Posted on 04/18/2007 2:02:53 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The deadly shooting rampage at Virginia Tech on Monday has reignited an emotional debate about whether students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus.
Virginia Tech, like most universities around the country, forbids students from having guns on campus. But as an increasing number of states have passed laws that allow people to carry concealed weapons, gun advocates from Virginia to Utah have also challenged the academic policies that prohibit weapons at colleges and universities.
[Big Snip]
"Almost every college that has looked at this issue feels they can do a better job of protecting their students by banning guns on campus and taking responsibility to provide good security," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington. "I'm not sure any campus would like to advertise, 'Come to our campus. We have more guns per capita than any other campus.' "
When the issue is debated again as expected this year in Virginia, gun-control advocates will be lining up with members of the academic community in opposing an expanded presence of guns on campus. They believe the problem is that the country already has too many guns.
"We have access to these weapons, and there are people who get angry, and with that access they will use them," says Jim Sollo, vice president of Virginians Against Handgun Violence, a group with 800 members that advocates gun-control measures. "I fear that we will continue to have mass shootings here in the United States."
But gun advocate Mr. Van Cleave contends that control is not the solution. "Gun control only works with the good guys," he says. "Good people obey the laws. The people you're worried about don't. I don't think [the campus shooting] is going to bode well for gun control."
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
By assuring the public that lawful concealed carry can and is being accomplished every day by many many good citizens, without incidence. Shall-issue concealed carry has been the law here in WA for many many years, and the safety record among citizens carrying is very very good. I'd speak to the psychology of carrying concealed, and assure people that I know those who carry weapons to take if very seriously and educate them that carrying a weapon actually makes people more risk-aware and risk-avoidant... and that it certainly does not make people trigger happy and eager to jump into an unnecessary conflict.
I'd assure people that the crime-deterrent effect of an armed populace is real. That even if they do not carry themselves, that the idea that some of the people walking out into a dark mall parking lot at night might be armed, has a deterrent effect on those who are looking for easy victims.
And I'd take as many of them shooting as I can. Especially those that are a little squeamish about guns simply because they've never been exposed to them. That's how I've been able to change more than just a few minds. But the public needs to know by our words, and by our example, that we are as serious about public safety as we are about our right to carry. And that's what I always try to get across on threads like this. It'd be nice if I didn't get a bunch of backchatter for it from people like you.
We agree on the information that needs to get out there. But, as you say, the logistics of doing so is what I was asking about. Every firearm owner trying to hit just one other person with the info isn't very effective. It also loses the "strength in numbers" effect that a lot of political protests use so effectively in influencing legislators. Talking over firearms with your co-worker is one thing, standing there with a bunch of other folks listening to an NRA Instructor expound on the virtues of a high ride holster vs a bellyband is something entirely else.
Another possibility would be a "Famous Faces" lecture tour that could make the rounds to various schools, civic groups, ect... Get local or National high profile people to do a circuit that would garner some positive publicity.
Another, if you still want the individual effort angle, would be for the various National gun groups to try and get a Nation wide "take a friend to the range" day. Try and emphasize the need to convert first timers into firearms safety and fun.
Those who are unfamiliar or disinclined to be ‘for’ lawful carry are unlikely to go to such a fair. You’re only going to draw people who are already at least interested in it to such an event. It would be singing to the choir.
The ‘take a friend to the range’ day, on a wide scale as part of a grassroots PR campaign would be more effective, I think. Whether individually or as part of a wider campaign someone could put together, it’s still changing individual hearts and minds, one by one.
Not particularly. Can you point out which rioters had conceal carry permits? Also, if any claimed riots occurred off campus, than they are irrelevant to the discussion.
The same arguments you make about college kids apply equally in any state or locality in this country and are employed by liberals in those places to take away our Second Amendment rights. I guess in your case, your "grumpy old man" like hatred of adolescents trumps your belief in liberty.
I think I'm going to start writing some e-mails. Send 'em out to the NRA, SAS, FCSA, GOA, JPFO, Pink Pistols, ect... It'll express an interest in a "Take a Friend shooting day" as a Multi-group National effort.
I'll let you know if I hear anything back...
FReegards...
FReegards... :~)
They never brought out their weapons during parties, or, for that matter, ever.
If you had an interest in target shooting or wanted to see their match rifles, then, they would bring you into their rooms and show you.
Lots of talk on this thread about 'frat boys'. Was this shooter at VT a frat boy?
Was the shooter at Allegheny College School of Law a frat boy?
Was Charles Whitman a frat boy?
Were Dylan Klebold and his accomplice frat boys, or likely 'frat boy' types?
Seems to me this guy was a complete psychopath who festered in the anonymous, soulless, dehumanizing maze known as the dormitory.
His whole lifestyle was a slow-motion 'cry for help', to use the conventional lexicography.
He received no help whatsoever from anyone in his dehumanizing environment.
Moreover, every single adult person who was in contact with this shooter was likely a 'frat-boy' hater and would automatically assume that 'frat-boys' would be irresponsible with guns.
But the reality is the exact opposite of this.
In fact, if this kid had been in a fraternity, he likely would have found friends there who would see to it that he got help.
As it is, his hip non-fraternity co-dwellers, as well as the adults at VT (you know they all hate 'frat-boys' too) basically let him rot. Until he went nuts.
I can't understand how the fraternity people are automatically assumed to be the criminals and sociopaths of college life.
Certainly the news tells us otherwise.
You are right. I apologize for smearing “frat-boys.”
I was referring to irresponsible an immature college boy behavior that some (wrongly) associate with “frat-boys”, and I should not have used the term as a slur.
I guess I need to see where HairOfTheDog advocated all the restrictions the rest are saying she advocated. I think you are entirely misunderstanding her point.
[HairOfTheDog says]... choosing to carry a concealed weapon in a classroom situation does carry a certain responsibility to do it right...
How can that be controversial? The general principle is "Being free implies being responsible". As this applies to firearms it implies all the safety rules including maintaining control of your firearm -- NOT leaving it in the rest room or in your car if you're going to some idiotic place where you're not allowed to carry.
It also means war-gaming: How can you avoid situations where you might have to draw it. What are you going to do if you DO draw it? Are you ready to see pieces of skull and scalp hit the wall in back of your assailant? Are you ready to go to jail and to be charged and then sued?
Do you know how a serious adrenaline dump affects you. I know from experience that when the fur is about to fly I lose my voice, so I practice saying things that I might have to say the next time. Have you worked through how to avoid drawing your weapon too late? What do you say to someone who seems threatening but is, say 25 feet away? What do you say when that person laughs at you and mocks you to your friends for being paranoid? And then calls the cops and reports you for brandishing?
Have you decided how to handle the problem of carrying and drinking?
This is not about who should be permitted to exercise the right to bear arms. It's about a culture which alternates between swagger and responsibility-shedding dependency when what we need is a thoughtful assessment of the truly dreadful possibilities implied and to some extent embraced when one pops the p239 into the Milt Sparks and saunters out the door.
Excellent post Mad Dawg. Thank you for posting it. We all need more thoughtful assessment and less swagger.
Oh of course. You're a GD expert. I should have known.
"If the system had been in place within the buildings and dormitories the violence could have been reduced if not completely stopped with the minimum of fatalities."
Like I said, record the carnage and show up to when it's over. The thread's about allow folks to defend themselves, not fund a jobs program for the filming of carnage and viewing dead bodies.
In my town, several members of the SWAT team are not allowed at the local range as they lack basic safety skills.
Specifically, they swept the president of the club with the muzzles of their machine pistols with their fingers on the trigger.
Meanwhile, my 12 year old little brother does just fine there, as his safety is better than 90% of the adults I've trained.
The folks on this campus had no such options. Implying they are too immature to learn, or that their Rights are somehow less worthy of protection because of "climate" or their age, is counter productive. Instead of pointing out how "difficult" it is to work against such institutionalized bias, how about you help figure out how to change such attitudes?
BTW... fanny-pack Witness 10mm. El Paso Saddlery Snap-off Elite or an Uncle Mike's clip-on when I am at the range.
Not particularly. Can you point out which rioters had conceal carry permits?
CCW has nothing to do with it. It’s a sample of how well they behave generally.
“Also, if any claimed riots occurred off campus, than (sic.) they are irrelevant to the discussion.”
Nonsense. Their general behavior is the relevency. Rioting is both on and off campus (more off, near FRATS) and just goes to show the kind of people - a whole “community” - we’d be entrusting to carry guns or ANY weapon.
As for your “old man” comment, that’s silly. We’ve all been that age. I’ve seen it and experienced it, never mind seeing how it’s gotten worse. I’m not 40 yet and you better believe I have little faith in overaged children. Too bad, so sad.
And please don’t call me liberal or doubt my belief in real liberty (NOT anarchy) without knowing more about me (plenty to see on FR). This is about policy of an institution, not laws.
How about you learn how to read?
I have said NOT ONE SINGLE WORD against student carry. I'm in favor of student carry.
When you work out the tricky business of not reasoning ahead of your data and not assuming that somebody who said something you didn't think of is arguing against you, get back to me. But I'll tell you this: displaying an inability or unwillingness to think about what you're reading and minimizing the real problem of getting from the culture of dependency to a culture of freedom won't get the job done. We're going to have to make the sale one-on-one and publicly.
“Implying they are too immature to learn”
*chuckle*
My dad bought me a Remington single shot 22 for my 8th birthday. And these maroons are afraid a 21 year old man
might be immature......Liberals!
CCW's are usually issued based on training and lack of a criminal record and mental health history. Students that meet this criteria are no more a danger with a weapon than anyone else. Your method of sterotyping groups of individuals who shouldn't own weapons has no place in a free society. What other groups do you feel are more prone to this behavior you describe? African-Americans have a greater rate of criminal behavior than other groups. Should they be prevented from carrying guns? What about lower income individuals? I'm sure 99% of people would agree that stereotying groups of people is no basis for sound policy.
That's what most people fail to see. The police don't rush in and save the innocents, it's too darned dangerous. And if you look at Katrina, it was a long time before civilization asserted itself again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.