Concealed Carry on Campus

[Nyoibo]

@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 ).

Actually, that was my question.

@AdminAssistant

I'm trying to help you understand that your fears of anyone carrying a gun are irrational.

No more irrational than your fears of someone attacking and you needing a gun.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

No more irrational than your fears of someone attacking and you needing a gun.

Not really. I live and go to school in a very safe area and I myself don't feel compelled to carry a weapon. For other people, however, it may be a different story. If I had to walk through a seedy neighborhood at night to get to school or if there was a problem with crime on campus, for example.

The chances of someone getting mugged are astronomically higher than being harmed by a CC holder, in that sense fear of the CC holder is irrational compared to fear of the nonspecific criminal.

Moreover, someone making the choice to go out of their way to provide for their own safety 'just in case' does not harm anyone else, or strip them of their rights. Preventing those same people from doing so out of unfounded fear is stripping them of their rights as well as potentially endangering them.

It's irrational to think that your house is going to catch on fire when you sleep on any given night, or that your going to be stranded in your house for several days on any given day. But the whole principle of preparedness is to hope for the best and plan for the worst. The belief isn't that you will need it, but that you may. It does happen to people and if it happens to be you you'd best have a way to get out, enough water for a week, or a gun.

It doesn't matter if it's a waste of time in the end because it happens not to end up being needed. You don't stop people from having emergency food stores or fire extinguishers because the risk is low because their doing that doesn't threaten you. CC doesn't either, despite what we're lead to believe, so there's no reason to prevent it.

[lordlundar]

Wingates, think of this, please.

These are people who's biggest concern is their GPA and a majority of them seem to think that a lower mark is the fault of the teacher as opposed to their own inability. We even have a teacher who has been threatened with their life repeatedly and their only recourse is a vain hope that the student can be expelled which dwindles if they have any family members that donate to the school or is on a scholarship.

Now compare this to the once in a lifetime odds (if that) that someone mentally unstable is going to come to school armed to the teeth and shoot the place up. This is assuming that the person hasn't been caught long before it happens, which is a lot more frequent than it's not.

Now here you are dismissing something that occurs on an almost yearly basis at the outset as an "irrational fear" while something that has worse odds than the lottery is something that is totally understandable and should be prepared for.

Let me reiterate this point. You are advocating giving weapons to people who have issues with personal responsibility and willing to harass and threaten people with their lives just to be prepared for an EXTREMELY rare occurrence.

How does this make sense to you?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Wingates, think of this, please.

These are people who's biggest concern is their GPA and a majority of them seem to think that a lower mark is the fault of the teacher as opposed to their own inability. We even have a teacher who has been threatened with their life repeatedly and their only recourse is a vain hope that the student can be expelled which dwindles if they have any family members that donate to the school or is on a scholarship.

Now compare this to the once in a lifetime odds (if that) that someone mentally unstable is going to come to school armed to the teeth and shoot the place up. This is assuming that the person hasn't been caught long before it happens, which is a lot more frequent than it's not.

Now here you are dismissing something that occurs on an almost yearly basis at the outset as an "irrational fear" while something that has worse odds than the lottery is something that is totally understandable and should be prepared for.

Let me reiterate this point. You are advocating giving weapons to people who have issues with personal responsibility and willing to harass and threaten people with their lives just to be prepared for an EXTREMELY rare occurrence.

How does this make sense to you?

You have failed utterly to understand both the focus and the scope of my points. Massacre situations are the smallest part of self defense with firearms, it's crime in, around, and en route to and from a campus that makes up the majority of my and most all CCer's concerns.

It's not about giving weapons to anyone, it's about allowing rational, responsible adults who already arm themselves elsewhere to arm themselves here. Not only are those who take bad grades personally in the extreme minority, but emotional conflicts do not tend to lead to physical attack or use of a firearm. I am not dismissing the possibility of someone unstable getting a permit, happen to be carrying, have an altercation, and decide to use the weapon, I'm saying it's unlikely. As if not more unlikely than a conventional massacre because anyone willing to pull a gun because of one incident is also willing to later come back with a gun anyway.

Guns don't turn people into raving lunatics. People don't snap and become psychopaths.

If someone threatens physical harm, repeatedly no less, call the fucking cops. Most people predisposed to threatening people already have such citations on their record, which means they can't get a permit to carry concealed anyway. Still, that doesn't stop them from breaking the rules, so for the love of god report them to the authorities yourself so they can be removed from public if need be. And if they do flout the rules and try to shoot you over a grade, hope to god there's someone capable of stopping them nearby.

[Hobbs]

Wingates, think of this, please.

These are people who's biggest concern is their GPA and a majority of them seem to think that a lower mark is the fault of the teacher as opposed to their own inability. We even have a teacher who has been threatened with their life repeatedly and their only recourse is a vain hope that the student can be expelled which dwindles if they have any family members that donate to the school or is on a scholarship.

Now compare this to the once in a lifetime odds (if that) that someone mentally unstable is going to come to school armed to the teeth and shoot the place up. This is assuming that the person hasn't been caught long before it happens, which is a lot more frequent than it's not.

Now here you are dismissing something that occurs on an almost yearly basis at the outset as an "irrational fear" while something that has worse odds than the lottery is something that is totally understandable and should be prepared for.

Let me reiterate this point. You are advocating giving weapons to people who have issues with personal responsibility and willing to harass and threaten people with their lives just to be prepared for an EXTREMELY rare occurrence.

How does this make sense to you?

In your scenario, wouldn't it be prudent for the teacher to be allowed to arm themselves from the person who's threatened thier life repeatedly?

That's not the point he's trying to make at all. He's saying that arming responsible people makes sense, which it does. A person who takes the time and money to be trained in carrying a weapon is far more likely to be responsible for accepting their grades. Your argument is actually more of a Straw Man Fallacy actually.

Ed: Wingates answered it better

[Greenday]

Also, don't forget that most states have an age limit on obtaining guns. I know in PA, a relatively lax state on guns, requires you to be at least 21. That just eliminated the majority of students in college. That means the few people who would be carrying are seniors and grad students, who aren't the whiners who threaten people.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Also, don't forget that most states have an age limit on obtaining guns. I know in PA, a relatively lax state on guns, requires you to be at least 21. That just eliminated the majority of students in college. That means the few people who would be carrying are seniors and grad students, who aren't the whiners who threaten people.

There is also only one jurisdiction that provides for concealed carry under the age of 21 anyway. And there's only been something like a few dozen that ever got it, none of whom caused even the slightest hint of trouble.

[AdminAssistant]

In your scenario, wouldn't it be prudent for the teacher to be allowed to arm themselves from the person who's threatened thier life repeatedly?

I don't want to be armed, I want to teach in a gun-free environment.

That means the few people who would be carrying are seniors and grad students, who aren't the whiners who threaten people.

Would you like me to introduce you to some? Because I most certainly could. There are freaks and assholes at every level of academia, and I'm sure that quite a few could fake sanity enough to get a CC license and pass the weekend worth of required training.

Yet another wrinkle...in my particular field (theatre) there are a lot of classes that are physically involved (movement, acting, dance, etc.) So, the student has to change and will need a secure place to store their firearm. Oh, and the rec center too, can't run on the treadmill with your pistol (unless you really are that paranoid). Those provisions come at a greater cost to the University.

[Nyoibo]

Quick question, what makes these people with a CC so "responsible and stable" I'm assuming that they have to take a battery of psychological and personality tests to get their CC?

[AdminAssistant]

Quick question, what makes these people with a CC so "responsible and stable" I'm assuming that they have to take a battery of psychological and personality tests to get their CC?

A couple of forms, a background check, and a weekend's worth of training from a certified instructor, if memory serves. Both of my parents are registered CC holders (although I have tried desperately to get all the guns out of their house before one of them does something stupid, but I digress).

[Nyoibo]

Yeah, I just looked the requirements up, 8 hours of training, no felonies and no criminal record for 5 years hmm... so how exactly does that maye them so responsible and stable an individual, I'm pretty sure except for the age restriction that the kids responsible for Columbine could have got their CC with those requirements.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Jurisdictional requirements vary, but the usual background check for owning a firearm (plus FBI in some areas) as well as the training. While by no means infallible (nothing is) it's a fair amount of assurance. That and that CC holders are five times less likely to commit a violent crime, much less a gun crime as well as the fact that by and large the people who pursue a license in the first place are normal, rational people. It simply doesn't occur to crazies to get a license when they can just take a gun in anyway.

So there's still be some circumstances in which a student couldn't effectively carry, how does this have any bearing on allowing it? Because some people do something that precludes them from carrying, we should ban it? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I think we're primarily coming at this from different angles more than anything. My side sees guns as a neutral tool, and people in general as rational and stable. Your side sees guns as evil ticking time bombs and people in general as raving lunatics capable of murder at the drop of the hat. The simple fact of the matter is that none of the things your worried will happen to you have happened on other campuses that allow CC. Anything's possible, but the odds are slim and it's really not something to worry about.

I suppose you also want to watch movies, shop and eat in gun-free areas as well? In which case you're out of luck, because CC holders routinely carry in all those areas (think: everywhere) and it hasn't caused a problem in any of those places. They all pose a potential risk of altercation, that exists everywhere. And yet passion killings haven't happened.

Logically this means that they don't pose significant risk to you or anyone else. Given that, why is it more important for you to be comfortable than it is for the rest of us to be safe?

[Nyoibo]

Actually, I have no problem with guns, I just see no reason why anyone apart from police the military and some vets and farmers have any need of a firearm.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Actually, I have no problem with guns, I just see no reason why anyone apart from police the military and some vets and farmers have any need of a firearm.

It's not about *need* as in absolute reliance on, it's *could use* as in the circumstance exists where having a gun has and will save lives. It's not on me to prove I need it, it's on you to prove it's dangerous for me to have it. Since the evidence is quite clearly in favor of guns saving lives (in the hands of civilians cops and soldiers alike) there just no grounds for a ban.

[AdminAssistant]

Your side sees guns as evil ticking time bombs and people in general as raving lunatics capable of murder at the drop of the hat. *snip* I suppose you also want to watch movies, shop and eat in gun-free areas as well?

Actually, "my side" sees deadly weapons as largely unnecessary. I'm a pacifist, and I long for a world where citizens don't need to arm themselves. As has been said, other countries have banned firearms rather effectively. The vast majority of this country is safe. To feel the need for a firearm is paranoia at best.

And you suppose correctly. But I don't have control over those areas. I'm supposed to have some measure of control in my classroom.

P.S. Guns don't *save* lives. If you take out an armed assailant, you have taken a life as a means to prevent further loss. Penicillin saves lives. Guns are a preventive.