Students assaulted at my campus.

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know what I did this morning? I went to class with my gun. You know what happened? No one got shot! wow what a surprise!!!!

Specialkall, what college do you go to, if you dont mind me asking? PM if wanting to keep it private. Is it legal to carry on all Colorado campuses? I know there are several states that allow carry on campus and the shootings on those campuses seem to be nonexistant.
 
SERV99 - "ever been around a bunch of 18-22 years old on a large college campus? Why add guns to the mix. A significant portion of the college population are still immature. All it takes is one student to be belligerent when drunk or when there is some other incident going on campus (e.g. mini riot when there schools wins the NCAA championship) where some pissed off kid who gets his car torched, decides to give some payback."

Yeah, I have.

There is a vast difference between the attitudes of students when I began college at the University of Arkansas, in Sept., 1955, and the college students of today.

One of the profound differences, in my opinion, is the students of the late 1940s and 1950s, were far more responsible than those of today. They also had respect for parents, teachers, and law.

That difference became manifest during the 1960s, with the various student riots against the Vietnam War, and about any other "cause" they could come up with to protest. Another factor, I believe, is the amount of illegal drugs used consistently and normally by many students today.

I was "independent" for a couple of years, then went into a fraternity. There were lots of guns on campus, both in fraternities, independent dorms, and off campus apartments. I had a Colt's Single Action .38 Spec., and my Rem. 550A .22 LR semi-auto. My roommate had a S&W .357 Mag. and a beautiful Win. 70 .270. Other members had pistols, shotguns, and rifles.

Booze??!! Hell yes! Ran like heavy rain through a culvert! Just as today, students would get knee-walking snot-slinging drunk!

But, during the four years I attended, there was not one firearms accident or murder. The U. of A. at that time was a "small" university with only about 3,000 students, so word of an accidental shooting or intentional shooting of anyone would have spread across that campus like wildfire!

By the way, while I was there, there was not one armed robbery of students, either. The two campus cops were not even armed. Their main task was issuing tickets to cars parked illegally or giving a cite to some student who, while drunk, drove his car over the campus lawn and roses.

I will say, however, that one of my gun owning fraternity brothers, who loved firearms, was later killed... when he drunkenly drove his MG into a bridge abuttment at about 90 MPH. No gun: just booze.

I saw one guy being irresponsible with his Colt Govt. Model .45 ACP, while drinking. We took it away from him and didn't return it until he was sober. He never showed any irresponsibility with it -- around us, anyway -- again.

I know that many of today's college students are not responsibile for anything, nor do they have any respect for anyone or anything that might "restrict" them in any way. "Do your own thing, man, do your own thing!" Moral relativity personified.

Authority, respect, responsibility, tradition, are as dead as a burnt boot.

My point here is not to "Yea" or "Nay" CCW at colleges, but to address your contention that if there is booze around college students, no matter mature and responsible or not, no firearms should be allowed to anyone. It seems to me from your posts, you believe that because some students are heavy drinkers (and dopers, I'd add) all college students must submit to any and all attacks on them by vicious criminals without any effective means of protecting themselves.

L.W.
 
Last edited:
1955?! You're an old timer! :what: :neener:

You bring up a good point. The only thing that has changed among college kids (booze and firearm wise) is that firearms are no longer in the picture.
 
if someone can get a permit at 21, they should be able to get a permit and carry. even at school. if they "aren't mature" enough, that's opinion, and whoever said that is welcome to it, but it is not the law (except for the don't carry at school part, which is probably wrong).

Saying that all college students are immature is ignorant. While some (most?) are, I can honestly say if someone can carry off-campus responsibly, they would be able to carry on-campus with the same responsibility.

my .02.
 
if someone can get a permit at 21, they should be able to get a permit and carry. even at school. if they "aren't mature" enough, that's opinion, and whoever said that is welcome to it, but it is not the law (except for the don't carry at school part, which is probably wrong).
More importantly, if they're legally qualified to CCW, but not "mature" enough to carry ON campus, why are they mature enough to carry OFF campus? Is it impermissible for a college student with a CHL to get drunk and shoot somebody on campus but it's ok OFF campus?

Of course, why are we not taking into account the "maturity" of college graduates and those who dropped out of college or never went?

The truth is that the attack on college carry is at its core, an attack on "shall issue".

The argument against college CCW has the stench of AHSA about it.
 
what makes you think that if they let guns on campus that it would have stopped that from happening?
First of all, if they let guns on campus it would give potential victims means to defend themselves.

Secondly, the overwelming evidence -- from the more than 3/4s of the states which have "shall issue" laws is that liberalized concealed weapons licenses do result in reduction in violent crime.

Third, in many states (39 to date) a college student can get a concealed carry permit -- and such students don't commit crimes, cause accidents, etc., off campus. So why deny them the right to carry on campus?
 
SERV99 - "ever been around a bunch of 18-22 years old on a large college campus? Why add guns to the mix. A significant portion of the college population are still immature. All it takes is one student to be belligerent when drunk or when there is some other incident going on campus (e.g. mini riot when there schools wins the NCAA championship) where some pissed off kid who gets his car torched, decides to give some payback."

M'lad, I've been around a bunch of 18-22 years old who were carrying machine guns, full auto assault rifles, hand grenades, M72 Light Antitank Weapons (LAW), Claymore mines, mortars and similar nasty stuff. And never had a problem with it.

Are college kids somehow retarded or morally inferior to your basic infantryman?
 
people keep referencing VT as a prime example, well ok, let's look at the VT case:

Cho was a non-US citizen. I'm against non-US citizens from obtaining or possessing any firearms or ammunition. No one has addressed this yet as a good way to prevent these "tumors" that "CONSIOUSLY" stalk gun free zones as Dean is adiment about. For me, the blame is on VA for allowing non-US citizens to possess firearms, not for VA forbidding CCW on campus. They got their mind right a little bit when they passed a law forbidding non-US citizens for possessing semi-auto high capacity rifles back in the 90's. They need to go the extra step and ban all non-US citizens from possessing firearms.

Cho's mental health records didn't factor in the approval process for his purchase of his guns because VA didn't submit mental health records to the NICS. I'm for legislation requiring states to submit mental health records to the NICS background check which legislation has passed last year IIRC (which just enforced the existing law more thoroughly with a revamp of the current law). They can distinguish between "marriage counseling" and "suicidal counseling", they do it for folks applying for jobs who have to have a thorough background investigation done so it's not like it's a total burden on the private citizen.

Those two instances right there could had avoided a massacre at V-tech. Saying that IF students were allowed to CCW on campus, this MIGHT have not happened is a band-aid solution. What if this? What if that? I could make a list of 100 "what if" arguments to counter your "What if" arguments.

A) well what if Cho got his guns from someone who is a US citizen, then what?

B) well what if he didn't have anyone to get his guns from, then what?

A) well what if Cho was a US citizen before he did his rampage, then what?

B) well what if there were laws in place forbidding someone with a "mental health" issue from possessing a firearm before Cho did his rampage, then what?

It is against the law on most campuses to CCW, correct right?. You have to make the case to change this. Saying a bunch of "what if" arguments will NOT make you win your "case" for a change in CCW policy. Politicians will counter your "what if" arguments with their own. And since you are the one trying to change the CCW policy, the burden is on to you show some hard facts and stats. You really think a politician is going to accept a "what if" argument as a reason to change CCW policy? If you think so, you are really naive.

here is another "bug" that I think should be fixed. At least here in VA, we are "shall issue" with the only proof you need to demostrate proper gun handling procedures is to submit with your application either a honorable discharge DD214 document, a HUNTER SAFETY COURSE, your LE credentials, or some NRA-like certified firearm safety course. A friggin hunter safety course is joke. DD214 is a joke. NRA certified safety course without the legal mumbo jumbo part is not as bad but could be a lot better. Part of CCW is knowing the civilian laws which make you liable for death or injury when you draw your weapon and take action. If they required all CCW applicants to take the legal mumbo jumbo class on your respective state's laws regarding the use of lethal force, I would change my mind on letting any Tom, Dick, or Harry (or Jane, can't forget the females) to CCW in general. I have my VA CCW permit, submitted my DD214 but afterwards I decided it was best to take the legal mumbo jumbo CCW class as well and took it before being issued my permit.

to get back to the CCW on campus, no I don't think that it is a solution. That's a typical "band-aid". Can you prove that Cho would had been put down early in his "seige" before someone who was CCW'ing used lethal force on him? That's what the politicians are going to ask. They don't hold a college kid in the same light as a police officer or other LE. Both could get the same training in tactics and techniques to use lethal force on a threat. But do they want a college kid being a "police officer" on campus? No. That's where most of you are stuck on and can't get over that.
 
[SARCASM]Forget banning (legal) carry, we need to get to a much more pressing problem. DRIVING. Do you want college kids, some of whom are immature and prone to binge drinking behind the wheel of an automobile? We shouldn't let them have drivers licenses on campus. A few may screw it up for the majority so we should ban them all.[/SARCASM]

I'm not worried about the people carrying with CHLs, on campuses or off. I'm more worried about the ones carrying without them, for reasons other than self defense. All the arguments made in this thread are the same tired arguments made by Handgun Control Inc and others against concealed carry in general. "The streets (campus) will run red with blood." History has proven otherwise. People that go a long way out of their way just to comply with the law aren't the ones you need to worry about.

When I was going to college I hung out with a few gun owning fraternaties, and you can bet when the booze came out the guns got put away for the night. God help you if you broke that rule. Those guys made drill sergeants look like barney when it came to guns and alcohol/anger/irresponsible behavior. Not all of them are idiots, drunk 24/7, and America has had a big enough problem lately with dumbing everything down to accomodate the lowest common denominator.
 
For me, the blame is on VA for allowing non-US citizens to possess firearms, not for VA forbidding CCW on campus.
So explain how it is drug dealers -- many of them illegal immigrants -- can get guns?

Well . . . it looks like laws can't keep bad guys from having guns. They can only deprive good guys of the means of self-defense.
 
here is another "bug" that I think should be fixed. At least here in VA, we are "shall issue" with the only proof you need to demostrate proper gun handling procedures is to submit with your application either a honorable discharge DD214 document, a HUNTER SAFETY COURSE, your LE credentials, or some NRA-like certified firearm safety course. A friggin hunter safety course is joke. DD214 is a joke. NRA certified safety course without the legal mumbo jumbo part is not as bad but could be a lot better. Part of CCW is knowing the civilian laws which make you liable for death or injury when you draw your weapon and take action. If they required all CCW applicants to take the legal mumbo jumbo class on your respective state's laws regarding the use of lethal force, I would change my mind on letting any Tom, Dick, or Harry (or Jane, can't forget the females) to CCW in general. I have my VA CCW permit, submitted my DD214 but afterwards I decided it was best to take the legal mumbo jumbo CCW class as well and took it before being issued my permit.
So then you ARE against "shall issue"?

to get back to the CCW on campus, no I don't think that it is a solution. That's a typical "band-aid". Can you prove that Cho would had been put down early in his "seige" before someone who was CCW'ing used lethal force on him?
Cho HIMSELF proved that if you FORBID people to defend themselves they WON'T because they CAN'T. You clearly prefer the CERTAINTY of victimization to the POSSIBILITY of successful self-defense.

That's what the politicians are going to ask. They don't hold a college kid in the same light as a police officer or other LE. Both could get the same training in tactics and techniques to use lethal force on a threat. But do they want a college kid being a "police officer" on campus? No. That's where most of you are stuck on and can't get over that.
The police have no duty to protect individuals

The police have no liability if they fail to protect individuals.

The police [as was proved in the VT case] have virtually no ABILITY to protect individuals, certainly at least not before the bodycount goes through the roof. And what's your solution? ENSURE that people die on their knees, execution style.

Protect YOURSELF or don't get protected AT ALL. Clearly your choice is "don't get protected AT ALL".
 
A) well what if Cho got his guns from someone who is a US citizen, then what?

B) well what if he didn't have anyone to get his guns from, then what?
How are you going to do THAT?

Forbid ANYONE to have guns?

I have an idea. Why don't you forbid resident aliens from possessing crack and meth first and see how that works out?

Are you an AHSA member?
 
So then you ARE against "shall issue"? If I was, I wouldn't have a CCW permit to begin with. Reread the posting or else just accept the fact that you have no more of your "what if" arguments.

Cho HIMSELF proved that if you FORBID people to defend themselves they WON'T because they CAN'T. You clearly prefer the CERTAINTY of victimization to the POSSIBILITY of successful self-defense. so again, did you sit down with Cho and do an interview with him, having him spell out exactly his mental state? I mean, can you share the notes on where he states your exact statement above? Or are you fear mongering again?


The police have no duty to protect individuals
ok, this and everything after what you typed proves why anti- CCW and other anti-gun legislation gets passed because we have gun right advocates like yourself who can't debate the facts. I'm sure if you were giving arguments to the state legislature on repealing anti-CCW policy on campus and you said what you just said here, they would embrace your logic and allow anyone to CCW anywhere. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Now let's get to your LE bashing, these are always fun....you may continue.
 
I have an idea...

what's that, to reread the postings and understand before rambling on with nonsense and throwing a temper tantrum because you can't find anything else to debate me on? That would be my suggestion....
 
Well I just got back from class and I didn't shoot anyone, which is surprising since us college students are so irresponsible. I didn't even take it out and wave it around imagine that!

I go to Colorado State University which is the only University/College in Colorado that allows carry on campus. It is not against the law to carry on campus only against some campuses policies here in Colorado.

Oh and to add more damage to the credibility to the main opponent in this thread further. I am not a U.S. citizen!
 
what's that, to reread the postings and understand before rambling on with nonsense and throwing a temper tantrum because you can't find anything else to debate me on? That would be my suggestion....

Again, I ask you to find one case of a permit holder being involved in a shooting on campus that was deemed to be unlawful. Utah and, to a certain extent, Colorado allow concealed carry on college campuses. Surely something has happened so far. You have been advocating the same "the streets will run red" argument that opponents of CCW have been parroting for years.
 
Last edited:
Again, I ask you to find one case of a permit holder being involved in a shooting on campus that was deemed to be unlawful. Utah and, to a certain extent, Colorado allow concealed carry on college campuses. Surely something has happened so far. You have been advocating the same "the streets will run red" argument that opponents of CCW have been parroting for years.

so what do you think the state legislature in, oh, I dunno , let's say VA or NC, will say, when some student CCW group in any one of those states or any other state that doesnt have CCW presents their argument for CCW on campus, and they reference Utah and to some degree CO as having CCW on campus and nothing bad has come out of those instances. You tell me what the response will be from some of the state legislators.. I'll give you a hint, based on my dealing with some state politicians: "This isn't Utah. This isn't Colorado."

so what if Utah has a CCW policy. Does every college campus in the US mimic Utah's college campuses? If so, then there should be a CCW policy allowing CCW by students on any campus. Right? Hey I'm all for that, if A = B and B = C, then A = C, right? That's your logic, right? Do you think this logic would stand up to allowing CCW on any campus?
 
awe sernv99 seems to be ignoring my posts. I said "I TOOK A GUN TO CAMPUS TODAY!!!!!"

If your argument is based on that college students are to young and/or irresponsible I just proved you wrong. In fact in my last class of the day I know 2 other people that carry, so they also proved you wrong. That's three times you were proved wrong if you are counting.

"some state politicians"

some not all.

Who cares about the dumb ones? You need to vote against that kind and get thinking ones in power.
 
The police have no duty to protect individuals ok, this and everything after what you typed proves why anti- CCW and other anti-gun legislation gets passed because we have gun right advocates like yourself who can't debate the facts.

Sorry srnv but multiple court cases have, in fact, shown that the police have no duty to protect individuals, and cannot be held liable if they fail to do so.
You may read about it here.
 
Can you prove that Cho would had been put down early in his "seige" before someone who was CCW'ing used lethal force on him?

I'm not sure what that sentence was intended to ask ("put down...before someone...used deadly force...?"). However, it was proved in and by the event that, with the students unarmed, Cho gunned down several people.

Common sense would tell anyone that there would have been a greater likelihood of Cho's being stopped sooner, had armed persons been present.

That's what the politicians are going to ask. They don't hold a college kid in the same light as a police officer or other LE. Both could get the same training in tactics and techniques to use lethal force on a threat.

Isn't that irrelevant? There were no police officers present when Cho started shooting.

But do they want a college kid being a "police officer" on campus? No.

There must have been a point intended there.

The issuance of a concealed carry permit does not grant police powers to a citizen. That's true on campus or off.

Granting a carry permit simply allows one to legally carry the means to protect himself or herself, if and only if it is immediately necessary, from death or serious bodily harm. The courts have already established that such protection is the duty of the citizen and not of the police.

In many states, using deadly force to protect a third person is also justified. That has absolutely nothing to do with concealed carry. And by the way, "the politicians" passed the laws defining what constitutes the legal use of deadly force and what does not.

Most attorneys generally recommend strongly against using deadly force to protect a third person, for very good reason. I seriously doubt, however, that any attorney or any law enforcement officer would urge an armed citizen against shooting to stop a mass murder in progress, should he or she be able to do so.

I suggest that likelihood that the need to do so might arise would be lessened, however, if restrictions against the legal carrying of weapons in various posted places were lifted. Has anyone noticed that people attempt mass murders much less frequently in places in which guns are not permitted?
 
Sorry srnv but multiple court cases have, in fact, shown that the police have no duty to protect individuals, and cannot be held liable if they fail to do so.
You may read about it here.


I care less what the functions of the police are, that wasn't the issue, but if you are going to give that argument in front of a committee looking to say "yay" or "nay" to CCW on campus, and reference the argument about how the police have no duty to protect people so students should be able to CCW on campus, I said good luck to that. I mean you really think they will fold based on that argument? That was my point.
 
how about the argument that I carry a gun to campus on a daily basis and nothing happens? Oh! I get it only the argument that a few people use guns for murder is valid, not the few(many actually) that don't use them for murder.
 
So then you ARE against "shall issue"?
If I was, I wouldn't have a CCW permit to begin with. Reread the posting or else just accept the fact that you have no more of your "what if" arguments.
That's a non-sequitor. You could get permission to carry a handgun under a discretionary system through political connections, bribery or a variety of other means. Members of the Chicago City Council can lawfully carry concealed. Do they support concealed carry for commoners?

Cho HIMSELF proved that if you FORBID people to defend themselves they WON'T because they CAN'T. You clearly prefer the CERTAINTY of victimization to the POSSIBILITY of successful self-defense.
so again, did you sit down with Cho and do an interview with him, having him spell out exactly his mental state? I mean, can you share the notes on where he states your exact statement above? Or are you fear mongering again?
I know Cho by his actions. He clearly chose a venue where there was virtually zero chance of confronting someone who could fight back. That's perfectly alright with you.


The police have no duty to protect individuals ok, this and everything after what you typed proves why anti- CCW and other anti-gun legislation gets passed because we have gun right advocates like yourself who can't debate the facts.
Police have no duty to protect individuals. That's a FACT.

Now let's get to your LE bashing, these are always fun....you may continue.
Police have no legal duty to protect individuals. Anything else is a lie.

Police had no legal duty to protect the VT students.
Police had no ABILITY to protect the VT students.
You are determined to ensure that they will continue to be unable to protect themselves.
 
I care less what the functions of the police are, that wasn't the issue,
But that was the CENTRAL issue.

Police had no legal duty to protect the students.
Police had no physical ABILITY to protect the students.

What's your solution to Cho's attack?

To make the students rely upon the police who neither can nor have to protect them for "protection".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top