Shooting at Northern Illinois University

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

What, an email/text messaging system? That won't help kids already in class. We have security officers at school, and they're worthless (unarmed). I don't depend on the police to defend my family, and I don't think I should have to depend on the school to defend my life either.

I also don't hear a lot of stories about mass school shootings that mainstream America would care about. So I guess that means we need to abandon these types of discussions altogether. The possibility does not render it important.

What? The point is that legally carrying firearms owners are rarely involved in gun crime. Thus, once again, proving the point that the only people who follow "gun free" regulations are the people who will abide by the laws anyway. Gun crime is relatively rare anyway, does this mean we don't need police? The fact that it probably won't happen to me or people I care about doesn't make me more comfortable about the fact that I have no defense against someone who doesn't respect the law like I do.

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

Again, what? Most people who walk into public places and indiscriminately kill people don't give a damn whether they're licensed to carry. The idea that allowing people to carry legally will encourage criminals to commit atrocious crimes is absurd.


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.

Many states require training before people can carry concealed. The same rules will apply here. When someone has the goal of killing everyone in the classroom I'm in, I'd rather have someone in their with minimum training who'll make an effort to stop the threat, than having nobody at all. I don't care if the person is an 18 year old girl with a weak grip, what difference does having it taken away make if we're all targets to start with?

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)? 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 college campuses--you will lose a lot of student, faculty, and staff if that is allowed.

This is an incredibly broad overstatement about something you seem to be unfamiliar with. When people walk into the classroom with several guns, I don't think there is going to be a chance to resolve the situation without gunfire. Every gun owner I know has thought about the subject of "when to act" extensively, and this is why I suggest you're unfamiliar with the subject matter. People who carry concealed go through the effort to do so, I have encountered very few people who are irresponsible and yet jump through the required hoops, pay the required expenses, and go through the required discomfort of carrying concealed. You're saying that because a small minority of people may or may not respond correctly, we should all become unprotected targets for those who choose to break the laws that we abide by? Basically, following the law leaves you extremely vulnerable, and I can't say I agree with this mindset.

But it won't be allowed so, again, this is all a theoretical debate.

A couple of states, if I recall correctly, have already passed legislation allowing it. Many others are in the midst of the debate right now. Now, other matter is whether schools will attempt to take away this right which the legislature bestows, but I sincerely hope that they won't.

[DSTCHAOS]

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

Originally Posted by shinerbock

A couple of states, if I recall correctly, have already passed legislation allowing it. Many others are in the midst of the debate right now. Now, other matter is whether schools will attempt to take away this right which the legislature bestows, but I sincerely hope that they won't.

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

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?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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?

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

I suspect there are some schools which may buck this trend. I think you're right about the "average" school, but I don't think I can count on the "average" university administrator to make neutral decisions on this matter.

[bohdi]

All the attention given to these horrific mass shootings in a way are advertising to the sick and twisted minds out there that the easiest way to make a name for yourself is to select a gun free zone (like a university, K-12 school, public mall, etc.) and it’s open season. Victims are plenty, and are easy prey as they are already disarmed. A murderer can take as much time as they need since they already know they will not initially be faced with any armed resistance what so ever. They also know that while the police may arrive quickly, the police are still going to have to take some time to organize and figure out how and where to respond with force. While it took only two minutes (30 seconds in one report) for the police to respond and be on scene, the rampage was already over in this case. It was said the quicker response was due to lessons learned from VT.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Had the school allowed the faculty, or the students to carry concealed weapons on campus, the numbers could be lower. Notice I didn't say the numbers would be eliminated. A crazed gunperson is probably always going to claim a few vicitms, that cannot be ignored. What I'm talking about is reducing the casualties and deaths by allowing students and faculty the option to carry. This cannot be ignored as was proven in Colorado Springs recently; armed citizens are deterrents and can put an end to a murder spree quickly. The school has a duty to provide security, actual security for the students, not measures to make students “feel” safe. I imagine that’s part of the tuition cost, and if I was a student attending there today I’d feel ripped off. If the administrators cannot guarantee a safe environment for learning then they should allow responsible adults – which last time I checked is the term used for people of age 18 and older in this country, to be armed on campus and off as local/state laws allow. Otherwise the school administration should look no further than them for allowing this to happen. They make the policy, they enforce the policy. People say guns on campus are a bad idea. Look at the lack of gun play at the Univeristy of Utah, where responsible students are allowed to carry. No mass shootings there.

People say allowing students to be armed is a bad idea; they can’t control themselves, and are irresponsible. These statements are unfounded (see U of Utah), and stereotype adults of a wide age range and maturity levels. It’s a form of discrimination. As a responsible gun owner I can meet with my state representatives in Virginia, in the General Assembly building in Richmond, while ARMED, but if I were to enroll at a local university I cannot attend classes armed for my own protection? Tell me that is not discrimination, against my constitutional rights. While a university or college may be private property, and private property owners can request you disarm, they then should be liable for any and all lawsuits that are the result of any damage that happens upon you for not creating a safe environment. How many more of these mass slayings will we have to endure before people wake up and realize that the current policy of disarming students is not working? Perhaps the answer is to take on-line classes. At least that way in my home, I can be armed, attend class, and know for certain that I am “safe”. I don't go around armed because I am "afraid" or so I can save the world. I am interested in saving my family and myself and having that option wherever I go.

Another way to look at this, is for all the boys and girls out there. How many of you have taken any kind of self defense classes or were taught how to "fight" or defend yourself? Why did you feel the need to do so? These things taught by those instructors are tools for you to use. No different than a gun, it's just a different type of tool. If someone tried to punch you in the face would you try to block it? Why would you not want to be able to try and shoot someone that was purposely shooting at you?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by bohdi

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Had the school allowed the faculty, or the students to carry concealed weapons on campus, the numbers could be lower. Notice I didn't say the numbers would be eliminated. A crazed gunperson is probably always going to claim a few vicitms, that cannot be ignored. What I'm talking about is reducing the casualties and deaths by allowing students and faculty the option to carry. This cannot be ignored as was proven in Colorado Springs recently; armed citizens are deterrents and can put an end to a murder spree quickly. The school has a duty to provide security, actual security for the students, not measures to make students “feel” safe. I imagine that’s part of the tuition cost, and if I was a student attending there today I’d feel ripped off. If the administrators cannot guarantee a safe environment for learning then they should allow responsible adults – which last time I checked is the term used for people of age 18 and older in this country, to be armed on campus and off as local/state laws allow. Otherwise the school administration should look no further than them for allowing this to happen. They make the policy, they enforce the policy. People say guns on campus are a bad idea. Look at the lack of gun play at the Univeristy of Utah, where responsible students are allowed to carry. No mass shootings there.
...
Another way to look at this, is for all the boys and girls out there. How many of you have taken any kind of self defense classes or were taught how to "fight" or defend yourself? Why did you feel the need to do so? These things taught by those instructors are tools for you to use. No different than a gun, it's just a different type of tool. If someone tried to punch you in the face would you try to block it? Why would you not want to be able to try and shoot someone that was purposely shooting at you?

Not going to respond to the whole thing as a) it's tl;dr, b) you're a one-poster and c) I have better things to do this morning. But, in response to the bolded:

The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB. Despite the fact that conceal-carry appears to be legal there, there's no evidence that arming your average citizen deterred anything.

And secondly: Because returning fire means I make a better target. This isn't the movies and it isn't my job to kill the bad guy. It's my job to stay alive and to help others stay alive if possible. Also, even if I were 100% skilled enough to do so, I do NOT believe that this random chance outweighs the dislike I have for everyone else around me to be carrying a weapon. As it is, college students have less than fully developed decision making areas of their brains. I do not trust a large percentage of the population with a firearm carried on their person.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB.

And also a former sworn police officer.

Another worrisome thing to me was brought up by KSIG RC earlier:

"It will be fascinating to see which happens first: a gun-carrying student shoots a gunman mid-assault and saves lives, or the gun-carrying student fails to stop an assailant/makes a "friendly fire"-type mistake/exacerbates a domestic situation or whatever."

Even professional law enforcement officers and military personnel who receive ongoing weapons training sometimes end up killing or wounding the wrong person.

Having taken a firearms safety class -- or several of them -- does not prepare one for combat.