Should students at college be allowed to carry concealed firearms?

[maineman]

I would never send my children to a school that encouraged or permitted students from packing heat in the classroom....or while at keggers at the frat house, for that matter.

 

[Ninja]

A city police annex located just off campus would be a good start to at least shorten response time.

Yes. Had there been a police annex located just off campus, the SWAT guys would have been there sooner - which would have translated into more time for them to stand around with their AR-15s and tactical get-ups looking cool while people were being executed inside.

 

[Emmett]

If you were about to be slaughtered by a gunman gone wacko and you could hear his footsteps coming closer and closer.....I damn well guarentee you that you would wish the fuck you had a gun. Now I'm sorry but that is the damn final truth of the matter. If you were laying there behind that worthless chair you coward under thinking anything else you would be a damn fool!

Lets get real, stop riding these opinion bandwagons just to bloviate a damn point. You are safer if you have a gun, PERIOD! You don't play with it, you don't show it, you don't talk about it, you just have it, you know how to use it, you have carried it for so long it is like underwear and when you need it to save your life, it can, PERIOD!!!!!!

Black Market availability of a firearm is simple. Any criminal can get a gun. Come on lefties, when are you going to recognize common sense. Responsible folks don't hurt anyone. If you want to hurt folks it does not take a gun to do that. All you have to do is watch that video of the college kid smashing the cop in the head with a bottle full of water to realize it does not take a gun to do irresponsible shit.

Wise up people before we lose our right to defend ourselves and everyone with a gun becomes a criminal.

 

[Ninja]

I would never send my children to a school that encouraged or permitted students from packing heat in the classroom....or while at keggers at the frat house, for that matter.

All "Your kids going to college - good one!" comments aside:

Encouraging is totally different than permitting.

If students are licensed by the state to carry concealed, there is no reason why the CCW permit should not be honored on campus (provided we're talking about a public school). Anyone dumb enough to believe that "wah! A campus should be a place of learning, not of guns!" nonsense obviously didn't go to college.

Most states ban CCW permit holders from carrying while imbibing alcohol. Wait, other way around. Even if such regulations did not exist, 99.9999999999999999999999999% of people who carry would still not go anywhere near a drop of alcohol while carrying. Voluntarily.

Great sophistry though. You'd make a great DemoKKKratic presidential candidate.

 

[Edward]

Of course they should be allowed to carry concealed weapons

The liberal media and anti gun nuts are not waiting a second to push their agenda

Now the shooter is not really to blame - it is the lack of gun laws

What do you have to say to the English Professor and Chair of the English Department at VT saying that part of the blame rests with those who allow concealed weapons on campus? This woman who did everything within her power to prevent this from happening by notifying the school administration and police about the boy could do nothing to prevent this and this boy was able to buy a gun in March even though this woman and others warned the police back in 2005.

This woman was so afraid for her life and that of her assistant that she even created a code word to use with her assistant in case this man lost it while she was with him thus allowing her assistant to call the police without the boy knowing. She did not say that the shooter wasn't to blame and neither does any liberal that I know of instead when blaming the shooter there is an acceptance on the part of liberals that the access to guns that this boy had and his ability to bring them onto campus was the real threat and not simply the boy who used the guns. Only in the twisted conservative ideology which puts our children in danger is this acceptable.

I do not want my child to die on a college campus because a conservative wants to have a fucking gun and would give this type of person the right to carry a concealed weapon onto campus. I wouldn't care that the shooter is shot after he kills my child because my child is still dead because he was thefirst to be shot. I say fuck conservatives who would give guns to killers and put my child in danger instead of addressing the real issues. Maybe if their child was the first to be killed they might understand the consequences of their policies of allowing guns on college campuses. I am more than willing to have a gun there too and will gladly wait until their child is shot and killed before unloading into the shooter and they won't complain instead they will extol what I did and say, "the shooter had a right to carry a concealed weapon on campus..." Are there any conservatives who will volunteer to be the first killed so us liberals can shoot the killer? I am asking for volunteers?

 

[MissileMan]

A city police annex located just off campus would be a good start to at least shorten response time.

The presence of cops did the kids at Columbine a whole lot of good, right? You can't depend on any government agency to save your ass, especially from a psycho with a gun.

 

[Edward]

The presence of cops did the kids at Columbine a whole lot of good, right? You can't depend on any government agency to save your ass, especially from a psycho with a gun.

Yet, you would guarantee psycho's with guns the right to carry them on college campuses and in our schools? What? Did I forget that you could shoot him if he has a gun? I will remember to tell that to little Billy because he was first. I will remember to quote his parents the conservative mantra and tell his mommy and daddy that they can cry themselves a river of tears because conservatives don 't care that their child is dead.

I will quote you as saying, "My right to a gun is absolute and if Billy must die before I can kill the killer than so be it. Bye, bye Billy! Mommy needs to shut up about me giving the killer the right to a gun so I can defend myself. Damn the fact that Billy could not defend himself because he was the first to be shot at the hands of someone with a concealed weapon. He is the sacrificial lamb of THE CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY. We must sacrifice at least one victim in each college and school so that we can have our guns. Bye, bye Billy, to bad that you had to die this day."

But of course you could help everyone out a lot by volunteering your child to be first.

 

[Vintij]

VT is a "Gun Free Zone". I wasn't shooting from the hip - anyone who thinks that laws banning students with CCW permits from carrying on their campuses are a "great idea" is a fucking retard. Especially in light of yesterday's events.

My IQ is greater than the cumulative IQ of Vintij, his grandparents, parents and siblings.

I have a Bachelor of Science degree from one of the best universities in the country.

I could give a fuck about displaying any class.

And you show plenty of intellect with your posts, so eloquently put.

I dont have kids, im only 21. But if i did they would show more class than you. Also, what university do you speak of? Did you go to my school UC Berkely? Where did you go?

It is rather useless to fight the NRA or any gun owner since over 50% of america owns guns. I am not against the NRA as I have stated, I am against guns on campus and for strict laws for obtaining a gun license. This one single incident, is not enough to allow a potential lifetime of gun violence by letting kids conceal weapons on campus. Though it is one incident that will move america in the right direction in terms of gun control. The wrong direction is more guns, meaning more illegal gun trafficking. Did you not read my other post that proves over 40% of all gun sales are secondary sales? Wich means ILLEGAL! You basically want that number to go up, from what I understand. Not surprising though, I would expect gun loving hicks to right for their rights. They basically own this violent country. How many gun related deaths in england last year you ask? A total of 6!!!! Thats because people like you are not the majority, and they banned guns. Not to mention the overall crime rate is so much lower than America its about a half a percent compared to the rate in the US.

But you want to go the opposite way right? More guns equals less violence? This isnt the 1700's. The consitution is outdated on this issue. Not to mention, I didnt read anywhere in the bible that states "more guns=less violence.

Please dont use your usuall, child like name calling snowman. It really does not help your argument, it actually makes you look rather redundant.

 

[Ninja]

It's tragicomic that you think anyone who has read your writing would believe for a minute that you attend UC Berkeley.

 

[Ninja]

Did you go to my school UC Berkely?

P.S. If you do ever again try to pass yourself off as a "UC Berkely" student...

Make sure that you can correctly spell the name of the school you supposedly attend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Berkeley. UC Berkeley. Got it?

 

[sitarro]

And you show plenty of intellect with your posts, so eloquently put.

I dont have kids, im only 21. But if i did they would show more class than you. Also, what university do you speak of? Did you go to my school UC Berkely? Where did you go?

It is rather useless to fight the NRA or any gun owner since over 50% of america owns guns. I am not against the NRA as I have stated, I am against guns on campus and for strict laws for obtaining a gun license. This one single incident, is not enough to allow a potential lifetime of gun violence by letting kids conceal weapons on campus. Though it is one incident that will move america in the right direction in terms of gun control. The wrong direction is more guns, meaning more illegal gun trafficking. Did you not read my other post that proves over 40% of all gun sales are secondary sales? Wich means ILLEGAL! You basically want that number to go up, from what I understand. Not surprising though, I would expect gun loving hicks to right for their rights. They basically own this violent country. How many gun related deaths in england last year you ask? A total of 6!!!! Thats because people like you are not the majority, and they banned guns. Not to mention the overall crime rate is so much lower than America its about a half a percent compared to the rate in the US.

But you want to go the opposite way right? More guns equals less violence? This isnt the 1700's. The consitution is outdated on this issue. Not to mention, I didnt read anywhere in the bible that states "more guns=less violence.

Please dont use your usuall, child like name calling snowman. It really does not help your argument, it actually makes you look rather redundant.

Being 21 you no doubt feel you have all of the answers right? How, exactly , do you go about banning guns? I have 3 that I bought legally from friends that aren't registered and I am a tax paying citizen providing the money that you think of as the governments. If I as a good citizen can get three how many could a criminal get their hands on. You ban them, they will not magically disappear. They will come in from Canada, Mexico and all of Central and South America. They will come in on ships from Europe, Russia and anywhere else that makes them. Ain't gonna happen.

Do a better job of getting nutcases off of the street and keep them from getting weapons of any kind if at all possible, that would include driving a 5,000 pound weapon of mass destruction. That won't be easy or inexpensive but when considering the cost of banning guns it is probably a drop in the bucket. Oh by the way, since you brought up England, how many were killed when those nutcase blew up a bus and the subway a while back?

I think if you actually bother to research it, most shootings are done with guns that aren't obtained legally.

 

[red states rule]

Yet, you would guarantee psycho's with guns the right to carry them on college campuses and in our schools? What? Did I forget that you could shoot him if he has a gun? I will remember to tell that to little Billy because he was first. I will remember to quote his parents the conservative mantra and tell his mommy and daddy that they can cry themselves a river of tears because conservatives don 't care that their child is dead.

I will quote you as saying, "My right to a gun is absolute and if Billy must die before I can kill the killer than so be it. Bye, bye Billy! Mommy needs to shut up about me giving the killer the right to a gun so I can defend myself. Damn the fact that Billy could not defend himself because he was the first to be shot at the hands of someone with a concealed weapon. He is the sacrificial lamb of THE CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY. We must sacrifice at least one victim in each college and school so that we can have our guns. Bye, bye Billy, to bad that you had to die this day."

But of course you could help everyone out a lot by volunteering your child to be first.

Guns Used in Shooting Spree Possibly Had a Human Attached to Them
Two hours after several students were gunned down at a Virginia university today, gunshots erupted again on the other side of the campus - rudely interrupting the Healing Process long before anyone’s grief had a chance to be validated with lucrative book deals or appearances on Oprah.

As the news media scrambled to ask what firearms were used in the rampage and how quickly we could ban them, rumors surfaced that a human being may have somehow been attached to the weapons at the trigger. Several witnesses described seeing a young Asian male's fingers wrapped around two 9mm handguns that seemed to be magically floating in mid-air.

No one is sure how it happened, but it’s possible that the guns sucked him into Virginia Tech through the Gun Show Loophole and dragged him around the campus while they fired indiscrimately at helpless students. If so, it'll be the worst such incident since a pair of assault weapons dragged two helpless students through the halls of Columbine High School in 1991, murdering 12 innocent teens. Like the Columbine tragedy, the guns that attacked Virginia Tech ultimately turned on their host, and their wild killing spree came to an end.

Unable to pin this latest tragedy on Muslims like they did with 9/11, the cons are suggesting that the Chinese man attached to the guns was somehow “responsible” for the slaughter. I can already hear the hate-radio pundits using it as a reason to demand tighter immigration laws. It disgusts me to no end that repuigs can exploit such a tragedy to further their twisted political agenda before the body of the victim is even cold.

However, any inbred redneck with an NRA membership will tell you that automatic weapons virtually fire themselves, hence the term “automatic weapons”. Until lawmakers have the courage to ban such firearms and repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans, we can expect to see more innocent Chinese kids with fist-sized holes in their faces courtesy of Bush's illegal and immoral war in Iraq.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

 

[red states rule]

The View’ Discusses Gun Control, Ignores Rosie’s Armed Bodyguard Controversy
Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 18, 2007 - 10:03.
It certainly was predictable that in the wake of the horrific Virginia Tech massacre, the ladies of ABC’s “The View” – in particular, former gun control advocate Rosie O’Donnell – were going to use the incident to once again attack the Second Amendment.

Yet, when such a discussion on Tuesday completely ignored Rosie O’Donnell’s own controversy surrounding this issue – it was identified in May 2000 that one of her bodyguards applied for a gun permit – the coffee klatch oozed with hypocrisy.

To properly set the table, Rosie and the gang were discussing the Virginia Tech killings, and all those present took a predictably anti-Second Amendment and anti-NRA stance with the predictable exception of Elisabeth Hasselbeck whose challenge to O’Donnell set off the following delicious exchange: (h/t and video available here thanks to NRO’s Media Blog):

Hasselbeck: Gun control is something that is, it’s a difficult thing, because you think of how many people have been protected by arming themselves with, you know, women who would have been, you know, otherwise would have been raped and murdered being able to arm themselves and protect themselves against an attacker.

O’Donnell: Nearly every single study done in every single country proves that that’s wrong. However, you’re never gonna change the gun laws in America. It’s one of the most powerful lobbies…

Hasselbeck: It’s hard, it’s a Constitutional right…

O’Donnell: We’ve amended the Constitution before when the rights of humans have been violated. And if my right to live peacefully in America is violated by someone’s right to own a semi-automatic gun…

Yet, despite her activism, when Rosie herself felt threatened back in 2000, she privately didn’t feel this way. As reported by The Stamford Advocate on May 25 of that year:

An application for a concealed weapon permit by Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguard has some Greenwich neighbors of the television personality and gun-control advocate up in arms.

The application, which is pending with the Greenwich Police Department, led to a rumor that the permit's purpose would be to allow the bodyguard to legally carry a gun when accompanying O'Donnell's son to public school in September.

For those that have forgotten – which appears to include the entire panel of “The View” including O’Donnell herself – this created quite a stir at the time, because she was staunchly in favor of gun control, and was harshly criticizing guests of her show on the other side of the argument including Tom Selleck (video available here).

Yet, although Rosie at the time tried to resolve the controversy by suggesting that the bodyguard had applied for this license at the request of the company he represented, she did admit to feeling the need to be protected:

But the talk-show host said she and her family do need protection because of threats made against her, arising from her pro-gun control stands.

O'Donnell expressed concern that publicity about her son's attendance at a local school - coupled with the information that the guard would be unarmed - could make him vulnerable to harm.

[…]

O'Donnell said she can reconcile her support of gun control with the guard being armed on occasion.

"I don't personally own a gun," she said, "but if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem."

As such, when Rosie felt threatened almost seven years ago, and needed to protect her family, guns were acceptable. Seven years later, when she obviously now feels safe, and another national tragedy has occurred, it’s time to amend the Constitution.

Just another example of the well-established liberal mantra, “Do as I Say, Not as I Do,” wouldn’t you agree?

Alas, wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone on “The View” brought this issue up the next time Rosie went on an anti-Second Amendment/anti-NRA rant?


http://newsbusters.org/node/12120

 

[Dirt McGirt]

It amazes me that the pro-concealed weapons group have that much faith that other gun owners will be as responsible themselves. I'm not for banning guns and of course I'd want to have the luxury of a gun in a shootout. But there are places where firearms should be restricted. School campuses are one of them. I'm sure most of you are responsible gun owners. But shit happens. Not one of you can guarantee that there won't be an accidental discharge and not one of you can guarantee that you'd end up hitting your target 100% of the time.

 

[red states rule]

It amazes me that the pro-concealed weapons group have that much faith that other gun owners will be as responsible themselves. I'm not for banning guns and of course I'd want to have the luxury of a gun in a shootout. But there are places where firearms should be restricted. School campuses are one of them. I'm sure most of you are responsible gun owners. But shit happens. Not one of you can guarantee that there won't be an accidental discharge and not one of you can guarantee that you'd end up hitting your target 100% of the time.

Well you got your wish

32 dead bodies later..............

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Well you got your wish

32 dead bodies later..............

And that number would be far higher on college campuses every year if students were permitted to carry concealed firearms.

 

[MissileMan]

Yet, you would guarantee psycho's with guns the right to carry them on college campuses and in our schools? What? Did I forget that you could shoot him if he has a gun? I will remember to tell that to little Billy because he was first. I will remember to quote his parents the conservative mantra and tell his mommy and daddy that they can cry themselves a river of tears because conservatives don 't care that their child is dead.

I will quote you as saying, "My right to a gun is absolute and if Billy must die before I can kill the killer than so be it. Bye, bye Billy! Mommy needs to shut up about me giving the killer the right to a gun so I can defend myself. Damn the fact that Billy could not defend himself because he was the first to be shot at the hands of someone with a concealed weapon. He is the sacrificial lamb of THE CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY. We must sacrifice at least one victim in each college and school so that we can have our guns. Bye, bye Billy, to bad that you had to die this day."

But of course you could help everyone out a lot by volunteering your child to be first.

First of all, I said nothing about allowing someone with a known mental defect to own and carry a gun. There are procedures in place that are supposed to prevent a psycho from legally obtaining one. What's that you say? The psycho can just get a gun ILLEGALLY, so making concealed carry legal for normal, law-abiding citizens isn't going to stop him?

The argument isn't about how a psycho gets a gun...unless you're fucking retarded. The argument is about how innocent citizens are to survive an onslaught by a psycho with a gun, once the psycho's decided innocent people need to die.

So YOU got tell Billy's parents that he'd still be alive if he'd only had the means to defend himself.

 

[Vintij]

P.S. If you do ever again try to pass yourself off as a "UC Berkely" student...

Make sure that you can correctly spell the name of the school you supposedly attend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Berkeley. UC Berkeley. Got it?

How funny. See this? "right for their rights" thats called a typo as well. Certainly you have never typed so hastfully that you missed a few keys? Your perfect right? I dont see how changing the subject like a typical radical is helping your stance. Going from a good point your were about to make, to "oh hahah you typed wrong hahaha look at him" its pathetic but I see it all to much. I wouldnt expect you to say anything of relevance.

"I was not going to co-opt a tragedy to advance a political agenda, or even mention gun politics at all. But after seeing the anti-gun pod people foaming at the mouth on TV"

Looks like you went all out on advancing your political agenda. No restraint at all, so what makes you better than liberal politically driven, agendaists? Nothing. You put yourself on a compassionate pedastule, yet you are a slave to the enemy and you attack on the same level.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

for those who voted no b/c they think a guy will cause more harm, then i would think you also are against carrying a gun period right?

 

[Shogun]

I wouldnt say that at all...


again, I see a campus more like a federal building than a dark alleyway.


do you think that civilians with a right to carry should be allowed to do so in a courthouse?