Douva

Isn't that what we just saw last week? 32 unanswered murders. 1 person with a weapon of their own could have ended it. Additionally... we aren't talking about kids...we're talking about men and women, over 21 years of age, that have gone through the background checks and training to carry a concealed pistol. If the age limit is 21, the vast majority of undergrads aren't going to be able to carry concealed, even if they wanted to and if their college permitted them. To me this sets up the uncomfortable situation where the right to armed self-defense would seem to vary with whether or not an individual is a young undergrad, a mature undergrad, a post-grad or a member of staff. Why is that uncomfortable? All we're saying is that people who are allowed to carry everywhere else should be allowed to carry on college campuses. Why is that such a stretch? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Don't think the gun is going to defend you very much when a bomb goes off Bombs didn't kill anyone at Virginia Tech or the Killeen, TX, Luby's. Concealed bulletproof vests don't protect police officers from rifle fire, but they still wear them. Something doesn't have to defend against every possible threat in order to be useful. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Your reply mentioned "hormonal teenagers;" however, if you read the article you should have seen that I only support allowing those people with concealed handgun licenses--people who have already undergone training, testing, and extensive background checks--to carry on college campuses. And as my article clearly states, those people are all over twenty-one years of age, therefore, clearly not teenagers. You suggested that this would lead to countless accidents and shootings over minor arguments; however, if you read the article, you should have seen that these same people are already carrying concealed handguns in their off-campus lives, without incident. So either you didn't read the article, or you had no rebuttal to the arguments made by the article and chose, instead, to reply to the popular misconceived notions of concealed carry on college campuses. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You didn't read the article, did you? It never suggests giving teenagers weapons. I think Scoop was doing a parody on the nutty positions the anti-gun team throws out. Now, I have to go shoot on the lights in the living room and shoot off the lights in the office. I deleted my first response, thinking you might be right, but after looking at his second post, I'm not so sure he was being sarcastic, so I'm going to let that response stand, for now. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

My article doesn't discuss allowing concealed carry as a deterrent; it discusses it as a means of self-defense. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Instead of the thankfully rare massacres you will instead have hundreds dead every year across the country through petty arguments, disputes and accidents. What a result! Again, you didn't read the article to which you're responding, did you? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You didn't read the article, did you? It never suggests giving teenagers weapons. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

In light of the current national debate over whether or not college students and faculty should be allowed to carry concealed handguns on campus, I would like to offer a few insights into the position in favor of allowing concealed carry on college campuses. As far as I know, nobody is seriously recommending a mass arming of college students and faculty members. Nobody is suggesting that handguns be included in the orientation packets provided to entering freshmen. Nobody is suggesting that, along with laptop computers and chalkboard erasers, every teacher be issued a handgun. And most certainly nobody is recommending that anyone carry a concealed handgun if he or she is not completely comfortable with the idea and competently trained and licensed to do so. What is being suggested is that students and faculty who have already undergone the training, testing, and rigorous background checks required to obtain concealed handgun licenses be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on campus, just as they already do everywhere else. Throughout this nation there are thousands upon thousands of college students, age twenty-one and above, and collegiate faculty members who, in accordance with state and federal laws, regularly carry concealed handguns in their off-campus lives. Since the statistics show that these same people carry their weapons without incident when not on campus, why should it be assumed that they would demonstrate any less discretion or sound judgment if carrying on campus? When it comes to the national debate over gun control, many proponents of stricter gun control argue that gun rights advocates are unwilling to compromise. On the contrary, concealed handgun licensing laws are the perfect compromise. Prospective licensees undergo the types of training and stringent background checks that proponents of gun control advocate, and in return, the licensees are allowed to carry their handguns in public. That is a true compromise—both sides give a little, and both sides get a little. The background checks performed on persons applying for a concealed handgun license are MUCH more extensive than the instant background checks performed when someone purchases a gun. In Texas, the background checks on applicants often take over a hundred days. In most states these extensive checks include both state and federal fingerprint checks, as well as research into sealed and expunged criminal record and records of mental illness. People are often disqualified for things like recent misdemeanor convictions, such as DUIs. Along with undergoing background checks, applicants must also prove their handgun proficiency on a firing range and take a class in the applicable state and federal laws, including the legal use of deadly force. The practical shooting test proves an applicant’s knowledge of the proper use of his or her firearm. The class covers hypothetical scenarios, case studies, and the legal ramifications of both the lawful and unlawful use of a concealed handgun. It is almost impossible for an applicant to graduate from one of these classes without a grave respect for the serious responsibility of carrying a concealed handgun. When a 2006 bill before the Virginia State Senate that would have given holders of concealed handgun licenses the right to carry on college campuses was voted down, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker happily proclaimed, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus." Unfortunately, as recent events have shown, feeling safe is not the same as being safe. The feeling of safety provided by “gun free zones” is an illusion. Even law enforcement officers believe so. An officer with the Lexington, Kentucky, Police Department explained, “If you have a concealed carry [license], then you should be allowed to carry anywhere there are not metal detectors. Saying you cannot carry in certain places, like schools, only makes the people that obey the law stop carrying, not the criminals. Criminals don't see the sign and think, 'Gee, I better not shoot there.'” Declaring an area a “gun free zone” only frees that zone of guns carried by people intent on obeying the law. A person intent on committing murder or any other crime is not going to be deterred by the knowledge that possessing a firearm in a “gun free zone” is a relatively minor infraction of the law. Many of those opposed to allowing concealed carry on college campuses claim that the mere presence of concealed handguns would be a distraction that would inhibit the learning environment; however, this disregards the basic premise of a CONCEALED handgun. Concealed handgun licensing laws require licensees to keep their guns concealed, out of respect for those people that might be made uncomfortable by the sight of an openly carried firearm. In the twelve years since Texas passed its concealed handgun licensing act, I have never once noticed another Texan carrying a concealed handgun, even though Texas has one of the highest rates of concealed carry in America. Properly concealed handguns are simply not noticeable to the average citizen. In fact, properly concealed handguns are often difficult to spot, even for a trained eye. Can you tell for certain which of the two men in THIS picture is carrying a concealed handgun? If you hadn’t been told that one of them is, would you suspect either of them of carrying a concealed handgun if you saw them on the street or in a classroom? There is a popular notion among gun control advocates that a person must have years of training, through which he or she is conditioned to have superhuman reflexes and deadeye accuracy, in order to successfully use a concealed handgun for self-defense. This notion, however, is not supported by the facts. In cases like the recent massacre at Virginia Tech, the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, and the 1991 massacre at the Luby’s restaurant in Killeen, Texas, the killers worked slowly and methodically, walking up to victims and shooting them at point blank range. It takes neither superhuman reflexes nor deadeye accuracy to defend oneself against a killer who walks from victim to victim, firing from only a few feet away. In CNN’s interview with Emily Haas, one of the Virginia Tech gunman’s surviving victims, she described hiding under her desk, after her class heard gunshots in the room next door, “waiting and hoping he wouldn’t come in.” But he did come in, and now Emily’s professor and several classmates are dead. Perhaps, had someone in Emily’s classroom been armed with a concealed handgun, at least one person in that room could have done more than wait and hope. In Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s 1992 testimony before the Missouri State Senate, in favor of a bill that was later passed, allowing citizens of Missouri to obtain concealed handgun licenses, Dr. Hupp described how she might have prevented the death of both of her parents, during the 1991 Luby’s Massacre, had she been allowed by the state of Texas to carry a concealed handgun: This same testimony lead to the passing of concealed handgun licensing acts in both Missouri and Texas. There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that the American people have any reason to fear letting concealed handgun license holders carry their concealed handguns on college campuses, the same way they already carry at grocery stores, shopping malls, and office buildings throughout the nation. Quite simply put, concealed handgun license holders, as a whole, do not contribute to America’s gun problems. In fact, concealed handgun license holders commit felonies at a rate on par with police officers. To date, no police officer has ever been killed by a concealed handgun license holder; however, there have been several well documented cases where police officers have been saved by legally armed citizens. The issues of gun crime, gun control, and concealed handguns are complicated issues without simple answers, and we would all do well to form opinions on these issues based on careful examination of the facts, rather than on emotion. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Here's a quote from a friend of mine who is a police officer in Kentucky. He's also worked as a police officer in Kansas and Colorado and as an EMT in Texas. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Yeah...youre a gun guy. For your information an SKS IS NOT a Chinese knockoff of an AK They're pretty different firearms. They're both Soviet produced weapons, but the SKS predates the AK. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Emily Haas, one of the gunman's surviving victims, was interviewed on CNN. She described hiding under her desk, after they heard the gunshots in the room next door, "waiting and hoping he wouldn't come in." But he did come in, and now her professor and several classmates are dead. It's too bad none of them could do anything more than "waiting and hoping." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't think private mental health records (i.e. the files of a person's psychiatrist or therapist) should be a factor because that might actually discourage people from seeking help, but if there is a COURT RULING, based on the input or testimony of mental health professionals, that a person is a danger to himself and/or others, that should be included in his FBI background check when he tries to buy a firearm. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I agree with you here. Alcohol + guns is a bad idea. I have no problems with security carrying weapons but CCW in a bar, that is a recipe for disaster. I live by a pier is So Cal and every Friday and Sat night there are at least 5+ arrests or bar fights. In the workplace IMO it's up to the owner. Both sides have made good arguments about CCW in schools I would be willing to allow it if more stringent back ground checks are in place both for obtaining a weapon and getting a CCW permit. Cho should not have legall obtained those weapons. In 2005 a court deemed him to be a danger to himself and others. Why wasn't that available during the back ground check. Also why didn't authorities or the school monitor Cho between 2005 and 2007. Hopefully some good will come out of this tragedy rather than both sides pointing fingers and coming up with ridiculous laws. This wasn't just one psychiatrist's or therapist's opinion; this was a declaration by a court of law. The laws should be ammended to include that kind of court declaration in federal background checks. In my opinion, someone who has been declared a danger by a court of law should not be able to purchase a firearm until declared "safe" by a court of law. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I may catch some flack for this from my fellow pro-gun crowd; however, I actually agree with you on one point--I support the prohibition most states place on carrying guns in bars. I've seen statistics that suggest that MOST of the "wild west" shootouts of the 1800s were alcohol induced. However, I vehemently disagree with your position on guns in schools and the workplace. In those situations where people's judgement is not chemically impaired, I fully support the right of those people with concealed handgun licenses to carry their concealed weapons. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

They consider themselves an "average person". In otherwords, they want to protect us from themselves because that's what they'd do. I think it's noble that they realize how unsettled they are. It's just the juvenile view that they think everyone is a carbon copy of them that's hard to accept. I think everyone has had thoughts along the lines of, "I was so mad that if I'd had a gun, I think I would have....." However, when faced with an identical situation, while in possession of a gun, most of us realize that we're actually a LONG way from crossing that line. I think that's probably the thought process that leads the anti-gun crowd to think armed citizens are a prescription for a return to the "wild west." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

There is a notion among the anti-gun crowd that the average person frequently gets angry enough that he or she would kill someone if he or she had easy access to a firearm. This simply isn't supported by the evidence. Most CHL holders actually respect the grave responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm and have a deep appreciation for the sanctity of life. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

great

Cross posted from another thread: I don't think anybody is calling for arming MORE people. What we're calling for it the right for people who already have a proven track record of carrying concealed firearms without incident--current concealed handgun license holders--to be allowed to carry on college campuses, the same way they do everywhere else. CHL holders aren't causing problems outside of college campuses, and they won't causes problems on college campuses. If a shooting breaks out, they may or may not die, and they may or may not be able to stop it, but at least they won't be left helpless because their guns are across the street in their cars. The notion that allowing these people to carry on campus would lead to an increased number of incidents or that they would be unable to respond under duress or that they would only escalate an already dangerous situation is simply not supported the observable facts and statistics of these same people carry outside of college campuses. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't think anybody is calling for MORE guns. What we're calling for it the right for people who already have a proven track record of carrying concealed firearms without incident--current concealed handgun license holders--to be allowed to carry on college campuses, the same way they do everywhere else. CHL holders aren't causing problems outside of college campuses, and they won't causes problems on college campuses. If a shooting breaks out, they may or may not die, and they may or may not be able to stop it, but at least they won't be left helpless because their guns are across the street in their cars. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I can think of 32 people who might disagree. Exactly. If only one person in each of those classrooms had carried, then the death toll would have been WAY less. I guess the only problem is not knowing if someone is going to indiscriminately shoot someone because they have a bad day... Especially considering that someone young hasn't had enough time to prove that they might be a danger to others. That would be the problem with most people carrying guns... There might be very few massacres, but there might be many "small" incidents that would eclipse one massacre, because of the easy accessibility... Who knows?! Well, there are already thousands of twenty-one-year-olds (the age limit for concealed carry in most states) carrying concealed handguns outside of college campuses, and this hasn't lead to a rash of incidents, so why should we assume it would lead to problems on college campuses? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The murder toll for 2001 was 16,037. 11,348 of these were by firearm. In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004). So, it is ok to implement something like the Patriot Act to lead to less deaths from terrorism in this country....but one of the leading yearly sources of death shouldn't be changed? What I also find interesting is that many that defend the Patriot Act are strong gun rights supporters. Again, I've never taken a side on gun ownership because there are too many issues with both sides. I do however like taking a step back and seeing it from a larger view. You're making a case based on stereotypes. I've never supported the Patriot Act, but I support gun rights. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

First off, people were going to die on Monday and I'm not sure there was much anyone could have done about it. From there all arguments are hypothetical. I did here this perspective on removing personal freedoms associated with the 2nd.....The Bush admin had no problems pushing thru the Patriot Act with a lot of tag ons to help reduce your personal freedom in the name of saving lives. Around 3000 people died in 2001 from terrorist attacks. I believe the number of gun related deaths in 2001 was over 29000 (I'm sure John Rich or Douva will correct that number if it is off). I don't like the Patriot Act either. This isn't an issue of political parties; it's an issue of personal freedom. As for gun death numbers: I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You may want to check that point blank stuff. I've read a couple accounts where he walked into the doorway of a classroom and just started shooting people from that position. From the accounts I've heard, he started firing from the doorway at the closest targets, but then he walked inside and shot most of his victims from only a few feet away to point blank range. The students in the front rows were the ones who got it the worst. The students in the back were the ones who were able to escape. Pistols aren't long range weapons. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Agreed. This isn't a movie. Shoot outs get ugly, crossfire and friendly fire will happen. Despite the close combat scenario good aiming would still be an issue as well. Communication was poor and those untrained armed students would have been shooting anyone that had a gun in defense of their own life. So out of the concern that friendly fire might occur, you think it's preferable that only the crazed killer is armed? With the latter, we know there will be more fatalities. One thing I've noticed is that in discussions like these neither side is willing to compromise. You have to agree that Cho should have never had any access to guns. A doctor at a mental hospital stated that he was not only a threat to himself but to others, yet in March 07 he walked into a store and in less than 10 min walked out with a gun. The signs were there that this kid had some serious mental problems, was suicidal and had a track record of stalking people. Yet he still legally obtained a gun. There is a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed. Again I will say I'm not trying to take your guns away, although I'm sure some will make some asinine comments without looking at the heart of the issue. But you have to agree we have to keep guns away from people like Cho. Let me also state I also dont believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is the answer. Like I said before both sides have to compromise or else we should expect more Va Tech's in the future. As John Rich has pointed out before, compromise is a two-way street. I saw a senator tell Tucker Carlson the other night that she has bill before congress that would require a person adjudicated "mentally ill" be flagged so that he or she can't buy a gun without further investigation. I would absolutely support that. She then went on to say that she also has a new "Assault Weapons" ban before congress. When asked by Mr. Carlson, "What is a gun shroud?" one of the items banned in the ban, she didn't know. I absolutely do not support that kind of baseless ban. In a compromise both sides get something they want, and both sides relinquish something they want. To use John Rich's example, nationalize concealed carry laws, allowing a concealed handgun license to be good in all fifty states, just like a driver license, and we'll agree to background checks for non-licensed vendors at gun shows. Unfortunately, the gun control movement sees "compromise" as a one way street, whereby we gun owners slowly give up more and more of our rights but never gain any new rights. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Agreed. This isn't a movie. Shoot outs get ugly, crossfire and friendly fire will happen. Despite the close combat scenario good aiming would still be an issue as well. Communication was poor and those untrained armed students would have been shooting anyone that had a gun in defense of their own life. Like most gun murders, most of these happened at point blank range. The assailant wasn't shoting across rooms at people, and his victims wouldn't have been shooting back at him across rooms. Crossfires and good aiming would probably not have been major factors to if someone had used a gun for self defense in this scenario. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.