Concealed weapons on campus

[her209]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
2. Criminals with the intent to use guns on other people don't get their guns through legal channels. Making it harder and less useful to have a carry/FID license is only exacerbating the problem.

If this were true, then why bother with background checks at all? So long as the gun is registered to the owner, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[mitchel]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
2. Criminals with the intent to use guns on other people don't get their guns through legal channels. Making it harder and less useful to have a carry/FID license is only exacerbating the problem.

If this were true, then why bother with background checks at all? So long as the gun is registered to the owner, it shouldn't be a problem.

Yea, why bother with the background check? It's just another way to try to restrict gun ownership. I guess the idea of any persons over 21 being able to walk into a store and buy a gun in under 5 minutes is too scary for some.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: mitchel

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
2. Criminals with the intent to use guns on other people don't get their guns through legal channels. Making it harder and less useful to have a carry/FID license is only exacerbating the problem.

If this were true, then why bother with background checks at all? So long as the gun is registered to the owner, it shouldn't be a problem.

Yea, why bother with the background check? It's just another way to try to restrict gun ownership. I guess the idea of any persons over 21 being able to walk into a store and buy a gun in under 5 minutes is too scary for some.

Guns purchased illegally are only used to commit crimes. Therefore, logically, one can conclude that guns purchased legally are never used to commit crimes.

Get it?

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Criminals aren't going to apply for a permit and will carry anyway. Not allowing permit holders to carry on campus only penalizes the non-criminals.

And if that "criminal" ended saving the day, would you say everyone should be allowed to carry without a permit?

What?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Criminals aren't going to apply for a permit and will carry anyway. Not allowing permit holders to carry on campus only penalizes the non-criminals.

And if that "criminal" ended saving the day, would you say everyone should be allowed to carry without a permit?

What?

Not allowing gun owners to carry (period) only penalizes the non-criminals.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

You can hear the crickets chirping in broad daylight at the anti-gun rally when you drop the Gandhi quote on them.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Quintox

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Your username is PrinceofWands but your real name is Kristin?

Yup.

And yes, I'm a guy.

LIES!!!!

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
2. Criminals with the intent to use guns on other people don't get their guns through legal channels. Making it harder and less useful to have a carry/FID license is only exacerbating the problem.

If this were true, then why bother with background checks at all? So long as the gun is registered to the owner, it shouldn't be a problem.

its not true at all. the VT killer got his guns legally.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: mitchel

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
2. Criminals with the intent to use guns on other people don't get their guns through legal channels. Making it harder and less useful to have a carry/FID license is only exacerbating the problem.

If this were true, then why bother with background checks at all? So long as the gun is registered to the owner, it shouldn't be a problem.

Yea, why bother with the background check? It's just another way to try to restrict gun ownership. I guess the idea of any persons over 21 being able to walk into a store and buy a gun in under 5 minutes is too scary for some.

Guns purchased illegally are only used to commit crimes. Therefore, logically, one can conclude that guns purchased legally are never used to commit crimes.

Get it?

:roll:

are you trying to be sarcastic?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Quintox
How would you feel if there was a really, really weird guy in one of your classes and he had one of those? Wouldn't that make you a little nervous?

Considering that the requirements for a concealed permit include a full background check (including mental health records, checking against Federal databases, and a fingerprint record check) as well as range lessons to qualify with the weapon, I wouldn't be nervous in the least.

Concealed permit holders are 13.7 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent crimes and 5.5 times less likely to be convicted of violent crimes than persons without a permit. Statistically speaking, the weird guy without a gun is 5.5 times more dangerous than the weird guy with a legal gun.

ZV

 

[daniel1113]

As usual, I'm still waiting for a decent argument explaining why a college campus is any different than the rest of the state, and as such, should be off limits for concealed handgun permit owners. Colleges are not magical Utopian confines in which students, faculty, and visitors sit around holding hands singing folk songs. Shit happens everywhere, schools included.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
The only reason I could think of that it would not be a good idea is that somebody might notice a person carrying a gun, assume it was legal, and fail to report in an unusual situation, possibly stopping preventative action. However, since that type of prevention has not ever, to my knowledge, happened, it doesn't seem a strenuous objection. Usually the crazies are either caught before they get the weapons to school or they aren't caught til it's too late.

Concealed means concealed. A CCW Permit holder who has his or her weapon visible in states that do not permit open carry is in violation of the law and subject to the loss of his or her license. It's unlikely that a person with a valid CCW Permit would fail to conceal his or her weapon.

Additionally, the possession of a legal tool is not sufficient reason for something to be reported. A person simply having a firearm is not, in itself alone, grounds for the assumption that the person should be checked out by "authority". One doesn't assume that a person holding a bottle of wine is an alcoholic and one shouldn't assume that a person with a gun is a criminal. There need to be additional reasons (e.g. person appears agitated, person has made previous threats that the reporter knows about, etc) for the situation to warrant reporting to authorities. A guy pumping gas peacefully with a sidearm on his hip has no reason to be reported to big brother.

ZV

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Criminals aren't going to apply for a permit and will carry anyway. Not allowing permit holders to carry on campus only penalizes the non-criminals.

And if that "criminal" ended saving the day, would you say everyone should be allowed to carry without a permit?

What?

Not allowing gun owners to carry (period) only penalizes the non-criminals.

Still don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Quintox

Originally posted by: ric1287

hahaha...what do you do with the tazer? Run up to a guy with a shotgun and hope he doesn't blow a hole in your chest before you can shock him?

People need to remember that allowing CC on campus DOES NOT MEAN that every Joe Frat Guy is going to buy a gun. The same people who have CC in the "normal world" are going to be the ones who carry on campus. They will not be handing out glocks on orientation day.

OK well it doesn't have to be a tazer, whatever other non lethal weapon there is. (lol)

I'm in college now, and I just wouldn't feel comfortable knowing someone is sitting in my classroom with a glock on their side. How would you feel if there was a really, really weird guy in one of your classes and he had one of those? Wouldn't that make you a little nervous?

Anywho, that was just my opinion, I'm not going to 'argue' anymore. I just thought it was interesting.

The "Gun Free Zone" was just as useful in VT, wasn't it?

 

[Throckmorton]

If Virginia had put the guy in the records like they were supposed to, for being mentally ill, he wouldn't have been able to buy a gun AT A GUN STORE

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Quintox

Originally posted by: ric1287

hahaha...what do you do with the tazer? Run up to a guy with a shotgun and hope he doesn't blow a hole in your chest before you can shock him?

People need to remember that allowing CC on campus DOES NOT MEAN that every Joe Frat Guy is going to buy a gun. The same people who have CC in the "normal world" are going to be the ones who carry on campus. They will not be handing out glocks on orientation day.

OK well it doesn't have to be a tazer, whatever other non lethal weapon there is. (lol)

I'm in college now, and I just wouldn't feel comfortable knowing someone is sitting in my classroom with a glock on their side. How would you feel if there was a really, really weird guy in one of your classes and he had one of those? Wouldn't that make you a little nervous?

Anywho, that was just my opinion, I'm not going to 'argue' anymore. I just thought it was interesting.

The "Gun Free Zone" was just as useful in VT, wasn't it?

If he had been caught with the gun it would have been useful.



Are you saying terrorists should be allowed to hijack planes because being illegal didn't stop the 9/11 hijackers?

 

[RESmonkey]

I can see this turning into Unreal University 2004.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Quintox

CINCINNATI, Ohio (CNN) -- "Would you rather just sit there and cower underneath a desk when someone executes you or would you rather have a chance to defend your life? That's what it really boils down to."
art.studentgun.cnn.jpg

Michael Flitcraft says students should be allowed to protect themselves from potential killers.

Michael Flitcraft, a 23-year-old sophomore at the University of Cincinnati, has become a leading advocate for college students to carry weapons on campus. He's an organizer for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a grass-roots organization that was formed after last year's Virginia Tech massacre that left 32 college students and professors dead.

The group boasts more than 25,000 members.

Standing on the Cincinnati campus, Flitcraft calmly explained he is licensed to carry a weapon in Ohio. He wants to carry his gun on campus to defend himself from potential killers, but by law he can't.

"To me it makes no sense that I can defend myself legally over there," he said, pointing to the city streets. "But I am a felon if I step on the grass over here."

Full story here

This is not a smart idea IMO. I think they should let them have a permit to carry tazers, or another non-lethal weapon. This way, if a gunman does come on campus into a classroom, the student(s) can tazer them, and have a good chance of effectively stopping him.

What's the problem? Before, only the killers had 'em. At least now the odds are even.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: mitchel

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
2. Criminals with the intent to use guns on other people don't get their guns through legal channels. Making it harder and less useful to have a carry/FID license is only exacerbating the problem.

If this were true, then why bother with background checks at all? So long as the gun is registered to the owner, it shouldn't be a problem.

Yea, why bother with the background check? It's just another way to try to restrict gun ownership. I guess the idea of any persons over 21 being able to walk into a store and buy a gun in under 5 minutes is too scary for some.

Guns purchased illegally are only used to commit crimes. Therefore, logically, one can conclude that guns purchased legally are never used to commit crimes.

Get it?

:roll:

are you trying to be sarcastic?

Original assertion: Criminals with the intent to use guns on other people don't get their guns through legal channels.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: joshsquall
Criminals aren't going to apply for a permit and will carry anyway. Not allowing permit holders to carry on campus only penalizes the non-criminals.

And if that "criminal" ended saving the day, would you say everyone should be allowed to carry without a permit?

What?

Not allowing gun owners to carry (period) only penalizes the non-criminals.

Still don't understand what you're getting at.

Why restrict someone from being able to protect themselves or others, i.e. requiring a license to carry?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: mitchel

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
2. Criminals with the intent to use guns on other people don't get their guns through legal channels. Making it harder and less useful to have a carry/FID license is only exacerbating the problem.

If this were true, then why bother with background checks at all? So long as the gun is registered to the owner, it shouldn't be a problem.

Yea, why bother with the background check? It's just another way to try to restrict gun ownership. I guess the idea of any persons over 21 being able to walk into a store and buy a gun in under 5 minutes is too scary for some.

Guns purchased illegally are only used to commit crimes. Therefore, logically, one can conclude that guns purchased legally are never used to commit crimes.

Get it?

:roll:

are you trying to be sarcastic?

Original assertion: Criminals with the intent to use guns on other people don't get their guns through legal channels.

I don't think anyone understands what your point is.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: her209
Original assertion: Criminals with the intent to use guns on other people don't get their guns through legal channels.

I don't think anyone understands what your point is.

Only law-abiding citizens buy their guns legally therefore background checks are unnecessary.

 

[BucsMAN3K]

Originally posted by: Quintox

Originally posted by: ric1287

I'm in college now, and I just wouldn't feel comfortable knowing someone is sitting in my classroom with a glock on their side. How would you feel if there was a really, really weird guy in one of your classes and he had one of those? Wouldn't that make you a little nervous?

Sounds like you should get to know the guy instead of assuming he wants to shoot you. Who knows, maybe he would end up saving your life from someone who really does want to shoot you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey aren't college kids known for being level headed and responsible?

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey aren't college kids known for being level headed and responsible?

blink....blink....blink

Considering how many college kids I have to deal with who a) can't figure out marijuana is illegal, b) can't figure out when to stop drinking, c) can't remember that they need their damn ID to get back into their dorm... Them carrying guns is such a frightening thought. I keep telling myself that I keep dealing with the same sort over and over again, and that not all college kids are like this. Some of them have to be level headed and responsible, right?