Should Students Be Allowed to Carry Guns on Campus?

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by Coeloptera

Here's an interesting question to add to the discussion.

Does anyone know of any incidents wherein a CCW holder or other civilian, during a shooting incident, accidentally shot any bystanders or the like?

I can't really find any, and you know I skim the 'net looking for civilian shooting incidents (because I like posting good ones).

Frankly, what I'm finding are incidents wherein LEOs end up firing 60-90 rounds at a single suspect and/or end up shooting nearby houses, their partners, or themselves (no offense to the LEOs we have here, it's just what I find).

I find incidents of gang members firing without regard at a house or target and hitting bystanders.

But I can't seem to find regular citizens hitting bystanders when they're defending themselves from some attacker.

I wonder if there are any existing studies on this?

- Coeloptera

Anyone with CCW permit/CHL should be allowed to carry anywhere, anytime, without restriction. Full Stop. They can use their judgment to determine if they "want" to carry where they are going on any particular day. (i.e. if someone's going out imbibing/bar hopping, it's a brilliant idea to leave the pistol at home). Enough beating this horse. Bad guys don't play by the rules, and accident rates by CHL holders is extremely low.

Coel,

It's very infrequent that bystander is hit, even in the more "gross" cases (100+) of misses by LEO (and I'm not slinging spears here for bad shooting--I wasn't there and can't possibly know the dynamics of the situation, let alone how well or poorly I might do in the same shoes), let alone a CHL defending himself/herself. Here's a link with some info; I don't know of any objective or formal studies being done.

NRA-ILA :: Fact Sheets

You can go to the bottom and scroll to find links and citations to various topics.

I had read (I believe in American Handgunner or some similar publication) of a good guy (gal actually) being wounded by a CHL holder during a running gun battle while shooting at a BG. This was after the good guy was wounded by the bad guy as well. This article was within the last 4 months or so. It's a tough call, and I'm not sure the citizen's performance would have been any better or worse than someone officially "trained" during the confrontation. She recovered, but was hit during the gunfight. This is the only instance I've heard or read about where a good guy was fragged by a CHL holder during a gunfight. If you go to their website, you might be able to find the article. Fratricide is always bad; however, it sometimes still occurs amongst the most finely trained people in the fog of a conflict. My educated postulation is that you'll find the CHL rate of collateral damage to be less than that of the pros. The main reason behind this is that CHL holders are very disciplined and well trained. Along with this, they are acting primarily defensively, and they don't always "have" to take the shots (i.e. can afford to be a bit more conservative) that an LEO might have to -- to offensively stop a conflict. A CHL holder probably doesn't have to shoot at a car that's speeding away; an LEO may well want to because the person in the car is employing a very deadly weapon and could kill someone.

[cubbieman]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

This is not the military this is a college campus we are talking about, they aren't trained to use weapons or combat they are there for higher learning. I bet the rate of school shootings actually raises due to accidents, fights, or heat of the moment type situations. College students already have enough pressure on them, and I don't think giving them a gun is a good idea.

people have been saying, throughout the entire thread, that there should be qualifications.

do you have stats to say that CCW holders have a high rate of murdering people? flashing their guns around like a newly engaged woman flashes her ring? these are the things you would find in high school students, not college students, especially if you count the fact that most freshmen and sophmores couldn't carry, and most juniors would have to wait until their birthday, as they would not be 21 yet

college students don't have any more pressure on them than anyone else, most of them don't have a family to feed, they're not about to get laid off, they do have stress, but so do adults who are on their own already into their career

[patrick70]

YES !!!! Theres too many gangs and wakos in todays liberal world

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by cubbieman

people have been saying, throughout the entire thread, that there should be qualifications.

do you have stats to say that CCW holders have a high rate of murdering people? flashing their guns around like a newly engaged woman flashes her ring? these are the things you would find in high school students, not college students, especially if you count the fact that most freshmen and sophmores couldn't carry, and most juniors would have to wait until their birthday, as they would not be 21 yet

college students don't have any more pressure on them than anyone else, most of them don't have a family to feed, they're not about to get laid off, they do have stress, but so do adults who are on their own already into their career

OK, but my state's qualifications is a 1 day class and a one time fee and you are done. how does that equate to safety and qualifications? I mean anyone can go get it.

How many gun accidents happen each year? How many college students do we have in our country? 50+ million? Now imagine if half of them carry, so like what +/- 25 million? If you are around guns your chances of being shot statistically go up, that has been proved by studies. I know that when I chose to bring guns into my home my chances of getting shot went up like 60%.

It is a simple numbers game. Less that 1% of students have been shot by a crazed gun wielding psycho path. You put tons of guns on campus it is bound to happen, I guarantee it. No, college kids are not responsible and they have way more pressure than anyone else. When I was in college I had tons of pressure to do good so I could get a good entry level job afterwards. After you get your first job your college really means nothing, because the rest is based on experience. You get pressure from your parents to do well, society to do well, and from the hard work you have to endure, and if you are like you had to work 30 hours a week to afford to pay your rent and for gas and car insurance while in college.

[just_a_car]

tlarkin, tell me where all the reports of crazed gunman and gun-point rapes are in Utah.... They've had CC on all state campuses for about a year.

When you can show me some hard evidence of anything you've tried to say will happen happening there, then I'll give your words more weight than helium.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by just_a_car

tlarkin, tell me where all the reports of crazed gunman and gun-point rapes are in Utah.... They've had CC on all state campuses for about a year.

When you can show me some hard evidence of anything you've tried to say will happen happening there, then I'll give your words more weight than helium.

Like wise, when you can show me evidence that it makes a difference I will believe it. It goes completely both ways. More guns does not equal safety, and your argument is just like mine because you can't prove it either way. However, if more people have guns then the chances of you getting shot do increase which is what I am saying.

[Lng Rng]

I don't understand why the very same people who are getting a higher education are not to be trusted with guns. Tlarkin, the concealed carry in Utah has caused zero problems, period. I don't think college students should be stripped of their rights, just because they are in college.

More people carrying guns equals more people shot? Im not too sure about that. Isn't the whole purpose of the Right to Carry to keep yourself and others out of harms way? If I can't have a gun readily avaiable to defend myself, what is the whole point of me getting my CC permit?

The college that a couple of my freinds go to is a dry campus, yet a couple people have died this year, due to drinking. If the college and state regulated Carrying on Campuses differently than the rest of the state, would you be opposed to it?

[jashoffa]

What we have seen is that when a mass gunman hits a soft target like a gun free zone he is ussually able to rack up a pretty high tally of lives taken. Gun free zones such as in the Omaha Mall shooting and Virgina Tech shooting come to mine. But in situations such where CCW license holders are present (CO. Church Shooting and AZ mall shooting) the number of people killed is much lower when someone confronts the killer with return fire.

So in the case of College campuses most if not all are gun free zones. The killers know this and as a result, they can expect little if any resistance to their attack. These people are mental for sure. They are already ready to die in the commision of their crime. What we have seen in case after case is they are looking to do it big. They want to go out and take as many people with them as they can. The deterant might come in the uncertainty that they will be successful in a mass killing. If they think that it is possable that they will be met with return fire they might not want to follow through with it. They are looking to make the news big. Killing a couple people then getting shot and killed yourself doesn't get them the 15 minutes of fame they are looking for. Further more if someone with a firearm is able to return fire and stop a mass killing lives are sure to be saved!

As for the comments about being more likely to be shot the more guns that you are around is like saying you are more likely to be killed in a car accident the more time you spend in a car. In fact without having any stats in front of me I would bet you are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than the gun of a ccw holder.


FOR Crying out LOUD......Some of you guys need to wake up. Freedom is under attack and you sound more like the gun ban lobby than you do gun owners!

[RMTactical]

Well, of course!

[tlarkin]

It is not like there are a line of crazed killers just waiting to take their turn at every university ready to shoot up dozens of people. Like I said the odds of you getting shot that way are really freaking high.

There is a reason why they have what you call "the darwin awards," because even smart educated people do extremely unintelligent things. I am willing to bet money if you let college students carry weapons on campus there will be several Darwin Awards given out each year. That is a liability that no University will want to take.

[sell33]

that is probably true^^ liability will cause most to keep it illegal whether i like that or not. if nothing else i believe maybe professors should be given the option or there should be some extra security, the schools are already robbing us blind they should be able to afford some full time security guards other than the campus police that just drive around all the time.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by sell33

that is probably true^^ liability will cause most to keep it illegal whether i like that or not. if nothing else i believe maybe professors should be given the option or there should be some extra security, the schools are already robbing us blind they should be able to afford some full time security guards other than the campus police that just drive around all the time.

That is exactly what I said to begin with. When you pay $60k for your degree the university should be able to hire some private security for each building, and they can be armed. They won't be there to police anyone, just to stop or prevent anything from happening. They will be trained professionals.

If you put guns in the hands of thousands of students someone will get shot accidentally probably every year somewhere. More guns does not equal safety, it increases the odds of an accidental discharge or like wise which would earn someone a Darwin Award.

[jimkim]

What would work here and in Utah might not work say in widgetville. Just because the people in UT have enough sense not to shoot each other in the ass doesnt mean the wont do it in say Berkley. I guess they could put a security officer in every class room. All I know is if the government says you are competent enough to carry it should honor it's decision. Either you can carry or you cant.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by jimkim

What would work here and in Utah might not work say in widgetville. Just because the people in UT have enough sense not to shoot each other in the ass doesnt mean the wont do it in say Berkley. I guess they could put a security officer in every class room. All I know is if the government says you are competent enough to carry it should honor it's decision. Either you can carry or you cant.

How many "competent" people have drivers licenses? I see someone every day that probably shouldn't be driving, and I myself used to own a German sports car and I drove it fast. I am older now and own a Nissan, which doesn't really go that fast, but it has features I like. I no longer drive like a bat out of hell. I did some dumb things in that car, but I was lucky and pulled through, however thousands of people get hurt every year doing just that, dumb things in a car.

Just because the government says you are competent does not mean you are.


Now imagine thousands of people in one concentrated area all packing firearms, dumb things are bound to happen. Which is why more guns does not equal safety. Even if the students were packing guns, does that mean they could actually stop a shooter? Probably not, especially if the shooter has the jump on everyone. Eventually the shooter may get taken out, but that does not mean they would kill a ton of people before they were taken out.

[jimkim]

Well you know the people there better than I do. All I know is every time honest people are armed and the bad guys know it. They avoid the area like the plague. I know there is probably an isolated incident out there but on the whole it is safer if people know you can shoot back. And they do get the drop on them. Read the actual accounts.

[jashoffa]

Tlarken,

Like wise, when you can show me evidence that it makes a difference I will believe it. It goes completely both ways. More guns does not equal safety, and your argument is just like mine because you can't prove it either way. However, if more people have guns then the chances of you getting shot do increase which is what I am saying.

and I offered

What we have seen is that when a mass gunman hits a soft target like a gun free zone he is ussually able to rack up a pretty high tally of lives taken. Gun free zones such as in the Omaha Mall shooting and Virgina Tech shooting come to mine. But in situations such where CCW license holders are present (CO. Church Shooting and AZ mall shooting) the number of people killed is much lower when someone confronts the killer with return fire.

So do you not agree this is at least some indication of what is likely to happen when someone that has a CCW confronts a person attempting to commit a mass shooting?

You do understand that guns do not just go off by themselves, right? This consern about accidental discharges seems exagerated. Guns don't go off till you pull the trigger plain and simple.

The real question is do college students have the right to self defence? I say yes they have the right. If they do not have the tools nessisary for the purpose then we are doing them an injustice. No one should rely on the police to protect them. I am a police dispatcher. For most calls, even emergancy calls, the responce time is somewhere around 5 min. By the time a call is received the information relayed from the caller to the dispatcher and the dispatcher to the officers and they travel to the location of the emergancy at least 5 min has passed. Then the police have to locate the shooter and engage. The time it takes a CCW holder to respond when confronted with the threat is no longer than it takes to clear the holster.

The next time you are at the range bring all the mags for all your guns have them all loaded and then set a timer for 5 min. Start shooting and keep shooing and reloading non-stop for the next 5 min. I am willing to bet that unless you have a whole pile of guns in your collection that you will never get to 5 min. I am also willing to bet that if you do get the 5 min you will have expended a small fortune in ammunition. 5 min is a long time in a shooting situation and not being able to fight fire with fire (pun intended) could mean the difference between life and death.