Weapons on college campuses, good or bad?

[Koliadko 207]

At bare minimum, teachers should be armed (if they care to) and all security guards should be armed, period.

[fauxknight 30]

Is carrying on College Campus in Ohio still legal?

 

As far as I know it is. The odd part is that weapons are allowed on campuses, but not concealed weapons, so you may only open carry while on campus. I imagine some campuses have their own anti-gun rules, but I haven't looked into which ones do.

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

If it is at all federally funded, then you cannot have a firearm on campus concealed or open. This includes any land-grant universities/colleges.

 

Prisons still have drugs, stabbings and shootings in them despite it being against the rules and pretty rigorous screening.

Edited March 8, 2012 by BuffetDestroyer

[greenbf1 5]

"Shall not be infringed" covers campus and everwhere else, so yes, I believe carry should be allowed on campus.

[physicsnerd 139]

To me / IMHO the problem with this question is the same as many questions that are posed here and elsewhere (some by me), they call for a one size fits all blanket answer. As a general rule I would much rather see a better screening system for who is on the campus and a hell of a lot better security system other than let a random selection (1st by age / over 21) by who has them bunch of very young inexperienced people try to police themselves with guns. May not be a very popular view here but oh well I’d rather keep it an institute of learning than a possible small war zone.

 

I respect your opinion but I would offer a few counter points.

 

1) Unless a campus were to be surrounded by giant electrified fences it would be extremely difficult to screen who is on campus. I know when I am on campus either in grad school or undergrad that I would be annoyed if I was heckled to see if I had a university ID.

 

2) Most college campuses have indistinct boundaries with their neighboring areas.

 

3) There is nothing inherently different about an institute of learning than pretty much anywhere else. The same argument could be made about places of commerce or business.

 

4) I think college people should be challenged to act more like adults. It is surprising that 200 years ago people in their late teens were apprenticed lawyers. Now we have trouble trusting someone who is 21 to not shoot someone over a game of pickup football.

[Dudethebagman 222]

If you choose to live on-campus, then you have to abide by the housing rules, which can mean no guns, no alcohol, no women which equals no fun!

You could say the same thing about choosing to go to colleges where guns aren't allowed. There are rules everywhere you choose to go.

 

"Shall not be infringed" covers campus and everwhere else, so yes, I believe carry should be allowed on campus.

If you're going to apply it that broadly, why not high schools, prisons, or even mental institutions? I don't see anything in the Constitution that says "except when we're talking about kids, thugs, or crazies."

 

3) There is nothing inherently different about an institute of learning than pretty much anywhere else. The same argument could be made about places of commerce or business.

 

Gotta disagree. The average age, atmoshpere, and level of life experience on college campuses are entirely different than, say, a grocery store. Keep in mind a lot of these people were in high school last year and are now unsupervised and spend much of their time outside class trying to get wasted and laid.

 

I mostly agree with 20-mags.

 

Personally, I'd want the ability to carry to protect myself from random psychos. BUT, I'm a 30something hyporcrite and don't want a bunch of sheltered hormonal/drunk/high 18 year olds who have never been outside of their parent's view with ARs in the dorms. "Wow, sick rifle, brah. Lemme play with it." (I'm now flashing back to having a drunk girl pounding on my dorm door at 3 AM yelling "I love you Rob" and throwing up on the carpet. I'm not Rob). Lots (most) of these kids aren't very good at responsibly exercising freedom or good judgment at that age. College is kind of like adulthood with training wheels.

 

Campus gun bans are kind of similar to having the drinking age 21 instead of 18 - It's bullshit on one level, but in retrospect I know I was a little reckless when I was 18. It's hard to draw lines because some people are plenty responsible when they're 16, and some never manage to grow up. But the fact remains that drunk driving fatalities for 18-21 year olds did drop when the drinking age was raised.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Dudethebagman

[RobRez 1,895]

Drinking and driving is something you choose to do as a minor, or adult.....being assaulted by a criminal is Not.

Comparing drinking and driving and being shot by a criminal makes absolutely no sense to me....I don't think Anyone, ever, in the history of the world has ever made the choice to "go out and get mugged" .

[Dudethebagman 222]

Drinking and driving is something you choose to do as a minor, or adult.....being assaulted by a criminal is Not.

Comparing drinking and driving and being shot by a criminal makes absolutely no sense to me....I don't think Anyone, ever, in the history of the world has ever made the choice to "go out and get mugged" .

 

If it doesn't make sense to you, maybe I can help break it down.

 

I wasn't comparing pesonally choosing to drive drunk to being an unwilling shooting victim. That's apples to oranges.

 

I was comparing being too irresponsible to handle booze to being too irresponsible to handle weapons. The common element is the lack of good judgment.

Make sense now?

 

A better comparison of what you brought up would be:

 

Getting hit by a drunk driver compared to being shot by a negligent discharge.

 

Both of which are things you don't have much control over. Apples to apples.

[Joseph 141]

Drunk teens are all the MORE reason for college firearms.

 

We need a renstatement of the DUEL system, mabye add some politleness to this socitey.

 

What was good about america is rapidly fading, Where are the tomas jeffersons of the 21st century?

 

Carefully corrupted and destroyed by publik education and the American meida. no one has any values anymore and can't stand a stand for honor and diginty.

 

Drunk kids running around having sex like a damn animals are a disgrace and will/are collapsing this socitey making accomidations for them to act this way to stupid. if they shoot themselves send an award to surviving family members and bequeath the gun to their drunken idiotic friends. (GET OFF MY LAWN)

 

We are no longer in a Democracy we are in an Idiocracy, of the stupid by the stupid and for the stupid.

 

Let the 28th amendment be to allow people the right to fail, no more goveremnt coddling to dilute the American gene pool any further.

 

Oh and young i'm a college student who would carry a SBS to school if our constuional rights weren't being stripped from us.

 

Freedom is dead, and no one is even awake. Freedom is a word now, there is no more truth and justice in america.

 

I remember when i first saw the Soviet propagand talking about how great and free the glorious mother land is and it hit me.

 

Welcome to america. Land of the "Free"

Edited March 9, 2012 by ZombieJefferson

[magsite20 1,664]

While there are a lot of points to be made for this or against this. My issue with arming young people in school is with the simple fact they don’t have a lot of experience in life nor the real training to deal with some of the possible shoot or no shoot situations that could arise. We’re not talking about giving guns to young people in police or military uniforms that have had weeks / months of training. Their whole world has been home and school some still live at home, some have never worked they have no real world background to draw on. Kind of like our current president.

 

Side note:

4) I think college people should be challenged to act more like adults. It is surprising that 200 years ago people in their late teens were apprenticed lawyers. Now we have trouble trusting someone who is 21 to not shoot someone over a game of pickup football.

physicsnerd you want to arm the lawyers 1^st, I thought it was always 1^st kill all the lawyers.

 

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers

Edited March 9, 2012 by 20-Mags

[G O B 3,516]

There is a lot of hostility towards young people here! What gives anyone the right to limit anyone else's rights? Because they are young and might get drunk? Where do YOU draw the line at restricting those rights? Maybe the 21 year olds want to remove your rights because you are collecting Social Security? You are old and cannot be trusted with a gun because you might get senile?The same illogic that is used to disarm students can be turned around to disarm YOU!

[RobRez 1,895]

Drinking and driving is something you choose to do as a minor, or adult.....being assaulted by a criminal is Not.

Comparing drinking and driving and being shot by a criminal makes absolutely no sense to me....I don't think Anyone, ever, in the history of the world has ever made the choice to "go out and get mugged" .

 

If it doesn't make sense to you, maybe I can help break it down.

 

I wasn't comparing pesonally choosing to drive drunk to being an unwilling shooting victim. That's apples to oranges.

 

I was comparing being too irresponsible to handle booze to being too irresponsible to handle weapons. The common element is the lack of good judgment.

Make sense now?

 

A better comparison of what you brought up would be:

 

Getting hit by a drunk driver compared to being shot by a negligent discharge.

 

Both of which are things you don't have much control over. Apples to apples.

OK I gotcha.

But is it not ILLEGAL for minors to drink? So should law abiding citizens be restricted because of irresponsible law breakers?

"Sorry, Pi Delta Chai is having a kegger with 200 underage drinkers, so you must give up your constitutional right to protect yourself"

How about dealing with underage drinking instead of taking away a LEGAL RIGHT?

Now, if you can make That make sense to me...Please DO!!

[DogMan 2,343]

In our society we have police officers who are highly trained and must qualify regularly and nobody (usually) questions their competence to carry a gun just about anywhere. On the other hand, for those not working in law enforcement there is no universally accepted standard or means to acheive an accepted standard of competence that would assure anyone or any institution that a person with such training can be trusted to carry a weapon. I believe this type of intermediate step is critical in getting places like college campuses to begin to accept concealed carry. I know that firearms training academies exist but I think that concept needs to be expanded to a point where they are government sanctioned and standardized so that regular citizens who are willing to put in the time and effort can be be certified. Maybe then colleges and other institutions who would otherwise allow no firearms would maybe say OK if you have been vetted and qualified to this standard, and have this certification we will allow you to carry concealed. That is at least a foot in the door.

[twoskinsoneman 72]

Another Gun Free Zone "success" story.

http://content.usato.../1#.T1cgJ4H5YtI

 

If only the killer had known he wasn't allowed to carry a gun at school this would have never happened.

[Guns Are Great 140]

2nd AMENDMENT 100%

Edited March 10, 2012 by Guns Are Great

[twoskinsoneman 72]

I think a real problem is the shielding of our kids. You know I went to a private, christian HS for a while and one of our classes was on firearm safety. Once a month the "Choir Leader" who was a retired Sheriff came to our HS and taught the boys a gun safety class. Then we went out in the woods and each shot his .357. We were taught to respect guns and life.

 

these days people are scared to arm young people because they haven't been exposed to firearms. They are much more likely to think of a gun as a toy than a dangerous weapon. They've been blasting zombies and aliens with guns as part of their "play time" since they were 3 years old.

[DogMan 2,343]

CC permit should allow CC everywhere but the courthouse..... period

The problem is when you ban guns and screen for guns inside any building the outside of that building becomes a hunting ground for the deranged. Nobody going in or out of that building except for cops will be armed and those cops are not there in a position to "protect" you. They are there to disarm you, and then respond after you get shot.

http://www.dailymail...an-wounded.html

Apparently it's not that hard to get your hands on a gun inside the courthouse, either.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/justice/washington-courthouse-incident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[G O B 3,516]

In our society we have police officers who are highly trained and must qualify regularly and nobody (usually) questions their competence to carry a gun just about anywhere. On the other hand, for those not working in law enforcement there is no universally accepted standard or means to acheive an accepted standard of competence that would assure anyone or any institution that a person with such training can be trusted to carry a weapon. I believe this type of intermediate step is critical in getting places like college campuses to begin to accept concealed carry. I know that firearms training academies exist but I think that concept needs to be expanded to a point where they are government sanctioned and standardized so that regular citizens who are willing to put in the time and effort can be be certified. Maybe then colleges and other institutions who would otherwise allow no firearms would maybe say OK if you have been vetted and qualified to this standard, and have this certification we will allow you to carry concealed. That is at least a foot in the door.

 

1st amendment training classes will be next. By your logic we need Government sanctioned and standardized training so we can state an opinion. A fundamental right is a fundamental right.

[Dad2142Dad 6,559]

The first two years after high school should be spent in the military. This would allow for training of common sense. Would solve quite a few problems in my opinion. But of course would be an issue with someone, so we will just continue on with the current spiral downward.........

[devildogdakota 804]

The first two years after high school should be spent in the military. This would allow for training of common sense. Would solve quite a few problems in my opinion. But of course would be an issue with someone, so we will just continue on with the current spiral downward.........

Amen to that, brother. I believe that just about every high school graduate should do two years in the service. A little structure and dicipline training goes a long way .

[DogMan 2,343]

In our society we have police officers who are highly trained and must qualify regularly and nobody (usually) questions their competence to carry a gun just about anywhere. On the other hand, for those not working in law enforcement there is no universally accepted standard or means to acheive an accepted standard of competence that would assure anyone or any institution that a person with such training can be trusted to carry a weapon. I believe this type of intermediate step is critical in getting places like college campuses to begin to accept concealed carry. I know that firearms training academies exist but I think that concept needs to be expanded to a point where they are government sanctioned and standardized so that regular citizens who are willing to put in the time and effort can be be certified. Maybe then colleges and other institutions who would otherwise allow no firearms would maybe say OK if you have been vetted and qualified to this standard, and have this certification we will allow you to carry concealed. That is at least a foot in the door.

 

1st amendment training classes will be next. By your logic we need Government sanctioned and standardized training so we can state an opinion. A fundamental right is a fundamental right.

No No No. Don't put words in my mouth. Read it again. I never said anything like this should be a requirement or in any way take the place of anything that stands today. The fact of the matter is there are always going to be certain places in "Any City, USA" that can ban any weapons on their private property for any reason they want. None of our second ammendment rights will EVER supercede that. One of the main reasons that these PRIVATE PROPERTIES ban ALL people from having weapons is that they have no way to only ban "Joe Dipshit" who just bought his first gun 15 minutes ago and is still doesn't know that that little "switch thingy" is the safety. If these type of places are EVER going to allow ANY concealed carry then they are going to require way to ensure themselves that they are allowing only those that have a defined level of training. So the two choices at these private properties here are: (1) NO FIREARMS ALLOWED ..or...(2) Only firearms accompanied by XYZ certification allowed. To be clear, I am talking about places where our 2A rights DO NOT APPLY and we carry or not carry based on decisions made by the owner. Everywhere else your and my rights stand firm.

Edited March 10, 2012 by DogMan

[Ronin38 2,117]

As far as police officers being "highly trained"... Many regular police officers only qualify with their sidearms once per year, and barely touch it otherwise. Many of them are not "gun guys" at all. It's only the "Response Team" members who are typically "gun guys", and do practice with their firearms frequently. Most of the NRA instructors and the guys at the gun club can shoot better than the officers.

 

This is NOT intended as a "dig" against police officers! To many of them, it is a job they love and it entails a whole lot more than just the shooting parts, thankfully.