Why shouldn't students who can carry guns almost everywhere else...have to abandon that right to pursue higher education. We not only fail to extend that right to college campuses, we advertise that the people gathered on those campuses are unable to defend themselves.

You're right, we shouldn't react to the school shootings by allowing campus carry. We should allow campus carry regardless. Hear a lot of stories about legally carrying citizens killing people at restaurants where they get in a dispute with their server? How about people carrying legally in general? I'll answer that for you, no, you don't.

People aren't going to get licensed to carry so they can pull a gun on a professor they don't like. If they're willing to break that law (murder, brandishing a weapon), they probably don't care about getting in trouble for having a gun on campus in the first place. Thus lies the absurdity of such arguments. People who are going to break the law aren't going to follow campus gun regulations. They already don't. Those who do and are going to follow the law are those who are caught defenseless by those who don't respect "gun free zones."

I don't think campus carry will solve the world's problems. What it will do is keep law-abiding students from being defenseless against those who have no respect for the law in the first place.

Correct and that's why university and city officials are required to provide security measures. If they aren't doing a good job, force them to hear your voice and do better. Many colleges and universities made a lot of changes after VTech.

Indeed and telling them that they aren't breaking the law by doing so is a facilitating factor that increases criminal opportunities.

ETA: I'm typing about guns on campuses. I have no problem with gun permits as long as people aren't carrying guns where the law forbids (i.e. schools, certain places of employment, etc.--the law forbids it for a reason). I don't want to get into a general "right to bear arms" discussion because I don't see this specific topic as being about the general "right to bear arms."

So who is going to train these wannabe defenders of the Universe? Shooting a human is way different than shooting a board at a gun range or a deer.

Answer: No one. Gun toting students will be the same as gun owning home owners...scared and susceptible to having their guns taken from them and used against them. The average gun advocate may say they have a gun to defend themselves but they really don't expect to have to defend themselves. Plus many with gun permits, particularly in the South, are using it for hunting and that's why they are such gun advocates.

Not to mention that having the guns reduces the potential for conflicts to be resolved without gunfire. Are students allowed to shoot as the potential assailant is walking into the area or walking out of the area (with their backs turned)? For instance, we have established laws for homeowner gun use that are still broken. Imagine what would happen when "defending our property/ourselves" includes untrained students defending themselves and college campuses--you will be unable to retain a lot of student, faculty, and staff if that is allowed.

But it won't be allowed so, again, this is all a theoretical debate. :) People with gun permits will still have to leave their guns at home or in their car, parked the legally mandated miles away from campus.

You caught me in the middle of an edit and I don't like in-text replies so I'll address this part first.

In the midst of the debate doesn't mean it will happen. :) I hope schools take away those rights if it does happen. Students who want their gun with them as they take lecture notes will have to find a school that allows that nonsense.

You have no idea how familiar I am with this topic. Just say you disagree, based on your personal opinion and experience. ;) You do realize there's more to these types of debates than your personal opinion and the experiences of you and the people you know, right?

Of course I do. However, for those of us who do have some experience with the subject matter, it is fairly easy to spot those who are unfamiliar with it.

It isn't an insult, but I won't simply say I don't agree. If you're knowledgeable about something, and clearly I'm not, for the benefit of others monitoring the discussion I would fully expect you to point out that disparity. I don't think there is anything abnormal about this. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say so and explain why you feel that way, if you so choose.

A lot of people are out there spreading lies/misrepresentations/misunderstandings about firearms. Thus, if I think I spot some, I'm more than willing to point them out.

So those wishing to exercise the right granted to them by their state should have to be much more selective in obtaining higher education? Sorry, but I find that concept absurd. I think several states are likely to pass legislation allowing it, though I'm sure some will not.

I do think it will be interesting for those states who decide to grant that ability. Who should make that decision? State legislators elected by citizens, or the university administrators, who may harbor anti-gun agendas not shared by the citizenry?

Also, to toss one more pebble into the ripple, the idea that concealed campus carry might "scare" a would-be assailant from carrying out his craziness may be naive. Those types seem to like going out in a "blaze of glory" and often just turn the gun on themselves, anyway, so why would they care if the final bullet came from another gun? They'll still have had their rampage, will get their "fame" and won't have to face the consequences legally. So sure, they may get mowed down a little quicker if a couple of quick-draws in the 3rd row stand up and catch him in the chest, but that doesn't mean he won't still kick those doors in, fully armed and guns blazing randomly and try to do as much damage as he can before the gunfire he might now anticipate starts.

I think you're right. Of course this depends on the assailant. Maybe to some potential assailants, the idea of being taken out before anything is "accomplished" would dissuade them from their course of action. Hard to say unless you're really in the head of one of these people. However, I do think most of these people have little respect for even their own life, so it may not make a difference.

Like everything else in this discussion, the result isn't certain. My mindset has nothing to do with whether this would be enough to dissuade potential assailants or whether it would prevent mass murder. Rather, I think that those responsible enough to carry in malls, restaurants, banks, etc...shouldn't have to abandon that ability to attend school.

It obviously isn't as easy as you think.

This is why I edited my post. This isn't a gun control debate but there were no lies/misrepresentations/misunderstandings in my post. More importantly, this isn't a general gun control debate. I agree with the right to bear arms--as long as those who are pro and con aren't misrepresenting the truth. I never said that gun carriers are crazy people who want to shoot up the world just because they can legally carry a gun. I know that most gun carriers rarely use their gun or have one for hunting (which goes back to my previous post).

I simply disagree with guns where the law currently forbids them. I said that in certain contexts (i.e. home, school, work) guns can increase the violence potential because everyone wants to protect "what's theirs" and it decreases the ability for altercations to end without gunfire.


Therefore, the law forbids them in certain places for a reason.

Among those reasons:

1. People who own guns do not shoot up random restaurants if the server pisses them off. However, the likelihood of gun violence increases with the frequency in which gun access converges with people's daily interactions with others. That's based on years of qualitative and quantitate research on gun violence in neighborhoods, homes, and schools.

2. The above includes already motivated offenders (who weren't found in background checks--no surprise) who now have a legal reason to have their gun at school--spend less time hiding their gun and more time focusing on what they plan on doing with it.

3. Everything else I said in my previous posts.

This is a circular discussion because my point of reference will always be different than yours. That's fine.

Exactly.

Students are expected to have one hand on their pen and the other on their gun at all times. These would-be assailants should be very afraid. Not.

What is certain is that the average college and university will not permit guns on or in close vicinity to their campuses.

This is why I edited my post. This isn't a gun control debate. I agree with the right to bear arms--as long as those who are pro and con aren't misrepresenting the truth. I never said that gun carriers are crazy people who want to shoot up the world just because they can legally carry a gun. I know that most gun carriers rarely use their gun or have one for hunting (which goes back to my previous post).

I simply disagree with guns where the law currently forbids them. I said that in certain contexts (i.e. home, school, work) guns increase the violence potential because everyone wants to protect "what's theirs" and it decreases the ability for altercations to end without gunfire.


Therefore, the law forbids them in certain places for a reason.

Among those reasons:

1. People who own guns do not shoot up random restaurants if the server pisses them off. However, the likelihood of gun violence increases with the frequency in which gun access converges with people's daily interactions with others. That's based on years of qualitative and quantitate research on gun violence in neighborhoods, homes, and schools.

2. The above includes already motivated offenders (who weren't found in background checks--no surprise) who now have a legal reason to have their gun at school--spend less time hiding their gun and more time focusing on what they plan on doing with it.

2. Everything else I said in my previous posts.

This is a circular discussion because my point of reference will always be different than yours. That's fine.[/QUOTE]

1. I'd like to see any particular research you're referring to. I suspect you may be speaking in generalities, but if there is a specific study you took note of I'd like to know about it. There is also research showing that violence has decreased in areas where gun ownership for purposes of self defense is encouraged. I also highly suspect that there are also other variables in many of these studies which may disqualify them from usefulness in this discussion.

2. I've seen no support for such an argument. If you argue that potential killers may use concealed carry on campus rights, I'd agree with you. My point is that the prohibition of concealed carry on campus won't prevent such people from going forward with their plans. All it does is prevent those who respect the law from protecting themselves.

You're right that this is a circular discussion. I'm not writing because I want to win this argument, I'm responding because I don't want your assertions to go uncontested, considering this is a very popular topic with a lot of people having unformed opinions.

Additionally, it is certainly unfortunate that law-abiding citizens must forfeit their ability to protect themselves in order to pursue higher education.

Yes. Add that to your checklist of things you're looking for. Does it have your major? Does it have campus activities? Can you carry your gun to biochem class? :)

The average private school will certainly not allow students to carry guns on campus. State schools will probably be subject to state laws. However, state legislators know that some of their funding goes down the drain if they lose students, faculty, and staff who do not want a campus filled with gun toting randoms. Cost and benefit analysis says that the average state school will not allow gun toting and those who do allow it will have to make a lot of adjustments to ensure it doesn't fail.