Students Debate Over The Right To Carry On Campus

[MJS]

Saw this in my local paper and thought it was worth discussing.
http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-guns-on-campus-0417.artapr17,0,3888689.story

Philip Axelrod and Sara Adler say they don't want to be defenseless targets.

"There are people out there who are off-balance and who shoot up schools," Axelrod, 20, said. "I don't want to be caught up in a situation where I have to lay down and die."

Axelrod, a University of Connecticut student, and Adler, who attends Central Connecticut State University, are leading "empty holster" protests next week at both schools to lobby for the right to carry concealed handguns on campus. Although state law permits eligible people 21 and older to carry handguns, student conduct codes at both universities prohibit possession of firearms on campus.

The weeklong protest — which launches Monday, the 10th anniversary of the mass killings at Columbine High School in Colorado — is being held to raise awareness about a national organization, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus [ www.concealedcampus.org]. The group advocates self-defense and seeks to form a front line against another slaughter like the one at Virginia Tech in 2007.

 

[astrobiologist]

This is just Tit-for-Tat thinking. "they used guns" "we need guns" "we have guns" "they have more guns" "we need more guns" "they have assault rifles" "we have grenades"... That is a slippery slope, I'll give ya that, but the thinking is definitely degressive. I would guess that most of those students would be intelligent about carrying their guns, but there would be those who would be "tough guys" with their guns. The best defense is not just a good offense. The best way to stop school violence is to get to the heart of the matter; the shooters and the society that creates them.

 

[Twin Fist]

uh yeah, sure.

maybe if we just start loving them as babies, they wont grow up to be shooters.

prob true, but totally irrelevant and useless as a means of defense NOW.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I can see both sides of the argument. I think allowing them to carry, in a safe and responsible manner, is the best solution. Those who "show off", those who cause problems, and certainly those who can't legally carry, should not have that privilege.

 

[celtic_crippler]

The waters always get muddied in these debates when the issues are actually pretty clear IMHO...

• You have a right to protect yourself.
• Those that are intent on causing harm & havoc will find a way to do so; most often illegally so more rules solve nothing especially when you can't enforce the ones we already have.
• If you have no method of defending yourself you will likely become a victim given the right circumstances.

Based on those simple facts, why begrudge someone from carrying if they are legally able to do so? And by "legally" I mean are not previous felons convicted of a violent crime.

 

[Sukerkin]

Quite so, CC.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is just Tit-for-Tat thinking. "they used guns" "we need guns" "we have guns" "they have more guns" "we need more guns" "they have assault rifles" "we have grenades"... That is a slippery slope, I'll give ya that, but the thinking is definitely degressive.

This is not a game of cards. I throw a ten, you throw a jack, so I have to throw a queen, etc. The rules are more simple:

BG has gun - I have no gun. I die.
BG has gun - I have gun. I might live.
BG has big gun - I have gun. I might live.
BG has grenade - I have gun. I might live.

There's no escalation and no slippery slope. I don't and can't know what kind of weapon a BG has. But if I have no weapon, I will be a victim. If I have one, I might not.

I would guess that most of those students would be intelligent about carrying their guns, but there would be those who would be "tough guys" with their guns.

'Twas said about concealed carry in general. There would be 'blood in the streets', as predicted by the anti-gun lobby. There were even made-for-TV movies about it, I remember them well. The hysteria was amazing. The bloodbath never happened. Honest, law-abiding citizens overwhelmingly remain honest, law-abiding citizens. The few who cannot abide by the rules of society get sorted in short order.

The best defense is not just a good offense. The best way to stop school violence is to get to the heart of the matter; the shooters and the society that creates them.

Yeah, well, while we're working on that, perhaps it would be good to let students protect themselves.

 

[girlbug2]

"Students for Gun Free Schools [studentsforgunfree- schools.org], say colleges anStudents for Gun Free Schools [studentsforgunfree- schools.org], say colleges and guns don't mix. To improve security, the group advocates better monitoring of student behavior and improved screening of gun buyers, among other stepsd guns don't mix. To improve security, the group advocates better monitoring of student behavior and improved screening of gun buyers, among other steps"

How the heck do they propose to do that?

 

[blindsage]

BG has gun - I have no gun. I die.
BG has gun - I have gun. I might live.
BG has big gun - I have gun. I might live.
BG has grenade - I have gun. I might live.

There is a big problem with your analogy, especially in this OP context. The reality of your first statment is:
BG has gun - I have no gun. I might live.
In a one-on-one confrontation your initial scenario is much more likely. In a shooting spree, all of the possible outcomes are the same- I might live, I might die.

I don't carry, I'm not a big gun fan, but I'm also not anti-gun. I don't have a problem with people being able to own guns in general. What I object to is the seeming lack of objective rational thinking on both sides of the argument. In this case I'm not necessarily against students being able to carry guns, if all the legalities are observed, but I do question the rationale of 'there's shooters out there, so I need a gun to defend myself'. I'm not particulary fond of the idea of some random person, of God knows what level of training, adding to the gunfire in a shooting context. If it could be guaranteed that there was some kind of high standard training requirement and live scenario training for all carry permits then I might feel safer, but otherwise, not so much. Having a gun might make the carrier feel safer, but what about everybody else? They're only going to make everybody safer if they really know what the f*** they're doing. Guarantee me that and I'll give you my vote.

 

[CoryKS]

I would guess that most of those students would be intelligent about carrying their guns, but there would be those who would be "tough guys" with their guns.

Yes but those "tough guys" would have to deal with the the fact that other students may be carrying, as opposed to the situation we have now where the lone wacko knows he's the only one with a gun.

 

[astrobiologist]

Don't get me wrong,

I'm not saying we should slap these little murderers on the wrist and try to rehabilitate them. I do think they're pretty screwed up to think that mass murder is okay and acceptable. The problem is, in our society, a lot of those who conduct these killings think that they will find some level of power and respect from what they've done. We ingrain in these children that it's okay to act out whatever stupidity is going through their heads without any retribution. We need to give up on that "no child left behind" and "hugs and kisses" type of thinking and start giving our children discipline. I'm not saying beat the kids in school, but they definitely need to know that acting out is not okay. American teachers these days always have to worry about what the students parents may get upset about.

Our judicial system is known to take it too easy on those who've committed harsh crimes, but go way overboard on punishment for petty crimes. I spent four days in jail in Virginia for a speeding ticket. Those four days were like day-care. We played cards, watched tv, and had fun. Even the guys who were there for violent crimes were relxing and enjoying their stay.

I say, a great way to find at least some resolve for this problem is to stop taking it easy on criminals and stop letting kids get their way in school.

I'm totally all for campus safety. Indeed, I carried, and still carry, a knife at most times. It's a helpful tool that can be used as a very deadly weapon. I'm just afraid that if some students start carrying guns, other students who are unsure as to whether or not said students are going to reponsibly handle their firearms may then feel the need to carry, and then we'll have an abundance of guns - that in no way fixes the problem. A shooter who starts blasting people away is still going to succeed. They'll just surprise as many victims as possible, which is usually the case anyway.

There are a few murders in York, PA every year (a few minutes from my home). I go to the city sometimes to go to the bar or a restaurant. I'm not gonna pack my heat when I head out, though. If everyone started carrying guns, I think I'd have more to fear when I go out. Then I'd have to worry a lot more about who the shooter is gonna be. If everyone downtown were carrying guns, I think I'd just stay home. Let them have their war and die as they please.

We need a more disciplined society. That will actually work towards fixing the problem. Punish killers - kill them. Punish rapists - kill them. Discipline children. Stop babying children. There's no need to sugarcoat it.

Like I said in my first response, most of those students would most likely be fairly intelligent and responsible about carrying a firearm. The problem is, if we actually allow the students to carry arms then the shooters will also be carrying, everyday, all the time, ready to blow whenever... I know some of you will say that it doesn't make a difference, but I think it does.

What would you say about high school students? Should we let high school students carry, just in case. Of course not. Remember a lot of college 'kids' go straight to college from high school and there are many who, at least apparantly, are still sophomoric in their behaviors and choices. I just don't think getting armed is going to fix this problem.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

This is just Tit-for-Tat thinking. "they used guns" "we need guns" "we have guns" "they have more guns" "we need more guns" "they have assault rifles" "we have grenades"... That is a slippery slope, I'll give ya that, but the thinking is definitely degressive. I would guess that most of those students would be intelligent about carrying their guns, but there would be those who would be "tough guys" with their guns. The best defense is not just a good offense. The best way to stop school violence is to get to the heart of the matter; the shooters and the society that creates them.

No. This is a student body scared that they will be nothing but victims if someone comes into their school trying to kill them.

And I take issue of "the society that creates them." Show me in what way society created these people.

I can see both sides of the argument. I think allowing them to carry, in a safe and responsible manner, is the best solution. Those who "show off", those who cause problems, and certainly those who can't legally carry, should not have that privilege.

I'm not sure if you meant it this way, but privilege??? How is something guarenteed by the U.S. Constitution a privilege.

If it could be guaranteed that there was some kind of high standard training requirement and live scenario training for all carry permits then I might feel safer, but otherwise, not so much.

You want guarantees? I don't know where you could ever find that in regards to anything. How do you guarantee that no innocent will never get hurt.

If everyone started carrying guns, I think I'd have more to fear when I go out. Then I'd have to worry a lot more about who the shooter is gonna be. If everyone downtown were carrying guns, I think I'd just stay home. Let them have their war and die as they please.

You may be more scared, but the statistics don't prove you right. It has been shown in the U.S. that states with "shall issue" concealed carry permits have less violent crime.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Students for Gun Free Schools [studentsforgunfree- schools.org], say colleges anStudents for Gun Free Schools [studentsforgunfree- schools.org], say colleges and guns don't mix. To improve security, the group advocates better monitoring of student behavior and improved screening of gun buyers, among other stepsd guns don't mix. To improve security, the group advocates better monitoring of student behavior and improved screening of gun buyers, among other steps"

How the heck do they propose to do that?

Manditory implantation of chips and shock collars?

Good thinking is rewarded.
Bad thinking is punished.

Wait....I saw this on Star Trek....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Quote:
I can see both sides of the argument. I think allowing them to carry, in a safe and responsible manner, is the best solution. Those who "show off", those who cause problems, and certainly those who can't legally carry, should not have that privilege.
I'm not sure if you meant it this way, but privilege??? How is something guarenteed by the U.S. Constitution a privilege.

Let me see if I can explain this clearly.....

The Constitution says you have the right. The Constitution does not (to my knowledge) say "unless you are convicted of a crime, too immature to handle the responsibility, or such" in any way.

Therefore, a guy convicted of murder still has the right to have a gun under the constitution.

His privilege to carry however is restricted by other Federal and State laws, which the courts have ruled to be legal.

There is also the "While you have the right to carry, I have the right to deny carriers access to my property". This has been upheld in various courts as employers deny employees both the means and the ok to defend themselves, as part of their employment agreement.

The student has a right to carry, however by applying to and being accepted to a particular school, the school as part of their enrollment agreement can (and I'm sure most do) include a no weapons clause. By going there, you agree to disarm.

The school (or business) can put whatever restrictions the courts accept in place, and by choosing to attend, work there, etc, you are agreeing to suspend your rights.

These places my add wording stating that one may carry if one has a certain specialty license, is a LEO, or working in security, but not otherwise.

If these students want to carry on campus, they have few options.
- Go elsewhere, where they can. Enough leave, the school faces the choice of allow guns or close.
- Protest peacefully and hope the school changes it's mind.

At the risk of annoying the pro-gun people, let me say this: Some people don't have the brains needed to be allowed the right. Some people gave it up when they abused it. Some people, flat out don't deserve it. Who? The idiot twirling a loaded gun who drops it, it goes off, and a 5yr old takes it in the back. The jackass who is compensating for a small penis by waving a big gun. The criminal who gave up most of his rights when he broke the law. Those folks.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There is a big problem with your analogy, especially in this OP context. The reality of your first statment is:
BG has gun - I have no gun. I might live.
In a one-on-one confrontation your initial scenario is much more likely. In a shooting spree, all of the possible outcomes are the same- I might live, I might die.

I don't carry, I'm not a big gun fan, but I'm also not anti-gun. I don't have a problem with people being able to own guns in general. What I object to is the seeming lack of objective rational thinking on both sides of the argument. In this case I'm not necessarily against students being able to carry guns, if all the legalities are observed, but I do question the rationale of 'there's shooters out there, so I need a gun to defend myself'. I'm not particulary fond of the idea of some random person, of God knows what level of training, adding to the gunfire in a shooting context. If it could be guaranteed that there was some kind of high standard training requirement and live scenario training for all carry permits then I might feel safer, but otherwise, not so much. Having a gun might make the carrier feel safer, but what about everybody else? They're only going to make everybody safer if they really know what the f*** they're doing. Guarantee me that and I'll give you my vote.

In a gun fight, the person without a gun loses. That's the reality.

 

[Empty Hands]

Part of the reason this is even controversial is the strangely parent-like role everyone seems to expect the college to take in regards to the students. The vast majority of these students are legally adults. Yet they must in most cases cede some of their rights to perfectly legal behaviors to the school. At my college, it was pre-marital sex, drinking, smoking, gambling, pornography, and a host of others. Either these students are adults or they are children. Let's pick one and stick with it. Then the right of self-defense might not be so controversial.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Let me see if I can explain this clearly.....

The Constitution says you have the right. The Constitution does not (to my knowledge) say "unless you are convicted of a crime, too immature to handle the responsibility, or such" in any way.

Therefore, a guy convicted of murder still has the right to have a gun under the constitution.

His privilege to carry however is restricted by other Federal and State laws, which the courts have ruled to be legal.

There is also the "While you have the right to carry, I have the right to deny carriers access to my property". This has been upheld in various courts as employers deny employees both the means and the ok to defend themselves, as part of their employment agreement.

The student has a right to carry, however by applying to and being accepted to a particular school, the school as part of their enrollment agreement can (and I'm sure most do) include a no weapons clause. By going there, you agree to disarm.

The school (or business) can put whatever restrictions the courts accept in place, and by choosing to attend, work there, etc, you are agreeing to suspend your rights.

These places my add wording stating that one may carry if one has a certain specialty license, is a LEO, or working in security, but not otherwise.

If these students want to carry on campus, they have few options.
- Go elsewhere, where they can. Enough leave, the school faces the choice of allow guns or close.
- Protest peacefully and hope the school changes it's mind.

At the risk of annoying the pro-gun people, let me say this: Some people don't have the brains needed to be allowed the right. Some people gave it up when they abused it. Some people, flat out don't deserve it. Who? The idiot twirling a loaded gun who drops it, it goes off, and a 5yr old takes it in the back. The jackass who is compensating for a small penis by waving a big gun. The criminal who gave up most of his rights when he broke the law. Those folks.

The vast majority of whom would be weeded out within a proper firearm safety/concealed carry class.

That's the whole reason I became a firearms instructor and am still wanting to take additional classes as well--I saw what exercising the right without the knowledge could lead to, and so decided by getting myself as educated as I could and helping others do the same I'd be part of the solution instead of the problem.

It's just a shame Instructor courses aren't offered nationwide in college, that right there would fix 90% of the problem.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Require a permit.
Require a training class.
Require a test.
Before granting the permit.
Require recertification every few years to keep the permit.
Charge a nominal fee, say $65, renewable every 10 years.

Like a drivers license.
or a fishing license, or a hunting license, etc.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Let me see if I can explain this clearly.....

The Constitution says you have the right. The Constitution does not (to my knowledge) say "unless you are convicted of a crime, too immature to handle the responsibility, or such" in any way.

Therefore, a guy convicted of murder still has the right to have a gun under the constitution.

His privilege to carry however is restricted by other Federal and State laws, which the courts have ruled to be legal.

I agree that the courts have ruled it that way, but I guess I am going off the basis of what the second amendment is all about.

In regards to the concept of taking away felons rights to carry firearms, I am gonna have to do some research on that. You have a good point.

There is also the "While you have the right to carry, I have the right to deny carriers access to my property". This has been upheld in various courts as employers deny employees both the means and the ok to defend themselves, as part of their employment agreement.

I am going to make an admittedly semantical argument, but one I think that has a purpose. It is not that you are denying them the right to carry, which the government can't, but that you are denying them access to the property.

The student has a right to carry, however by applying to and being accepted to a particular school, the school as part of their enrollment agreement can (and I'm sure most do) include a no weapons clause. By going there, you agree to disarm.

I would agree with you if it came to a private educational institution. But a public school, by it's very nature of being a governmental body, has no right, according to the constitution, of denying you the right to carry a firearm. Thats the whole "bear arms" part of the Constitution.

The school (or business) can put whatever restrictions the courts accept in place, and by choosing to attend, work there, etc, you are agreeing to suspend your rights.

Again, you are not suspending your rights at all. They are choosing to allow you access for following certain rules (not laws). In that, I have no problem.

If these students want to carry on campus, they have few options.
- Go elsewhere, where they can. Enough leave, the school faces the choice of allow guns or close.
- Protest peacefully and hope the school changes it's mind.

They also have the right to redress the government for percieved wrongs. In this case, the government, since this article is referring to a public school, is denying them their constitutional protection of the 2nd Amendment.

At the risk of annoying the pro-gun people, let me say this: Some people don't have the brains needed to be allowed the right. Some people gave it up when they abused it. Some people, flat out don't deserve it. Who? The idiot twirling a loaded gun who drops it, it goes off, and a 5yr old takes it in the back. The jackass who is compensating for a small penis by waving a big gun. The criminal who gave up most of his rights when he broke the law. Those folks.

You are absolutely correct. Some people should not be carrying firearms. However, I think you are on dangerous grounds when you deny a Constitutional right because they are "stupid".

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Require a permit.
Require a training class.
Require a test.
Before granting the permit.
Require recertification every few years to keep the permit.
Charge a nominal fee, say $65, renewable every 10 years.

Like a drivers license.
or a fishing license, or a hunting license, etc.

A fishing, hunting, or driver's license is not guaranteed by the Constitution. I find this argument flawed.