Home » Voices » Columns »

Concealed carry on campus poses no additional dangers

By Jason Gillman on August 27, 2009 9:42 pm in Columns / 35 comments

 
Concealed carry on campus poses no additional dangers

Senate Bill 747 – the one that will remove college campuses from the list of prohibited locations for certified concealed weapon holders – has generated quite the stir. Unfortunately, this stir is generated due to a multitude irrational or illogical preconceptions.

I’ll start by examining one of the most common reasons students don’t like concealed firearms in class: The presence of a firearm makes them feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

It’s called hoplophobia – the irrational fear of firearms. Guess what kids, firearms don’t just discharge on their own. It’s an inanimate object like a baseball bat, pencil or bottle of beer. Someone actually has to operate the thing to make it go bang.

If we are going to use the argument, I could just as easily say I don’t feel safe with people who can bench 2-3 times my body weight being on campus. After all, it wouldn’t take much for them to wreck me, now would it?

Sounds silly, doesn’t it? Yeah, well, it sounds silly when people get concerned just because a firearm might be holstered in close proximity. Here’s another thing to think about: If someone is actually concealing their firearm, couldn’t they just as easily bring it on to campus even if it wasn’t legal?

Of course this leads us into another common, emotionally based argument. More guns in public creates more fear.

It does? Last I checked, the possession of a firearm doesn’t make one anymore prone to go berserk. If someone is going to go crazy, what prevents them from say using a pen or pencil? Maybe throwing someone into a running band saw in a machining class?

In fact, if someone wants to go on a rampage in the first place, how is precluding those with CCW permits from carrying on campus going to stop them? Oh, wait, it’s not.

Then there is the argument that more guns don’t reduce crime. That myth was dispelled in 2001 when Michigan went to a “shall-issue” system (tinyurl.com/n52283). It also was dispelled on a national level in the FBI’s 1992 Uniform Crime Reports:

“Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense.”

I’ll feel safer if Senate Bill 474 is passed, knowing there may be someone armed around me.

 

Tags

Related Posts

 
  • Ben LaMothe

    Pencil ≠ Gun

    Band saw ≠ Gun

    Just an FYI, in case you were having trouble telling the difference between the two.

  • http://TaiMelWillHaden.com Tai Nguyen

    Fear of qualified, reponsible people carrying anywhere is irrational and unfounded. Sure, someone could go crazy with a gun, but what does that have to do with my right? Why restrict the masses because of the loons… especially since the loons don’t play by the rules to begin with?

    Enjoyed the article.

  • Scott

    You’re right a band saw does not equal a gun. You have to be trained and certified to obtain a CPL and carry a pistol. Any fool can operate a band saw with no training what so ever.

  • VT Student

    Jason, you made some good, simple points here. The question is whether or not people will actually consider them. Even here at Virginia Tech, where we should have learned our lesson already, the hysteria of the administration has kept the policy against self-defense in effect.

    People conveniently ignore the fact that there are others carrying guns around them all day long. There are about 5 million people with permits in the country who carry every day, as a just-in-case — similar to wearing your seat belt, having a fire-extinguisher, and having an escape plan. And as of late, many mothers have taken to arms to protect the rising rate of child abductions. Can’t fault them for that.

  • http://TaiMelWillHaden.com Tai Nguyen

    …and another thing…

    I responsibly carry everwhere I’m allowed to carry. The notion that I become an irresponsible lunatic when I step onto a campus is ridiculous.

  • Jeff Fanelli

    There are over 200,000 people in Michigan licensed to carry a pistol (not to mention the thousands of peace officers, who are not required to be licensed to carry on or off duty, of course). This number goes up every year incidentally, despite a shrinking state population. They are carrying in grocery stores, restaurants, libraries, parks, etc, everywhere in the state. The fear that someone licensed to carry is going to somehow do something unsafe on a college campus, where there clearly have not everyone else in the state (math, not opinion), is nonsensical.

  • Pingback: 2009-08-28 Concealed carry on campus poses no additional dangers

  • Joe M.

    Point by point:

    1. Guns are designed to kill from a distance, easily, without the need for the user to be physically imposing. They are not pencils, band saws, or even knives, which can be deadly, but none of which are in the same category as guns. What do our soldiers carry into combat? Pencils?

    2. Guns DO discharge. Not by themselves, it’s true, but the people who operate them (ask any officer of the law or military veteran) do sometimes make mistakes. Loading, unloading, cleaning and servicing weapons create the opportunity for accidental discharge. This happens and it’s stupid and dishonest to say there’s no chance of it happening in a classroom.

    3. Even someone who can bench three times your bodyweight will have a much harder time killing you without a gun than they would with a gun. It takes a lot of hard work to beat someone to death, and a lot of time. A gun can make a hard job very easy and offers a heck of a lot less time for reflection. At some point in a fistfight the adrenaline subisdes and people start thinking again.

    4. It’s not that a firearm makes you “go berserk,” but if you get angry and you have a gun on you, going berserk makes it much more deadly.

    5. You use a classic red-herring (correlation equals causation) argument when you say that crimes were reduced because people started carrying weapons. You ignore a host of other influences when you say that crime is reduced only because people are allowed to carry guns. You also ignore that crime rates in this country have fallen more or less consistently since stats were kept, despite changes in law that allow and disallow concealed carry. I can claim that whenever I wear my favorite green shorts it turns out to be a sunny day. It can even be true. But that doesn’t mean that my green shorts cause the sun to shine.

    6. You may feel safer knowing someone is armed around you, but I’m betting most faculty, staff and students would rather teach and learn in an environment free of compact, deadly weapons.

    7. More people are killed each year by gun accidents than have been killed in all of the mass school shootings combined. For someone who argues against “irrational or illogical preconceptions,” you’ve missed the obvious: you’ve got a better chance of dying accidentally if you carry a gun all the time than you do at the hands of a maniac. You don’t solve a gun violence problem by encouraging people to wear guns everywhere.

  • S. B.

    Joe M.

    Recommend that you be more objective and research facts not just the diatribe and other ‘FUD’ reported by the clearly anti-gun and biased media and other ilk such as Sarah Brady, etc..

    In reponse to your (Joe M.) point to point.

    1. Guns are designed to kill from a distance, easily, without the need for the user to be physically imposing. They are not pencils, band saws, or even knives, which can be deadly, but none of which are in the same category as guns. What do our soldiers carry into combat? Pencils?

    -Truth, Guns are weapons that are designed to fire a projectile resulting from the pressure of burning of gunpowder. The generalness of your statement is a clear indication of your lack of knowledge of fireams and the simple fact that this article deals with with carry of concealed handguns, which in point of fact are designed as personal protection weapons. What do our soldiers carry in combat? Being a veteran and father to two sons (Special Forces and Airborne Ranger) who have and are currently serving in combat; can tell you that they carry MANY tools, Rifles, Pistols, Grenades, Claymore Mines, etc… Your question is insulting as it is irrelevant.

    2. Guns DO discharge. Not by themselves, it’s true, but the people who operate them (ask any officer of the law or military veteran) do sometimes make mistakes. Loading, unloading, cleaning and servicing weapons create the opportunity for accidental discharge. This happens and it’s stupid and dishonest to say there’s no chance of it happening in a classroom.

    -Truth. This article talks about CPL holders. I don’t imagine that anyone is going to be, as you put it, “Loading, unloading, cleaning and servicing weapons” in class or on campus. As a point of fact, if the weapon is removed from the holster for any reason other than to secure it or in response to a LEGITIMATE threat or other reason allowing the use of Deadly Force; it is a violation of the law and it is called Brandishing a Firearm. CPL holders know this. Unlawful folks with firearms do not. Get your facts straight.

    3. Even someone who can bench three times your bodyweight will have a much harder time killing you without a gun than they would with a gun. It takes a lot of hard work to beat someone to death, and a lot of time. A gun can make a hard job very easy and offers a heck of a lot less time for reflection. At some point in a fistfight the adrenaline subisdes and people start thinking again.

    Truth- No I cannot benchpress 3 times my body weight, but I am fairly confident that as an experienced martial artist, I can very easily seriously injure you very quickly. You also seem to forget that perhaps the victim that you say an attacker will have a hard time beating to death may not have the constitution that you do. It is a known fact the many women are alive today just because they had a handgun with which to protect themselves. Try to remember that everyone has the right to protect themselves. Ask the students of Virginia Tech how they feel about this.

    4. It’s not that a firearm makes you “go berserk,” but if you get angry and you have a gun on you, going berserk makes it much more deadly.

    -Truth. If you are going to “go berserk” you dont have to have a pistol on you, you can very easily kill with a car or as in the case of Virginia Tech, you can just go back to the room or trunk of your car and get whatever weapon you choose. CPL holders must go through training, background checks and in Michigan, at least appearence at one Gun Licensing Board reveiw. Again, check with legitimate facts and you will find that CPL holders are the most law abiding stable individuals there are. Suggest you check out MCRGO.org

    5. You use a classic red-herring (correlation equals causation) argument when you say that crimes were reduced because people started carrying weapons. You ignore a host of other influences when you say that crime is reduced only because people are allowed to carry guns. You also ignore that crime rates in this country have fallen more or less consistently since stats were kept, despite changes in law that allow and disallow concealed carry. I can claim that whenever I wear my favorite green shorts it turns out to be a sunny day. It can even be true. But that doesn’t mean that my green shorts cause the sun to shine.

    -Truth. And you’re comparing apples to oranges. FBI crime studies and statistics do not lie, secondly the ONLY remaining 2 states (Illinois and Wisconsin) that do not have provisions for concealed carry permits to private citizens and the STRICTIST gun control laws in the US have the HIGHEST incidents of murder, robbery, and other violent crime. It is my understanding that Chicago is still the murder capitol. In every case and every state where shall issue CPL laws were signed into law, violent crime has sharply decreased. This is because criminals want easy prey, if they think there is the real possibility they could end up hurt, 90% of the time they will not take the chance. Ask any con they’ll tell you. Why do you think crime in illinois especially Chicago is continuously on the rise. Why do you think ‘gun related’ crimes occur in schools, churches and other ‘Pistol Free Zones’. This is because we CPL holders call them “Criminal Empowerment Zones”, only Law Abiding CPL holders disarm themsevles in accordance to the law while in these places, criminals see these areas as ‘Easy Prey’. They know they are safe to commit whatever mayhem they choose without fear. Police? Well ask any cop they will tell you they can’t be everywhere. Tbey show up in time to draw the chalk lines around the victims. BTW perhaps you aren’t aware that the Surpreme Court has held that there is no fundemental requirement for Law Enforcement to protect you. Think about that next time your hoping police show up in time to protect you or your loved ones.

    6. You may feel safer knowing someone is armed around you, but I’m betting most faculty, staff and students would rather teach and learn in an environment free of compact, deadly weapons.

    -Truth. Instead of supposition, perhaps you should ask a few. I would start with the Widow of the professor at Virginia Tech who used the only thing he had to protect his students, his body. Imagine how different the outcome if he has a CPL and was carrying or perhaps one or two of the students. Please don’t discuss the Diane Sawyer “If I Only Had a Gun” segment. That was the most irresponsible piece of journalism (if you call it that) there ever was. Any fool who knew the least bit about firearms and their use was insulted after viewing this clearly anti-gun farce. The whole idea behind concealed carry is that it is CONCEALED. CPL holders dont go around advertising the fact that they are carrying.

    7. More people are killed each year by gun accidents than have been killed in all of the mass school shootings combined. For someone who argues against “irrational or illogical preconceptions,” you’ve missed the obvious: you’ve got a better chance of dying accidentally if you carry a gun all the time than you do at the hands of a maniac. You don’t solve a gun violence problem by encouraging people to wear guns everywhere.

    -Truth. Again your facts are inaccurate. This sounds more like CBS, NBC, DATELINE, and 20-20 ‘Scare Data’. Point of fact there are more people killed by drunk drivers than any type of gun related incidents combined. Based on your comments, baseless misinformed ‘facts’ and points it is also clear that you have a clear dislike of firearms. That is certainly your right and I respect that. My challenge to you is to do a more thorough due-diligence with regard to the number of lives that have been saved most of the time by the mere presence of a handgun while someone was defending themself, they’re loved ones or an innocent 3rd party from Rape, Serious Injury, etc.. The best way to solve gun violence is to enforce the several thousand gun laws already on the books.

    In case you have forgotten, the constitution clealy states and upheld by the supreme court as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (US vs Heller), “The right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

    Respect my Individual right to Keep and Bear Arms as I respect your individual right to choose not to.

  • Joe M.

    S.B.: I own and keep in my home a firearm for defending myself and my family. I have taken firearm safety courses, hunter safety courses, and have had the opportunity (at Boy Scout camp, through Michigan State Police Explorers training, etc.) to learn from a variety of people about firearm safety. Each place I’ve learned about this has stressed that accidents with guns happen. If they didn’t happen, if no one was accidentally killed, then there would be no need for the safety classes, right?

    I enjoy shooting guns. I have shot and qualified Expert level on the F.B.I. handgun test, I’ve placed highly in individual and shooting competitions, and though I don’t own a handgun, it’s not because I am against them, it is only because I’d much rather have a shotgun in a home defense situation.

    So here we go again, point by point.

    1. I don’t bring pencils and band saws into the argument, the writer of the column does by equating them. I’m only saying that you can’t equate guns with pencils or band saws. As for claymores and grenades, we can at least agree that those shouldn’t be carried into the classroom, right? Don’t pretend to be insulted because you’re pretending to miss my point. Gillman claims that a pen or a pencil or a band saw are as deadly as a gun, which we both know is absurd. Geez, and you’re accusing me of making ridiculous arguments.

    2. I’ll give half a point on number two, because you’re right, no one should be loading or cleaning a gun in class. Another thing we agree on. All sorts of common ground (also, we both own and like guns). But I’m again responding to Gillman’s claim that “firearms don’t just discharge on their own,” which seemingly makes the argument that guns are never accidentally discharged.

    I have taken firearm safety courses, hunter safety courses, and have had the opportunity (at Boy Scout camp, through Michigan State Police Explorers training, etc.) to learn from a variety of people about firearm safety. Each place I’ve learned about this has stressed that accidents with guns happen. If they didn’t happen, if no one was accidentally killed, then there would be no need for the safety classes, right? Every cop and hunter I know has a story about a gun going off when no one wanted it to. That’s all I’m saying to Gillman. That guns do, occasionally, go off when no one wants them to.

    3. My point, again in response to Gillman equating something silly (in this case a person who is very strong) to guns, is only that they are more powerful and dangerous than pencils, band saws, body builders and martial artists. If pencils and martial arts were more dangerous than guns, the Bill of Rights would read a little differently, huh? Try to remember that I’m responding to specific things in the article, not pulling things out of thin air. Gillman says that someone who can bench press more than him is the equivalent of a gun. I say a gun is more dangerous than the bodybuilder. Which, again, is why I have one in my home. Cuz I’m too old to lift weights anymore.

    4. I’ll almost concede this point (that CPL holders are well-screened, stable, and unlikely to commit crimes or hurt somone unintenionally with their weapons). That is all true. But, and I don’t know if you’re one of these people, there’s continually a push to make it easier and easier for anyone who wants to carry a weapon in public to do so. By your own admission, standards have been relaxed and this proposed bill is de facto evidence that some people would like to further relax the standards. Eventually, if we make it easier and easier to get a gun and carry it with us everywhere, we’ll find the sort of people that we shouldn’t allow to carry guns. It’s not you. I’m not saying that you, personally shouldn’t have and carry a gun. Just not in the classroom, kay? Or the bar. Or a few other places. I mean, how scared do you have to be to want to carry a gun *everywhere* you go?

    5. I’ll stick with my correlation does not equal causation here because I’m a little too tired to point out again that violent crime has continually fallen in the U.S. for about as long as stats have been kept. If the crime rate is continuously falling, it’s really easy to point at any reason you choose and claim that’s the reason. In fact, I’ll attribute the fall in violent crime to the advent of the Internet and the wide use of cell phones. Or the fact that cable television offers us a wider variety of entertainment options and therefore we just don’t get out of the house (to shoot one another) as much these days. And I’ve provided exactly as much legitimate evidence as you have for your case. I don’t dispute F.B.I. statistics, but I don’t think your simplified argument that more guns equals less crime holds up.

    6. Um. I wasn’t discussing, I haven’t seen, and I have no desire to parrot anything I see on television. I wouldn’t recognize Diane Sawyer on the street and I’ve got almost no patience for television news. I tend to reach my conclusions based on sources other than T.V., although I must say that you seem to watch a lot of it. I don’t have cable, my set is on about once a month for a sporting event I’d really like to see. As for giving me an example of someone who wishes they had had a gun in a certain situation, that’s fair. But I never said that guns wouldn’t come in handy at time (again, it’s why I keep one around). What I said is that there are so FEW college classroom shootings that the potential harm is greater than the benefit. And I don’t mean just the body count. I guess what I’m concerned with is our willingness to declare an end to the moratorium on guns in the classroom. I wouldn’t want to wonder, when I argued with or criticized someone, if they had a gun on them. It changes the nature of an argument, the nature of learning and teaching and battling back and forth with ideas if I know someone is armed. One of the reasons (and please, for the love of God, remember that I said *one of the reasons*) police officers command respect is because they have guns. I behave in a certain way around them partly because I know they have got weapons and that, right or wrong, if they want to win an argument they can. They can draw a weapon and direct me to do what they want. That’s an unfair advantage in an arena where ideas and rhetoric are supposed to rule. If you don’t want to be somewhere without a gun, don’t go there. If I were uncomfortable around guns, I wouldn’t go to a shooting range. Students have a right to a classroom that is free of firearms, just as CPL holders have a right to carry their guns most places. There is balance in restricting carriers from a few places and allowing them to carry in most of them.

    7. When did we start talking about drunk drivers, S.B.? I was talking about accidental gun deaths and you brought something totally irellavent into it. Did you say something about apples and oranges earlier?

    You wanna know how many people have been killed in school shootings since 2000? This number includes United States primary, elementary and high schools and ALL colleges and universities worldwide. 324. In ten or so years. 324. Then let’s take a look at the lowest number of accidental gun deaths in just one year of a five year stretch (numbers from Free Republic, which I doubt you’ll dispute). In 2005 (again, the LOWEST number in any year between 2002 and 2006) there were 630 accidental gun deaths in the U.S. Close to double the number of school shootings that took place over ten years.

    I resent (but in a playful way) your accusation that I am biased against guns just because I don’t want them in the classroom. I agree that guns have saved lives. I agree that they can deter crime. I own one for that reason. (I feel the need to stress this because you’ve mischaracterized me as anti-gun, which I’m not).

    As for your statement that “the best way to solve gun violence is to enforce the thousands of gun laws on the books,” I think it shows a lack of imagination. The best way to curb gun violence would be to turn all guns into unicorns or fairies. This is not what I suggest as an answer to gun violence, because it would be too expensive. I don’t actually have any solutions for gun violence that have to do with guns.

    My solutions for gun violence don’t center around trying to prevent violent, crazy people from killing by killing them first. They have more to do with ending our culture’s fascination with and support of violence. They have to do with ending misogny, bigotry and intolerance, but that’s a whole ‘nother argument and it’s gotten late.

    I don’t hate guns. I just don’t think you should be able to carry them everywhere you go. The airport, the judicial courts, and classrooms seem to be pretty good exceptions to the concealed carry rule.

  • Not a Gun Nut

    Wow- this certainly has stirred quite the response. In general, spirited dialog is a good thing. Let me add my two cents without sounding like a broken record.

    We’re forgetting the absolute basics here. The fact that the presence of an object/tool/device making someone uncomfortable is not an argument. Plenty of people are afraid of elevators, cars, airplanes, tall buildings, etc, but no one is trying to outlaw them. This is NOT about the people who DON’T like/want/need firearms. It’s about those who do and whether the laws should protect their rights. We just had a situation downstate where an 18 year old was KILLED with a deadly weapon – a golf club. It’s not the device, folks – its the BEHAVIOR. Will the community move to ban/license/regulate golf clubs? More people are killed DAILY by automobiles than annually by firearms. The anti-gun rhetoric is just that; emotional, illogical conclusions made by the uninformed and uneducated (about firearms at least) public trying to exert their fears, will, emotions on the rest of us. Well, frankly, I’m sick of it. Its not just the guns on campus argument (as if a campus is some hallowed ground – its not) but the guns are bad and good people don’t need them argument. Quit trying to tell me what I can and can’t do with my own destiny/safety/security for myself and my family. This law could pass tomorrow, go into immediate effect and you know what would happen? NOTHING !! Not until some kook tried to replay Virginia Tech ( or Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn – did we forget about that one? ) would anyone even notice. CMU has a great campus PD with a very visible presence but you know what? I don’t want a student to have to rely on them to stop carnage occurring in front of them. How many people will die in a 90 second response time scenario? Wake up guys!! Smell the gunpowder and cordite before its too late.

  • Joe M.

    Not a Gun Not: On one hand you say that guns aren’t dangerous. You point out that cars kill more people and that you can even kill someone with a golf club. On the other hand, you point out how dangerous gun are by saying that any nut could use one to shoot up a campus. Which is it? Are they dangerous enough that we all need to carry them at all times so that we can stop people from shooting one another? Or are they so unfailingly benign that they are responsible for none of the evil in the world?

    You present the argument that gun rights are a one-way street: people should be allowed to carry guns wherever they want and anyone who objects is out of luck. This isn’t how society works. It isn’t even how gun laws work. You can’t carry your gun on an airplane, in a court of law, etc., and for good reason. There are places that should be free from guns, and the classroom is one of those places. We have laws that limit behavior in a thousand different ways, and I’m willing to bet you’d agree with most of those limitations. You can’t drive 120 miles per hour through a school zone. You can’t threaten someone’s life if you don’t like them. You can’t own a tank or a fighter jet or a grenade. Yet people can’t seem to accept a few very conservative limits to where you can carry a gun.

    You claim that my pretty reasonable objection to handguns in the classroom is “anti-gun rhetoric,” when in fact, I’ve got nothing against guns and I’ve got one within easy reach as I write this. But I don’t need to carry it with me wherever I go.

    I am sort of sick of people equating guns with bludgeoning and knives and any other number of objects that CAN be used to kill. Sure, I can kill someone with a can of paint or an I-phone, but I can’t do it nearly as easily as if I had a gun, a tool that is designed to kill. The gun I own and keep in my house is designed to kill. I wouldn’t have it if it couldn’t kill, I’d have something else that would protect my family.

    Why is it that people who want guns in the classroom can’t stop talking about how many people are killed by cars or by drunk drivers? No one is advocating for an increase in drunk driving in the classroom, but there are people advocating for bringing deadly weapons into the classroom. It just isn’t necessary. Let’s stick to talking about guns, huh?

    The fact is that the number of school shootings, especially on college campuses, is so low that more harm than good is done by allowing people to carry concealed weapons on campus. In the last TEN YEARS, only 328 school shootings have occurred. That works out to 32.8 deaths per year (and this includes high school, middle school, and college campus shootings). Gun accidents count for at least 630 PER YEAR (630 is the lowest number of gun deaths between 2002 and 2006). These numbers are from the Center for Disease Control, which doesn’t really have an axe to grind, ya know?

  • http://none Gimmick

    Stop for a moment and put an answer to each of these questions.

    Do you as a human have the right to defend yourself?

    Do you as a human have the responsibility to defend yourself?

    Do others have the right to limit your reasonable self defenses?

    The founding fathers observed that your right to self defense is a “self evident” right. And our constitution of The United States of America as well as MANY of the State’s Constitutions are designed to protect your right to self defense. And in doing so, to ensure that if your government is totally corrupted, you would have the means to remove it, and start again.

    As self defense is your right, it is also your responsibility. Ask any one in law enforcement and you’ll quickly find that they are not there to protect you. They are there to protect the law.

    Some may say that this is the same thing. The fact of the matter is it is not. When the police officer shows up on the scene of a gun fight, he is there to stop the law breakers. He is not there to protect you. If he can, he will, but you are not top on the list. It’s in the law, research it and you’ll find out.

    As it is your right, it is unconstitutional for the Government, or anyone for that matter to prevent you from reasonably defending yourself.

    A gun is a perfectly reasonable method for self defense. While there are other means for self defense, you will quickly discover the foolishness in taking a knife to a gun fight.

    The since self defense is a right, that alone should over rule any further arguments in the matter. However for those of you who feel you don’t have the right to defend yourself, let us address the logic of disarming the law abiding citizens.

    Since we are no longer deciding what we should do by our “rights”, we will look at the logic.

    The criminal would welcome a disarmed society. It would give him great peace of mind knowing that he has the upper hand over the unarmed law abiding citizen. Conversely, the criminal in an armed society would find a honest days work easier money that a hold up.

    Suppose your girlfriend has dumped you, you’ve lost your part time job, your in debt up to your eyeballs, and you can’t see any reason to keep on living. A perfectly reasonable thing to suppose. Whether you want to admit it or not, some people are this way.

    Now suppose you are mad at the world, and want to kill as many people as you can before taking your own life. Maybe you think you’re doing them a favor, maybe you’re in pain, and you want others to feel it too. Regardless of your motives, what would be the best way to achieve this? You’d use the best available tool for the job. A gun. If you really knew your weapons, a rifle would do the best job, but if not, a hand gun would be cheaper, and easier to conceal.

    You’d also have to pick the location, and even a dumb person can figure out that you’d go where you’d find the most amount of people, and the least amount of resistance. The unarmed portion of society. I’m sure you can figure out where THAT is.

    Why would it make any sense to disarm the law abiding citizens and not the criminals? By definition the criminal’s won’t obey the law. And history tells us very quickly we don’t and can’t do a good enough job at disarming everyone, to make SURE we disarm the criminal too. I’m sure the guy from Virginia Tech can attest to that.

    It just makes much more sense that we allow everyone to defend themselves. Statistics show that Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

    Of the 2.5 million times, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

    As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

    Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

    Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”

    Logically, it just doesn’t make any sense to disarm law abiding citizens.

    Stop playing around with the big picture and find out what you believe is right, and what you believe is wrong. Should you defend yourself or your loved ones if you can? Should someone else be allowed to make it so you can’t?

    Once you’ve decided, you can work at making the man-made laws line up with what you believe by voting. I hope my words have made some of you come to a conclusion on the matter. Because the fact of the matter is you have a responsibility to search out the truth. And once you know it, you have a responsibility to tell others.

    Tim D.

  • Robert

    Gimmick,

    Do you realize how decptive it is to use numbers like:

    “Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year”

    or

    “As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse”

    In a country of over 300 million people even a number as large as 2.5 million people is statistically insignificant. It is unfortunate that so many people have to defend themselves in such a way but to use them as an example to portray the whole of our society is an irresponsible manipulation of the numbers.

  • Vet

    I’d like to see you face those 2.5 milllion people and tell them they are statistically insignificant. In fact I’d like to see you face just 1.

    Sorry, you just lost right there

  • Joe M.

    Gimmick– the name says it all.

    We were talking about expanding CPL rights to include college campuses, not taking away guns or the right to self-defense. And it’s really easy to create hypothetical things that could happen at a school. It’s tougher to argue the real numbers: 328 school deaths in ten years. A fraction of those occur on college campuses. On the street, in people’s homes, in bank robberies, criminals are using guns at a pretty good clip. But they’re just not hitting college campuses all that hard, with one or two spectacular exceptions.

    So, back to the debate about college campuses, because what you’re talking about (2.5 million, etc.) is barely relevant (or intelligible). No one on this site is discussing disarming the citizenry. You’re in the wrong message board. We’re talking about whether it makes sense to have a few places where CPL holders aren’t allowed to carry their guns. I maintain that the college campus is safe enough that guns are not needed for defense in the classroom. Some other folks would like to carry them there. Or, rather, some folks have already indicated that they are *already* carrying guns into the classroom (see other thread on concealed permits, etc.)

    I’m tempted to digress and ask you what you think your chances are of forcibly removing our government, even as well-armed as you might think you are, if it needed to be removed. But again, that’s a whole ‘nother thread.

  • Not a Gun Nut

    Joe M – I really hate to single out an individual or comment, but you last post truly offended me. What if YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER were one of those killed or permanently disabled by one of those “spectacular exceptions”? How can you so easily dismiss their rights – which is exactly what you’re doing! Just imagine how ridiculous your argument would sound if it related to free speech (1st Amendment), search and seizure ( 4th ) or voting ( 15th and 19th ). Yet you are so quick to dismiss a college student or faculty’s rights under the 2nd – RIGHTS not privileges. As a gun owner, it seems you don’t deserve or appreciate the rights the 2nd Amendment grants you, as you so easily modified, codified or dismissed it entirely in a geographic centered discussion. The AREA, be it a classroom, church, bar, hospital or other common “gun free” zone ( YES I advocate eliminating them ALL!!) is irrelevant – its the ABILITY to exercise equally a right which, at least in this state, you’ve already had to jump through twenty hoops to secure! How about VERMONT? NO CCW NEEDED PERIOD? ALASKA? Are either of these states wild west style shooting galleries? Of course not. If you can justify putting YOUR FAMILY at risk because of others paranoia’s, go right ahead. I choose to not allow YOUR feelings to interfere with MY RIGHTS. Sorry.

  • AntiCitizenOne

    “intimidation and fear in a learning environment”

    might want to take out all the anatomy courses in medical school then, ‘coz people are running around with scalpels and scissors and bonesaws.

    Oh wait.

  • AntiCitizenOne

    Plus, why don’t you ask all the Utah people to see how they’re holding up?

  • Edmund

    I conceal carry almost everywhere except where I enter a federal building. Yes, it’s almost impossible as a NH resident to obtain a Massachusetts or Rhode Island CCW permit.

    But I already have one: the Second Amendment.

    I refuse to allow the state to dictate to me what level of protection I can provide my family of four small children when that same state can’t be held responsible for not protecting them.

    My snub-nosed five shot .38 revolver is simply a defensive weapon that gives me an option in the direst extreme.

  • Joe M.

    Sorry for my absence from this discussion, I had a bathroom to paint.

    There are limits to all of the amendments to the constitution, like it or not. Just because you happen to disagree with a certain limitation does not make it illegal. It’s that simple.

    You may not yell “fire” in a crowded theatre (1st), the government is now free to sieze, without warrant, email and telephone communication (4th amendment). Convicted felons are not allowed to vote in some states (15th and 19th). And YOU are not allowed to carry guns into a classroom. It’s telling that those who have actually responded to my question about whether there should be places where guns are not allowed are not willing to give them up anywhere. What fearful lives you must lead to need a gun every single place you go.

    Not a Gun Nut: You don’t HAVE that right. The courts, the legislature, and the Excutive (that’s three out of three branches of government– your representative government) all agree: there are limits to what type of weaponry you can have, where you can have it, and when you can’t. It doesn’t matter if you happen to agree. If the law passes in Michigan and allows you to carry it onto campus, I may not agree with it, but I won’t argue that it’s still illegal. Go look up how a democratic republic functions and come on back when you’ve got a clue.

    Plus, several people have mentioned on this board that they’re carrying wherever the hell they want, anyway. That’s their choice, but I’m going to guarantee that in a court of law their “The 2nd amendment is my CPL” arguement will work about as well as wet powder.

    Not a Gun Nut: My son or daughter has a better chance of being killed riding a schoolbus on the way to school than being shot in a classroom. If they die on a bus, or if they die in a classroom by gunfire, they are still dead. Tragedy happens. In the instance we’re discussing it happens very, very, very rarely, but it happens. I’d be devestated. I don’t know how I’d react. It’s a hypothetical situation. I can create a hypothetical situation where some nut with a CPL illegally carries their gun into a classroom and, mistaking innocent horseplay for violence, opens fire and kills a few kids. See, hypotheticals are easy.

    I just talked to my buddy with a CPL this week. I told him about our conversation and he laughed at the idea of needing his gun in school. I was beginning to think that everyone with a CPL thought like ya’ll, but there’s hope for rational thought, yet.

    I wish you all good luck pushing that law through. I don’t think it’s going to happen, but if it does I’ll accept it. You know, like we do in a republic. Even if we don’t get our way.

  • Pam

    Joe M. : I really must applaud you. Each time I’ve read any of the responses I’ve disagreed with you’ve already responded with very similar things as I would have said.

    For others it really helps to think in statistical terms. Think of ALL of the colleges and universities in the U.S. Now think of all the students that attend those settings. Now multiple that figure out for a school year. Now find the number of students that were killed from a shooting occurring at a school (even ignoring whether the gun was concealed or not concealed, or whether the incident was intentional or accidental). Now divide the number of deaths in a school year by the total number of students and you’ll have a rough percentage of the odds of being shot in a school setting.

    Granted this is a late night posting and I’m not taking the time to figure out how many students there are vs how many deaths there are by school shootings…but you get the idea. The chances of you being shot are astronomically small. I’m pretty sure there are more people who die in plane crashes each year.

    –> On a different note from what I’ve read about the 2nd amendment right, it does not guarantee your right to conceal arms; it protects your right to bear arms – which in my opinion regardless of what varying state laws say are really 2 completely different things.

  • AntiCitizenOne

    fearful lives we lead? In this case, I guess everyone who buckles up in the car is fearful too.

    some permit holders could tell you they carry everywhere they go, but if you met them in person you probably couldn’t tell the difference were you not told earlier that they carry everywhere they go.

    I hope I never have to use mine is all I’m going to say.

    How does being constantly aware and “switched on” translate into paranoid? Paranoia bleeds into your life and severely hampers normal societal interactions – something that has YET to be seen.

    So quit generalizing.

    And it’s not about carrying at school, it’s about carrying to-and-from school. I go to school in Richmond, VA, where crime is somewhat high – and a few weeks ago, a string of robberies occurred near some student apartments and near my own house – originally thought to be a safe area – what do the loons at VCU do? Step up patrols ON campus but not beyond it. And the security escort service? Unarmed. You are forced to disarm when you cross some imaginary border – idiocy at it’s highest.

  • Ben Foerg

    It’s amazing to me that this ignorant of an argument was allowed to be published in a university regulated newspaper. I’m not afraid of guns themselves; I’m afraid of the people with the guns. I don’t see how that’s an irrational fear. While I’ll give you the notion that having a gun doesn’t make someone more prone to “go berserk,” it does give the people who are prone to “going berserk” a tool to go berserk with. We’ve all witnessed stupidity on campus. Whatever it’s due to, it’s there. Why give a population of people who are in little to no danger to begin with (I say this because of the relatively low crime rate at Central) the ability to create danger? We don’t live in a dangerous are. We do not have any necessity for firearms. People in Detroit? Maybe. People in Washington D.C.? Perhaps. People in Mount Pleasant? Definitely not. For the record, I am fearful of allowing students on campus to have firearms. Yes, I am one of these misinformed, poor students who just can’t come to terms with “the truth.” Carrying around an inaminate object like a pencil isn’t the same as carrying around an inanimate object like a gun.

  • Joe M.

    Ben, you’re forgetting that *everyone* that has a CPL is a model citizen and a totally responsible gun owner, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to obtain one. Oh, except for this guy:

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/boston_emt_accu.html

    He just shot two of his friends with his registered, concealed weapon because he was drunk at a party. What would have been an argument that no one remembered in the morning turned into a double-shooting. The shooter was an EMT and a solid guy. But he had his gun on him at a place that was innappropriate. I’ve been hearing for weeks that there are no places that guns should be limited. Which is stupid and dangerous.

    Sure, I’m cherry-picking an example, but that’s what people who want guns on campus have been doing for weeks. College campuses are safe, statistically and atmospherically. Guns and drunk kids don’t mix. If you want the examples of drunk kids, look at CM-Life’s Main Street coverage from the weekend.

  • hooah

    I am a 19 year old who lives in Texas. I have a 20 gauge shotgun in my apartment in the case that somebody decides to try to break in (which happened 3 doors down last week). Last night there was a man trying to hustle two young women (18-20) out of ten dollars when he began to get rough. I was on my porch smoking a cigarette at the time and I reached inside and chambered a round to get his attention as a cocking shotgun tends to do. The man immediately ran off into the night. My gun may have saved these girls from a robbery or worse from the look of this gentlemen. I await my 21st birthday not so I can drink but so I can carry a gun. And yes I believe that we should be able to carry on campus. Although it has been said time and time again and it sounds like a rediculous thing, the bad people will bring them on campus, and if the time comes, I would rather have one to fight for my life and the lives of those around me instead of running unarmed.

  • hooah

    Joe M.
    This guy may have gotten drunk and shot his friends, but as a person with a license he should have known when he started to drink to unarm. My brother is a 23 year old 2nd LT in the Air Force and he carries everywhere that is legal. When he decides to drink the first thing he does before taking a sip is put his gun in the trunk of his car. Granted I’m not as educated as you I believe it was personal ignorance that caused that tragedy. (also not picking a fight, just giving example)

  • Joe M.

    Hooah: I’m glad you were able to help out some folks. I’ve got a 12 gauge myself, and I use it for home protection. But I’ve never felt the need to carry a gun into a classroom or a dorm building. Our classrooms are safe, statistically and experientially. The people with whom I’ve conversed on this message board have yet to challenge the basic statistics that point to this.

    I’ve never claimed that people with CPLs are irresponsible, just that there are times and places where guns shouldn’t be allowed. The great majority of carriers will never hurt anyone through intent or neglect. I’m simply providing a counter to the claims people have made that every CPL holder abides by the law every single time just because there’s a background check and a basic level of competence.

    I’ve had a nice time reading all the posts of various people and responding. I’m not looking for a fight, either, since I don’t take this stuff personally. It’s great to get other perspectives and think about things I might not otherwise have considered.

  • http://link Miss86

    They include social skills development and sensitization to social issues, as well as opportunities to participate in volunteer efforts through debates, theatre, music and creative writing, simulation games, and adventure activities. ,

  • http://digg.com/d31ErtN Pam

    ps happy 2010! :D

  • CPL holder

    Right now I carry everywhere on campus, with the exception of dorms and classrooms, as the law currently allows. Does it really matter that I’m not carrying in those two places? What could possibly happen if I did? I’m quite sure you wouldn’t even know it was there – no one has yet. Plus, if I have to go into either of those two places, I have to leave the gun in the car, making it potentially accessible to a criminal who might break into my car. Then you have a criminal with my gun, rather than me, a law-abiding citizen. Another thought – I wonder if any of the VT victims wish that someone in that classroom was carrying. Probably would have changed the outcome…

  • CPL holder

    @ Ben and Joe:

    Your are right – a gun is not a pencil. Try defending yourself from a campus shooter with a pencil, you will quickly learn the difference. Also, @ Joe, you are right – I am a veteran, and I can testify that accidents can happen if people do not follow gun safety rules when cleaning and disassembling. However, I don’t believe anyone will be cleaning or disassembling their weapons in class :-) They will be concealed – you won’t even see them. Pulling out your weapon without cause is still illegal.

    Also keep in mind that our discussion here only applies to law-abiding citizens – crazy people are still free to walk in and open fire, regardless of the law, or how any of us feel about it. Try calling the cops while you’re being shot at, and see if they show up before you stop breathing.

    By the way, open carry is legal, even on campus – do you want us to start showing up open carrying? I’m guessing most people in college would rather not see the guns – it tends to create tension with some types :-)

  • Slizzut

    I have a ccw permit and I carry here and there. Although I carry it < 20% of the average day, I especially like to carry when I attend classes at UVU – Utah Valley University – where I am a current student. It gives me a sense of security knowing I have a way to defend myself and others if a situation presents itself. Even in a fairly low crime area such as Orem/Provo, Utah I still feel the need to carry to school. This part of town is rather low crime. And I know from experience that areas in the US where the population is mostly one religion and middle class, crime is generally lower. We have a very low crime rate here but it still happens. I totally approve legally carrying whenever and wherever the law permits, especially at night, in a good neighborhood, at school, or anywhere else.

    I disagree with your statement, saying in different words but making clearly known your feelings, “that there is no need to carry to class or dorm rooms.” I say this because bad things happen at schools which are often out of our control. I also find it extremely hypocritical that you carry a shotgun in your home for “home protection” but then you say, again in different words but the context is obvious, “As a dormitory liver one should not have need for a gun to protect their home.” Why not, because they live in a dorm and dorms are totally safe? What about Ted Bundy? He preyed on dorm women. If one of his many, maybe an early victim, was carrying in one of the several dorms he picked how many college aged female lives might or could have been saved? I know concealed weapons were not allowed back then but what if? Lots of felonies happen in dorms and to those who live in them. There are hundreds of felonies happen each year to those whom simply attend school. I know that more felonies are committed in schools and on school campuses, including the robbing of dorms, and raping (and in at least Bundy's case the killing) of women than in any other area of equal size.

    In or at school cars are broken into; people are assaulted after gym class for playing a game too physically. Other students are hazed. Some of these hazing rituals are not wanted and felonious.

    I have late labs where I, and the women in the lab, don't walk out to our vehicles until 12am or later. There have been several reports of assaults and even 1 of rape. It is now school policy that women, if possible, be accompanied by at least 1 man they know, or travel as a group. Also, If possible, that 2 or more men leave at the same time. For me it is so important to carry at these times because I not only hold my life and personal comfort, but the lives and comfort of those I walk out with. Some are my friends, and some I don't know. But I took the responsibility to walk them to their car at 12 in the morning or later so I gladly take the responsibility to protect them. I will carry and continue to carry into my classrooms for that reason and for freak times such as the W. VA. shooting. If I had been there with my Glock .45 I sure as hell would have stopped at least a few meaningless deaths. It is legal in at least Utah to carry a concealed weapon with the proper permit to a state run school and has been as far back as the W. VA. tragedy. The Utah Supreme Court recently ruled to uphold the right that it’s legal to carry a handgun, with a legal permit, in any state ownedrun school. Look up the facts on college and dorm felonies before saying you don’t think there is a need to carry, then come back and say you still think one has no need to carry there!

  • slizzut

    It's legal to carry any legally permitted gun into any state run college in many states and for sure in the state of Utah. It has been for a long time and was just ruled on by the Utah State Supreme Court that it IS STILL LEGAL to do so. It's legal to carry in most anyplace that is state owned unless a sign is posted stating: “No Firearms,” such as in courthouses and federal buildings. Your argument makes little sense in some places….

    Such as, “some nut with a CPL illegally carries their gun into a classroom and, mistaking innocent horseplay for violence, opens fire and kills a few kids. See, hypotheticals are easy.” …..

    You are legally required to be 21 to receive a permit in most states and 18 in all the others. what KID is going to innocently, illegally ((even tho he has been trained to carry the gun, and his legal CPL/CCW allows him to carry it into virtually all buildings without a No Firearms sign)) horseplay with his legally issued and trained CCW gun and shoot someone? That's retarted!

    I carry my gun when I feel I should, like to school when I have to walk girls out to their cars at Midnight or later, especially when there have been reports of assault and its a rule that women leaving that late have to go in a group or have a man they know walk then out. This is in Utah too, which statistically has a very low serious crime rate state. So maybe you're 6'5″ 250lbs and can take on a truck but for the rest of us we'll feel good about carrying our CF to school everyday.

    Other times I carry is when I feel I might need it such as going on vacation with my wife. Again i'm not Jet Li or Chuck Norris or Vin DieseI, I fear for the life of my wife and it's my duty to protect her so there's another real good reason I carry.

    The more responsible people that legally carry guns, the better this nation will be. When more people have guns, less crime statistics have been proven over and again. Do your research before saying ignorant things just because you don't like CCW's.

  • Driver

    “I’ll feel safer if Senate Bill 474 is passed, knowing there may be someone armed around me.” That sounds positively Orwellian?

  • CMU Observer

    I remember the days you could keep your deer hunting rifle in the dorm rooms.