This scares the shit out of me just about any time i hear it. People present examples like hunting and skeet shooting and compare it to tactical shooting and they just aren't the same.

The skeet, tin cans and deer aren't carrying semi-automatic weapons and are not trying to kill you. When doing those things, you have time to prepare your stance, aim, exhale and fire.

When your tactically shooting, you rarely ever are presented with the opportunity to do anything but maybe get one shot "relatively close" to your intended target while you're taking fire. There is no stance, you're panting like a female dog in heat, you're palms are sweating and your brain is running just short of Mach 9.

Before i actually trained, i was naive enough to believe that my hobbyist shooting was enough experience to carry me through a live fire event. It's not, and it never will be. Live fire and situations of that sort change everything about being able to shoot successfully.

While i like this idea over the idea of permitting college students to carry guns. I'd still like to see the problem fixed at it's source, rather than create more expenses to band-aid a problem.

Society continuously looks past people that are crying out for help. I'd like to see people get they help they need prior to toting a gun to a crowded area and opening fire. But that seems to be a naive and rather Utopian dream.

Being that i am back in college, at 33. It's kind of a 50/50 shot in the dark whether a college kid carrying a gun is a good idea. I am in a class that ranges from former military to people that have been seriously beaten with the stupid stick. I know when i was at that age, gun safety wasn't the first thing on my mind.

They would need to dramatically fix the permit to conceal process and overhaul it prior to ever even giving thought to letting this happen. I know too many people that have the permits that in my mind, clearly shouldn't.

wow this got long, good story, well written, you're getting good at this. I should start writing articles again.

Guns on campus? Unnecessary. The gun-boner crowd is right about one thing; people with carry permits are usually pretty well trained proficient and are not likely to be criminals. But can somebody explain why we need a arms race on campus?

*Edited for clarification.

Except that nearly all campuses do not allow any sort of firearm on the grounds. And 21 isn't so old for the dorms, particularly if someone is in the Greek system or is from out of state.

I live in the middle of a state with one of the highest gun ownership percentages in the country. There are three departments in my building. I am one of two faculty members between the English, Philosophy, and Modern Languages Depts who owns any sort of firearms, and the other is retireing this year to go back to being a pastor. College professors are not generally the type who would want to have anything to do with guns on any level.

For a Nebraska concealed carry permit, a person needs to take a short class (something like 6 weeks of one-night-per-week/one-hour-per-class) on gun safety and target shooting. This is not enough training for combat/reaction shooting.

I've been shooting since I was about 4 years old, was trained by my father who was a gun/hunting safety instructor, and I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying a weapon to combat a possible attacker. I'd more than likely freeze up, miss and hit a bystander, or my hands would be shaking so much I would drop the damn gun.

And hopefully people that carry concealed weapons would never have to use them. The schools do have a right to not allow weapons on campuses since it is private property but the students do have a right to be angry and try to take action when they think it would help their safety. I am sure a compromise will eventually happen of either having workers in class rooms carry a weapon or doing their own screening to allow maybe ex-military, and level headed students that are responsible enough also be allowed instead of just any one.

Lemme see if I can understand guntard math. Guns + more guns = less gun violence.

I feel safer already!

Good point. It wasn't my intention to say that permitted owners are well trained to take down crazed gun-men (In fact, I highly disagree with that idea). I was just agreeing with the gun-nut viewpoint that permitted carriers aren't usually criminals, since that seems to be some sort of contention from the pro-gun side.

Do you mean the maintainance staff? No, thank you. Most of the ones I've met are very nice people, but they aren't up to combat. I wouldn't mind having the campus police being armed, but only if they are an actual police force with full training, and not rent-a-cops who are mostly concerned with parking tickets.

I'll conceed that. At least the background checks that exist are able to weed out people with felony convictions.

Ohio you're done in one weekend, it's not even a state-performed training course. The course is prepared to NRA standards and left in the hands of private organizations.

When i took my C&C permit, there was people that couldn't even follow simple safety instructions, like always keeping a loaded weapon pointed down range. The fun part was our instructor was a former military D.I., and even though you paid to be there, he ran it very militaristic. Watching stupid people get yelled at is fun. Watching stupid people get permits is not fun.

so, if it's not right for you, it's not right for anybody?

No, it's more that criminals would rather try to rob some one that isn't home or doesn't have a gun, or thinks long and hard before taking a gun to a public area that they know people have guns.

Take for example that:

source
So then by your logic;

Criminals with guns + people with out guns = less crimes

Yeah, they aren't state run here either. My uncle just went through one, and it was just a guy who passed a state test who opened up a "school."

It would be funny to watch some of those idiots, but only if you know that they will bomb out of the course and be denied a retake option.

No, and thank you for completely missing the point. I'm using a lifetime of experiance to try to prove that without extensive combat-shooting training, people would very likely make lethal errors.

you use "likely" a lot. 21 yr old students are likely to be out of control drunks. Armed citizens are very likely to make lethal errors. Must be nice to be so conveniently sure of oneself and your ability to predict everyone else's behaviour.

The adrenaline rush that one gets when confronted with a dangerous situation has very different effects in everyone. There's no "likely" how someone is going to react. You say "likely" to help prove your own point, as if you were a likelihood expert. Just because you doubt your own ability to stay calm under a stressful situation does not make it more likely that everyone else will react the same way.