Should students at college be allowed to carry concealed firearms?

[Dirt McGirt]

Maineman brought up an interesting question. Let's put it to a poll.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I voted no. I think it's up to the school to provide armed security.

 

[Creek_George]

I voted no as well......Keep guns out of our schools.

Armed Scurity is now a good idea...There seems to be an awful lot of copy cat type suiciders coming out of the woodwork.

I just can't believe this shit...

 

[90K]

Why? we have enough problems with security, the meaning of security and the ability to have people feel secure in public places in the first place. So what would a concealed weapon do exactly? Besides start a old west shoot out.
The issue is how to have gun control without restricting or making the right to bear arms totally illegal.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think arming students is the answer. IMO, it would have a much better chance of making the situation worse.

 

[maineman]

I don't think arming students is the answer. IMO, it would have a much better chance of making the situation worse.

I agree... spending the time and money to really make campus security effective seems much more sensible.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Imagine the civil lawsuits if they allowed students to carry concealed firearms and something happened.

 

[90K]

like a party gone wrong on friday night....

 

[hjmick]

I voted yes just to be contrarian.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. The truth is, while tragic, these sorts of shootings are an anomoly.

After the Lubby's shooting in Texas a few years back, the CCW laws were changed to be less restrictive. There were several customers who had guns in their cars but were unable to carry them into the eatery because of the law. More than one law enforcement official stated that had they been allowed to carry their gun on their person, the Lubby's shooting would have result in far fewer deaths.

While I don't think allowing everyone to pack heat is necessarily a good idea, I think some would be less inclined to start shooting up a place if they think someone in the crowd is likely to shoot back.

 

[Gunny]

I voted yes just to be contrarian.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. The truth is, while tragic, these sorts of shootings are an anomoly.

After the Lubby's shooting in Texas a few years back, the CCW laws were changed to be less restrictive. There were several customers who had guns in their cars but were unable to carry them into the eatery because of the law. More than one law enforcement official stated that had they been allowed to carry their gun on their person, the Lubby's shooting would have result in far fewer deaths.

While I don't think allowing everyone to pack heat is necessarily a good idea, I think some would be less inclined to start shooting up a place if they think someone in the crowd is likely to shoot back.

There isn't an answer. As someone else stated, it's going to happen. I don't see arming students as the answer for most of the reasons listed above.

I think it can be minimized. It looks like there is NO campus security nor surveillance at VT. Both would cut response time and situation assessment down measurably.

I see a distinct difference between a place like a restaurant such as Luby's and a school with 300k students in it.

 

[hjmick]

You're absolutely right, a cafeteria is a far cry from a college campus and there are no easy answers.

I would be interested in seeing if there is technology out there that could be applied that would result in an automatic lockdown of all classroom doors preventing entry or exit with the first gunshot. While this might not prevent the deaths of some, it could certainly minimize mass casualties. A shooter would be unable to move from room to room.

I don't know. As I said, thankfully these types of scenarios are anomolies. Because of the scope of the tragedy it tends to stick with us. I think that contributes to the false impression that they are frequent occurrences.

 

[Ninja]

I voted no.

Clearly the problem was that the signs on the VT campus that read "Gun Free Zone" weren't written in large enough font for the shooter to see.

Obviously after 32 un-armed people being executed by a psycho with 2 Glock 17s (I'm guessing... no idea on the make and model to be honest) and a tactical vest loaded with hi-cap magazines, we would NEVER want to pass any legislation that might let innocent protect themselves.

Guns would have just made the situation worse... Meaning that the last sound that angry little asian would have heard would have been his brain seeping out of the holes in his head.

That would have been unjust in the libtardosphere, since the perpetrator wasn't really the guy who went on the rampage at all, it was society.... Yes, society was what forced him to commit these heinous acts. So in a way, allowing students to conceal would basically be like allowing the real murderer to arm itself.

I'm sure that if he had just been able to see those signs, had the letters just been a little bit bigger, he'd have known that he wasn't supposed to be carrying guns and he'd probably have just gone home and watched TV.

Come to think of it, why didn't VT just circumvent the whole gun thing and make the campus a "criminal free zone"? That way if someone ever had an idea of committing any crime on campus, they'd remember that being a criminal is illegal at VT so they'd better go somewhere else.

 

[Shogun]

I voted no.


Sometimes tragic things happen in life that we can all look at in hindsight and second guess what may have worked better. I realize that such sounds lame as hell in the shodow of such a tragedy but I dont see anything beyond rhetorical musings that show yesterday would have never happened, or happened less, if there were armed students on campus. Even if I carry a firearm I am not allowed to do so in Federal and state buildings sothe freedom is not absolute and, I would argue, a state college is more like a Federal building than a dark alleyway. What would be the fallout if there had been armed students who tried to act to defend themselves but accidentalyl killed MORE people? rhetorical musings.

For what it is worth.. id also vote not to arm postal workers just because we have had scenerios where a few have killed co workers.


Also, i am still curious to see some background on the shooter. Im curious to see if he would have, otherwise, qualified for conceal and carry despite his tragic decision to kill.

 

[Edward]

I voted yes just to be contrarian.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. The truth is, while tragic, these sorts of shootings are an anomoly.

After the Lubby's shooting in Texas a few years back, the CCW laws were changed to be less restrictive. There were several customers who had guns in their cars but were unable to carry them into the eatery because of the law. More than one law enforcement official stated that had they been allowed to carry their gun on their person, the Lubby's shooting would have result in far fewer deaths.

There is simply no way of knowing whether there would have been fewer deaths had a gun at the time of that shooting. Also, it isn't a matter of a fewer deaths for those who have died and who have lost a loved one as a result of a shooting. What you also fail to mention is that the gunmen would also have been able to have a gun on him just like the other customers. All it would take is someone walking out of the bathroom seeing a responder shooting the gunmen for them to shoot the wrong person. That person would have to live with the knowledge that they shot and killed a person who was trying to save lives because they too were trying to save lives but got the wrong guy. Those who claimed there would have been fewer deaths if customers had guns cannot be sure of this. On the contrary there could have been more deaths or worst there could be more of these types of shootings. A guy eating lunch with his girlfriend learns that she cheated on him and he pulls out the gun and shoots her. Someone then reacts by reaching for a gun and he shoots them and from their he shoots several others before shooting himself or being shot. Had he been forced to return to his vehicle to get the gun he may have seriously re-considered his choice or the girlfriend could have recognized what he was planning to do and warned everyone.

While I don't think allowing everyone to pack heat is necessarily a good idea, I think some would be less inclined to start shooting up a place if they think someone in the crowd is likely to shoot back.

You seem to be arguing that these people are sane while arguing that they are insane. You cannot have it both ways. These people will not be less inclined if they knew someeone else had a gun. On the contrary they are probably more likely to do this kind of thing because they know that someone will do for them what they are afraid to do to themselves which is take their lives. This isn't a bank robber, or a would-be rapist who flees from a scene when a gun is pulled instead they have already lost perspective and the best thing for us to do in these type of situations is to prevent them from having the gun in the most violatile places such as courtrooms, schools, colleges, jails, and other government buildings where there is a higher risk of a shooting taking place. The restaurant incident may have been prevented had the owner had a gun and used it but the reality is that had everyone been allowed to bring a gun into that restaurant it is more likely that a shooting would have taken place before it did.

 

[roomy]

No, fistfights become gunfights.

 

[hjmick]

Edward,

You are indeed right that some situations may be excacerbated by the presence of firearms. If others had guns, if someone exited the restroom, if the manager had a gun, if the shooter had a CCW, if college students had the option to carry, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

There is no way to foresee all the possibilities. There is no way to stop these types of crimes through legislation. There is no way of knowing who will snap, who is crazy to begin with, who will suffer a jealous rage. There are too many variables. But I do know that if someone were armed and reasonably skilled with a handgun, a person intent on inflicting a maximum amount of pain and carnage would have a harder time of it when confronted by armed resistance.

 

[roomy]

This is not an American phenomenon, we have suffered the same type of crimes here in Britain (Dunblane immediately springs to mind) and Tom Dick and Harry aren't allowed to carry guns as a right.Gun legislation will not cure these maniacs.A few years ago a lunatic attacked kindergarten kids with a machete, how do you legislate against that?

 

[Gunny]

Edward,

You are indeed right that some situations may be excacerbated by the presence of firearms. If others had guns, if someone exited the restroom, if the manager had a gun, if the shooter had a CCW, if college students had the option to carry, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

There is no way to foresee all the possibilities. There is no way to stop these types of crimes through legislation. There is no way of knowing who will snap, who is crazy to begin with, who will suffer a jealous rage. There are too many variables. But I do know that if someone were armed and reasonably skilled with a handgun, a person intent on inflicting a maximum amount of pain and carnage would have a harder time of it when confronted by armed resistance.

ITA. An armed and well-trained security force with good visible surveillance and communications could have made short work of this nut. No, they would not have been able to anticipate and stop his initial onslaught, but they could have at least identified and analyzed and reacted to the situation in a far more timely manner than actually happened.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

like a party gone wrong on friday night....

No. Like some kid in the cafeteria who has a concealed weapon and shoots a guy using a knife in a threatening manner but hits 3 bystanders in the process. I guarantee you the parents of the 3 bystanders would sue the school over any policy that allows concealed weapons in that situation.

 

[hjmick]

You know, the truth for me is, I like my guns. I want to own a couple of more guns. I enjoy going to the range and shooting at targets. I am comfortable with the knowledge that should some hood break into my house while I'm home I can defend my wife, my property, and myself. I believe it is my right to defend my home.

I don't want to see my right to own guns curtailed because some outcast decides he or she doesn't like the cards they are dealt and chooses to make others suffer with them. I don't want my right to own guns curtailed because some crack dealer stole or otherwise obtained one illegally and used it in a shoot out with the cops. I believe that a person who passes a background check, which is a requirement where I live, when purchasing a gun should be allowed a CCW permit.

The Second Amendment states:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

When this was written, there was still a concern that Britain might try to retake the colonies (everyone knows you can't trust the British. That was for you roomy, LOL.) The British right to own guns is extremely limited, this goes back to the time when the Monarchy was all powerful. When guns were introduced, the King recognized that an armed public could revolt against him and potentially overthrow his rule. Fear the government that fears your gun. In the long run this has worked out relatively well for Britain.

While we no longer have a need for a militia in the U.S., I believe the right is still valid. Fear the government that fears your gun. When a government takes away the individuals right to own guns, then the collective citizenship loses it's ability to fight an unjust government.