Guns on College Campuses

IF an adult (in most states that's 21, so let's leave up most of the Freshmen, Sophmores and Juniors), and IF they have completed the requirements (which in most states include classroom instruction, and range time - albeit VERY BASIC), applied for and received a CCW, then they should have the right to carry on campus.

To respond to Brett: If they drink with it and get caught, then they should lose it. But you are correct on one thing, how many people are carrying ANYWAY, WITHOUT benefit of a CCW, or even the CRIMINALS/SCUZBALLS/HOODLUMS? Again, if guns are outlawed, then only the criminals have them...hummm.....Again, gun laws only disarm the law abiding citizen...
 
GNBRETT said:
yea it more designed for educators I agree but wen some1 says EVERYONE that includes plenty of seniors on college campuses around the country who are 21 yrs old. and gun owners make it very clear that EVERYONE shud be carrying a gun. and that cud not be FURTHER from the truth!

well, as far the constitution goes and being infringed upon I can tell you that I work at our local sports arena on overtime and they do not allow firearms into their building. (unformed cops can) but local police, state police or federal police off duty cannot. I've had to lock off duty troopers guns in my trunk of my police car till they are ready to leave. anything that is officially private has the right to refuse anyone on their property with a firearm. if don't agree they will simply ask u to leave and plenty have. they do sell alcohol in there so maybe thats their reason.

it wudnt scare the hell out of cops knowing that responsible ppl are near them with a gun. not at all. its the unresponsible ppl that we are concerned about and those cannot be identified by just the way they look.

again, its easier to get a driver license then a pistol permit. you have to go thru months of training and testing to get a DL. pass a felony and DV misd background check and some cheesy 1 hr course on the range and here's ur gun.

THAT is wat boils my blood wen we talk about the right to carry. make the requirements FAR more strict with background checks automatically run every 6 months thru an automated system to see if the permit carrier still has the right or responsibility to carry. psychological tests and FAR more time on the range qualifying! its fukn joke that we don't do that!

but were a nation of guns and heaven forbid we make the requirements more strict for ppl to carry around a loaded weapon. its a problem with no real solution. americans are 20x more likely to die from a gun then any other civilized nation on earth. but, then the argument can be made that because of that more ppl shud be carrying guns. its a catch 22....
Click to expand...

No way should EVERYONE be carrying a gun! If you are not willing to use it when the time comes then Don't carry. That would be worse, to have a gun and then have it taken away by a thief
or whatever, and then it used on you.

I doubt that all students (21 and up) would go out and get a permit and gun just because they could now carry it on campus.

Far More Strict? When this country was formed I'll bet everyone could carry with out any testing of any type.

You want to fix the problem of criminals having Guns - Cut both hands off it they commit a crime with and gun and are not going to prison for the rest of their lives. There would be no repeat offenders.
But that would be so inhuman - right? I think if that law got put on the books that would lower the crime rate a lot.

What is a bigger problem in my book is someone with a death wish - you can't stop them and they have no fear because they know they are going to die the day they go on a rampage.
The only thing we can do is take them out ASAP and save who knows how many lives before he runs out of bullets or kills himself. But that requires being in the right place
at the right time and having the willingness to do what is needed without hurting anyone else.
 
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison, 1803 “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” ..... next question
 
next question

When was that written?
Different times call for reformations.
 
it still very much applys today...if you feel a continuous chipping away of rights is ok in the name of "modernization" you haven't looked at how history has shown how well it works for the people when that was done....
 
The second amendment was clearly written to give the people protection from an out of control government. Further Supreme court decisions have held that an individual cannot be denied access to weapons, period. However those decisions do not prohibit gun control - which is actually stated in the supreme courts decision. The problem with guns is that people change. Just because a person does not show signs of instability does not mean they won't go off the deep end in the future. It's sort of like arms control - we don't want potentially unstable governments to get nukes because it they collapse all hell breaks lose. It's only rational to use common sense in applying gun control.
 
GNBRETT said:
yea it more designed for educators I agree but wen some1 says EVERYONE that includes plenty of seniors on college campuses around the country who are 21 yrs old. and gun owners make it very clear that EVERYONE shud be carrying a gun. and that cud not be FURTHER from the truth!

well, as far the constitution goes and being infringed upon I can tell you that I work at our local sports arena on overtime and they do not allow firearms into their building. (unformed cops can) but local police, state police or federal police off duty cannot. I've had to lock off duty troopers guns in my trunk of my police car till they are ready to leave. anything that is officially private has the right to refuse anyone on their property with a firearm. if don't agree they will simply ask u to leave and plenty have. they do sell alcohol in there so maybe thats their reason.

it wudnt scare the hell out of cops knowing that responsible ppl are near them with a gun. not at all. its the unresponsible ppl that we are concerned about and those cannot be identified by just the way they look.

again, its easier to get a driver license then a pistol permit. you have to go thru months of training and testing to get a DL. pass a felony and DV misd background check and some cheesy 1 hr course on the range and here's ur gun.

THAT is wat boils my blood wen we talk about the right to carry. make the requirements FAR more strict with background checks automatically run every 6 months thru an automated system to see if the permit carrier still has the right or responsibility to carry. psychological tests and FAR more time on the range qualifying! its fukn joke that we don't do that!

but were a nation of guns and heaven forbid we make the requirements more strict for ppl to carry around a loaded weapon. its a problem with no real solution. americans are 20x more likely to die from a gun then any other civilized nation on earth. but, then the argument can be made that because of that more ppl shud be carrying guns. its a catch 22....
Click to expand...

Of all the things you said in this the main thing that bugs me is the bold type. You think its our gov right to keep tabs on me because i own guns and carry. It is never any governments right to constantly check on a legal law abiding individual just because they carry guns. This aligns with exactly what is wrong with law enforcement and their training today. Guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't work that way officer. If a person has passed the required items to carry and gets a permit, you have no need or right to check every 6 months. By your standard equating this to a drivers license the dmv should check on drivers ever 6 months. You also stated its harder to get a drivers license. That 100% depends on your age at attempt. You can not get a ccw at the age of 18. You can get a license. So that there proves your statement wrong. If you wait until 21 to get a drivers license it is as easy as take a written test, then drive test done. CCW is much harder. First apply for class. Second pass bg test, next apply for and wait for class, next pass said class, finally qualify at range. Oh and if you want to carry more then one caliber of fire arm you must qualify for each.

It never ceases to amaze me the difference in opinion between an officer, and a private citizen. You can immediately pick out law enforcement on this topic and any other when it comes to civil rights and the constitution. Law enforcement tends to swing towards removing or severely restricting our rights. Then when hit with common sense and logic get all offensive and start calling you idiots and ill informed etc. I think the line between criminal and citizen gets blurred for them as they are faced with the bad side of people more often then the good. Lets face it as an officer its your job to deal with bad folks. I think this often warps your opinion and logic.
 
RedBusarider said:
From the way it was worded it sounded like the Students CAN"T carry - only the Educators.
So when they are changing classes or the Educator is not around they are going to be targets.
If the Educators can carry then it should apply to all persons (that have concealed permits) on the property.

Ever heard the saying - Why carry a concealed weapon - because a cop is to heavy to carry.
Meaning that the Educators can't be everywhere all the time. So if the students (that have concealed permits)
can't carry then they must be worth less then the educators. IMO.

Also in the OP it didn't state whether or not the Educators had to have carry permits only that they will be "allowed" to carry.
If they are not trained then what's the point?
Click to expand...

Based on my understanding... Only the educators will be allowed to carry concealed after they have completed the required class for CC in Arkansas. I don't think the law will allow students to carry.
 
Brett current sits on the side of the badge that has the power; wait til he retires or sits on the other side and ask him how it feels then. As a retired soldier, I've sat on both sides, and I'm telling you the perspective is totally different.....

Arch, the problem is, WHO decides what is "common sense"? Some of your liberal buddies believe 'common sense' means full confiscation....or more like England and Australia. The populace and government have nothing to fear from legal gun owners. However, it's also a means of helping make sure they don't cross the line, either....
 
What state makes you qualify for each caliber?

VIPERWHITEBUSA said:
Of all the things you said in this the main thing that bugs me is the bold type. You think its our gov right to keep tabs on me because i own guns and carry. It is never any governments right to constantly check on a legal law abiding individual just because they carry guns. This aligns with exactly what is wrong with law enforcement and their training today. Guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't work that way officer. If a person has passed the required items to carry and gets a permit, you have no need or right to check every 6 months. By your standard equating this to a drivers license the dmv should check on drivers ever 6 months. You also stated its harder to get a drivers license. That 100% depends on your age at attempt. You can not get a ccw at the age of 18. You can get a license. So that there proves your statement wrong. If you wait until 21 to get a drivers license it is as easy as take a written test, then drive test done. CCW is much harder. First apply for class. Second pass bg test, next apply for and wait for class, next pass said class, finally qualify at range. Oh and if you want to carry more then one caliber of fire arm you must qualify for each.

It never ceases to amaze me the difference in opinion between an officer, and a private citizen. You can immediately pick out law enforcement on this topic and any other when it comes to civil rights and the constitution. Law enforcement tends to swing towards removing or severely restricting our rights. Then when hit with common sense and logic get all offensive and start calling you idiots and ill informed etc. I think the line between criminal and citizen gets blurred for them as they are faced with the bad side of people more often then the good. Lets face it as an officer its your job to deal with bad folks. I think this often warps your opinion and logic.
Click to expand...
 
I'm just going to stay out of this one for fear of being labelled or label someone else I guess. Haven't we learned anything talking about politics or guns on here?
 
skydivr said:
Brett current sits on the side of the badge that has the power; wait til he retires or sits on the other side and ask him how it feels then. As a retired soldier, I've sat on both sides, and I'm telling you the perspective is totally different.....

Arch, the problem is, WHO decides what is "common sense"? Some of your liberal buddies believe 'common sense' means full confiscation....or more like England and Australia. The populace and government have nothing to fear from legal gun owners. However, it's also a means of helping make sure they don't cross the line, either....
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's just not true. There are many instances of legal gun owners going crazy and shooting people.
 
fallenarch said:
Unfortunately that's just not true. There are many instances of legal gun owners going crazy and shooting people.
Click to expand...

As compared to the instances if illegal gun owners going crazy and shooting people?
 
AAaaaaaaaaHHHH! A debate with Skydiver. I would say that most illegal gun owners have a motivation for using their guns. While some of this is predictable, some isn't. But generally if you don't do certain high risk things and avoid high risk places, you are fairly unlikely to get shot. We are already seeing that when guns are allowed in a place people get shot. On the other hand we are not seeing people with CCW's stopping mass shootings even when they are present and could involve themselves in the shooting to help stop the criminals as a rule - it's fairly rare. Further, while these people may know how to shoot, they generally are not trained on how to diffuse a situation or how to understand what is going on in a crowd.
 
There's been 5 separate situations here in Milwaukee alone were a legally armed citizen has thwarted an arm criminal since CCW became legal in Wisconsin just a couple years ago. That's just in Milwaukee.
The stories are out there, but those don't make the news like the stories going the other way around....


Crap, I wasn't going to post anymore. :banghead:
 
Ha HA I sucked you into it. I was trying to get Skydiver to bite. But I'm done this is an old debate. Not going to get anywhere here. I'm not against guns but we have to have reasonable protection from gunners who don't make sure their weapons don't take other people's rights. When I lived in Okinawa in 1974 there were zero murders. There are things we are doing that are causing these shootings, they aren't just the unavoidable consequence of life. Starting a personal protection arms race isn't the answer. An Arms race has never resulted in anything except the firing of those stacked up arms.
 
There's capital punishment in Japan. Bring that back and we'll see how our crime drops..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

00sscam
Virgina Tech "for thought"
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2,760
guido4512
guido4512
MR Felt
Even after the Tucson shooting lawmakers still get it
Replies
19
Views
1,424
PocketRocket
P
BusaFan00
I hate global warming
Replies
8
Views
602
GoAWOL
GoAWOL
chrisjp
Charleston SC. May 4-6th
2
Replies
21
Views
1,231
chrisjp
chrisjp
skydivr
Tennessee Demonstrates Trend of Looser Gun Laws
Replies
16
Views
1,339
Haya01B
Haya01B
Back
Top