Announcement

**Wingates_Hellsing** · 03-31-2010, 03:23 AM

Okay, I've got some major beefs with this, but in an attempt to keep this thread from getting slammed as "just another gun control debate" Let's keep it specific (since that's the only way to really adress issues like this anyway.

First of all:
You keep saying "arming students" as if previously unarmed and unskilled people are having weapons thrust upon them. That's very much not what we're talking about here. Allowing concealed carry on campuses means only that those who routinely arm themselves to continue to do so despite location. Furthermore, it frees them up to arm themselves elsewhere should they need to, at some point, visit the campus. Before they'd have to either go home and lock up their weapon before going to the school, or cancel the whole outing. This sort of situation infringes terribly on people's capability to practice this right outside of restricted areas. Which means that inner city issues are addressed quite nicely.

Second:
You make it sound as if increasing the police force and their patrols is something that can be done at a whim. We can't make people be police officers and patrols are virtually impossible to increase for long, only move. Allowing people to be self sufficient in their protection lessens the strain on law enforcement and makes everyone safer at cost to no one but the individual.

Third:
You're quite blatantly ignoring the most powerful thing in favor of allowing CC simply because you don't like it. Age requirements, background checks and proficiency are the only things that truly separate police officers from civilians. Effectively the response times are the biggest difference. Concealed carriers can respond instantly to nearby incidents but must standby for authorities once it's over whereas police officers can respond to incidents further away but take valuable time to do so. Both situations have advantages and drawbacks but there's really no reason to get rid of one in favor of the other. Remember, concealed carry is in addition to law enforcement authorities NOT instead of.

Fourth:
All your other safety measures are expensive, something that you yourself admit is prohibitive. Allowing concealed carry is free, but also acts as a deterrent. If a criminal knows that there's a chance that civilians are armed they are less likely to commit crimes the same as if the area's illumination or high police concentration would. All these things reduce their chance of success and increase their chance of bodily harm. So really, the best of all possibilities would be to have all of it. More lights, more cops and patrols, and more CC. Thing is, CC is the most practical because all the infrastructure and willing individuals already exist. They're normal people just like anyone else (including cops) who're willing to arm themselves so that they can effectively protect themselves and the people around them.

Would you want to ban all people who graduated from KU from becoming police officers or joining the millitary?

I doubt it. Regardless of the by and large appearance of thuggishness, there's more than enough safety netting (so to speak) to weed out as many of the bad apples as can be expected. The net result is maybe one in twenty people getting through despite posing some minor risk of abusing their power, but that's 19 good people and one a little bit not so good person... encouraging odds to say the least. (yes I am just throwing those numbers out as a hypothetical) and it's the same with CC.

I'm incredibly frustrated with your distrust of everyone not wearing a shield on their chest. You know what? I don't fucking trust them either, not all of them. But that's no reason to dismiss the whole fucking lot of them.

**AdminAssistant** · 03-31-2010, 03:45 AM

I'm worried that in the (extremely unlikely) event of an attack, like Virginia Tech, some kid who is carrying will try to be a hero and react poorly. Concealed carry training is, as I understand it, largely in the realm of self-defense. Not in attacks on groups of people, and not in a situation of mass panic. Point blank, I don't want a kid with a gun in my fucking classroom. I don't want them to overreact to or worsen a situation. I don't want them to miss and shoot me. There have been group fights on campus - sometimes between rival frats and most recently between the basketball and football teams. I don't want a gun in that situation.

And even if the carrier is trained, prepared, and calm....there is a chance that weapon could be taken by someone that isn't. I don't like it. Not one tiny fucking bit. And if this does pass, I hope that the faculty, staff, and other students will file suit for creating an unsafe work environment. Because I see this law as doing much more harm than good. I don't feel comfortable knowing that one of my students might be armed. I have been threatened and bullied by students who didn't agree with a grade I gave them. The fact that they might also have a weapon frightens me.

When I referred to the 'thuggish' attitude, I was referring to how some townies and most people from outside Lawrence view our students. It's definitely unwarranted (and mostly racial). And the star basketball player has committed the terrible crime of being black and having tattoos, so therefore all Jayhawk athletes are thugs and gang members.

Ridiculous, really. I love this town, but the state is just...so freakin' backwards it hurts.

**~~elsporko~~** · 03-31-2010, 04:14 AM

In the event of a school shooting I think the shooter getting shot is a better alternative then the shooter having free reign to take out as many people as he can before the police get there

**Greenday** · 03-31-2010, 04:54 AM

No one is going to shoot up a school all of a sudden because it's okay to carry a concealed weapon on campus. If someone is prepared to blow their classmates and teachers away, do you really think not allowing weapons on campus is going to stop them? If anything, knowing that there may be other people in the room with the ability to stop you may keep someone from doing so in a classroom.

I mean, this is a rough guess, but if someone was to pull a gun out in an ordinary classroom, wouldn't everyone else hit the ground, making the gunman an easy target for someone else who is carrying?

**tabbyblack13** · 03-31-2010, 06:00 AM

I had a friend conceal and carry at our college. A man with a knife tried to mug him on campus. Please keep in mind this guy was doing this for over a month and the cops could not catch him. My friend only pulled out the gun after the guy produced a knife and threatened to hurt my friend. If my friend didn't have his gun he might have been severely injured. This shows that conceal and carry can work if the person is responsible. There are still responsible people out there that can do this. Why restrict the responsible people?

I wouldn't be concerned about the people that are law abiding. It's the ones that do not obey the law that concerns me. Even if you forbid wepons in a building would a person that doesn't obey the law even care?

**AdminAssistant** · 03-31-2010, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Greenday View Post

I mean, this is a rough guess, but if someone was to pull a gun out in an ordinary classroom, wouldn't everyone else hit the ground, making the gunman an easy target for someone else who is carrying?

So, in that situation, a 21-year old 5th year senior is going to have the clarity and presence of mind to actually do that? I'm sorry, but I find it highly unlikely. And random one-on-one muggings are exceedingly rare on campus. I mean, it's Kansas. There isn't much crime. And, as I've said, a lot of the robberies and rapes that happen off-campus would be avoided if the townies and property owners would pull their heads out of their collective asses and let the city put up more street lights in the downtown/student ghetto neighborhoods. (And if students did more drinking in the safety of their homes instead of frats, bars, and house parties.)

While direct harm may not be the result of this bill, I just don't see it as doing any measurable good. Is their right to carry a weapon more important than my right to a safe, comfortable working environment? Because I am. not. comfortable. around firearms.

ETA: Here's the student newspaper link: http://www.kansan.com/news/2010/mar/...l-causes-stir/

**crashhelmet** · 03-31-2010, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Wingates_Hellsing View Post

Third:
You're quite blatantly ignoring the most powerful thing in favor of allowing CC simply because you don't like it. Age requirements, background checks and proficiency are the only things that truly separate police officers from civilians. Effectively the response times are the biggest difference. Concealed carriers can respond instantly to nearby incidents but must standby for authorities once it's over whereas police officers can respond to incidents further away but take valuable time to do so. Both situations have advantages and drawbacks but there's really no reason to get rid of one in favor of the other. Remember, concealed carry is in addition to law enforcement authorities NOT instead of.

Fourth:
All your other safety measures are expensive, something that you yourself admit is prohibitive. Allowing concealed carry is free, but also acts as a deterrent. If a criminal knows that there's a chance that civilians are armed they are less likely to commit crimes the same as if the area's illumination or high police concentration would. All these things reduce their chance of success and increase their chance of bodily harm. So really, the best of all possibilities would be to have all of it. More lights, more cops and patrols, and more CC. Thing is, CC is the most practical because all the infrastructure and willing individuals already exist. They're normal people just like anyone else (including cops) who're willing to arm themselves so that they can effectively protect themselves and the people around them.

Are you saying that vigilante justice is completely acceptable? That it's perfectly fine for a civilian to take the law into their own hands and quite possibly start an unneeded and highly dangerous fire-fight? Why have security or a police force at all?

CH

**Greenday** · 03-31-2010, 06:54 AM

Maybe it's just the differences in where we are. We've had people get mugged and raped in decently lit areas and populated areas. I mean, it's kinda a small city. Yet it got bad enough in town that it was in Philly news. I mean, we had some 5'6" Mexican guy in a white hoodie mugging people walking from campus to campus. This is in a normal suburban town, heavily populated. Not even in the city part. There are no Mexicans in the suburban part of town. In fact, I've never seen any Mexicans in the city part of town. This was two years ago and the cops still haven't figured out who did it. I have a feeling this would have been solved a lot faster if people were allowed to arm and protect themselves.

Originally posted by crashhelmet View Post

Are you saying that vigilante justice is completely acceptable? That it's perfectly fine for a civilian to take the law into their own hands and quite possibly start an unneeded and highly dangerous fire-fight? Why have security or a police force at all?

Unneeded? I guess letting someone continue to spray bullets into a crowd of students is definitely unneeded.

And no one is saying get rid of security or the police. It's a matter of being able to properly defend oneself.

Originally posted by AdminAssistant View Post

So, in that situation, a 21-year old 5th year senior...

I'm going to have to stop your right there. How many 21 year old 5th year seniors do you know? (It's 2:00am, I'm tired, on night time drugs, and slightly delirious so I had to crack one joke on Fratching before I go to sleep.)

**Wingates_Hellsing** · 03-31-2010, 07:42 AM

There is a very important difference between vigilante justice and defending oneself and others. Vigilantes take it into their hands to be judge jury and executioner, seeking out criminals and administering justice on their own terms, quite simply a bad idea all around. What CC is for, is the protection of life and limb for both the carrier and others until the proper authorities arrive and administer justice. Firing the weapon and/or killing the criminal is not the objective, unless the criminal poses such a threat as to require such an action to ensure the safety of their victims.

Again, I'm not advocating the dismantlement of the police force or conventional security, rather to allow people to handle the situation for themselves until those authorities can take over.

Furthermore, confrontation between CC holders and criminals are for the most part typical of that which police officers experience. Firefights are rare and usually the criminal is either captured of flees. If there is a firefight, they tend to be short affairs where rarely more than a few rounds are exchanged and most all of them are hits, not errant misses. Both police and CC training deal with target backdrop (what you might hit if you miss or over-penetrate), handling situations, and proper force escalation. All things considered, it's far preferable to allow people to defend themselves than to simply let the criminal hold all the power and potentially kill their victims.

Again, a CC practitioner and a police officer are roughly equivalent over all and many if not most CC practitioners far exceed average LE levels of firearms proficiency and accuracy. CC holders are firearm hobbyists who spend many hours on the range and keeping their skills fresh. Almost always far exceeding the requirements of most law enforcement agencies.

Believe it or not, CC practitioners make places safer not less safe. And your right to comfort in no way trumps anyone's right to safety. It is far preferable for a trained and skilled individual to engage an attacker as quickly as possible in order to eliminate the threat sooner rather than later. While the exchange of fire adds quite slightly to the chance of someone catching a stray, it most likely ends a rampage far earlier than it would have otherwise. That's LE doctrine, by the way, engage the shooter as quickly as possible.

AdminAssistant, I find your inability to believe that anyone can act clearly in a crisis quite insulting to the human species. As many instances as there are of panic, there are far more of intelligent and correct reaction. While there are those that make mistakes, there are also those who react accordingly. The sad thing is that in most cases these people who keep their heads are not equipped to end the threat, merely avoid it. If people were really as skittish and fragile as you insist, then I suppose we shouldn't have SWAT teams or any police officers at all. They can handle it not because they are super people, but because they like all people are capable, if necessary, to manage a crisis. Irrational and immature people rarely if ever make it into the ranks of armed law enforcement or conceal carriers and what we're left with is a group of people capable of handling a hostile situation for the most part.

I'll also re-stress my point that restricting carry on campus makes it nearly impossible to carry elsewhere because they can't lock up their weapons at the door. If there's a problem with people getting mugged in the vicinity of or on their way to or from an area, it only makes sense to allow them to carry there and thus enable them to carry in those areas as well.

You say you aren't comfortable around firearms. Do you cower in fear or flee from police officers? If there was a cop sitting in your classroom, would you be worried? No, you'd feel safer because they are there to protect you and everyone else, with their guns if they have to. People have said that open and concealed carry will lead to OK Corall scenarios or shootings of passion but [b]IT JUST HASN'T HAPPENED[b]. You should be more afraid of the drunken frat guys (who stand little chance of getting a permit anyway) stabbing you with a fucking BIC ballpoint before you even consider a cop or CCer drawing down on you for no reason.

On top of that I literally don't give a shit whether you have some personal phobia regarding guns I or anyone else may or may not have. If every person in the nation is uncomfortable around guns it still isn't enough to trump those people's right to provide for their own safety. If you're worried that they may fail, be a sport and get the fuck out of the way, or help them secure the area when the noise stops. If anyone who is carrying ever threatens you with the use of their weapon, by all means, report the fucker and have 'em blacklisted and kicked the fuck out. Still, the chances of that happening are too low to present significant risk. Even if you aren't emotionally ready to accept the fact that CCers do as much to make a place safer as cops do, at least give it some rational intellectual thought. The precedent and the numbers to say nothing of the expertise of those who are well versed in such areas all say that without a doubt you're safer around a CCer than not. Let's not let our emotions endanger our lives, or our liberty.

**Nyoibo** · 03-31-2010, 08:31 AM

With the world such a dangerous place how would we survive if not for the people carrying guns around to keep us safe, it's so dangerous that all civilians need to carry guns to protect themselves and each other, how would a society function without people being able to carry guns, it would be impossible...

... Oh wait, no it's not, civilians cannot carry guns in Australia, can't in Japan either, or the UK as far as I know and yet amazingly life goes on with no one being either safer or less safe.

People have training to use guns, all well and good, one quick question, how much training do you have to keep hold of that weapon? I've been trained to confront an attacker without using a gun, I have also been trained to take weapons away from people and that includes guns, not just disarming a drawn weapon but taking away a holstered/sheathed weapon. If that happens, suddenly that CC has not made that area safe, they've made it way more dangerous by putting a gun into the hands of someone who may have been unarmed.

**crashhelmet** · 03-31-2010, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Wingates_Hellsing View Post

People have said that open and concealed carry will lead to OK Corall scenarios or shootings of passion but [b]IT JUST HASN'T HAPPENED[b].

Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean that it won't or can't.

You speak of "what if" situations where people that carry get to play hero and savior, holding off the bad guys until the cops arrive. All it takes is one "cowboy" to pull his weapon to turn a possibly dangerous situation into a deadly situation. Yes, it's possible that if someone else had been carrying at Virginia Tech or Columbine that less people might have died. It's also possible that more people could've been hurt in the crossfire. You think that the person with training might have better control or less panic. What about the aggressor? They're already mentally unstable. Do you really want them to start panicking?

I dispute your argument about where you can and cannot bring the firearm to, especially when concealed. There are some places that civilians are not allowed to carry, regardless of whether or not it's concealed or not or law. What is someone supposed to do if they have a court appointment and they're carrying? They can take it home or surrender it, if the courthouse will even accept it.

Here in Nevada our State Constitution allows open carry without any problems. We just need to make sure we have our registration on us, IIRC. However, concealed weapons are banned on school campuses as well as other places and we have some of the more relaxed gun laws than any other state.

CH

**AdminAssistant** · 03-31-2010, 03:06 PM

I'll get back to the rest of your post when I have time, WH, but if a cop's in my classroom I know that he's armed. Allowing concealed carry on campus means that my students may be armed or they may not be. I won't know. And that scares me. But, according to you, it's okay for CC'ers to carry arms in order to placate their fears about possible attacks and personal safety. While my personal safety concerns are irrational. Gotcha.

By the time a student threatens me with a weapon, it's too late. I've already been threatened with one once. I've also been harassed by students. Maybe the University and the State would then be kind enough to pay for my therapy sessions.

If this passes (and I still have hope for the Senate and the Governor....gah, We need you Secretary Sebelius!!), I will be actively seeking a transfer or a non-teaching position. I won't work in the wild west. Many others won't either. And it will be another in a long list of stupid shit the State of Kansas has done to make us all look like ass-backwards rednecks.

I'm on this campus everyday. I know these students. They're good kids, but they're just that. Kids. Who make mistakes and screw up on a daily basis. And, no, I don't expect them to handle a crisis situation well. They aren't trained in how to take down an armed assailant. Police, SWAT, and the military are. I doubt that there will be a repeat of Virginia Tech, and as I've said many times, there really isn't a crime problem on campus. There isn't a need for students to carry weapons. This is just some small town legislator interfering with something that isn't broken.

Here's another wrinkle. What about students who live in dorms/student apartments? Where will they store their weapons? The University will have to mandate something, and it will cost money that this University does not have.

**Greenday** · 03-31-2010, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by AdminAssistant View Post

Here's another wrinkle. What about students who live in dorms/student apartments? Where will they store their weapons? The University will have to mandate something, and it will cost money that this University does not have.

Um, in their dorm rooms? There is a reason needed have it stored elsewhere?

I just don't understand why you would fear the people with concealed carry. Do you REALLY think people who plan on murdering you are sane enough to care about having a concealed carry license? No. They know that even with laws against concealed carry, they can conceal it anyway and use it when they have to. Concealed carry only stops rational people from committing murder and threatening people, not the actual irrational people you should be worried about.

**Wingates_Hellsing** · 03-31-2010, 06:03 PM

Saying that countries like Japan. the UK and Australia are by and large safe enough to the point where people don't need to protect themselves is like saying that California is safe enough that people don't need to protect themselves. With it's size, the US has plenty of high-poverty areas and other criminally active areas where it wouldn't be out of line for someone to want to protect themselves (as the chances of them needing to are high enough to be a concern.)

And even if your chances of getting mugged are low, I see no reason to prevent people from defending themselves should it happen. No the world doesn't come crashing down if concealed carry isn't allowed, I'm not a child. I do however believe that the right to protect your life and liberty is a core right that shouldn't be taken away. What good is your right to life, if some scumbag can just come up and take it?

@Crashhelmet
Preventing a weapon from being taken makes up a significant portion of most CC training. Most classes teach practitioners to (similar to cops) forcibly keep distance from the target until they're immobilized. If this isn't possible it's common to ward them off with your weak hand and draw the weapon in close to your body, should they make a move, you can keep them away with one hand and shoot them with the other (at this point they're definitely trying to kill or harm you, so, sorry dude

).

While open carry can work, concealed carry is preferable. It gives the carrier the element of surprise and reduces the probability of attempted theft (All decent holsters have anti-theft retention, but it never hurts to be sure)

If a courthouse has a system for a weapon to be surrendered and then retrieved, I don't really have a problem with that especially since the court has a dedicated, armed, security force. Colleges don't, and seeing as low-security areas attract madmen like moths to light, I see it as a serious infringement on one's right to life. "Well we think you have a right to be safe, but not here because there are people who might be uncomfortable"

If anything the shooter in a massacre situation panicking is a good thing, chances are they won't be executing people like they were when they're focused and their chances of winning a firefight are rather low. With that in mind I'm perfectly fine with them panicking and being dead after 10 seconds as opposed to letting them kill whoever they want for hours. In massacre situations we've transcended the "they might do something stupid" barrier and it's time to take action. People keep saying that more people might have died in the crossfire as if dozens of shots would've been fired. The probability is overwhelmingly in favor of a close-range encounter where maybe one or two shots are fired before it's over. Even if the engagement is at a longer range the chances are that the shooters will either close with each other and end it (in a minute or two) or one or the other flees and either heads elsewhere (if their the attacker) or flanks (if their the CCer/cop)

The shooters at columbine received long-range handgun fire from a cop on the street. The only reason he wasn't able to close with them and end it was because he ran out of ammo. The fort Hood shooter was killed by security who closed with him and eliminated him. The danger of stray bullets from cops, CCers or other trained shooters is negligible. A big part of the training deals with preventing stray shots and taking into consideration the vicinity of your target and their backstop.

I've said many of these things before, and I get the sense that you either didn't read my post carefully and see it or simply believe me to be wrong regardless.

I won't deny that there are some situations in which a pulled gun can set off the powder-keg. But the evidence shows that it doesn't happen very often compared to the overwhelming majority of instances in which the situation is resolved or the criminal flees. One situation made kinda sorta a little bit worse (because, if the criminal attacks because a gun is drawn, chances are they were unstable anyway and at least now you're ready to shoot 'em) in no way invalidates five or six situations made better.

You're probably thinking that I'm over-optimistic, only considering the benefits. I would like to point out that I haven't denied (and often confirmed) many of the drawbacks. It's just that I've considered the benefits, done my research (in the past, but if you insist I can do it again) and found that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I used to be against guns until I go the chance to really look into it. I'm tempted to say that you're overly fixated on the negative, ignoring the good in favor of the problems.

Again, if one person pulls a gun, and some mugger get's shot dead where he might not have (not that I give a shit) or some woman gets stabbed where she might not have it is a tragic conclusion. But the fact of the matter is that most CC incidents end up better, not worse.

And again, take into account police incidents as well. Once in a while a criminal shoots in panic, in a slender fraction of incidents they hurt someone. But police still carry weapons and still use them because in most incidents the criminal surrenders or flees, far preferable to just letting them do whatever they want.

@AdminAssistant

I'm trying to help you understand that your fears of anyone carrying a gun are irrational. If you think of a CCer what comes to mind should be something more along the lines of a police officer.

Announcement

Concealed Carry on Campus

Concealed Carry on Campus

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment