Guns!

[GhostintheMachine]

So in the past year the university I am going to school at has been confronted with the issue of whether or not to allow concealed weapons on campus. Their current policy bans individuals with concealed carrier permits in Idaho, but the policy has been to taken to task at the legislature. The bill did not get passed to allow concealed weapons on campus, however gun rights proponents still hold the argument that it is a violation of second amendment rights since the university is publicly owned. I already hold an opinion on the matter, but I'm curious as to what you all think. Here are the requirements for gaining a concealed carry permit in Idaho: http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330002.K

The pro-gun argument beyond the basic constitutional argument is that increasing concealed carriers decreases the amount of violent crime, and essentially the opposing argument holds the belief that less concealed carriers=less violent crime.

[Buck Laser]

Well, the lady whose 4 year old grandkid found her pistol in her purse and shot himself with it didn't benefit much...

[micfranklin]

I'm very torn on this issue: one part of me says students should carry weapons for defense.

The other part of me says not to trust college students with guns, especially given several shootings, ex. Virginia Tech.

[GhostintheMachine]

yeah, the law requires them to be 21 years old and have no prior felonies, and no mental issues, which supposedly limits it down to the responsible ones...

[firefox]

Well, the lady whose 4 year old grandkid found her pistol in her purse and shot himself with it didn't benefit much...

No kidding. Accidents happen, but that's why training and common sense are so important. Firearms are powerful tools, and must be handled carefully- this includes keeping them out of reach of kids, and teaching said kids about firearms safety, ie, guns are NOT toys.

[GhostintheMachine]

Argument A: more guns=more gun accidents, basic correlation
Argument B: more guns in hands of "responsible" carriers=criminals fearful of committing acts

[Osborn F. Enready]

I fully support any adults right to carry concealed or unconcealed, and vote that way at any and every opprotunity provided.

It is a natural right to self defense, and a competent, rational person understands that firearms are the most equalizing and most effective method at stopping unjust lethal force, hence the reason ALL police and militaries equip and train with them, to stop hostile situations.

If more guns cause more unjust violence, why would we call police and militaries to our rescue when we need to repel unjust force, since they use guns?

[potter]

I don't care if someone want's to carry a weapon, but why concealed? Why is it important that the person carrying the weapon conceal it unless they have less than honorable intentions?

[AlanC]

Argument A: more guns=more gun accidents, basic correlation
Argument B: more guns in hands of "responsible" carriers=criminals fearful of committing acts


This is actually a false argument unless you have some statistics to support it. All the stats I have seen have shown that responsible gun ownership has not lead to any increase in gun accidents nor has it resulted in indiscriminate use by gun owners.

Thus its not the quid pro quo you have stated. It has shown to reduce crime with safety, not increased danger.

It also brings to question just what gun it was in this particular incident. Most 4 year olds don't have the grip size or the hand strength to fire a double action weapon. This would indicate it was a small automatic with a round chambered and the safety left off.

This is not the way a responsible gun owner should be carrying a gun.

[AlanC]

I don't care if someone want's to carry a weapon, but why concealed? Why is it important that the person carrying the weapon conceal it unless they have less than honorable intentions?

Well for one thing it would give the bad guys a better idea of who the victims were if guns were only carried in the open. It would also tell them who they might take a gun off of. By the way, here in Arizona, you don't need a permit to carry an unconcealed weapon. Anyone can do that.

[GhostintheMachine]

[quote=AlanC;193210]This is actually a false argument unless you have some statistics to support it. All the stats I have seen have shown that responsible gun ownership has not lead to any increase in gun accidents nor has it resulted in indiscriminate use by gun owners.

Yeah, no I agree, the statistics have shown that increased
shall-issue permits have decreased the amount of crime...I was just
stating the bottom line of the two arguments.

Thus its not the quid pro quo you have stated. It has shown to reduce crime with safety, not increased danger.

It also brings to question just what gun it was in this particular incident. Most 4 year olds don't have the grip size or the hand strength to fire a double action weapon. This would indicate it was a small automatic with a round chambered and the safety left off.

This is not the way a responsible gun owner should be carrying a gun.

Agreed

Do you think that in an academic institution there should be different
standards towards guns since it is a place of discussion and sometimes
arguments can get relatively heated? And how about professors? What
issues might you face as a professor if you knew your students might be
armed? These are some questions that I feel the pro-gun group have
failed to address, but I'm real curious to hear your thoughts.

[AlanC]

I forget where it was, but one shooter on a campus was stopped by two armed students who subdued him and held him until authorities arrived. I believe that guns in the hands of responsible citizens are never a threat.

They have been shown in fact to allow people to effectively deal with those who are not responsible. Would armed students have been able to mitigate the VT shootings for example. I think there is a very good likelyhood that they would have.

What I was questioning above is the assumption that more guns would equate to more accidents. I think accidents happen when people don't know how effectively handle and use firearms, not when they have been educated and trained.

But even if you accept that they might accidentally cause harm in some cases, driving cars causes death and harm in far more cases than guns. Yet we don't prohibit private ownership and use of cars. We attempt to regulate that use and require some evidence of responsible proficiency.

I see guns in the same way.

[cronic]

I'm a gun owner..
I'm certainly not against Gun ownership either.

I just think guns have no place on any college campus.
school is a place to learn. Not shoot guns..

If the students feel they need protection on the campuses today then I will agree.. These are sad times..

But,
I can honestly say.. if my daughter told me.. Dad,.. I'm going to college and kids are carrying guns around there with them..

My first reaction is I'm going to be scared for her being there.

If I put a gun back in her hand and say.. here hun.,. now you have a gun..
I can honestly say again.. I will still feel very scared for my daughter.

Arming more people with guns is not an answer to protection for everyone

[Condorman]

Given how much drinking goes on in college campuses, I'd say it is best to keep guns out of the mix. I mean they do stupid enough things as it is, we don't need to make it worse.

[GhostintheMachine]

Here's what I think the pro-gun group has failed to address. The impact that the prevalence of more guns on campus has on perceived feelings of safety, which directly have an impact on academia in my opinion. While I can say that I feel relatively safe at the university, others have expressed stronger feelings that they did not feel safe. The university has taken steps to make the university safer, but in my estimation they have a ways to go.

Pro-gun groups argue that they should be allowed to carry guns due to the university's failed safety policy. (definitely a legitimate argument)

As for all concealed carriers being responsible, I guess the argument can go both ways. In order to get a permit, you have to have no prior felonies or mental problems(which basically means that they havent been checked into a mental institution) One of the arguments is that they have taken some sort of gun safety course, which includes hunter safety. Now speaking from my own experience I have taken hunter safety and I can guarantee that I am not equipped to handle a pistol especially in some sort of conflict situation. The law does not require them to practice with their pistols in order to deal with conflict situations, so who's to say that they are responsible enough not to cause serious problems in a violent situation. That being said, the pro-gun group has been very active in promoting gun safety and are putting forth real honest efforts towards training and safety. But it definitely isn't required.

[AlanC]

Here's what I think the pro-gun group has failed to address. The impact that the prevalence of more guns on campus has on perceived feelings of safety, which directly have an impact on academia in my opinion. While I can say that I feel relatively safe at the university, others have expressed stronger feelings that they did not feel safe. The university has taken steps to make the university safer, but in my estimation they have a ways to go.

Pro-gun groups argue that they should be allowed to carry guns due to the university's failed safety policy. (definitely a legitimate argument)

As for all concealed carriers being responsible, I guess the argument can go both ways. In order to get a permit, you have to have no prior felonies or mental problems(which basically means that they havent been checked into a mental institution) One of the arguments is that they have taken some sort of gun safety course, which includes hunter safety. Now speaking from my own experience I have taken hunter safety and I can guarantee that I am not equipped to handle a pistol especially in some sort of conflict situation. The law does not require them to practice with their pistols in order to deal with conflict situations, so who's to say that they are responsible enough not to cause serious problems in a violent situation. That being said, the pro-gun group has been very active in promoting gun safety and are putting forth real honest efforts towards training and safety. But it definitely isn't required.

Everything you are stating as a potential downside to gun ownership is purely your own speculation that is not born out by any facts.


I'm sure the students at VT felt very safe, right up until the moment they were shot. When you make anyplace a "gun free" zone, all you have done is tell criminals and psychos that they don't have to worry about anyone interferring with their plans there.

How may killings do you need at a places that want to see themselves above the need for self defense before you admit that you are creating places for the sick to prey on innocent victims who cannot defend themselves?

[GhostintheMachine]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr

The fact is that concealed carriers aren't required to practice dealing with conflict situations.

New York police officers, firing 276 shots, hit their targets only 23 times. That is only 8 percent of the time, what is the likelihood of CCW holders being able to stop a threat?

[Mark L Hamburger]

That says more about police officers than CCW holders...

In most cases, an armed person doesn't even have to fire their weapon in order to take care of a threat. Merely showing resistance is usually enough to stop them. In shall-issue areas, you don't even have to carry to reap the benefits, as the possibility that you'll be able to defend yourself is enough to deter most criminals.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm

Major crime fell dramatically in states which have legalized the carrying of concealed handguns, according to a comprehensive new study at the University of Chicago.

For the first time, researchers analyzed crime statistics for all 3,054 counties in the United Sates between 1977 and 1992, according to one of the authors of the unpublished study, Professor John Lott. After adjusting for a general fall in crime rates, the study found that:

* In the 31 states that now have "concealed right to carry" laws, murders were down, on average, by 8.5 percent.

* Rapes were down 5 percent and serious assaults by 7 percent.

* In cities with populations of more than 250,000, murder rates dropped after the passage of such laws by an average of 13.5 percent.

According to the study, the fall in crime did not result from an increased use of guns, but from potential criminals avoiding confrontations. In fact, criminals apparently shifted to lower-risk offenses, since property crimes increased in those states. Other findings included:

* The most dramatic falls in murder rates were in areas where the number of women carrying firearms was high.

* The study found that for every woman who carries a concealed hand, the murder rate fell by three to four times more than it would have if one more man had carried a concealed gun.

* If states with concealed handgun bans had allowed them in 1992, about 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and more than 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided.

In addition, the researchers found no evidence of an increase in accidental killings or suicides in states with concealed carry laws.

In gun-free zones, criminals are assured that there will be a nearly 100% likelihood that no one will put up any resistance. That is why all of the major shootings occur in gun-free zones, such as malls, schools, etc.

[GhostintheMachine]

More guns = more crime, or at the very least they impede reduction of the crime rate. A 1999 study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence), using FBI crime statistics, demonstrated that relaxing CCW laws may have an adverse effect on a state's crime rate.10 Between 1992 and 1998, the violent crime rate in states which kept strict CCW laws fell by an average of 30%. The violent crime rate for the states that had weak CCW laws during this same time saw their violent crime rates drop by only 15%. Nationally, violent crime declined by 25% during that same period.11 These numbers indicate that states with stricter CCW laws have found more effective ways to reduce their crime rates than simply letting more people carry hidden handguns.

To bolster its campaign to have more citizens carry concealed weapons, the gun lobby often relies on the faulty work of economist John Lott, who attempts to link liberal CCW laws with lower crime rates.5 However, several eminent criminologists have published peer-reviewed studies debunking this flawed research.6

-Brady Campaign

Here are some quotes from "Shooting Down the “More Guns, Less Crime” Hypothesis" That criticize John Lott's work using statistical reasoning. It's really long but feel free to look at it. http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

"We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important
scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the
massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On
the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced
crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile. Minor changes of
specifications can generate wide shifts in the estimated effects of these laws,
and some of the most persistent findings—such as the association of shall-issue
laws with increases in (or no effect on) robbery and with substantial increases
in various types of property crime—are not consistent with any plausible theory
of deterrence.

While we do not want to overstate the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the
extremely variable results emerging from the statistical analysis, if anything,
there is stronger evidence for the conclusion that these laws increase crime than
there is for the conclusion that they decrease it."

I think we need to question the assumption that putting guns into the hands of more citizens will deal with criminals and perhaps look to other solutions...

[davo]

I find the arguments for conceal carry (or any kind of carry) of hanguns on college campuses rather absurd.

Yes the US constitution establishes an individual right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed by congress, but that doesn't mean people have the right to carry handguns with them absolutely everywhere. State governments are allowed to establish reasonable restrictions on guns, and not allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to pack a gun while attending college lectures is certainly a reasonable restiction.

The reasons are rather obvious - certainly a huge potential for dangerous and fatal accidents involving firearms, especially as college campuses are renowned for the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs. There's also the potential for ordinary disputes that might result in an argument or a punch-up to turn into a homicide or at least an attempted one.

Yes, campuses shouldn't be 'gun free zones'. They should have armed security guards to take care of threats to the peace.

Yes, if people boarding at college happen to own a gun they go hunting/target shooting with, they should be able to store it safely somewhere for a fee - but not pack around campus. You're there to learn, not to pretend to be a cowboy.

[GhostintheMachine]

The reasons are rather obvious - certainly a huge potential for dangerous and fatal accidents involving firearms, especially as college campuses are renowned for the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs. There's also the potential for ordinary disputes that might result in an argument or a punch-up to turn into a homicide or at least an attempted one.

Agreed.


Yes, campuses shouldn't be 'gun free zones'. They should have armed security guards to take care of threats to the peace.

Interesting proposal.


Yes, if people boarding at college happen to own a gun they go hunting/target shooting with, they should be able to store it safely somewhere for a fee - but not pack around campus. You're there to learn, not to pretend to be a cowboy.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and this is available for those individuals. And I wholeheartedly agree that a college is a place to learn, not to become a self-anointed defender of campus.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Potter said:
I don't care if someone want's to carry a weapon, but why concealed? Why is it important that the person carrying the weapon conceal it unless they have less than honorable intentions?

There are several reasons, some I agree with, some I don't.

Partially to quell the fears of anti-gunners who pee their pants when they see armed civillians in public.

Partially to make it easier to prevent someone grabbing, or attempting to grab the weapon who isn't intended to. This is being addressed daily in new designs of holsters and shoulder rigs that secure the firearm from unwanted use, but still allow fast draws for those who count on the firearms for safety.

Those are the two reasons I find most valid for concealed carry.

I personally however, prefer open carry to concealed carry.

Alan said:
It also brings to question just what gun it was in this particular incident. Most 4 year olds don't have the grip size or the hand strength to fire a double action weapon.

... I agree, or to operate many of the built in safeties to prevent such incidents from occurring in quality made weapons.

I don't know, but I suspect it was probably a purse carried derringer or older style revolver, or the woman was just carrying with the safety off, which is negligent and irresponsible in that situation.

Alan said:
This would indicate it was a small automatic with a round chambered and the safety left off.

.... or that would be an option also, which is also incredibly irresponsible.

Alan said:
This is not the way a responsible gun owner should be carrying a gun.

Completely agree.

Davo said:
I find the arguments for conceal carry (or any kind of carry) of hanguns on college campuses rather absurd.

Yes the US constitution establishes an individual right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed by congress, but that doesn't mean people have the right to carry handguns with them absolutely everywhere.

I would like to know where get this idea, or where you think the line of what is and what isn't a safe place to carry a gun.

I can see the line being drawn at private property ownership, as that is not only logical, but Constitutional. However, I fail to see any other boundary that would prevent a person from carrying a legal firearms with them anywhere, except for courtrooms.

Davo said:
State governments are allowed to establish reasonable restrictions on guns, and not allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to pack a gun while attending college lectures is certainly a reasonable restiction.

I obviously differ with you here.

Davo said:
The reasons are rather obvious - certainly a huge potential for dangerous and fatal accidents involving firearms, especially as college campuses are renowned for the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs. There's also the potential for ordinary disputes that might result in an argument or a punch-up to turn into a homicide or at least an attempted one.

All speculation and fear mongering from my perspective Davo. None of that changes that these people are mostly adults, and are legally responsible for their actions and their own safety to a level they are comfortable with.

Davo said:
Yes, campuses shouldn't be 'gun free zones'. They should have armed security guards to take care of threats to the peace.

Why not just allow adults to protect themselves, as the 2nd amendment enumerates is their right? Teachers are adults, staff are adults, many of the students are adults..... I fail to see the problem.

Davo said:
Yes, if people boarding at college happen to own a gun they go hunting/target shooting with, they should be able to store it safely somewhere for a fee - but not pack around campus. You're there to learn, not to pretend to be a cowboy.

Owning, carrying and practicing with a firearm for self-defense is not "playing cowboy".

[Rage]

So in the past year the university I am going to school at has been confronted with the issue of whether or not to allow concealed weapons on campus. Their current policy bans individuals with concealed carrier permits in Idaho, but the policy has been to taken to task at the legislature. The bill did not get passed to allow concealed weapons on campus, however gun rights proponents still hold the argument that it is a violation of second amendment rights since the university is publicly owned. I already hold an opinion on the matter, but I'm curious as to what you all think. Here are the requirements for gaining a concealed carry permit in Idaho: http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330002.K

The pro-gun argument beyond the basic constitutional argument is that increasing concealed carriers decreases the amount of violent crime, and essentially the opposing argument holds the belief that less concealed carriers=less violent crime.

I don't think they should conceal it, I think they should be visible if they bring it. They passed a law down in Miami for like 20 days or so that let people carry their weapons in holsters. Crime dropped like 90% in those 20 days.... I wonder why.

But, people that attend colleges are there to learn something, not to start trouble so I guess it wouldn't matter either or if they carried it or not. Maybe they should if they walk there, I know places like Miami can get pretty tough to walk through.