit:

www.ktul.com
 
how many of the citizens ended up shooting each other?

Is that a rhetorical question?

I guess it is pretty much rhetorical but as bright as this crowd is I wouldn't be surprised of someone actually piped up with a fact. I suspect no citizens shot each other just the outlaws.

I suspect if any ccw did decide to return fire it would be pretty obvious who to shoot at.
 
How many people can be shot by one person in, oh, let's say 3 minutes? Naw, too realistic a response time. Let's assume the shooter is in the same hall as the security and say 1 minute. A dozen? Two dozen? It wouldn't be an issue if there was someone else in the same room who could respond in - lets say the element of surprise causes some shock, some confusion - 5 seconds? Maybe only 2 or 3 get shot. Maybe no one but the would-be shooter!

All the prevention and "preparedness" with a squad of guards can never match the response time and assessment of the situation than that of a defensively armed, there from the beginning, would-be victim.

We shall label the guards, screeners, and the law as "Prevention", and the armed intended victims we shall label "Intervention". If it gets to the interveners, prevention has already failed. Without intervention, the murdering will proceed unencumbered. All the prevention in the world will not stop the murdering. Intervention is the only chance for the murdering to be halted.

How many murders do you see as an acceptable alternative to the presence of armed citizens? A dozen? Two dozen? How about 31 murders and the perp kills himself after he has reached his goal?

All it takes is a little thought to arrive at the logical course of action. Emphasis belongs on the reliance of intervention; especially when the murderous lunatic takes out the guards and screeners first.

Woody
 
Did anyone see the story on this on KTUL? It never ceases to amaze me how much confidence the sheeple have in the police. They showed a reporter demonstrating an "emergency callbox" on the campus that goes "directly to the police" and said that there is no need for armed students on campus because they have those. Why is it so hard for most people to comprehend the amount of time that will actually pass between when the "button of invisibility" is pressed and there is actually someone (theoretically a police officer) close enough to have any effect whatsoever on the outcome?

I know, I know - I'm preachin' to the choir, but it still irks me! :banghead:
 
Fact of the matter is...if the general public actually KNEW what having a concealed handgun permit was all about (having an extremely clean record, paying money, and taking the class) they wouldn't actually be so against it. The reason you see the great majority of people not agreeing with such things as students being able to carry on campus is because they are ignorant to the actual situation or just assume it means ALL students can carry!! Think about how many college students at any given school are actually 21? Now think of how many might have a DUI, drinking ticket, disorderly conduct, even disturbing the peace...(all of these can prevent you from obtaining a CHP). If the public was completely informed of what it actually MEANS for students to carry on campus, i.e.- NOT EVERY STUDENT CAN CARRY!!!!!!!! They wouldn't be so against it.
 
And one of those concerns is it doesn't allow us to distinguish between the good guy and the bad guy when we go into a situation."

Then you sir, don't deserve a badge. Isn't distinguishing a good guy from a bad guy one of the jobs of law enforcement?
 
I agree with prince. Hmmm as an officer should i ...

shoot the guy ducking behind a little cover pointing at the guy who's shooting at me, because he's a easier target who's NOT shooting at me and actually trying to help me in this very bad situation....

Or shoot the guys who has shot 6 other people and is training his sights on me because he knows I'm here to stop him from being a lunatic.

I support law enforcement, but I really think these guys over think these situations.
 
"It certainly causes immediate concern from a law enforcement point of view," Murdock says. "And one of those concerns is it doesn't allow us to distinguish between the good guy and the bad guy when we go into a situation."
Law enforcement made that exact same point during testimony before Arizona's senate committee last week (same type of bill, different state). One citizen refuted that with this zinger (paraphrasing): By the time you guys get here, it'll be easy to tell the good guy from the bad guy. The good guys will be standing around with their sidearms holstered, and the bad guy will be on the ground.

Another citizen made this point (paraphrasing again): Since execution style killings only happen in gun free zones, telling the good guy from the bad guy won't be a problem once we have armed citizens in schools. These shootings just won't happen anymore.
 
Oddly, everyone they talked to had names like "Natasha", "Arrica" (a cutesy mangling of "Erica", no doubt...think her parents are liberal?) and "Kerri".

No, I'm sure their sampling was completely random and not demographically biased in any way ::eye-roll::
 
Hmm, If I were law enforcement or security, I think walking into a situation while in uniform would result in guns being pointed at me by the bad guy(s). That, and the people who do not put their guns down when told to by such an officer would be a clue, too.

I'm just saying.

Woody
 
Hmm, If I were law enforcement or security, I think walking into a situation while in uniform would result in guns being pointed at me by the bad guy(s). That, and the people who do not put their guns down when told to by such an officer would be a clue, too.
Not that I'm defending the idiocy...but I'm pretty sure that if I were law enfocement or security, I'd want to know who the bad guy(s) is/are before they've even seen me and had a chance to react to my uniform and/or verbal commands.
 
I'm sure their sampling was completely random and not demographically biased in any way ::eye-roll::

I've only lived here (Tulsa) for a couple of years but my impression of the Tulsa World is that as much as they would like to think of themselves as big-city and progressive, they still have a high-school journalistic mindset.

And even though Tulsa is a big city re population/geography, it's still considerably behind the times.
 
Didn't read much of the responses, but in some cities most students commute via public transportation (bus, or train) to get to the college campus....not EVERYWHERE, but in a lot of cities. Even the ride from the dormatories (at least in GA) are a few stops down the train line.

Ironically, if it were possible to carry to school, getting on marta (train) or a bus with a CCW, is illegal, and considered "Hijacking" just by getting onto a train with a gun. Thats how it is in GA at least, but i'm sure other states have the same, or similiar laws. I can't speak for every states laws.

I just thought that was ironic, and wanted to throw that into the discussion :eek:
 
Yes

64%
No

36%
Total: 4509 votes


We need to smash that poll at www.ktul.com (Remember, don't just click). I'm in a different state, but this would be that whole "legal precedent" thing for the rest of us.
 
"And one of those concerns is it doesn't allow us to distinguish between the good guy and the bad guy when we go into a situation."

I really don't understand this argument at all.

If someone is shooting at you, you shoot back, just as you would in any other police situation. If you see someone carrying a gun, you tell them to drop their gun, just as you would in any other police situation.

Am I missing something here :confused:
 
Police don't just shoot people for shooting at them though. They also fire if someone is shooting at another bystander. So if 2 non-uniformed individuals are actively shooting at each other when the police arrive, do you expect the police to just wait and see who wins?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top