Our view: Guns on campus could harm more than protect (USA Today)

[jpak]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-03-01-editorial01_ST_N.htm

Could the answer to the problem of campus shootings be ... more guns? That's what legislators in Texas and several other states are arguing as they push ill-conceived laws to allow concealed handguns on public college campuses, even if college officials are adamantly opposed.

A proposal with a good chance of passage in gun-friendly Texas would allow professors and students 21 and older to carry handguns on campus as long as they have a state permit to carry a concealed weapon. The idea is to deter attackers such as the one who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007, and send a message to criminals that they can't expect students to be unarmed.

Of the dozen states considering campus-carry laws, Texas is considered the likeliest to enact one this year. Interestingly, states that are otherwise supportive of guns-everywhere policies have consistently said "no" to this awful idea, on the sensible grounds that students and guns are a risky combination. More than 40 such proposals have died in state legislatures, and even Texas rejected a similar bill in 2009

Memo to Gov. Rick Perry, a guns-on-campus supporter: Your state had it right the first time.

<more>

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Not a big issue... nothing will change on campus just like nothing changed in the rest of public.

The law,as written, will allow CHL holders to carry on campus - not just anybody. To get a Texas CHL you must be 21, undergo a Federal and State background check, attended a 10hr class that covers the CHL law, self defense laws in Texas, and confrontation avoidance. A 50rd shooting test is given and you must make a 70% or higher score.

Because of this high degree of self-selection involved in Concealed Carriers as a demographic - the group has been statistically shown to be much more law abiding than the general public. In fact, some statistics show you are more likely to be wrongfully shot by an officer of the law than someone legally carrying a handgun concealed.

People carrying firearms concealed with a valid permit will not be a problem ON campus just the same as them not being a problem OFF campus.

[jpak]

2. Famous last words - this is opposed by the vast majority of university employees

Gun-toters want to destroy college learning environments.

yup

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. Tyranny of the majority does not override Civil Rights.

Just because a majority of people feel a certain way (and can vote to project thier feelings onto others) that does not invalidate any civil rights enjoyed by the minority. That's how civil rights work... in fact, that's why they're so important.

A well functioning armed populace, being necessary to ensure a free society, the right of The People to own & tote guns shall not be infringed.

Toting Guns = Civil Right?

YUP

[jpak]

6. You do not ahve a civil right to bring a gun into an airport departure lounge or an airline cabin

and I have a civil right to be free from guns in public places

yup

[speltwon]

11. And in those locations, EVERYBODY is screened for guns before entering

whereas just because CCW is banned on campus does not prevent anybody from walking on campus with one. Those are completely disanalogous situations.

[jpak]

13. Not so - airline cabins are gun-free (except for air marshals) to protect public safety

Guns are not needed in schools, libraries, town meetings, bars, polling places, public buildings for the same reason.

It is not a infringement on the Holy 2A.

nope

[speltwon]

14. It is so...

everybody is screened. Marshalls are ALLOWED to carry. That's part of the screening process - who can and can't carry. I've carried on an airplane before doing an extradition. They screened me.

Campuses do not screen everybody who enters. They are thus completely disanalogous to airplanes (and departure lounges)...

[jpak]

15. Why do republics want to turn college campuses into NRA social laboratories?

I know

they suck

yup

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Why do you want to restrict the constitutional rights of college students?

If I can walk down main street surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens while carrying a gun, why can't I do it on a college campus?

[Starboard Tack]

60. Because constitutional rights do not apply to everyone everywhere.

You may not enter my home with a weapon. Your constitutional rights end when you step on private property, or federal property. I can't imagine where you live, or what century you live in, where you are surrounded by armed people on main street. But, if that is true, then I don't blame you for carrying, especially being a democrat and all.
Are they carrying openly, or do you count the ominous bulges?

[X_Digger]

61. "Your constitutional rights end when you step on ... federal property"????

Private property, I'll give you, unless it falls under one of the exceptions like those outlined in Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or similar legislation that applies to private property.

But constitutional rights end when one steps on federal property?

What have you been smoking?!?

[Starboard Tack]

62. Did I say that? Got me there. Shame on me

Should have said start to be infringed upon in one way or another. Many federal employees sacrifice certain rights, including 1st Amendment rights, often depending on their security clearance level. The general public sacrifice their 2nd Amendment rights when entering a federal building and they can't smoke either.

[X_Digger]

63. Employees are very different than the public, yes..

And federal buildings are different than federal property.

I used to carry a gun quite often on federal property, legally, and without being law enforcement.

[Callisto32]

71. BZZZ.

Constitutional rights do NOT end when you step on private property. Rather, you do not have constitutional protection against the private property OWNER. State actors (those bound by the Constitution, which is a limit on government powers) are still bound by the Constitution when on private property.

As for "Your constitutional rights end when you step on...federal property:

?1252113155

[Atypical Liberal]

77. On private property

Because constitutional rights do not apply to everyone everywhere. You may not enter my home with a weapon. Your constitutional rights end when you step on private property, or federal property.

There are many government-owned properties where you are allowed to carry firearms. While I agree there should be certain places where firearms are not allowed, such as prisons, courts, and legislative houses, I do not see colleges, particularly state colleges, as one of those places.

I'm not even sure I support the idea of disallowing firearms on private property. That is, if you operate a private facility that is open to the general public, I don't think you should be able to discriminate against someone carrying a firearm any more than you should be able to discriminate against someone based on religion, sex, race, or sexual orientation.

I can't imagine where you live, or what century you live in, where you are surrounded by armed people on main street.

I didn't say I was surrounded by armed people. I asked, "If I can walk down main street surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens while carrying a gun, why can't I do it on a college campus?" To which no one on this forum has been able to give an answer. If I'm safe enough to walk down main street with a gun, I'm safe enough to walk on a college campus with one.

But, if that is true, then I don't blame you for carrying, especially being a democrat and all.

I don't understand what you are saying. Please clarify. Is this sarcasm? Are Democrats not supposed to carry firearms?

Are they carrying openly, or do you count the ominous bulges

It's just a banana in my pocket.

[armueller2001]

78. Actually, depending on the state you live in,

it may be entirely legal for someone to enter your home with a concealed weapon. If it were Texas, you would need to post a legitimate 30.06 sign at all entrances of your home or provide verbal notification in order for it to be illegal to carry in your home.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Hey another good reason not to live in the Republic of Texas

[armueller2001]

85. What state are you in

if you don't mind me asking?

Chances are excellent that you live in a state where it is not illegal to carry into someone's home without informing them.

[X_Digger]

86. *hint* it's the same way in other states..

In order to charge someone with trespassing, you have to a) ask them to leave and have them refuse, or b) have them bypass a posted notice / obvious boundary (varies by state).

In no state could you have a personal, unposted 'rule' about no weapons and call the cops when someone brings one onto your property (unless they refuse to leave when directed to).

[armueller2001]

88. I'm pretty sure that either Alabama or Arkansas

has a law that you must announce the fact you are carrying a concealed firearm to a homeowner before entering.

[X_Digger]

89. Arkansas has the notification, but it's not trespassing.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

eta: Trying to find the link, but there was a case like this a while back, and the offense was not trespassing.

eta2: Ahh, it was trespass but plead down to disturbing the peace. You're right. Normally simple trespass or criminal trespass.

[GreenStormCloud]

94. Forty states are shall issue.

I can't imagine where you live, or what century you live in, where you are surrounded by armed people on main street.
Do you really want me to list the 40 states that have shall-issue laws? In any of those state you will find people, like myself, who are always armed, even on Main St.

Many guns are small enough that there is no bulge.

[rl6214]

50. Please tell us which of these republics

want to turn college campuses into NRA social laboratories.

20th Century and LaterPanama (est. 1903)
Portugal (est. 5 October 1910)
Azerbaijan (est. 18 May 1918, lost independence to Soviet Russia on 28 April 1920), first democratic parliamentary republic in the Muslim world
Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935–1946)
Second Spanish Republic (de jure: 1931–1939) (de facto: 1931-1975)
Fourth French Republic (1946–1958)
Republic of the Philippines (1946, fully independent from the United States of America, inaugurated on 4 July 1946)
Albania (est. 1946)
Ireland (est. 1949)
India (est. 1950)
Fifth French Republic (since 1958)
Algeria (est. 1962)
Singapore (est. 1965)
Afghanistan (est. 1973)
Nepal (est. 2008)
Zimbabwe


I'll wait.

YUP

YUP

YUP

[Callisto32]

70. That is an EXCELLENT conclusion.

Maybe now you can tell us WHY?

[Starboard Tack]

52. Easy. Implement screening

[armueller2001]

53. Implement screening

and armed guards at every entrance to every building of every university in the country?

Say good bye to affordable higher education for the poor and middle class! Well, except for colleges that allow permit holders to carry on campus.

[Starboard Tack]

58. Hey, it works at the airports and federal buildings and most people are OK with that

I guess you're right. If people insist on being armed, the rest of us have a right to protect ourselves from them. I wonder if students at our military academies attend classes armed. I think not.

[shadowrider]

72. Ahh yes. The old slippery slope

We're already doing A, so we should do B
We're already doing A and B, so we should do C
We're already doing A, B and C, so we should do D

No thanks

[Starboard Tack]

81. Right, like people are getting shot, so lets go out and buy more guns

Yippeeeeee! Talk about slippery slope

[Doctor_J]

12. But wait! the Founders didn't expressly forbid guns in airports!

Therefore it must be a right!

Shit. I just gave the NRA another insane idea.

[krispos42]

18. No, you don't. Sorry. n/t

[Common Sense Party]

20. Are you saying that people try to FORCE guns on you when you enter

public places?

You can always say no.

[PavePusher]

25. I do if I own the aircraft and airport. n/t

[rl6214]

49. "I have a civil right to be free from guns in public places"

No you don't.

nope

nope

nope

[Callisto32]

69. Still waiting for that explanation of how you determine what is and is not a right.

One that works for ANYTHING. Every time I ask this, you give me a policy position on a specific issue.

[GreenStormCloud]

93. No, you don't have that as a right. It is nothing more than a wish of yours. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

24. What a load of codswallop!

Tyranny? At the point of the finger?
Show me an armed populace that functions well. Oh yes, Iraq. Toting guns = uncivil wrong.
Sorry, I'm sure you're right on lots of things, just not this one.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

35. "Tyranny of the Majority"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

In a democracy, if enough people vote then it becomes law... the law is what would oppress the minority if civil rights were not there to protect them.

Tyranny of the majority does not override Civil Rights?
Nope... not as long as we hold civil rights sacrosanct.

Yup.

[Starboard Tack]

51. Sorry, but RKBA is not a civil right

It is a constitutional right. Though that is somewhat debatable. Anyhow, there is a big difference. In fact it is decidedly uncivil. Civil rights are about equality for all, not about a minority of people who choose to walk around carrying lethal weapons. Gun control advocates have no interest in oppressing a minority, just the opposite. Is the campaign for nuclear disarmament oppressive? No it is suppressive.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. Congress would disagree... even they refer to RKBA as a civil right.

It was the "Civil Rights Movement" that focused equal rights for all - the equal application of Civil Rights.
"Civil Rights" themselves cover many aspects of individual protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, or sexual orientation; and individual rights such as the freedoms of thought and conscience,...

There is a preexisting human right to life & liberty as well as the defense of that life & liberty. The Bill of Rights simply recognizes such a preexisting right through the establishment of limitations on the government's ability to restrict common ownership and use of adequate tools in defense of life/liberty.


Even congress regards, or at least legislatively, refers to RKBA as a civil right. IMO, rightfully so.
(Credit to jody for originally posting this info)

Congress acknowledged RKBA is a civil right when it passed this law, stating:

"What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."

See "TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 921. - Definitions"

The act of restoring "civil rights" includes RKBA and the act of taking away "civil rights" includes RKBA.

What evidence do you have that shows "there is a big difference" between constitutional(?) and civil rights?
Moreover, what evidence (in spite of the above information) supports that RKBA belongs to the former rather the latter?

[hack89]

57. So the rest of the Bill of Rights are not civil rights?

voting, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search, freedom to a jury trial - not a single one is a civil right?


Is this what you really believe?

[Starboard Tack]

64. Absolutely not, not one of them

Voting did not include females or blacks
Neither did Freedom of Speech
Same for the others
These were constitutional rights, not civil rights, because civil rights are about everyone and they are about being civil towards one another and that's why we had all those other little amendments later on to fix those inequities. And the inequities pertaining to civil rights are not about who gets to carry a weapon. That's about legal rights in whatever jurisdiction you find yourself. I don't hear too many smokers screaming about civil rights violations. No, I find the suggestion that your civil rights are being violated, based solely on the grounds that you are a minority, somewhat disingenuous.

[hack89]

66. So what do you consider civil rights?

besides being nice to each other?

[Callisto32]

75. No, they were civil rights being infringed.

Why is this such a hard concept? Rights don't come from the government. They EXIST. They flow from the concept of self-ownership, and what people call them matters not. If an act is done without harming another person or another's property, it is a right to do so. To suggest that you have a power to limit someone from doing something that does NOT harm others is...pretty sick, actually.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Those are human rights and you are correct

Civil rights are those endowed on society by that society itself to help create equality.
Constitutional rights are politically contrived and occasionally amended to keep up with our evolution as a society.

[Callisto32]

87. I must disagree, on definition.

civil |ˈsivəl|
adjective
1 < attrib. > of or relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters : civil aviation.

The keeping and bearing of arms seems to fall neatly into that definition.


ETA: Civil rights are subset of human rights. I posit that all rights are had as a result of being a self-owning person. I guess, what I am saying is that all rights are "human rights." The idea of a "society" is a fiction. It is a helpful fiction, but a fiction nonetheless. In the end, we are all individual people making individual decisions and taking individual actions. People may agree to do so in concert, as a "society" but the reality of the situation is not altered by their allegiance, and each could decide to leave that "society" as they see fit.

[hack89]

90. So how does a society record and declare those civil rights they want to endow?

perhaps they put them all in a document and call it a "constitution"?

[Starboard Tack]

91. Or by amending said constitution

Things get outdated like slavery, women's suffrage and now 2nd Amendment

[hack89]

92. But they are civil rights until they are amended, right?

or can anyone can ignore those enumerated rights that they don't like?


You will never see the 2nd amendment removed or even changed in your life time. In case you haven't noticed, the anti-civil rights crowd has had their asses handed to them on a regular basis for the past two decade. Gun control is dead.

[Starboard Tack]

97. No, they are constitutional rights until amended

and you're probably right about not being changed in our lifetime.

[hack89]

99. But since a constitution is how civil rights are endowed

I am confused. Where is the official list of American civil rights that the Supreme Court uses as their guideline? What civil rights do I have that are not listed in the Constitution? Are you the person that decides what in the Bill of Rights is a civil right or not?

[Starboard Tack]

101. You are not the only one confused, but you are correct in asking

am I the person who decides what in the Bill of Rights is a civil right or not? And the answer is YES, I decide, as do each of us. That is both my universal and individual right, to think for myself, form ideas and make decisions. Interpretation of rights, as to whether they are human rights, universal rights, natural rights, civil rights, constitutional rights, political rights, individual rights etc. is very subjective and therefore confusing for us all. To a large extent this is a semantic issue, so that's a good point to start at, otherwise we just go round in circles and discussion becomes pointless. From my purely subjective view, let me be clear as to how I perceive the 2nd amendment and which categories of rights it falls into. 2A describes a political right, a constitutional right, an individual right and in some people's views a civil right. It was born out of English common law and preceded by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which considered the right to keep and bear arms a long standing natural right protected by common law. Both English and American Bill's of Rights codified these rights into statutory and constitutional law. They were good laws, but they were laws of their times. In fact they were times when flintlock pistols and muskets were state of the art weaponry. Swords, bows and arrows, spears and even pitchforks were all common and more traditional arms. A regiment would have to be fighting for hours in order to wreak the havoc that one individual can accomplish today with a semi-automatic and a clip or two at the local mall. I feel sure that the authors of these Bills would flip if they thought they were responsible for the insanity that exists today, of permitting certain individuals to roam freely in classrooms, churches, the marketplace and other public areas, while concealing on their person the firepower of 100+ men of their time.
The class of people entitled to bear arms is elitist. Convicted felons are not entitled to own guns, let alone a CCW permit. This creates an underclass and helps perpetuate social and racial inequality. Consequently, I find that this "right" has devolved into something far from "civil". But it is still on the books. Not in England, they modified their laws many times over the centuries (fascinating concept, changing with the times). Now the UK has a minuscule number of gun deaths annually. That's called evolution.
We have a problem in this society and we all need to work together without infringing on one another's rights.

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. And you exercise a right first written with a quill pen and printed on a hand press...

...when you post here with your computer, via a worldwide communications network.

Would you also like to 'evolve' the First Amendment?

[Starboard Tack]

104. It evolves constantly as it is challenged

There are lots of good restrictions, like not being able to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Even the 10 commandments are open to interpretation.

[Euromutt]

105. I have to take issue with a number of assertions on your part

Swords, bows and arrows, spears and even pitchforks were all common and more traditional arms. A regiment would have to be fighting for hours in order to wreak the havoc that one individual can accomplish today with a semi-automatic and a clip or two at the local mall.

Even assuming you're using hyperbole for dramatic effect, and don't mean that literally, it's still a massive overstatement. Historically, a regiment is ten companies of about 100 men each, so you're talking something in the order of 1,000 troops. Magazines for semi-automatic rifles are typically at most thirty rounds. Do you really want to suggest one guy with a rifle and 90 rounds (assuming you were talking about spare mags and not counting the one already in the weapon) or so can inflict more injury on a crowd of unarmed and unarmored shoppers than 1,000 (or even a hundred) pikemen?

Not in England, they modified their laws many times over the centuries (fascinating concept, changing with the times). Now the UK has a minuscule number of gun deaths annually.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; the homicide rate in the UK was low before any restrictions on gun ownership were introduced. Murder rates across Europe (which in the late Middle Ages were multiples of the worst American homicide recorded) began to drop during the Enlightenment, and indeed, it's notable that the decline in homicide rates started in the same places where the Enlightenment first took hold (England and the Dutch Republic) and spread with the Enlightenment.

The British, moreover, have found it markedly easier to change their laws because the United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution, nor does it have full separation of powers (the chief executive, most cabinet members and the senior members of the judiciary are also members of Parliament). And somehow, they still can't prevent mass/spree shootings from occurring.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

80. See post 54... you are incorrect.

Congress calls them civil rights.
The judicial branch considers them Civil Rights.
Encyclopedias refer to them as civil rights.

If you have any evidence besides your personal feelings, feel free to post it.

[Starboard Tack]

82. I don't

[Callisto32]

74. You understand that guns are an equalizer, no?

They are at least partially responsible for the downfall of feudal systems. They allow arthritic 67 year olds to deal with threats from people like me...25 year old, 235 pound, muscular men with training on how to fight. Not that I would attack anyone in the first place, mind you.

To suggest that ownership of arms somehow tips the balance of power to a tyranny of the minority is absurd on its face in a society where quality arms are readily available and can be carried by anyone without a documented history of violence or instability. If one does not go armed, that is, generally, his or her choice. If RKBA folks were saying "only WE should have guns" you may, MAY have a point.

As for the nuclear arms bit, that is an entirely different issue. Nuclear arms are indiscriminate killers on a massive scale. A firearm is only capable of affecting a VERY small area.

[Callisto32]

73. Show me a populace that is not armed.

Hint: Can't be done.

[Starboard Tack]

59. Show me where carrying a gun in public is a civil right.

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Civil_rights

[speltwon]

10. Right. Like college learning environments are destroyed in all those locations

that allow such carry on campus? Oh wait, they haven't been destroyed

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. They *never* discuss the colleges THAT ALREADY ALLOW THIS, do they?

That's empirical evidence that the practice isn't harmful, and that needs to be avoided.

They keep to the "OMG, there'll be blood in the student unions!" schtick.

[speltwon]

39. It really is amazing

It's not even cognitive dissonance. It's just a complete detachment from reality. If this was ANY other topic, I would expect a freeper creationist was making it.

[rl6214]

48. "Gun-toters want to destroy college learning environments."

RIIIIGHT.

Care to show us where this has happened on the 90 or so campuses that already allow concealed carry?

Go ahead, I'll be here a while and wait,

and wait,

and wait.

[high_and_mighty]

56. The editorial did mention Utah.

Though the author disregarded the lack of issues due to Utah being a Mormon controlled state with less emphasis on drinking than the rest of the apparently drunken country. No mention of the campuses in Colorado.

[Callisto32]

68. You are a liar.

I know you are a liar. You know how I know? Because you just ascribed a motivation to me that I do not have.

It is insulting, and petty.

[Zoeisright]

4. Of course. Anyone with logical reasoning ability understands this.

Which explains a lot.

[Hangingon]

5. unrec - alert

wrong forum

[jpak]

7. It's an editorial

duh

:rofl:

[Doctor_J]

8. Yes, but making campuses free-fire zones is a small price to pay

for keeping this most sacred of rights (actually the only one that's EXPANDED over the last 30 years).

This country has gone batshit crazy. Maybe a right-wing paper like USAT weighing in for sanity is a good sign.

[Atypical Liberal]

32. Why would they become free-fire zones?

First of all, nothing is preventing anyone who wants to commit murder with a firearm on a college campus from doing that today. Nothing. As we saw at VT, UI, and UAH, shooters came on campus with full forethought and intent on committing murder with a firearm, and they did it, irregardless of any laws or rules that said they couldn't do it.

So just declaring college campuses to be "gun free zones" is not going to do anything to stop criminals from doing criminal things with guns on college campuses.

Secondly, allowing people with concealed carry permits to carry firearms on college campuses is not going to result in some kind of "free fire zone". Check the stats. In Texas, since 2000 CCW permit holders account annually for less criminal convictions than one-quarter of one percent - .0025 of convictions of everything from Public Lewdness to Homicide. CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime - let alone firearm crime - than non-CCW carrying citizens.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

16. No, it wasn't rejected in 2009..

The legislature got bottled up stopping the 'real ID' thing.

Right out of the Brady playbook.

[armueller2001]

17. Unrec for dishonest reporting

Funny, they didn't mention that there are 40 or so universities that allow on campus.

WITH NO PROBLEMS

[high_and_mighty]

65. The editorial mentioned Utah

See post #56 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x385769#386083

[AlinPA]

19. I'm not anti-gun, but worry about armed drunked up college students on Friday and Saturday nights.nt

[armueller2001]

21. There are almost never on-campus parties.

Most college parties are at off campus houses, apartments, or fraternity houses. It is already legal for concealed carry permit holders to carry in these places if they are not drinking.

Net change = 0

[AlinPA]

22. They do go back to their dorms after the parties. I live and work in a college town and a lot

of stuff happens here on Friday and Saturday nights, believe me.

[armueller2001]

23. Simple - don't allow guns to be stored in the dorms

Allow legal carry on grounds and in buildings by 21 year old and over adults with permits. Most students in the dorms are freshmen and sophomores anyway (at least at my college) who wouldn't be eligible for CCW permits in the first place.

[AlinPA]

28. Yes, most of the first and second year students live in dorms, but not allowing them to have guns

goes against the whole notion of permitting students to be armed. As for the parties off or near campus, they do get crazy around here. The local paper is loaded with police reports on Monday and Tuesday. Some involve fights, but mostly drinking problems and bringing guns into the mix worries me - and everyone I know in town (profs, employees, local restaurant/bar owners)say the same.

[PavePusher]

31. Again, what is stopping them now? n/t

[AlinPA]

38. Nothing. I'm sure guns aren't allowed on campus here.

[GreenStormCloud]

95. But the parties are OFF-CAMPUS.

Concealed carry by permit holders is ALREADY legal at OFF-CAMPUS parties. The law will have no change to that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. Most - almost all - 1st & 2nd year student don't QUALIFY to carry a firearm concealed.

Don't forget, the rules of licensed Concealed Carry will apply to those who carry on campus.
Can't be drunk, can't carry in bars, Can't be younger than 21.

[armueller2001]

34. You must have missed the point.

It is currently legal for those with concealed weapon permits to carry at off campus parties if they are not drinking

Why are there no problems now? And why on earth would you use that to argue against concealed carry on campus, a totally unrelated subject???

[AlinPA]

40. Interaction among students is both on and off campus. They get drunk on and off campus. nt

[armueller2001]

43. Ok... and what's your point?

If firearms are banned in dorms, where would it be a problem on campus? Are students getting drunk in classrooms or at the student bookstore?

Once again, ccw is already legal at off campus parties if they aren't intoxicated. There are no problems. Why would ccw on campus change anything?

Why are universities in Colorado and Utah not experiencing blood in the streets as you predict?

[AlinPA]

47. I'm predicting blood in the streets? I'm just worried about guns and drunk college students. I did

not predict that.

[GreenStormCloud]

96. You strongly implied it by your excessive hand wringing. N/T

[Callisto32]

76. I know it is a small sample, but...

I attended a small university in a rural area, and I and a number of other students I knew had LTCFs. We were college kids, yes. We drank and partied with our friends. WITHOUT FAIL every one of the LTCF holders I knew did NOT carry while drinking. "Have a beer!" "I can't I'm carrying." Was a somewhat common conversation.

Are there irresponsible college students? Abso-frickin'-lutely. But I don't think too many of them have LTCFs. Why is this? Because CCW holders throughout the country are a self-selecting group. The personality that makes this choice has proven itself to be overwhelmingly composed of responsible, upstanding folks; or at the very least not people you need to worry about being armed.

[PavePusher]

26. And what's stopping such now? n/t

[WatsonT]

37. A) nothing preventing people from getting drunk now

and killing each other (college or not), other than the law.
B) most of the really crazy idiotic stuff seems to be carried out by the younger kids, not the over 21 year old types will to sit through an 8+ hour class, have their fingerprints scanned, take a test, then pay a several hundred dollar licensing fee.
C) what protects us from non-college kids who get drunk and kill each other?

[AlinPA]

41. re: C, I'm talking about students on and around campus. nt

[armueller2001]

44. I'm sure the girl walking home from

the library who gets raped due to her denial of an effective form of self defense will really take comfort in the fact that at least none of those big bad icky guns are on campus (not legally anyway)

[WatsonT]

45. Right, if the goal is to protect us

and it only bans guns for college students, but not 18-22 year old non-college students doesn't that assume college kids are more dangerous than non-college kids?

[Atypical Liberal]

29. It will be great when Texas passes this and nothing happens.

It's going to be great when Texas passes this bill and nothing happens, just like in the states where it's already legal.

All the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching is going to be for nothing. CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in crime. They won't be any more inclined to be involved in crime just because they are going to school.

[WatsonT]

46. Like when the courts struck down handgun bans

and we were promised blood flowing in the streets but then . . . . nothing.

[WatsonT]

36. Well that's that then

The constitution clearly lays out that the USAtoday is the final arbiter when it comes to interpreting the 2nd amendment.

Now if you'll excuse me, time to check the NY times decision regarding whether or not we can keep the 5th amendment.

[DWC]

42. Here In The Real World

Crazies and Crooks do not care about the law, rules, signs, or any other effort to maintain a peaceful, violence-free society.

Mature, Honest Citizens make every effort to comply with those restrictions except when they affect one's potential, perceived, or actual self-preservation.

Here in the real world, there are very real threats to self-preservation even on college campuses.

Any Mature, Honest Citizens unwilling to defend themselves against those threats are free to make that choice and face its consequences.

Any Mature, Honest Citizens determined to defend themselves against those threats are free to make that choice and face its consequences.

This is a matter of Free Will. No law can change that fact.

I am personally proud that the State of Texas and others are finally recognizing those Real World facts.

Semper Fi,

[DWC]

55. Opposing view: Decriminalize self-defense

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...al01_ST1_N.htm

Semper Fi,

[Callisto32]

67. USA Today...

Great puzzles and entertainment section...not that impressive otherwise.



I see little has changed.

[Euromutt]

79. So McPaper supports the continued infantilization of American students

Big fucking deal.

So here's a thought that I've had repeatedly during this whole "concealed carry on campus" palaver: I constantly see assertions along the lines that students can't be trusted to behave responsibly. In this particular article, the author claims the idea of CCW on campus is an "awful idea, on the sensible grounds that students and guns are a risky combination."

So the odd thought occurred to me that if American students don't behave like responsible adults, it might be at least in part because nobody treats them like responsible adults. Nowhere is this more clear than in the justification for campus "speech codes" to protect their widdle feelings. You know what? Maybe they're old enough to handle it, if you just trust them.

[TPaine7]

98. I know this is an opinion piece, but that's no reason for this pathetic, unsubstantiated hysteria:

"Interestingly, states that are otherwise supportive of guns-everywhere policies have consistently said "no" to this awful idea, on the sensible grounds that students and guns are a risky combination. More than 40 such proposals have died in state legislatures, and even Texas rejected a similar bill in 2009"

Not one state is supportive of guns everywhere but schools; not one state supports guns in prisons and insane asylums. Calling something sensible doesn't make it so, neither does using question begging "grounds" to support it. It is no less poor writing than poor logic to baldly assert that "students and guns are a risky combination"--especially when that is the point under contention. It's boring and insulting to assume that your audience is stupid--too stupid to realize that literally ANYTHING can be proven if accepted as a premise.

John may be a trustworthy person, a fully competent adult with a clean record and fully able to handle a concealed weapon on the street, in the mall, at the bank, around all types of people. He may do so, daily, for years. But if he decides to take a class or pursue a degree, all bets are off. As a citizen, he's trustworthy, but as a student he's a menace. Remember, it's a self-evident truth that "students and guns are a risky combination."

[DWC]

100. No even a "Yes, but-er" can argue with your logic. Thanks! n/t

[Euromutt]

103. Well, we *are* talking about USA Today here...

If they assume their audience is stupid, they probably do so with some justification.