The day this group gets their way will be my last day as a college prof.

I'm of the mind that the sane people who carry guns are not going to get themselves involved in shootouts ala John Woo in the middle of a small army of innocent bystanders. Anyone that has been taught proper gun safety knows there's a line between drawing it and not drawing it, even when faced with another gun. That line is being surrounded by people in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, I believe, just like the police, the legal, law abiding, citizen should be able to react to imminent danger with equal force.

If that means you have to shoot someone so you don't die, then that's what it means. It's sad, but we live in a world where fighting fire with fire can turn into the last resort, but we do, and I don't think those who won't abuse the privilege (not RIGHT) to carry a concealed weapon to protect themselves should be punished because of some nutcase.

There is a student who has three 1000 word papers and two tests in a span of two weeks. The boss at his job is a real asshole and the girl he is dating is giving him mixed messages about their relationship and he has barely enough money to live on campus and eats KD every day for supper.

Ya give him a gun.

These people are fucking stupid. Give a person with massive amounts of pressure a gun is real dumb.

I don't see any possibly advantage to allowing concealed handgun carriage on campus. Given the age demographic, the aforementioned pressures of being a college student, and the ready access to alcohol...it just sounds like a recipie for disaster.

of course I also have to say that I think handgun ownership in general is a poor idea. The "but the bad guys have guns" argument has never held with me. The solution to that is to take the guns away from the bad guys...and make them far less available...not make them more readily available. I think handgun ownership should be limited to at home or vehicle, for traveling and for going to a range.

People think they're going to be heroes. Everyone saw Home Alone when they were little and wants the robbers to break into their house so they can be the hero. It doesn't work like that, in reality, if someone who was carrying tried to fight back, the would most likely end up hitting an innocent bystander.

Maybe if they carry guns and kill all the innocent bystanders, than the murderers and robbers and such would have no one to shoot anymore. That would solve the problems.

Man I hate living here.

Apparently Might=Right.

This will end bad!

But the point here is 90% of people under that pressure aren't going to snap. It's the 10% that will snap, and also own a gun without the legal privilege of carrying it to worry about.

Think about it: How much pressure are we under as adults? I've got rent, other bills, my job, girlfriend, family, the Holidays, etc... same crap as everyone else, but you don't see massive shoot outs on the news everyday. It's because most people know the difference between right and wrong and act accordingly.

I'm not worried about the guy I work with carrying his gun. I'm worried about the asshole in the parking lot waiting for me to leave my store at night and try to rob someone or worse.

Where I live some guys robbed a movie theater after tying up the employees and took all the money out of the safe. Now, it was relatively unviolent (I think they may have been armed with bricks too). That's not a situation where you want someone ripping a gun out trying to save the day.

However move that scene to the ATM across the street and all of a sudden a person is alone: The gun comes out and 90% of the time the criminal runs before there's even a shot fired. Most handgun encounters with someone that HAS the legitimate privilege to carry a handgun, end without a single injury. The sight of the gun is usually enough to scare a would be criminal off.

Not at all, and if that's the message I conveyed let me apologize. I don't want to be misunderstood. But, if you pay enough attention to the news you do hear positive stories where people WITH guns DO "save the day.

Look at it like this: Criminals are not very likely to break the law. They're also not likely to break the law if they think theres a good chance someone that's not going to like their intentions is also armed. I'm not saying arm every college student. I'm not even saying let them carry their weapons on campus. I'm saying the whole point of carrying a weapon is to protect yourself from the people who are ill-intentioned, and a few bad apples shouldn't ruin the whole bunch.

When everyone talks about how many guns criminals have and the crime rates involving guns none of those same people want to mention how many people actually, legally, own a gun. "When you look at the numbers that way Conclusions: The US population continues to contain at least one firearm for every adult, and ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated. Long guns are the most prevalent type of gun in the US but handgun ownership is widespread. Ownership demographic patterns support findings of previous studies." (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com) That means out of all of the legal guns about 8000 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm) people WITH a gun committed a homicide. That's a major gap there. Might doesn't make RIght, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Just thinking about this a little bit, firstly...if most people with a right to carry a weapon also have a right to carry a concealed weapon that means that not all of them are good shooters, and, I'm sincerely hoping, not all of them are used to shooting at another human.

this leads me to believe that if someone, namely a thug or a nut job, opens fire on a college campus, someone carrying a concealed weapon is physically equipped to defend themselves, but not necessarily skillfully or mentally equipped.

Furthermore, don't most universities have a campus police. and don't those campus police carry weapons. and don't those weapons do the same damage as a concealed weapon.

and FUTHERMORE, does carrying a concealed weapon grant you the right to vigilantism? I get it that this is, rhetorically at least, about "self-defense" that is to say, someone has already shot at you...but I feel like there are plenty of people who might go and try to seek out said nutjob?

you know what American schools need? More people actually attending classes, even with those evil pinko commie liberal teachers, rather than gun rallies.

If they're licensed to carry everywhere else, why not college?

I think before the idea is dismissed out of hand you should research the Grundy Law School Shooting. I am not going to link anything as I am sure any link provided will only be seen as unreliable or biased. This event would have been even more tragic than it was had it not been for the actions of a few.

As someone who has maintained a conceal carry permit for over five years and as someone that has taught several safety courses, I find it interesting people reaction is that there is some type of "hero" complex at work. Everytime a state enacts legislation for the right of private citizens to carry concealed, it is always the same reaction. It is going to be the "Old West" and time and time again it never comes to pass. But you have a place like DC where you basically have no right to self-defense for the past three decades have had some of the most draconian gun laws in the country and it has done nothing to affect crime and some how this is acceptable. I guess in the case results to not matter as long as people are "trying". Considering it is peoples lives we are dealing with I believe that only results should matter. I also find it interesting to the point of hilarity that the same people that believe that private citizens should not be allowed to own firearms want only the government and law enforcement to have them. Think about this for moment. This shows that the framers of the constitiution understood what they were doing.

If you are actually interested in reading hard data on the subject look at any of the books written by John R. Lott. His first book can be quite a revelation.

If you believe that the police are the solution it is just intellectually irresponsible to believe this to be true. It is impossible just due to sheer numbers. It was also ruled in Washington DC that:

"fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."[5]

Here is this in demonstration:

"In the especially gruesome landmark case the "no-duty" rule got ugly. Just before dawn on March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C., shared by three women and a child. On the second floor one woman was sexually attacked. Her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.
The women's first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the house, got no answer to their knocks on the door, did a quick check around, and left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come_but no officers were even dispatched.

The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours. When these women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them. Case dismissed."

You can research this as well.

I am not saying that everyone should carry or that everyone should own a firearm. It is a personal choice and that is the way it should remain. Taking away a persons right to defend themselves or their loved ones is beyond criminal. Your personal protection is your responsiblity and no one elses. A criminal by demonstration of their actions will not follow laws. But a law abiding person will. So while a criminal will find a gun or any other weapon for that matter openly breaking the law. A person who follows that same law intended to protect them will follow it potentially to their peril. Who is hurt here?

Quite honestly because, and this is based on 7 years of observing students as a prof and 5 years as a student myself, most students don't yet have the maturity to handle the responsibility of carrying and using a lethal weapon, particularly when paired with the stress of college life.

(no offense is intended towards those still in college or of that age)

I am still in college, and I take absolutely no offense.

Here's an idea. Since a lot of Yanks keep to the idea that they have the right to own a gun in case of a revolution, how about you put your money where your mouth is an use your armed civilian forces to overthrow this corrupt, illegal government?

If you'll excuse me, now, I think that's the FBI knocking at my door.

"Come on, guys. I keeed, I keeeed."

That same student could go get a gun quite easily, he just can't bring it on campus legally and as we've seen, it's not hard to bring them on campus illegally.

You sir, are fucking stupid.