Spring Break
Snafu | A&M should allow concealed firearms
Abstract:
A cross the nation, the death toll on college campuses continues to climb. Virginia Tech, 21 wounded, 33 dead...
- Displaying 1 - 45 of 45
Miranda
posted 2/15/08 @ 10:00 AM CST
Originally posted byAnand
no guns in schools or colleges. have a checking system just like they do at airports. the state alone should have the monopoly over use of force.
So you're seriously advocating an airport-like metal detector for every building on campus? Seriously? How about the next time that you're late for class because of the line, while having to wait for everybody to get through the "checking system". And how about those walking around on campus, outside of the buildings? Do you have a way to check them, too?
Kev
posted 2/15/08 @ 10:16 AM CST
Originally posted byAnand
you are a fool. guns arent allowed in airports. or on planes. or near important high security events. or near the president.
so why the fu*k should they be allowed to fly around on college campuses? it is known that all the college shootings recently were done with LEGALLY OWNED weapons. thats right. and im sure plenty of heroes would be willing to fumble around searching for a gun to shoot a psycho with, rather than run for their lives.
and the question isnt how many times a gun is used for offense and defense. rape and robbery are bad, but not as bad as murder. handing over a hundred dollars in a stickup is ok, but its definitely not ok to lose even one innocent life in a college classroom again.
no guns in schools or colleges. have a checking system just like they do at airports. the state alone should have the monopoly over use of force.
what will you ask for next? a personal right to own grenades? maybe a few bombs? or maybe bill gates and warren buffet will consider buying themselves an F22 for "self defence". what a farce.
You, sir, are a fool.
You are either blind or choose to took the other way when it comes to discussions of guns in colleges.
Notice that all of these shootings have taken place in so called "Gun Free Zones." All the law abiding students did so and in turn paid for it when a unstable person decides to bring guns (legally owned or stolen) and murder students.
I, for one, do not choose to become a victim to someone who is angry over grades or girlfriends. I have taken steps to prevent myself from being a victim. You can bet there is at least one person on campus who is armed.
I am not a hero nor do I pretend to be. I have taken advanced training with firearms and am proficent enough with so as to not "fumble" around during a high stress event.
The state alone should have a monopoly of force? Are you Communist? The reason that the Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights was so that the government DOESN'T have a monopoly of force.
The right to be licenced to carry a concealed firearm and the right of owning grenades or F22's is an apple or oranges discussion and does not apply here.
You have a good day.
cab0154
posted 2/15/08 @ 11:16 AM CST
Originally posted byAnand
you are a fool. guns arent allowed in airports. or on planes. or near important high security events. or near the president.
so why the fu*k should they be allowed to fly around on college campuses? it is known that all the college shootings recently were done with LEGALLY OWNED weapons. thats right. and im sure plenty of heroes would be willing to fumble around searching for a gun to shoot a psycho with, rather than run for their lives.
and the question isnt how many times a gun is used for offense and defense. rape and robbery are bad, but not as bad as murder. handing over a hundred dollars in a stickup is ok, but its definitely not ok to lose even one innocent life in a college classroom again.
no guns in schools or colleges. have a checking system just like they do at airports. the state alone should have the monopoly over use of force.
what will you ask for next? a personal right to own grenades? maybe a few bombs? or maybe bill gates and warren buffet will consider buying themselves an F22 for "self defence". what a farce.
So the guns were legally owned, were those that did the shooting CHL holders? Did these shooters pass the DPS/FBI back ground check that CHL holders and LEO have to pass? Please show me one instance where a CHL holder was a murdere; you are aware that even though these murderers legally owned the weapons they were commiting a crime by illegally carrying it, do you not?
What do you not understand about a persons inherent right to self defense? Just because you choose not to fight for your life doesnt mean everyone else shouldnt have the choice, especially if they have jumped through the hoops of getting a CHL, which based on your writing, I doubt you would be eligible for.
Are you so sure a robber wouldnt rather kill you after you hand over that $100 rather then leave a witness? You are making a pretty big assumption about criminals that are known to have little reguard for human life.
Maybe you should inform these shooters that its not ok to lose a human life on a college campus. Maybe then they would stop after you reset their moral compass. Well, maybe not. All these murderers understand is violence, and sometimes to make them stop, the use of deadly force is necessary. Ask any police officer with any time on the street? As far as government controlling the use of force, the supreme court has already found that police have no duty to protect individuals.
Leave it to someone with no solid argument to compare second ammendment rights to outlawed explosives and devices. Your argument just doesnt hold water. Please dont mistake your fear, choice to not protect yourself, and diluted beliefs as absolutes. We have the right to self defense, whether you like it or not.
Anonymous
posted 2/15/08 @ 9:06 PM CST
Originally posted byAnand
you are a fool. guns arent allowed in airports. or on planes. or near important high security events. or near the president.
so why the fu*k should they be allowed to fly around on college campuses? it is known that all the college shootings recently were done with LEGALLY OWNED weapons. thats right. and im sure plenty of heroes would be willing to fumble around searching for a gun to shoot a psycho with, rather than run for their lives.
and the question isnt how many times a gun is used for offense and defense. rape and robbery are bad, but not as bad as murder. handing over a hundred dollars in a stickup is ok, but its definitely not ok to lose even one innocent life in a college classroom again.
no guns in schools or colleges. have a checking system just like they do at airports. the state alone should have the monopoly over use of force.
what will you ask for next? a personal right to own grenades? maybe a few bombs? or maybe bill gates and warren buffet will consider buying themselves an F22 for "self defence". what a farce.
Holy fucking shit. Did you just say "the state alone should have the monopoly over use of force?" Do you want some kind of police state? Good bye to our freedom and liberty.
Anyway I agree that concealed carry permits should extend nearly everywhere and anywhere, including airports, planes, colleges, and primary schools. It's a fundamental liberty of every man to do so and doesn't increase any risks.
Moonfish
posted 2/15/08 @ 5:44 AM CST
Thank you for a well-written article. You presented your position in a professional manner and supported it with facts and logic. You have a lot of support behind you. The right of law-abiding citizens, who have a Concealed Handgun License, to carry concealed at public educational facilities should not be denied.
As seen in other comments here, those who oppose you will resort to name-calling and foul language (intimidation) for persuasion as the facts will not support there position. Someone here said, "rape and robbery are bad, but not as bad as murder." Obviously this person has never been raped. They also said, "Handing over a hundred dollars in a stickup is ok". To me it's not "ok" at all... not in the least.
Stay strong and stay the course. And remember... "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
As seen in other comments here, those who oppose you will resort to name-calling and foul language (intimidation) for persuasion as the facts will not support there position. Someone here said, "rape and robbery are bad, but not as bad as murder." Obviously this person has never been raped. They also said, "Handing over a hundred dollars in a stickup is ok". To me it's not "ok" at all... not in the least.
Stay strong and stay the course. And remember... "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
Clint
posted 2/15/08 @ 9:32 AM CST
Texans who possess concealed handgun licenses are one of the most law abiding segments of society. Applicants have to pass a firearms handling proficiency class which also includes education about when it is lawful to use deadly force. They must be at least 21 years of age and have their fingerprints submitted to the FBI and Texas Department of Public Safety where a thorough background check is performed. Any signs of past violent behavior or mental illness result in automatic denial of the license, those who have successfully obtained the license are the "good guys". CHL holders are good people who wish to defend themselves and those around them from harm.
Currently there are many A&M students who have CHL's but are disarmed because state law and campus policy forbid them to carry, and being law abiding citizens they respect the law and obey it. Criminals however will not obey the law and will carry out their evil intentions regardless. CHL holders are a first line of defense against tragedies such as this, but as long as the politicians continue to support "gun free" zones such as our own campus, students will continue to be defenseless victims at the mercy of killers.
"Gun free" zones are some of the most dangerous places in society, where the good people are disarmed and are at the mercy of criminals. How many murders occur at gun shows and shooting ranges? Zero, because when criminals know they are surrounded by those who refuse to be victims they will go elsewhere where they can enact their violence on those who cannot fight back.
Currently there are many A&M students who have CHL's but are disarmed because state law and campus policy forbid them to carry, and being law abiding citizens they respect the law and obey it. Criminals however will not obey the law and will carry out their evil intentions regardless. CHL holders are a first line of defense against tragedies such as this, but as long as the politicians continue to support "gun free" zones such as our own campus, students will continue to be defenseless victims at the mercy of killers.
"Gun free" zones are some of the most dangerous places in society, where the good people are disarmed and are at the mercy of criminals. How many murders occur at gun shows and shooting ranges? Zero, because when criminals know they are surrounded by those who refuse to be victims they will go elsewhere where they can enact their violence on those who cannot fight back.
Steven '11
posted 2/15/08 @ 10:53 AM CST
It takes time t obtain a concealed carry permit and your average psychopath probably wouldn't wait to obtain a permit just so that they could legally bring guns on campus in order to illegally murder a bunch of people. So, while the guns may have been purchased legally, they obviously weren't used in such a manner. I really like the quote from good ole TJ that Moonfish posted. Mainly, because when you think about it it makes sense. I'm studying Karate partly as a means of self defense, but I would feel much safer with a gun at my side than with ten years of training. At a range of like 3 feet, a guy with a gun can be overpowered with some know how, but when a guy gets on stage and starts shooting into a crowd of people, it's too much like the saying "shooting fish in a barrel". Well, we'd be the fish, and I think it'd be great if the fish could shoot back.
Ry
posted 2/15/08 @ 11:19 AM CST
Good point, David. I agree that the problem isn't that there are too many guns in our culture, but too few. After all, if everyone went armed, the crazy people would be too intimidated to try anything, right? After all, this latest murderous nutter obviously attacked these unarmed students because he knew that he'd get away with it. What were they going to do, throw pencils at him? Things would surely have turned out better had a few dozen students pulled out their guns and returned fire in a packed and panicked lecture hall. They would've nailed that guy good!
You know, after this incident, I'd say we should go one further. Instead of concealed-carry licenses, we should issue licenses to carry handguns openly. Nothing would be more effective in deterring crime than if everyone wore a six-shooter on their hip! It'll be like the good old days, back when the west was won, when no one ever died from a gun because everyone was too civilized and respectful of each other. Not like today, no sir.
You know, after this incident, I'd say we should go one further. Instead of concealed-carry licenses, we should issue licenses to carry handguns openly. Nothing would be more effective in deterring crime than if everyone wore a six-shooter on their hip! It'll be like the good old days, back when the west was won, when no one ever died from a gun because everyone was too civilized and respectful of each other. Not like today, no sir.
Steven '11
posted 2/15/08 @ 5:19 PM CST
Originally posted byRy
Good point, David. I agree that the problem isn't that there are too many guns in our culture, but too few. After all, if everyone went armed, the crazy people would be too intimidated to try anything, right? After all, this latest murderous nutter obviously attacked these unarmed students because he knew that he'd get away with it. What were they going to do, throw pencils at him? Things would surely have turned out better had a few dozen students pulled out their guns and returned fire in a packed and panicked lecture hall. They would've nailed that guy good!
You know, after this incident, I'd say we should go one further. Instead of concealed-carry licenses, we should issue licenses to carry handguns openly. Nothing would be more effective in deterring crime than if everyone wore a six-shooter on their hip! It'll be like the good old days, back when the west was won, when no one ever died from a gun because everyone was too civilized and respectful of each other. Not like today, no sir.
Well if you're going to look at the "good ole" times we might as well go back and look at some actual historical events.
In the late 1600s and 1700s the colony of Virginia imported thousands of indentured servants. These were generally poor young men who had no future in England and decided to try out the New World. However, as their numbers rose and many finally worked off their debt they were released back into an economy that wasn't suited for the poor subsistence farmer. And, since there was still a constant threat of Indian attack, they were all armed. So, while the population as a whole had a much higher percentage of gun ownership, Bacon's Rebellion rose up. Bacon led a ragtag group of men on essentially a killing/looting spree right up until the time of his death. Many died or quelled in fear.
The point I'm trying to make is that I support concealed carry permits. I think that a hand-full of responsible students are all that are needed to make the difference between 6 dead and 15 wounded and 1 or 2 dead or wounded. However, giving away guns to everyone is not quite what I'd call a good idea. I suppose you could call up the MAD defense that kept the cold war from destroying the planet. But I think arming everyone is just begging for trouble, resulting in more incidents albeit with lower mortality rates.
Ed
posted 2/15/08 @ 12:11 PM CST
This begs to question the logic that all lives will be protected with concealed handguns on campus. no doubt that license owners are the most abiding citizens in this nation, but i highly doubt that they will be able to bring back to life the first victim that gets shot. Of course we would hope that there would not be so many deaths but certainly, at least i hope so, we would not want to have something like this happen in the first place.
Now this would suggest an audacious proposal; that school shooting are a preventable phenomenon. Now is it really that impossible or is it just an adjustment we refuse to make at the core of ourselves as humans and components of humanity? What i suggest is to realize what the root cause of these shootings are and actually rectify the situation there.
While law abiding citizens may argue the right to bring their concealed weapons along, that is not going to prevent the first shot and first victim, be it a Professor or Student or TA... We need to be serious in figuring a way to solve this and not just slap a quick fix band aid and pat ourselves on the back while crossing our fingers or deluding ourselves that it'll never happen again.
Now this would suggest an audacious proposal; that school shooting are a preventable phenomenon. Now is it really that impossible or is it just an adjustment we refuse to make at the core of ourselves as humans and components of humanity? What i suggest is to realize what the root cause of these shootings are and actually rectify the situation there.
While law abiding citizens may argue the right to bring their concealed weapons along, that is not going to prevent the first shot and first victim, be it a Professor or Student or TA... We need to be serious in figuring a way to solve this and not just slap a quick fix band aid and pat ourselves on the back while crossing our fingers or deluding ourselves that it'll never happen again.
cab0154
posted 2/15/08 @ 1:40 PM CST
Originally posted byEd
This begs to question the logic that all lives will be protected with concealed handguns on campus. no doubt that license owners are the most abiding citizens in this nation, but i highly doubt that they will be able to bring back to life the first victim that gets shot. Of course we would hope that there would not be so many deaths but certainly, at least i hope so, we would not want to have something like this happen in the first place.
Now this would suggest an audacious proposal; that school shooting are a preventable phenomenon. Now is it really that impossible or is it just an adjustment we refuse to make at the core of ourselves as humans and components of humanity? What i suggest is to realize what the root cause of these shootings are and actually rectify the situation there.
While law abiding citizens may argue the right to bring their concealed weapons along, that is not going to prevent the first shot and first victim, be it a Professor or Student or TA... We need to be serious in figuring a way to solve this and not just slap a quick fix band aid and pat ourselves on the back while crossing our fingers or deluding ourselves that it'll never happen again.
While I agree that carrying concealed weapons would not bring someone who was already shot back to life, it is very probable that a licensed carrier would be able to stop the taking of any more lives after a gunman starts shooting. How can we stop someone from premeditatedly killing inocent people? The answer is, we cant. But we can limit the amount of lives they take. Not to mention the individuals right to defend themselves. It has already been ruled that the police do not have a responsibility to protect individuals. So it would be difficult to convince the agencys to staff police in each individual buildings. And even then, that wont bring back the dead or mortally wounded. As you know, criminals generally dont commit violent crimes in the presence of the police. Criminals like these like to find easy targets. If concealed carry were allowed the criminals would never know which of their targets would be able to fight back with the same force.
No doubt the Virginia Tech/NIU shooters wanted to die, but they obviously also wanted to kill as many innocent people as they could before they ended their own life. We cannot do anything to stop people from doing these things. But we can attempt to keep the losses of human life to a minimum. Its not as if anyone would be forced to get a CHL. Its a choice, and the applicants have to be eligible. If someone in one of those classes had a CHL, were legal to carry on campus and did: its plausable that if they made the choice to protect their own life with their firearm, the other innocent people in the room would also reap the benefits by possibly having their lives spared as well.
Gene Whitehurst
posted 2/15/08 @ 12:35 PM CST
Good article. While school shootings are very rare, inspite of what we read in the main-stream media, the prospect of violence on, and off, campus remains. Humans are violent creatures. Most are not, but we are unable to rid ourselves of the violent ones. Defensive use of weapons is the only workable response once violence erupts.
God bless ya'll!
Gene
Class of '70
God bless ya'll!
Gene
Class of '70
agmd
posted 2/15/08 @ 1:54 PM CST
Let's start by arming the Corps.
TAMU '79, TAMU Med School '82
TAMU '79, TAMU Med School '82
Tyler
posted 5/20/08 @ 2:30 PM CST
Originally posted byagmd
Let's start by arming the Corps.
TAMU '79, TAMU Med School '82
Forgive me for saying so, as I mean no attack on you but just want to make my point. This is a 'dumb' statment. While it may seem intuative to give this 'military' style branch of the student body the right to carry, what credentials do they really have? Have they gonw through a screening process, checked underlying mental health, have experience with guns? We need a smart approach to arming the student body, not a one size fits all.
hsteacher
posted 2/15/08 @ 3:07 PM CST
Do you have any idea how inappropriate it is to print snafu in a newspaper? Do you even know what 'snafu' stands for?
Alex
posted 2/15/08 @ 5:23 PM CST
Originally posted byhsteacher
Do you have any idea how inappropriate it is to print snafu in a newspaper? Do you even know what 'snafu' stands for?
Although "snafu" originally meant "situation normal, all f***** up", it has come into common usage as "situation normal, all fouled up", and furthermore, it has even lost itself as an acronym. Most people will just use this word to mean a "chaotic/muddled situation". I've heard old, church women who never utter any expletive use "snafu" in conversation. It has ceased to be vulgar.
On top of all that, isn't this is a college newspaper? What's the problem?
Ed
posted 2/15/08 @ 3:16 PM CST
Dear cab0154,
And that is where we disagree. I am suggesting as a fact that it can be possible to minimize and reduce the risk of school shootings. What needs to be done is an understanding of the root cause of the situation.
Considering the fact that the great majority of shootings are committed by members of the the student body, it is at this location where we need to truly focus our efforts in setting preventative measures in helping students in need not hurt themselves and/or others around them.
I am not saying that having more police on campus wouldn't help reduce the death count in one shooting. Having responsible license owners would help too, but all this only kicks into action after the first shot is fired. And no, a person does not turn psychopathic/sociopathic based on the presence of firearm carrying citizens or policemen. To ignore this fact is just change the body count from one big shootout to multiple smaller shootouts, body bags will still fill up, guilty or innocent.
Genuine attention needs to be paid on why people were somehow driven to the point of such horrendous action. These people were not random strangers from far off in the mids of a crime spree, these were members of the student body. These were classmates, teammates, friends. Are you ready to turn to the person sitting beside you in class and say "better you die than me?"
I cannot ignore that and i refuse to ignore that. We need to know why they did it and stop that.
And that is where we disagree. I am suggesting as a fact that it can be possible to minimize and reduce the risk of school shootings. What needs to be done is an understanding of the root cause of the situation.
Considering the fact that the great majority of shootings are committed by members of the the student body, it is at this location where we need to truly focus our efforts in setting preventative measures in helping students in need not hurt themselves and/or others around them.
I am not saying that having more police on campus wouldn't help reduce the death count in one shooting. Having responsible license owners would help too, but all this only kicks into action after the first shot is fired. And no, a person does not turn psychopathic/sociopathic based on the presence of firearm carrying citizens or policemen. To ignore this fact is just change the body count from one big shootout to multiple smaller shootouts, body bags will still fill up, guilty or innocent.
Genuine attention needs to be paid on why people were somehow driven to the point of such horrendous action. These people were not random strangers from far off in the mids of a crime spree, these were members of the student body. These were classmates, teammates, friends. Are you ready to turn to the person sitting beside you in class and say "better you die than me?"
I cannot ignore that and i refuse to ignore that. We need to know why they did it and stop that.
Anon
posted 3/03/08 @ 8:51 AM CST
Originally posted byEd
Dear cab0154,
Genuine attention needs to be paid on why people were somehow driven to the point of such horrendous action. These people were not random strangers from far off in the mids of a crime spree, these were members of the student body. These were classmates, teammates, friends. Are you ready to turn to the person sitting beside you in class and say "better you die than me?"
I cannot ignore that and i refuse to ignore that. We need to know why they did it and stop that.
This is so true. I can tell you that the campus climate at Virginia Tech is not very welcoming....how would things have been different if there were a real sense of community before the shootings...and not after :o\
cab0154
posted 2/15/08 @ 4:11 PM CST
Ed,
I agree in that we need to investigate the breakdown in the system. From the reports I have seen in the news, the shooter from NIU stopped taking his medication. I would agree that mentally unstable people do not need access to deadly weapons. However, I do not understand the assumption about everyone on campus knowing each other. Maybe at A&M, but not up here at UNT with a student body population of 30,000. I also dont understand how you can say "Are you ready to turn to the person sitting beside you in class and say "better you die than me?"
What does that statement have to do with CHL holders retaining their right to self defense? I can tell you from having a family member murdered by someone who was diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, that I havent found any answers as to why. I think it comes down to personal responsiility. I dont know how realistic monitoring everyones mental stability can be. There was a time when a lot of these mentally unstable people would have been committed to psychiatric facilities. Society has changed this over the years. However, I think we are discussing two different sides of the same problem. We absolutely need to find out how these mentally unstable people are slippng through the cracks. On the other side, I dont think anyone can argue that people dont have to right to defend themselves from those trying to kill them. Whether the killer is mentally unstable or not, once they try to kill others the target of this violence has the right to defend themselves. Why would it matter if the victims were alone or part of a group? Do people give up the right to self defense when they are attacked as part of a group?
I agree in that we need to investigate the breakdown in the system. From the reports I have seen in the news, the shooter from NIU stopped taking his medication. I would agree that mentally unstable people do not need access to deadly weapons. However, I do not understand the assumption about everyone on campus knowing each other. Maybe at A&M, but not up here at UNT with a student body population of 30,000. I also dont understand how you can say "Are you ready to turn to the person sitting beside you in class and say "better you die than me?"
What does that statement have to do with CHL holders retaining their right to self defense? I can tell you from having a family member murdered by someone who was diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, that I havent found any answers as to why. I think it comes down to personal responsiility. I dont know how realistic monitoring everyones mental stability can be. There was a time when a lot of these mentally unstable people would have been committed to psychiatric facilities. Society has changed this over the years. However, I think we are discussing two different sides of the same problem. We absolutely need to find out how these mentally unstable people are slippng through the cracks. On the other side, I dont think anyone can argue that people dont have to right to defend themselves from those trying to kill them. Whether the killer is mentally unstable or not, once they try to kill others the target of this violence has the right to defend themselves. Why would it matter if the victims were alone or part of a group? Do people give up the right to self defense when they are attacked as part of a group?
Ed
posted 2/15/08 @ 7:52 PM CST
Dear cab,
I am not questioning whether it is wrong to have licensed gun owners to bring guns on campus. It is great for stopping massive bloodshed. Gun owners are probably the most responsible citizens around, abet a bit loud mouth at the tables, but still very responsible people. That does not address the fact that having more guns on campus, alone as a solution, is a only mitigating action. We need guns. We also need more than just guns.
I have heard enough talk on campus on the various methods of incapacitating an assailant with a pistol and i'm sure no more than one person is gonna be a victim here in any possible shooting. That and also much talk on the many different preferred models or calibers perfect for the job. What i do not hear or even read on here is the various possible ways to prevent, not mitigate, prevent a shooting from occuring.
How difficult is it to see someone you regularly have in class seem a little outta sorts and ask them how they are doing or if they are in any trouble. I swear the last time i even mentioned preventative measures to someone, he suggested looking at the guy funny to give him warnings that he'd be shot down at a the slightest flinch. What if the person acting jittery and distant was a friend of his, should he be stared down to prevent a shooting?
By that comment of the person sitting beside you, how well do you know people in your social circle, do you know if all of them are in perfect emotional or psychological health? A breakup? abuse as a child? a need for understanding but fear of ridicule because he needs to go to SCS once a week to not go flat out crazy? What if circumstances drove them to snap?
And honestly, what would more guns do to stop someone from shooting? I highly doubt they would be of sound mind to consider how much it would hurt to be shot down quickly to prevent him from shooting initially. We are in the same campus who's news letter decided to print "Shoot for excitement" in the same edition as the NIU shooting article.
More guns is a good idea to reduce damages but lets not say well done and pat ourselves in the back thinking that we've found the solution to the problem by having more guns on campus. We need more.
I am not questioning whether it is wrong to have licensed gun owners to bring guns on campus. It is great for stopping massive bloodshed. Gun owners are probably the most responsible citizens around, abet a bit loud mouth at the tables, but still very responsible people. That does not address the fact that having more guns on campus, alone as a solution, is a only mitigating action. We need guns. We also need more than just guns.
I have heard enough talk on campus on the various methods of incapacitating an assailant with a pistol and i'm sure no more than one person is gonna be a victim here in any possible shooting. That and also much talk on the many different preferred models or calibers perfect for the job. What i do not hear or even read on here is the various possible ways to prevent, not mitigate, prevent a shooting from occuring.
How difficult is it to see someone you regularly have in class seem a little outta sorts and ask them how they are doing or if they are in any trouble. I swear the last time i even mentioned preventative measures to someone, he suggested looking at the guy funny to give him warnings that he'd be shot down at a the slightest flinch. What if the person acting jittery and distant was a friend of his, should he be stared down to prevent a shooting?
By that comment of the person sitting beside you, how well do you know people in your social circle, do you know if all of them are in perfect emotional or psychological health? A breakup? abuse as a child? a need for understanding but fear of ridicule because he needs to go to SCS once a week to not go flat out crazy? What if circumstances drove them to snap?
And honestly, what would more guns do to stop someone from shooting? I highly doubt they would be of sound mind to consider how much it would hurt to be shot down quickly to prevent him from shooting initially. We are in the same campus who's news letter decided to print "Shoot for excitement" in the same edition as the NIU shooting article.
More guns is a good idea to reduce damages but lets not say well done and pat ourselves in the back thinking that we've found the solution to the problem by having more guns on campus. We need more.
cab0154
posted 2/15/08 @ 8:33 PM CST
Ed,
I am in total agreement with you on that topic. The outcome of this does require more attention to preventative action. My assertion is just that we appearantly cant stop it 100% of the time and thus I think on campus CCW for license holders is a valid reaction as well. No doubt, we dont need to stop there, because as you said, it wont get to the bottom of the issue. Sometimes its really hard to get to know people, they have to open up in order to do so. The system does need to change to help prevent these people from falling through the cracks and then deciding they have no other options. Unfortunatly for the NIU students, this guy was alumni. Appearantly people knew he was off his medication and acting erraticly and yet they did nothing. Something needs to change on that side of the problem as well.
I am in total agreement with you on that topic. The outcome of this does require more attention to preventative action. My assertion is just that we appearantly cant stop it 100% of the time and thus I think on campus CCW for license holders is a valid reaction as well. No doubt, we dont need to stop there, because as you said, it wont get to the bottom of the issue. Sometimes its really hard to get to know people, they have to open up in order to do so. The system does need to change to help prevent these people from falling through the cracks and then deciding they have no other options. Unfortunatly for the NIU students, this guy was alumni. Appearantly people knew he was off his medication and acting erraticly and yet they did nothing. Something needs to change on that side of the problem as well.
Ed
posted 2/17/08 @ 11:32 AM CST
Originally posted bycab0154
Ed,
I am in total agreement with you on that topic. The outcome of this does require more attention to preventative action. My assertion is just that we appearantly cant stop it 100% of the time and thus I think on campus CCW for license holders is a valid reaction as well. No doubt, we dont need to stop there, because as you said, it wont get to the bottom of the issue. Sometimes its really hard to get to know people, they have to open up in order to do so. The system does need to change to help prevent these people from falling through the cracks and then deciding they have no other options. Unfortunatly for the NIU students, this guy was alumni. Appearantly people knew he was off his medication and acting erraticly and yet they did nothing. Something needs to change on that side of the problem as well.
Agreed. More guns without follow-up is just boastful hot air. Follow-up without more guns is naive and blind faith.
Brent
posted 2/17/08 @ 3:57 AM CST
Oregon already allows guns on campus. For some reason the media does not understand this and they continue to claim the Utah is the only state that allows guns on campus, which is incorrect. Anybody in Oregon with a concealed carry permit is allowed to carry on the campus of any school that is funded with taxpayer dollars, this includes all public elementary, middle and high schools and colleges and universities. Getting a concealed carry permit is also relatively easy here, just pass a background check and take a NRA approved safety course (or have previous military experience) and that's all that's needed. If the anti-gunners were correct this state would have experienced shootings because of people with concealed carry permits carrying on campus. It simply has not happened, the fears are unfounded. The only problems that have occured due to guns on school campuses here are because of criminals that don't obey the laws anyway.
LolGuns
posted 2/18/08 @ 2:44 PM CST
Originally posted byBrent
Oregon already allows guns on campus. For some reason the media does not understand this and they continue to claim the Utah is the only state that allows guns on campus, which is incorrect. Anybody in Oregon with a concealed carry permit is allowed to carry on the campus of any school that is funded with taxpayer dollars, this includes all public elementary, middle and high schools and colleges and universities. Getting a concealed carry permit is also relatively easy here, just pass a background check and take a NRA approved safety course (or have previous military experience) and that's all that's needed. If the anti-gunners were correct this state would have experienced shootings because of people with concealed carry permits carrying on campus. It simply has not happened, the fears are unfounded. The only problems that have occured due to guns on school campuses here are because of criminals that don't obey the laws anyway.
um its kinda hard to kill people with your state has 20 people in it and the crime rate is excessively low. And if public institutions allow such a thing will happen. I might just take up my offer from The M.I.T.
Andrew
posted 2/17/08 @ 11:01 AM CST
I agree! Guns should be allowed on campus. It is a very well documented fact hat gun control only increases crime, especially firearm-related violence.
Editor
posted 2/18/08 @ 9:38 AM CST
The tragic shooting that took place in Louisiana earlier this month was at LOUISIANA TECHNICAL COLLEGE, a vo-tech school in Baton Rouge, La. There was no shooting at Louisiana Tech University, located in Ruston, La.
Red
posted 2/18/08 @ 2:22 PM CST
Fight for your right to carry concealed on campus:
concealedcampus.org
concealedcampus.org
LuisGasca
posted 2/18/08 @ 2:23 PM CST
I wake up every morning to go outside, work and get an education. I don't wake up with the intentions of entering the "Ol' West" or coming across any of the variants.
I feel that walking around with 45k+ people is safe enough, and should people in my surroundings to be carry "legal" firearms is a daunting thought. Though many individuals may be responsible to maintain weapons of the sort,
All it takes is one person for things to escalate. Tensions would run high considering guns are all over the place. With that, anyone can "jump the gun" and with panic and fear. If one person in accident, or even with intent, fires a round, people around him may fear for their lives and fire back and what you have is an exchange of bullets going on to where it escalates much like a nuclear reaction with one person shooting, scaring another and they and in turn more chaos ensues until you have a shootout. And Innocent Bystanders caught in the crossfire.
The fact of more people carrying weapons does not scare criminals from their acts, but instills fear in the general populace creating a giant air of paranoia and distrust amongst the people.
Also let's say that one person with a legal firearm is so upset they decide to unleash their anger. Normally the pillow would suffice or a "frustration stick", but well a gun makes things easier, that only facilitates those acts.
Another thing, if weapons are around more, even if controlled, can still lead to more readily accessible firearms, someone could just steal the gun from a dorm mate or such, and in that case, create a panic that there is missing weapon lying around, and maybe close the school, or worse things could happen. I don't know about you, but I enjoy going to my math, and physics classes, and engineering on Fridays, and I don't anything to interfere with that.
You say that you don't want an all encompassing police state or the sort because it impinges on your rights, they may strike fear in you, but if thats the case we would only be policing ourselves, or more like those with guns against those without it. We have security measures and I trust trained professionals, not a 21 year old kid that attended a 3 hr session at some backwater NRA session. Sure our police are not the best, but I think that is why we have to keep an eye out for each other, this doesn't have to be personal protection(e.i guns) or Code Maroon, just personal responsibility, and responsibility for one another.
This is not a matter of our "God Given Rights" of being an American, it's about Common Sense and Safety for the Masses. We come to get educated, no to get killed
But then again, what do I know? I'm just a "stupid freshman" with little insight to the dynamics of this school. But at least I try to look at both sides of the argument, not just yell "ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID" "ROAR, NEWFAG" Thank you for your consideration.
I feel that walking around with 45k+ people is safe enough, and should people in my surroundings to be carry "legal" firearms is a daunting thought. Though many individuals may be responsible to maintain weapons of the sort,
All it takes is one person for things to escalate. Tensions would run high considering guns are all over the place. With that, anyone can "jump the gun" and with panic and fear. If one person in accident, or even with intent, fires a round, people around him may fear for their lives and fire back and what you have is an exchange of bullets going on to where it escalates much like a nuclear reaction with one person shooting, scaring another and they and in turn more chaos ensues until you have a shootout. And Innocent Bystanders caught in the crossfire.
The fact of more people carrying weapons does not scare criminals from their acts, but instills fear in the general populace creating a giant air of paranoia and distrust amongst the people.
Also let's say that one person with a legal firearm is so upset they decide to unleash their anger. Normally the pillow would suffice or a "frustration stick", but well a gun makes things easier, that only facilitates those acts.
Another thing, if weapons are around more, even if controlled, can still lead to more readily accessible firearms, someone could just steal the gun from a dorm mate or such, and in that case, create a panic that there is missing weapon lying around, and maybe close the school, or worse things could happen. I don't know about you, but I enjoy going to my math, and physics classes, and engineering on Fridays, and I don't anything to interfere with that.
You say that you don't want an all encompassing police state or the sort because it impinges on your rights, they may strike fear in you, but if thats the case we would only be policing ourselves, or more like those with guns against those without it. We have security measures and I trust trained professionals, not a 21 year old kid that attended a 3 hr session at some backwater NRA session. Sure our police are not the best, but I think that is why we have to keep an eye out for each other, this doesn't have to be personal protection(e.i guns) or Code Maroon, just personal responsibility, and responsibility for one another.
This is not a matter of our "God Given Rights" of being an American, it's about Common Sense and Safety for the Masses. We come to get educated, no to get killed
But then again, what do I know? I'm just a "stupid freshman" with little insight to the dynamics of this school. But at least I try to look at both sides of the argument, not just yell "ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID" "ROAR, NEWFAG" Thank you for your consideration.
Chic Anderson
posted 2/18/08 @ 2:38 PM CST
I cannot agree that A&M students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. It's tantamount to hanging a fly-strip in the barn to catch flies. Armed students will attract the lowest of the low. We cannot legislate safety. Some nut will always find a way to get around our best intentions.
I feel we're doing the best we can to ensure our students' safety. But giving them a gun isn't improving the situation.
Chic Anderson '52
I feel we're doing the best we can to ensure our students' safety. But giving them a gun isn't improving the situation.
Chic Anderson '52
Eric
posted 2/18/08 @ 4:41 PM CST
LolGuns...
Do you want to take a stab at why the violent crime rate in Utah is so low? Could it possibly be because Utah has the most liberal gun laws in the country and the possibility is high to a criminal that his potential victim is carrying?
Luis Gasca,
The same arguments were used when states first started allowing licensed concealed carry. "OMG, it's gonna be the wild west all over again. Ther are gonna be shootouts in the streets, blah, blah, blah..." Yeah, that never happened. The fact of the matter is, it is a pain in the @$$ to obtain a concealed carry permit. A 10 hour course must be taken and passed where the laws are discussed as well as the consequences when you brandish and/or use your handgun. Shooting in defense of your life is the absolute last resort. We are taught to constantly be alert of our surroundings and avoid confrontations at all costs. That may be why CHL holders have a MUCH lower crime rate than non-holders.
Don't spout off until you pass the class/ shooting proficiency exam and research some facts.
Do you want to take a stab at why the violent crime rate in Utah is so low? Could it possibly be because Utah has the most liberal gun laws in the country and the possibility is high to a criminal that his potential victim is carrying?
Luis Gasca,
The same arguments were used when states first started allowing licensed concealed carry. "OMG, it's gonna be the wild west all over again. Ther are gonna be shootouts in the streets, blah, blah, blah..." Yeah, that never happened. The fact of the matter is, it is a pain in the @$$ to obtain a concealed carry permit. A 10 hour course must be taken and passed where the laws are discussed as well as the consequences when you brandish and/or use your handgun. Shooting in defense of your life is the absolute last resort. We are taught to constantly be alert of our surroundings and avoid confrontations at all costs. That may be why CHL holders have a MUCH lower crime rate than non-holders.
Don't spout off until you pass the class/ shooting proficiency exam and research some facts.
LuisGasca
posted 2/18/08 @ 7:29 PM CST
Originally posted byEric
LolGuns...
Do you want to take a stab at why the violent crime rate in Utah is so low? Could it possibly be because Utah has the most liberal gun laws in the country and the possibility is high to a criminal that his potential victim is carrying?
Luis Gasca,
The same arguments were used when states first started allowing licensed concealed carry. "OMG, it's gonna be the wild west all over again. Ther are gonna be shootouts in the streets, blah, blah, blah..." Yeah, that never happened. The fact of the matter is, it is a pain in the @$$ to obtain a concealed carry permit. A 10 hour course must be taken and passed where the laws are discussed as well as the consequences when you brandish and/or use your handgun. Shooting in defense of your life is the absolute last resort. We are taught to constantly be alert of our surroundings and avoid confrontations at all costs. That may be why CHL holders have a MUCH lower crime rate than non-holders.
Don't spout off until you pass the class/ shooting proficiency exam and research some facts.
Im not referring to those with the permits so much as the general public. People as a mass can be foolish. Look at the great depression, mainly caused because people wouldn't listen and acted in mass. Also these aren't cities, these are colleges, though permit holder are responsible, I still feel a college atmosphere is not conducive for guns. And sorry about cutting you the seven hours short. I'm not against guns, I just feel a college is not the best atmosphere for it. Also I don't think we should look as statistics as a fair and factual setting for allowing the carrying of concealed weapons. Because again this a college atmosphere.
Jason
posted 2/19/08 @ 3:49 AM CST
I'd feel safer with one gunman shooting in a room than an all-out firefight between him and ten other students, because if that happens, it's inevitable that people will get hit in the crossfire.
KHorn
posted 2/19/08 @ 1:21 PM CST
David,
This was a well-written piece that summarizes what needs to happen statewide, not just at A&M. As usual, the anti-gun crowd resorts to name-calling and attacks since it has no cogent argument to make and understands little about the concept of concealed handgun licensing. Here's to securing both of our schools so the next (and there will be a next, it's only a matter of time) mass murder of helpless unarmed victims on a college campus doesn't occur the in The Great State of Texas.
This was a well-written piece that summarizes what needs to happen statewide, not just at A&M. As usual, the anti-gun crowd resorts to name-calling and attacks since it has no cogent argument to make and understands little about the concept of concealed handgun licensing. Here's to securing both of our schools so the next (and there will be a next, it's only a matter of time) mass murder of helpless unarmed victims on a college campus doesn't occur the in The Great State of Texas.
Kari
posted 2/22/08 @ 5:46 PM CST
This is a bit unrelated but I'd like to throw in a comment here. I'm a grad student at one of Alaska's universities. My campus has an all-out ban on guns. No guns in cars, no guns on your person, etc.
What bothers me about this is that during the summer and fall I have to walk from campus to a nearby fish weir and I've seen bears numerous times. In the past I did similar work with an agency and they issued all workers guns. Now that I'm working with a school, I can't even carry a gun to protect myself from bears. Mace is out of the question too because of an overreaching weapons policy. I think I should have the right to scare off a bear that's acting aggressively or, God forbid, shoot one that's charging.
Regarding the article, I think people need to realize that someone intent on killing people will do so. A lot of these school shootings are murder-suicide. Rational people with guns don't use them on people except in cases of self-defense. Gun policy probably won't have a big impact either way on the likelihood that a student is shot by a gunman.
What bothers me about this is that during the summer and fall I have to walk from campus to a nearby fish weir and I've seen bears numerous times. In the past I did similar work with an agency and they issued all workers guns. Now that I'm working with a school, I can't even carry a gun to protect myself from bears. Mace is out of the question too because of an overreaching weapons policy. I think I should have the right to scare off a bear that's acting aggressively or, God forbid, shoot one that's charging.
Regarding the article, I think people need to realize that someone intent on killing people will do so. A lot of these school shootings are murder-suicide. Rational people with guns don't use them on people except in cases of self-defense. Gun policy probably won't have a big impact either way on the likelihood that a student is shot by a gunman.
sam
posted 3/01/08 @ 12:24 AM CST
dude
is this the 1800s Wild West?
no, it is the US in the 21st century...
no need for guns
is this the 1800s Wild West?
no, it is the US in the 21st century...
no need for guns
Stacy
posted 3/01/08 @ 10:33 AM CST
The shooting wasn't at Louisiana Tech, it was at Louisiana Technical Institute. Two totally different schools.
Phil
posted 3/02/08 @ 1:06 AM CST
"He who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither" Benjamin Franklin
I just wanted to open with that quote from one of the fathers of this country because it seems to pretain to this topic in a great way. Its very easy to see only one side of this discussion, one says if licensed students are allowed to carry guns on campus the campus will turn into something resembling a war zone, the other side says allowing the same students to carry guns on campus then these horrors would not be fully avoided but be much less tragic. Now with how the states are set up, many different states try many different techniques with dealing with these problems, and after some time the state that seems to have solved the problem acts as a role model to other states or the national government and let those other governments adopt thier program and solve the problem their way. Now apparently these "gun free zones" just arnt working, and a cop and metal detector while might work is not economicly feezeble to do in every building on every campus in the states to protecting all students, tuition which is already at an all time high would be insane. Now apperently other states have adopted these laws that allow licensed students to carry handguns after going thru thier classes and backround checks, and i have yet to hear of warzones breaking out on these campus's, but much to the contrary i hear these campus's dont have school shootings. Now it would be niave to think that if licensed students carried weapons that school shootings would dissaper but statistics show that the death toll's from these shootings drop when the victims can fight back. Now Luis suggests we dont listen to statistics, because statistics can be misleading, this is true they can be misleading and twisted to support one side of the argument or the other, but statisticly speaking when a man with a gun fires at a man without a gun what happens? The man without the gun runs, and if hes locked in a college room, or its to crowded to leave, running becomes hard, and statiscly that man will likely die. While i dont believe arming students can wholey fix this problem and further steps do need to be taking, every american has the freedom and the right to defend themselves and like the quote in the beginning of my post, we should not sacrife our freedoms and rights to feel the illusion of security
I just wanted to open with that quote from one of the fathers of this country because it seems to pretain to this topic in a great way. Its very easy to see only one side of this discussion, one says if licensed students are allowed to carry guns on campus the campus will turn into something resembling a war zone, the other side says allowing the same students to carry guns on campus then these horrors would not be fully avoided but be much less tragic. Now with how the states are set up, many different states try many different techniques with dealing with these problems, and after some time the state that seems to have solved the problem acts as a role model to other states or the national government and let those other governments adopt thier program and solve the problem their way. Now apparently these "gun free zones" just arnt working, and a cop and metal detector while might work is not economicly feezeble to do in every building on every campus in the states to protecting all students, tuition which is already at an all time high would be insane. Now apperently other states have adopted these laws that allow licensed students to carry handguns after going thru thier classes and backround checks, and i have yet to hear of warzones breaking out on these campus's, but much to the contrary i hear these campus's dont have school shootings. Now it would be niave to think that if licensed students carried weapons that school shootings would dissaper but statistics show that the death toll's from these shootings drop when the victims can fight back. Now Luis suggests we dont listen to statistics, because statistics can be misleading, this is true they can be misleading and twisted to support one side of the argument or the other, but statisticly speaking when a man with a gun fires at a man without a gun what happens? The man without the gun runs, and if hes locked in a college room, or its to crowded to leave, running becomes hard, and statiscly that man will likely die. While i dont believe arming students can wholey fix this problem and further steps do need to be taking, every american has the freedom and the right to defend themselves and like the quote in the beginning of my post, we should not sacrife our freedoms and rights to feel the illusion of security
Krro Cheef
posted 3/03/08 @ 8:24 AM CST
deer HS Teecher -
yes, we know what SNAFU stands for.
we also knows what FUBAR stands for too.
That is where we're at with not being able to protect ourselves. The whole "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" thing is coming to light...
Yes, i can spell, yes, I'm giving you a hard time, and yes, I'm deviating from the topic just as much as you did.
and no, i wasn't an english major, I graduated with an engr. degree here @ A&M. I drew little "S's" and triangles and wrote mostly in Super-script or Sub-script. (i.e. differential equations, chemical catalysts formulas, and calculus.) have a nise day.
yes, we know what SNAFU stands for.
we also knows what FUBAR stands for too.
That is where we're at with not being able to protect ourselves. The whole "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" thing is coming to light...
Yes, i can spell, yes, I'm giving you a hard time, and yes, I'm deviating from the topic just as much as you did.
and no, i wasn't an english major, I graduated with an engr. degree here @ A&M. I drew little "S's" and triangles and wrote mostly in Super-script or Sub-script. (i.e. differential equations, chemical catalysts formulas, and calculus.) have a nise day.
Kroo Cheef
posted 3/03/08 @ 8:33 AM CST
Kari - in your comment about being in AK, have fun thawing out.. I know it's a beautiful place, but Damn..too cold. sorry.
As for concealed - Hell, i'd have RIFLE's and slug-loaded shotguns by my side with BEARS (People, these are BEARS, not DEER up there)
so - what happens, if a BEAR has a gun, then you're Totally screwed.
And - Sam - poor poor, mis-informed Sam -
yes, it's the 21st Century, but you say there's no need for guns?
tell that to the Police Officer trying to hold a crack-dealer at bay, holding his baby's mama hostage. Is THAT what you're saying? give all the police Pepper-spray? you're a 'tard.
As for concealed - Hell, i'd have RIFLE's and slug-loaded shotguns by my side with BEARS (People, these are BEARS, not DEER up there)
so - what happens, if a BEAR has a gun, then you're Totally screwed.
And - Sam - poor poor, mis-informed Sam -
yes, it's the 21st Century, but you say there's no need for guns?
tell that to the Police Officer trying to hold a crack-dealer at bay, holding his baby's mama hostage. Is THAT what you're saying? give all the police Pepper-spray? you're a 'tard.
Nina '10
posted 4/17/08 @ 5:06 PM CST
O.K. let me introduce myself. I am a 23 year-old full-time college student. This is my first semester here at A&M. I joined the military when I was 17 and was enlisted for five years. I have had some pretty extensive training in both self-defense and with firearms. Through this training I have come to know my limits especially physically. I know what it is like to be physically over powered by an individual and I know what it is like to have some one shoot at you. I fully understand the consequence of fring at someone who has first fired upon you.
Having stated this I would like to say I enjoy working out in the evenings when there are not alot of people around. I would also like to say that I know how easily I could become a victim to someone who either catches me off guard or just has the sheer strength and weight to over power me. I feel safer working out on campus than I do in other parts of the surrounding area, but this in no way compensates for the fact that I know without any doubt that I can defend myself with a weapon even when caught off guard. I also know how to defend those around me and can in a heartbeat if it is necessary. Even realizing that others have not necessarily had the training I have, I still support the idea of others LEGALLY carrying concealed weapons on campus. I trust those that have gone through the CHL class because, if these persons are willing to follow the law in an area where money and time are involved, I think they would be less likey to wantonly give this right up and do something illegal. On the other hand if a person was intending to do something illegal why go through the process to be able to legally carry a weapon just to use it illegally. Especially if this person did not intend to survive the experience in order to deal with the consequences.
I would rather have some one legally carrying a weapon with me in a classroom when a person who is intent on harm enters, than be defenseless. I recognize that firearms are not the end all solution to stopping campus shootings, but I whole heartedly believe they can LIMIT the numbers of deaths.
As far as worrying about the possibility of a shoot out, with the current restrictions on who can obtain a CHL, I doubt there will be too many students in each class that A) are eligible for a CHL, B) can afford a weapon and CHL, and C) want the responsibility of carrying a weapon on themselves which must remain concealed at all times and has the potential to cause harm if mishandled.
Please realize that I am in no way implying that I think those with a CHL are infalible (sp?), I just think they are more efficient at stoping harm in progress than a group of weaponless innocents waiting on outside help. I also understand that with the possibility of more weapons in an area there is a greater possibility for accidents. That is why I have a strong faith in training on how to properly handle a weapon.
Having stated this I would like to say I enjoy working out in the evenings when there are not alot of people around. I would also like to say that I know how easily I could become a victim to someone who either catches me off guard or just has the sheer strength and weight to over power me. I feel safer working out on campus than I do in other parts of the surrounding area, but this in no way compensates for the fact that I know without any doubt that I can defend myself with a weapon even when caught off guard. I also know how to defend those around me and can in a heartbeat if it is necessary. Even realizing that others have not necessarily had the training I have, I still support the idea of others LEGALLY carrying concealed weapons on campus. I trust those that have gone through the CHL class because, if these persons are willing to follow the law in an area where money and time are involved, I think they would be less likey to wantonly give this right up and do something illegal. On the other hand if a person was intending to do something illegal why go through the process to be able to legally carry a weapon just to use it illegally. Especially if this person did not intend to survive the experience in order to deal with the consequences.
I would rather have some one legally carrying a weapon with me in a classroom when a person who is intent on harm enters, than be defenseless. I recognize that firearms are not the end all solution to stopping campus shootings, but I whole heartedly believe they can LIMIT the numbers of deaths.
As far as worrying about the possibility of a shoot out, with the current restrictions on who can obtain a CHL, I doubt there will be too many students in each class that A) are eligible for a CHL, B) can afford a weapon and CHL, and C) want the responsibility of carrying a weapon on themselves which must remain concealed at all times and has the potential to cause harm if mishandled.
Please realize that I am in no way implying that I think those with a CHL are infalible (sp?), I just think they are more efficient at stoping harm in progress than a group of weaponless innocents waiting on outside help. I also understand that with the possibility of more weapons in an area there is a greater possibility for accidents. That is why I have a strong faith in training on how to properly handle a weapon.
Tyler
posted 5/20/08 @ 2:12 PM CST
I have been shooting since I was 4 years old. I know how to hanlde a gun and all the responsiblilty the comes with it. I hate the fact that a few psychos have given the general public (who are usually have no experience, except from movies or the news) a distrust for guns. I am pretty sure if LICENSED carry was allowed on Virginia Tech campus, the death toll would have been less than 33 innocent. Police cant respond like an ARMED student body, who, at the moment, has the options of running or being shot like an animal.
That being said, how do psychos get guns in the first place? If buying a handgun in general had the same restrictions as getting a concealed license we might be able to keep some psychos from obtaining them in the first place. Unlikley though since there are many illegal methods of getting them.
I would feel much safer if I were armed.
That being said, how do psychos get guns in the first place? If buying a handgun in general had the same restrictions as getting a concealed license we might be able to keep some psychos from obtaining them in the first place. Unlikley though since there are many illegal methods of getting them.
I would feel much safer if I were armed.
Tyler
posted 5/20/08 @ 2:35 PM CST
If you really want to get the ball rolling you need a plan. Why not have a Special Campus Permit?? Lets make some minimum requirements: Concealed License holder, Mental screening, Experience 'points', GPA?, ect. Then follow up with semi annual regulatory screening and tactical training (how to hit the bad guy without injuring anyone eles). This would far surpass the saftey net of a generic CHL.
Carl '04
posted 5/20/08 @ 5:51 PM CST
For me, the biggest issue is this.
People that are anti-gun say a ton of things that add up to this statement: guns of the streets will lower fatalities.
I'm sure this is true and false in certain areas.
However, those that wish to do things illegal will have the firepower anyway. The question is, will we defend ourselves, or let our police (who are outgunned in most scnearios) handle the situation.
Sometimes, you take the law in your own hands, because you have to do so...
This is not a republican vs democrat thing (which I CANNOT FU*KING TOLERATE on TV today on all issues), but an AMERICAN ISSUE.
People that are anti-gun say a ton of things that add up to this statement: guns of the streets will lower fatalities.
I'm sure this is true and false in certain areas.
However, those that wish to do things illegal will have the firepower anyway. The question is, will we defend ourselves, or let our police (who are outgunned in most scnearios) handle the situation.
Sometimes, you take the law in your own hands, because you have to do so...
This is not a republican vs democrat thing (which I CANNOT FU*KING TOLERATE on TV today on all issues), but an AMERICAN ISSUE.
Will
posted 5/24/08 @ 6:28 PM CST
What is the point of discussing this? Does anyone think this will actually happen? Does anyone really think that a majority of students want to come to a campus where guns are allowed? We just don't live in times where this is plausible. This is a frivolous pro-gun argument, an idea so radical it will turn off most thinking people. If you want to argue in favor of gun rights, I think this is just not the way to go about it.
- Displaying 1 - 45 of 45
Post Your Comment
Remembering 2:42
News
Volleyball back in win column
Sports
'Riverdance' comes to OPAS on farewell tour
Features
A sweet deal
Features
Turning up my nose up to 'taste'
Opinion
Aggies are we
Opinion
Anand
posted 2/15/08 @ 12:55 AM CST
so why the fu*k should they be allowed to fly around on college campuses? it is known that all the college shootings recently were done with LEGALLY OWNED weapons. thats right. and im sure plenty of heroes would be willing to fumble around searching for a gun to shoot a psycho with, rather than run for their lives.
and the question isnt how many times a gun is used for offense and defense. rape and robbery are bad, but not as bad as murder. handing over a hundred dollars in a stickup is ok, but its definitely not ok to lose even one innocent life in a college classroom again.
no guns in schools or colleges. have a checking system just like they do at airports. the state alone should have the monopoly over use of force.
what will you ask for next? a personal right to own grenades? maybe a few bombs? or maybe bill gates and warren buffet will consider buying themselves an F22 for "self defence". what a farce.