Glock Firearms banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I work at a small private university and because of the attacks/robberies at some of the larger state universities in the area, many of my colleagues believe that carry laws should be even more restrictive than they currently are. We are not allowed to carry on any school property where I live whether we have a firearms license or not. I was wondering what your thoughts are on this subject.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
202 Posts
I believe in "Constitutional Carry" which essentially means that one shouldbe able to carry a gun without the requirements of training or permits. Therefore, I believe that one should be able to carry while on a college campus and the prohibition of firearms is actually a violation of one's 2nd amendment rights. This, however is not the case in our society and it is illegal in all but the most rare circumstances to carry onto the property of any school, college or otherwise.

In fact, I'm not really sure why this is an issue. What difference does it make what property you're on? Just because it's a school, does it mean there would be a greater proclivity for the misuse of the firearms being carried? I don't think so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
I believe in "Constitutional Carry" which essentially means that one shouldbe able to carry a gun without the requirements of training or permits. Therefore, I believe that one should be able to carry while on a college campus and the prohibition of firearms is actually a violation of one's 2nd amendment rights. This, however is not the case in our society and it is illegal in all but the most rare circumstances to carry onto the property of any school, college or otherwise.

In fact, I'm not really sure why this is an issue. What difference does it make what property you're on? Just because it's a school, does it mean there would be a greater proclivity for the misuse of the firearms being carried? I don't think so.
I completely agree with every word of this! The current carry restrictions are wrong. But, at least I live in Utah, where permit holders are allowed to carry open and concealed on campus.
 

·
Hiding in plain sight....
Joined
·
18,120 Posts
I feel that there is no reason why a permited or licensed individual that abides by all laws in the state should not be allowed. I know if I were on campus during one of these 'recent' shootings, I would have felt much more safe or possibly could have saved others.

Here is an interesting website you might want to visit:
www.concealedcampus.org
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Does GAgal stand for Georgia?

If so, the law changed last year with the ability to have in your car just not on your person.
I also work at a CC, and wish I could carry while working so I agree at least staff should be able to carry. Some of my students though, I think their breeding card should be removed so I would be scared of them with a gun.:D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
jfirecops said:
Does GAgal stand for Georgia?

If so, the law changed last year with the ability to have in your car just not on your person.I also work at a CC, and wish I could carry while working so I agree at least staff should be able to carry. Some of my students though, I think their breeding card should be removed so I would be scared of them with a gun.:D
Yes GA is for Georgia. Since we are private, our policy is that no guns are allowed on campus. So I usually park in the street which is public. ;-) also, I completely agree that there are some students that I would be concerned about if this rule was changed but on the other hand we have a large non-traditional adult population in the evening that includes many ex-military and law enforcement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
I work across the line in TN, so I have the same problem, not even in the vehicle. :mad:

You have a good point about the newer student population, maybe do it like our hunting laws. Safety course required for ages *-*. Ability to pass ages *-*, and non needed for +*. That would make it fare for the vets and other older adults, even the younger ones that are truly safe.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
KeenansGarage said:
I feel that there is no reason why a permited or licensed individual that abides by all laws in the state should not be allowed. I know if I were on campus during one of these 'recent' shootings, I would have felt much more safe or possibly could have saved others.

Here is an interesting website you might want to visit:
www.concealedcampus.org
Thanks Keenan. I'll check this out. I need all the facts I can get in case this comes up again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
On the issue of training, I have never been much for more government control... but here's some food for thought.

And yes the title is a little over kill

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg&NR=1&feature=endscreen[/ame]
 

·
Are we there yet?
Joined
·
784 Posts
On the issue of training, I have never been much for more government control... but here's some food for thought.

And yes the title is a little over kill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Watch the entire report, not just that 3 minute clip. The scenario they set up loosely duplicated an actual. They repeated this scenario several times, with several different students, and clearly demonstrated how in ALL cases, the simulations had a better outcome than the original attack.

In all of the scenarios they aired, the defender was severely wounded, sometimes without having fired a shot. But that's not the whole story. The whole story is that in the actual attack, a lot of people were killed and/or severely injured. 10, IIRC. In all of the scenarios presented, the only good guys "killed" were the instructor and the armed defender. The defenders weren't the only people tunnel visioned on their targets; the attackers were as well, and chose to shoot at the defender instead of the unarmed, fleeing "students"

This was all despite the lack of training the defenders had with their weapon and method of carry. In the first scenario, they loaded, holstered, and concealed the weapon for the student - he never had a chance to practice a draw under ideal conditions, let alone from concealment under a t-shirt that was three sizes too big while wearing gloves that were two sizes too big, and wearing a motorcycle helmet.

The original report criticized concealed carry as ineffective, even more dangers, and yet even under the most biased conditions they could throw out there, they showed exactly the opposite.

To get the real lesson from those videos, turn the speakers off and use it to motivate you to train.


My 2 cents on campus carry is that if there isn't a visible, armed, uniformed presence within earshot of every point on campus, any university that does not tolerate armed faculty or students is culpable for any injuries sustained during any sort of violent crime on campus. Frankly, I think it's cheaper and safer for everyone involved if students are allowed to carry responsibly. By all means, prohibit them from drinking while armed, require firearms to be holstered on their person or secured in a vault at all times, take reasonable precautions, but let people carry. You don't know where they live, you don't know what threat each student faces in their personal lives. If they feel the need to go about armed, let them arm themselves!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,348 Posts
I think anyone authorized to carry should be able to carry on campus. Our state legislature seems reluctant to take this up, even though the violence around GT is constantly on the rise.

As far as worrying about the students being capable of carrying responsibly, remember that you have to be 21 to begin with and that most people who make the choice to obtain a CWL and carry a gun, especially in the younger crowd, tend to be more responsible than their peers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I want to thank all of you for your replies. They have definitely given me a lot to work on and research.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Watch the entire report, not just that 3 minute clip. The scenario they set up loosely duplicated an actual. They repeated this scenario several times, with several different students, and clearly demonstrated how in ALL cases, the simulations had a better outcome than the original attack.

In all of the scenarios they aired, the defender was severely wounded, sometimes without having fired a shot. But that's not the whole story. The whole story is that in the actual attack, a lot of people were killed and/or severely injured. 10, IIRC. In all of the scenarios presented, the only good guys "killed" were the instructor and the armed defender. The defenders weren't the only people tunnel visioned on their targets; the attackers were as well, and chose to shoot at the defender instead of the unarmed, fleeing "students"

This was all despite the lack of training the defenders had with their weapon and method of carry. In the first scenario, they loaded, holstered, and concealed the weapon for the student - he never had a chance to practice a draw under ideal conditions, let alone from concealment under a t-shirt that was three sizes too big while wearing gloves that were two sizes too big, and wearing a motorcycle helmet.

The original report criticized concealed carry as ineffective, even more dangers, and yet even under the most biased conditions they could throw out there, they showed exactly the opposite.

To get the real lesson from those videos, turn the speakers off and use it to motivate you to train.


My 2 cents on campus carry is that if there isn't a visible, armed, uniformed presence within earshot of every point on campus, any university that does not tolerate armed faculty or students is culpable for any injuries sustained during any sort of violent crime on campus. Frankly, I think it's cheaper and safer for everyone involved if students are allowed to carry responsibly. By all means, prohibit them from drinking while armed, require firearms to be holstered on their person or secured in a vault at all times, take reasonable precautions, but let people carry. You don't know where they live, you don't know what threat each student faces in their personal lives. If they feel the need to go about armed, let them arm themselves!

Lots of good points!

For the record, I totally agree with campus carry. I just think that there should be some training involved. That is part of being a responsible concealed weapon carrier. I just like to look at all sides of something, weather it be for or against my beliefs.

I could have missed it, but I thought it was interesting how they left out the part how all the rounds that ended up on the black board could have made it through to the next class room over...... and Ill leave it at that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Retired cop, now in law school full time. I carry on a college campus EVERY freakin' day.

:D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,653 Posts
Watch the entire report, not just that 3 minute clip. The scenario they set up loosely duplicated an actual. They repeated this scenario several times, with several different students, and clearly demonstrated how in ALL cases, the simulations had a better outcome than the original attack.

In all of the scenarios they aired, the defender was severely wounded, sometimes without having fired a shot. But that's not the whole story. The whole story is that in the actual attack, a lot of people were killed and/or severely injured. 10, IIRC. In all of the scenarios presented, the only good guys "killed" were the instructor and the armed defender. The defenders weren't the only people tunnel visioned on their targets; the attackers were as well, and chose to shoot at the defender instead of the unarmed, fleeing "students"

This was all despite the lack of training the defenders had with their weapon and method of carry. In the first scenario, they loaded, holstered, and concealed the weapon for the student - he never had a chance to practice a draw under ideal conditions, let alone from concealment under a t-shirt that was three sizes too big while wearing gloves that were two sizes too big, and wearing a motorcycle helmet.

The original report criticized concealed carry as ineffective, even more dangers, and yet even under the most biased conditions they could throw out there, they showed exactly the opposite.

To get the real lesson from those videos, turn the speakers off and use it to motivate you to train.


My 2 cents on campus carry is that if there isn't a visible, armed, uniformed presence within earshot of every point on campus, any university that does not tolerate armed faculty or students is culpable for any injuries sustained during any sort of violent crime on campus. Frankly, I think it's cheaper and safer for everyone involved if students are allowed to carry responsibly. By all means, prohibit them from drinking while armed, require firearms to be holstered on their person or secured in a vault at all times, take reasonable precautions, but let people carry. You don't know where they live, you don't know what threat each student faces in their personal lives. If they feel the need to go about armed, let them arm themselves!
You and I are almost on the same page. First of all I believe everyone who wishes to own or carry a side arm, legally, can do so. But, I believe to exercise that right, every one who wants to, must pass a criminal/ mental screening, be a citizen, take a safety course and a firearms familiarity (both revolver and pistol) test. Passing such, they WILL (not shall or may) be issued a firearms owner permit, much like a drivers license. Not a permit to buy, mind you, just a permit showing you know what the hell you're doing and can do it safely. CC or OC.

Holders of the license should than be free to carry what they want, where they want and buy as many as they're capable of affording.

Because when your life is just seconds from ending, there's a cop just minutes away. You know, there's an old saying that was told to me by a homicide detective. It goes, "Our day starts when your day ends."
 

·
Are we there yet?
Joined
·
784 Posts
You and I are almost on the same page. First of all I believe everyone who wishes to own or carry a side arm, legally, can do so. But, I believe to exercise that right, every one who wants to, must pass a criminal/ mental screening, be a citizen, take a safety course and a firearms familiarity (both revolver and pistol) test. Passing such, they WILL (not shall or may) be issued a firearms owner permit, much like a drivers license. Not a permit to buy, mind you, just a permit showing you know what the hell you're doing and can do it safely. CC or OC.

Holders of the license should than be free to carry what they want, where they want and buy as many as they're capable of affording.

Because when your life is just seconds from ending, there's a cop just minutes away. You know, there's an old saying that was told to me by a homicide detective. It goes, "Our day starts when your day ends."
You just turned the right to bear arms into a privilege granted by the state. I could not support that. I think we're on radically different pages.

Mental Health is more of an art than a science. Talk to three different pshrinks and you'll get 9 different opinions on a person's mental status. The mental health screening would have to be a legal screening, not a medical screening. Anyone who has been adjudicated in a court of law as mentally unfit to own or carry a firearm should be prohibited from doing so.

I don't have a problem with the NICS check - I do believe that the owner of a firearm has a responsibility to ensure that the person buying it is allowed to own it. Where the seller doesn't know the buyer, performing a NICS check indicates that a seller has done his due diligence in fulfilling his responsibility, and relieves him of culpability for the sale.

I could only support treating firearm ownership and use as a privilege in cases where it is otherwise justifiably prohibited. In most states, minors aren't allowed to own or carry firearms; in most states, you have to be 21 to own and carry a handgun. It would be a privilege, not a right, for a minor to carry a firearm. A youth firearm and/or youth handgun license could be contingent on a background check, and evidence of safety and handling classes for both the youth and his legal guardian.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I am a 21 year old college student with a license to carry. I see no valid reason whatsoever that my right to self defense should end at the edge of campus. How is carrying in class or during any other on campus activity any different than when I carry to the movie theater, or the grocery store or any other place?

I work third shift and because of that I take classes in the evening/late afternoon, in the winter that means I'm walking home from class in the dark, I would feel much better at least having the OPTION to carry my weapon in these circumstances.
 

·
Lead Farmer
Joined
·
2,882 Posts
ckuenzer331 said:
Virginia Tech.... Could have probably ended either shooting if a responsible CCP holder had been there... Enough said
I bet some students and staff wish their campus wouldve been able to carry...least some states, schools are waking up and are allowing carry on campus.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top