Legislation introduced to allow concealed weapons on campus

Seems like its a right protected under the constitution.

In order to obtain a concealed weapons permit, you must go through training for proper use, safety, etc. Just because a student or anyone else for that matter, carries a gun does not mean more people will be killed. Good people with guns do not use guns unless their life is threatened.

I believe this is a great bill and should become law. Those that are carrying illegally will continue to do so with no consideration of prohibited areas. They are already a criminal by carrying illegally, what is going to stop them from traveling onto campuses? Law-abiding citizens should have the right to carry legally on campuses. Maybe just having the knowledge of law-abiding faculty and students being able to carry, and possibly thwarting the next Seung-Hui Cho’s effort at another massacre will deter them. Could it have played out differently at Virginia Tech if this were their realty? I would like to think so. Even the best law enforcement is minutes away, but concealed carrying law-abiding citizens, could be a block away, a building away, could live next door, or even be walking down the same side walk as us. Most have no intention of ever drawing their firearm, but if the need should rise they are ready to help.

A concealed weapon is certainly not protected under the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is protected, but the courts have upheld again and again reasonable limits (you may not own a tank or a fighter jet, you may not carry a concealed weapon into a bar, etc.).

I’m always baffled by the argument that having people around with guns will somehow protect us. In the very, very unlikely circumstance that someone opens fire in a classroom (the last few years provide a few examples, but they are statistically insignificant) someone with a gun *may* provide a remedy, but it is impossible to determine in advance how anyone will react to a sudden and violent situation.

You’re far more likely to be killed by your own gun that you are to need it for self-defense. I know, I know, people who are trained in gun safety won’t kill themselves accidentally. This is the predictable argument I’ll hear whenever the subject of gun accidents comes up. Only stupid people accidentally kill themselves with guns, right? But there’s no provision in carry/conceal laws that say you have to be smart to do so. Anyone can sit through a gun safety class and mimic safe practices for four hours. What happens ten years down the line is a long way from what happens in a gun safety course. Bad habits creep in.

Almost everyone I know who carries a gun often (police officers, those people I know with carry/conceal permits, avid hunters) have a story about their gun discharging accidentally. Usually no problem because they’re cleaning/loading or unloading their weapon, but I would wager that accidental discharges in the classroom could carry greater consequences than when they happen at home. It’s easy to be careless just once.

My argument against this idea doesn’t come from irrational gun control circles. I am a gun owner. I am ready to protect my property (for which I would use my shotgun, which is a heck of a lot more effective for home defense). My argument is this: pit bulls are oftentimes seen as dangerous, aggressive dogs with a propensity for snapping suddenly and attacking and killing children or strangers. Since it is legal to own a pit bull having a pit bull could conceivably protect you from someone else’s out-of-control pit bull, why don’t we all run out right now a get one for our very own? Why not, right? If everyone had a pit bull, then everyone would be protect from other pit bulls. A perfect solution. Except that the problems generated by the proliferation of millions of pit bulls would far outweigh the problems we currently have with the occasional pit bull attack. Just like school shootings. We’ve got very few of them now, but they garner a lot of attention when they happen.

You can tell that mid-Michigan and CMU are Michigan Militia/Timothy McVea territory. After all of the handgun violence in our society, advocating anyone carrying a gun is without conscience. You gun people are scary. Anyone who is civilized should move to a different university.

It is frightening enough to see Michigan legislators try to enact this law, but seeing university students agreeing with this is not just unsettling, but rather sad. I was considering applying to CMU for grad school, until I began to read about the central Michigan cultural mindset…………I’ll be in New England instead.

MtP, I cannot believe you could make a statement like that!
First CPL holders are just everyday great American people that just want to even the playing field with violent criminals. Law enforcement is a great public service, but is often times to far away. Almost all violent encounters are over in less than 2 min.

Second, how in the world can you compare everyday CPL holders with a person like Timothy McVea, and on top of that, he used a Bomb.

Third, in all of the states that have gone to “Shall Issue” carry permits, crime rates have went down. It is only common sense, criminals are not out for a fight, and they prey on unprotected, unaware people who offer less resistance.

Look, over two hundred thousand people carry in MI today. No one wants to shoot another person, but the thought of getting beat half to death for a few dollars provokes one to be able to defend themselves. It is crazy to limit good honest people from having their gun anywhere. Pistol free zones offer criminals a green light for crime. Do you think that a person heading out to do a felony will be detoured by a misdemeanor? Also, we must understand that guns are not evil. They do not instill evil or encourage it.

I agree with Joe M. Allowing students and/or faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus won’t necessarily lead to better situations in cases of situations developing on a campus involving guns. There have been many studies after the case of Kitty Genovese. She was a woman who was stabbed to death in 1964 in view of many witnesses but no one did anything. This case spawned much research on what has been called the Bystander effect. It’s a phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help in an emergency situation when others are present. So just because a situation were to develop on campus having someone on campus with a concealed weapon isn’t necessarily going to lead to a better situation and unfortunately if a cop were to come into a situation he would not be able to tell who was “good guy” versus a “bad guy.” The only thing the cop would be concerned about is who has a gun. I just have a hard time seeing any improvement a law such as this would provide.

I think this is crazy. I’ve been around guns my entire life. My dad, brothers and other relatives were always into shooting and hunting. I think there’s a place and time for guns, but schools are not the place. Personally, I would feel very unsafe walking around campus, or sitting in a classroom knowing (or not knowing) who’s carrying a loaded gun. The majority of individuals would probably be college males in their early 20′s…..are they really stupid enough to allow this?? Most of the college guys I know have big heads and overflowing egos as it is…now let them carry a loaded weapon to class. If this is allowed, I’m guessing 100+ will be “packing” the first week simply because they can. You’re going to hear about the increasing injuries or idiots discharging a firearm where they shouldn’t every night on the news. No good would come from allowing this.

Stupid. Simply stupid.
I’ll never understand the completely backward right-wing pro-gun NRA rhetoric on how having more guns supposedly makes things safer, not more deadly.
You pro-gun rightwingers truly live in some sort of delusional Bizzaro World. Get some professional help, you people really need it.

It’s interesting to see how some people have no idea what is involved in getting a cpl/cwp. Perhaps you should take a look at some government run websites before deciding that only certain types of people carry guns.
It goes back to if they outlawed guns only outlaws would carry them.

Perhaps try looking at public act 381 and 372 of 1927. As cited in this:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ed2ssw55lyudqlye2ntmcsrj))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-28-422&query=on&highlight=pistol%20AND%20free

and this

http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-17334_17362_22672-60594–,00.html

Requirements for APPLYING for a CPL:

1. The applicant is 21 years of age.
2. The applicant has resided in Michigan for at least 6 months.
3. The applicant is a citizen or legal resident of the United States.
4. The applicant has successfully taken a gun safety course.
5. The applicant is not under certain court orders, such as those involving mental disabilities, personal protection orders, legal incapacitation, etc.
6. The applicant does not have a pending felony charge and has never been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors within a specified time period.
7. The applicant has not been involuntarily committed due to a mental illness, adjudged insane, guilty but mentally ill or pled insanity in a criminal case.
8. The applicant does not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time of the application.
9. The applicant has not been dishonorably discharged from the US military.
10. The applicant is not subject to a court order prohibiting the possession of a firearm.

Before submitting the application there is a background and fingerprint check with the FBI. When the results return the application will go before a county gun board. The gun board shall consist of; County Prosecutor, County Sheriff
, Michigan State Police officer, County Clerk (as the Clerk to the Board), or their designee(s). They shall have the final say if the applicant will receive their permit.

“Composed of specific representatives, no appointments necessary. Term is equal to length of office. This Board determines whether or not to grant permits to citizens who make application for various uses of handguns. It notifies the applicants regarding time and date for their interview. After the Board meetings, the County Clerk receives the approved list, prepares the permits and notifies the applicants by mail when permits are ready. This Board has the power to revoke a gun permit.
Taken from Saginaw County clerks site: http://www.saginawcounty.com/Clerk/Serves/Ccw_Board.aspx

As of now it is LEGAL to carry a gun across campus. If you do not enter a classroom or dormitories you are not breaking ANY laws.

also for anther good read http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13collins.html

‘ll keep my freedom, my money, and my guns. You can keep “The Change”.
The law should be passed.

Most people aren’t trying to make the argument that concealed weapons permits should be abolished. Just don’t bring ‘em into the motherjumping classroom. The guns used in the campus shootings, and in almost every single high school shooting, were purchased legally. The law allowed people to buy firearms. Through irresponsible behavior, or (as in the Virginia Tech case), legal purchase, people with mental problems were able to end other people’s lives. The problem cannot be solved by making guns ubiquitous. Allowing more people to carry more guns into more places is not going to cause fewer problems.

People make the argument that the threat of a gun deters criminals. I make the argument that the threat of a gun makes criminals more likely to shoot first and find out if someone is armed later. The gun in my home is practical for home defense and I wish that everyone had one just like it. A handgun carried in a shoulder sling by someone who meets a minimal criteria is asking for trouble. The NRA has successfully lobbied for easier and easier access to guns, more and more places to carry, and deadlier and deadlier weapons. Where do you draw the line? If some people had their way, it would be legal for anyone who can tie their own shoes to carry a fully automatic machine gun into a day care, just in case one of the “bad guys” decides to open fire that day.

Someone made the point that there are requirements (for a conceal permit). Read them again. They exclude only the most obviously unstable people. Then remember the VT shooter. The system broke down and he got guns and killed. Someone else gave three examples (all of them, I’m guessing, imaginary) where a gun would be handy. But in all of those examples, the actions of the perpetrator are made possible by the use of weapons. The solution: make the weapons easier to get. If only everyone had a nuke, right? No one would use theirs because they’re afraid of the other guy’s nuke.

The solution isn’t more guns, it’s not fewer guns. The solution is to pay attention, get unstable people help, and carefully vette people who are allowed to carry killing machines in their pockets. A lot of people refer to guns as tools. “A gun is only a tool,” they’ll say. “It’s only as good or as bad as the person carrying it. The gun doesn’t kill people, the person behind it does.” All true. But a gun is a tool that allows anyone to kill cowardly, if they choose to. A gun is a tool that increases the range of possible violence, both in terms of distance and magnitude. Guns are incredibly efficient at one thing: killing. So let’s exercise a bit of caution and restraint and keep them out of places of discussion and learning.

To MIP and the rest of you trying to impose YOUR will on me or my child ( who is a CMU freshman )- please STOP – this issue is the same as any emotional ballot initiative. How about abortion?? Don’t like it? Then don’t have one! What does that have to do with me? ( I think its despicable BTW but none of my business ). As a retired police officer, I can tell you that I have NEVER had an issue with a LEGALLY ( emphasis added ) armed citizen. Anyone who goes through the trouble, expense and training for the permit will not, statistically, ever cause you, the police or the public any grief. Nationally, 1.6% of permit holders commit crimes or get their permits revoked. That means that 98.4% do not. Did we already forget Virginia Tech? How about Columbine? All of those outcomes would have been much different, or may not have occurred at all if such a law was in place. The fact is, its a violent society. Are you a sheep, ready to cower under your desk while waiting to be slaughtered, like the cafe patrons in Lubbock, Texas? Or would you rather take a pro-active role in preserving your life? Please – if you’re not emotionally prepared to handle a deadly force encounter or respond to an armed confrontation,, then DON’T. I on the other hand prefer to take matters into my own hands to protect my life and those around me. Furthermore, when she reaches the legal age, I want my daughter to be able to legally choose to do the same if she sees fit. Why would a college campus be any different than any other place in society? Do the students and teachers deserve LESS protection, less rights than the rest of us in our private homes and workplaces? I think not. This legislation will and should pass, not just in Michigan but nationally as well.

Nick – Ever heard of the book “More Gun’s – Less Crime”? It’s not pro gun right winged rhetoric – its fact. Proven, substantiated with the numbers FACT. That it makes you uncomfortable or disproves your point does not negate its accuracy. Without getting into a finger pointing, he said-she said discussion, how sensible would it be to tell you that your legally plated and insured vehicle can only be driven on certain streets? Whether you choose to admit it or not, the analogy is precisely what happens to gun permit holders in this and most other states with “gun free” ( read “crime encouraged”) zones. The fact is that politicians keep little morsels of control to dole out to make the LEFT wingers a little less uncomfortable with the facts. Think about the irony here – you’re not screaming about the criminals with illegal guns – you’re fearing honest moral citizens with LEGAL guns. How sensible is that? In the end, my right ( or privilege ) to arm myself legally will in no way diminish your right not to. The inverse is not true.

I understand some of the concerns here frankly because there are a lot of folks who do not like guns, that is ok. However, with folks who are familiar, and who would prepare themselves for any type of engagement, there is no question a concealed firearm is the best tool available. I have carried in Georgia, and Michigan now, and I can tell you a firearm was with me on every personal and business trip and when my Wife was home alone, a couple of dogs and Glock 9mm (that she is comfortable with) were on the ready. Simply put, you cannot carry a police officer around with you, and there are not too many folks who make enough money to employ bodyguards (they carry guns too folks!)

I, too, must have my security blanket with me at all times.

BR: “I feel” was used twice. Once in support or the bill, once in opposition.

People who support this bill use hyperbolic examples (“If a bear were attacking you…”) and constantly evoke the very few examples of school shootings that have occured. For every death in a school shooting, there are many accidental gun deaths. I own and use a shotgun for home protection and have no problem with anyone defending their property and family. But the minute you take a weapon into public, there’s a chance that someone else will be hurt.

“More Guns, Less Crime” is a simplistic look at gun violence, ownership, and crime that confuses (willfully) correlation and causation. It cherry-picks data and makes the outrageous claim that people who are allowed to carry handguns anywhere they like have a deterrent effect on crime. Most gun violence is spontaneous, unplanned, and targeted at someone the shooter knows. In fact, if you want some statistics, the people most likely to shoot and be shot: husband and wife. I’m off-topic here, but it’s absurd to repeat arguments that have been discredited by everyone but the gun lobby.

No one in the government wants to take your guns away. But for the good of everyone, there need to be limits on what you can own and where you can carry it. Just like, sorry to say, there are laws about how and where you can drive your plated and insured vehicle, Ron O. You have to keep under the posted limit, you can’t drink while you’re driving, and if you want to travel on the freeway, you’ve got to go in the same direction as everyone else. You can’t drive if you’re blind, if you’re 10 years old, or if your car isn’t road-safe. These are rules that are set up because if they weren’t in place more people would die. And you don’t prevent unlawful driving by allowing everybody to drive unlawfully. That would be stupid and dangerous. Sort of like allowing guns into a classroom.

Folks, I will try to be as respectful as I can here, but the “argument” is always the same. Please SHOW ME how Prof. Lott’s assertions have been discredited!? I believe the fact that they don’t support someones emotional arguments cause those people to WISH they could discredit him, but they can’t. See for yourself – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime. The irrational and factless fear is that an otherwise law abiding citizen will somehow turn into an irrational out of control idiot and go on some rampage. The statistics nationally simply don’t support the assertion. “Few” school shootings? Are you living in a box? Talk about selectively quoting facts! We really need to broaden the discussion here, but I realize this is a campus-based forum. Gun free zones in general don’t make sense, don’t work, only honest citizens honor them, which makes a target rich environment for the armed criminal or mental case. How about the recent church shootings? Are we simply ignoring the fact that those casualties were minimized or prevented by an legally armed presence? I assure you that the national trend is more friendly towards personal protection and responsibility. This is not just a Michigan phenomenon – its occurring nationally, and it should. Again, this is an individual decision and contrary to what you may WANT to believe, the US Supreme Court has upheld the 2nd Amendment in a more aggressive and affirmative manner than ever before. A college campus is no different than anywhere else in the state, and should not be singled out for different rules, either stricter or more lax, than any other public building or open space. Let’s all be thankful we live where we can discuss this and other important issues in such a public manner.

Quote:”That would be stupid and dangerous. Sort of like allowing guns into a classroom.”

Yes, Joe, I know you FEEL that way, emotionally. But what factual basis do you have to make this claim? The existing statistics prove you wrong.

A more accurate comparison would be to compare accidental gun deaths cause by CPL holders, not just gun accidents in general.

But hey, don’t let fairness and accuracy override your tightly gripped anti gun mantra

I actually lived with two guys with conceal permits. One, lets call him roomy A, was a true gun nut (and I am saying that in a good way). His homepage on his computer was the NRA website, he knew every law and what he was allowed to do and not to do. He knew proper safety precautions and he practiced shooting often. He may have been the most responsible roommate I have ever had. If everyone who had a gun was like this guy I would have no problems. My other roommate, lets call him roomy B, wanted the permit because he thought it was cool that roomy A had it. He was totally ignorant about guns and all of the rules (which is fixed by the classes). What bothered me is that he was the most irresponsible person I have ever known. He was the type who would get blackout drunk and forget entire nights and start fights with groups of people. This is the type of carrier I am worried about.

If all who carried concealed weapons were the responsible gun owners that usually most NRA members are then it would not be a big deal. But allowing guns on campus would mean more guns in the city (Roomy A and B left theirs at their parent’ house because it wasn’t convenient) which would mean more responsible people with guns along with people carrying her are not so responsible. Sure the responsible ones could protect me, but that is after the people who are not responsible get a shot off.

Overall, this will not be a topic that people agree on. It boils down to the fact that some people are afraid of the world and feel they need protection while some are only afraid of those people.

Vet: nice try, buddy. I’m a gun owner, and so it would be hard for me to spout an anti-gun mantra.

Brian: I say that the incredibly low number of 32 violent deaths per year in school actually makes my case for me that not allowing guns in a classroom is doing a good job of preventing gun deaths. Most gun deaths occur in the home, where the least restrictions on guns are placed. Pretty simple really: more gun deaths occur in the places where guns are allowed. Thanks for playing, though.

BR: I tell you why I don’t want to carry my gun to school, and you tell me I’m emotional. So I give you numbers and you tell me they don’t count, that you want numbers that come from a theoretical situation. And there aren’t numbers available for your fantasy of a gun-filled classroom. It hasn’t happened yet, which makes it difficult to research.

328 shootings in ten years is a minute number, statistically. The classroom and the campus are actually pretty safe, unless, of course, you want to use the few highly publicized incidents to make an emotional, fear-based argument. I’ll stick to the numbers and the facts.

Do you support high school students carrying guns (with the proper CPL, of course)? Middle schoolers? Because the overwhelming majority of these shootings happen in middle and high school, not the college campus. (About 58 of the shootings happened on a college campus).

The other thing that worries me is that as it becomes easier and easier to get a CPL, the quality of the people who are allowed to carry will inevitably go down. I have been convinced that people with permits are genuinely interested in keeping the weapons from doing harm. The people who have argued that on this site have done a good job and I’m sure that they’re responsible when they carry. Which is why it baffles me to hear the same people advocating for reduced standards. You don’t see doctors clamoring to let more people practive medicine. Yet the trend in recent years has been to reduce qualifications for carry permits.

Quote: “It hasn’t happened yet, which makes it difficult to research.”

More like, difficult for you to comprehend. Let’s just say I know of at least two people who place common sense, and the value of their own lives, above an unconstitutional law. I happen to know that they already carry in classrooms, maybe the same one you sat in today. How would you know?

Of course, you’ve already seen 10 shootouts and 5 murders just because of that, right? Get in touch with reality.

You know, Joe, I started to write out a list of the current legally required Disarmed Victim Zones, and ask you what logical, factual, non-emotion based reason there was for any of them. Then I remembered you are objecting to legal CPL carriers in a University, for cryin’ out loud. That’s an institution full of educated (presumably) adults, and I realized, what the heck was the point. You want the 2nd amendment to be strictly a theoretical, paper right- the Joes of the world would be shocked if anybody was actually Bearing Arms.
You have consigned yourself to second class citizenship- you’ll never know what it feels like to walk around as a free armed citizen. Benjamin Franklin had your type of self-subjugating subject in mind in 1759, when he wrote: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

You posed a hpothetical about high schoolers carrying weapons Joe, how about this one, would you support high school teachers carrying weapons to protect themselves and their students? They would of course have to be licensed CCW holders and have gone through all neccessary training. That would make sense, wouldn’t it?