MyGunsJammed
New member
i think there has to be a way to get our arguments out to the anti's that gun control, and gun free zones doesnt work
Northern Illinois University shooting?
- Thread starter Thumper
- Start date
- Status
Strange.Here in Oregon, anyone wth a ccw permit can carry in ANY school in the state. colleges, universities, high schools, etc., and yet we have had exactly 0 shootings on a college campus in the entire state that I know of.Wonder why our ability to and advocacy of carry in schools hasnt caused blood in the steets and anti-gun group outrage, making all us oregon gun owners look bad.maybe its only a problem where toybox99615 lives....
toybox99615
New member
I paraphrased another poster
chris in va I did not imply or state that teenager should be allowed to carry. That was posted by by another person last week some time in response to a shoot at some school. I pointed out that statements made like arming teenagers in not viewed as a way to help our cause. My statement in entirety was:
"Arm the anti-gun owners with statements from our own ranks indicating teenagers should be allowed to carry weapons to school and your not helping gun owners. (A recent posting on this board.)"
cool hand luke maybe your politicains have a different criteria for ranking public comments. My experience is they tend to classify people who testify as being in one of three groups: for, against and wackos. Tell me what information the legislature likes to hear. I doubt it was from those who advocate arming HS students or college students. I'll bet it was in line with what I previously said: legitimate reasons to proved for self defence. I'd like to see a transcript where the testimony to the legislature in Virgina was based on arming everyone in the interest of public safety. I'd bet it was more along the line of how responsible individuals should not be denied self protection, the traditions of hunting, and a right under the 2nd amendment.
jrfoxx I believe your might have to check with your local law enforcement before you broadly state you can carry on/in a public school. I believe it is Federal regulation that prohibits such carrying. I also seem to remember while attending the UofO specific rules about not having firearms in the dorms. I'm glad there has not been any shooting in Oregon school. I hope there never is. But when these idiots decide to commit suicide by cop I doubt they care if anyone is armed. So far the BG going wacko all over the country don't seem to be concerned with who else may or may not be armed.
I don't mind taking the flack for my position. I believe every time I send letter to any politician regarding RKBA I get more credibility in their eyes for outlining positive reasons for them to support the cause. I've never once found anything published by NRA of any other pro-gun organization that said you could attain positive action by telling politicians that complete access to firearms by anyone at any time in any place was going to make a convincing argument. I doubt you find any organization pro or anti any issue that would encourage its supporter to not follow common courtesy, present reasonable arguments and prescribe a course of action that makes the politician believe in the cause.
Since so many seem to think the way to retain RKBA is to present ourselves as armed and ready to take on the BG. Enlighten me by showing where such statements have had favorable responses against implementing gun controls.
A long time ago I learned that when you go to court don't pissoff the judge. The same goes for politicains.
chris in va I did not imply or state that teenager should be allowed to carry. That was posted by by another person last week some time in response to a shoot at some school. I pointed out that statements made like arming teenagers in not viewed as a way to help our cause. My statement in entirety was:
"Arm the anti-gun owners with statements from our own ranks indicating teenagers should be allowed to carry weapons to school and your not helping gun owners. (A recent posting on this board.)"
cool hand luke maybe your politicains have a different criteria for ranking public comments. My experience is they tend to classify people who testify as being in one of three groups: for, against and wackos. Tell me what information the legislature likes to hear. I doubt it was from those who advocate arming HS students or college students. I'll bet it was in line with what I previously said: legitimate reasons to proved for self defence. I'd like to see a transcript where the testimony to the legislature in Virgina was based on arming everyone in the interest of public safety. I'd bet it was more along the line of how responsible individuals should not be denied self protection, the traditions of hunting, and a right under the 2nd amendment.
jrfoxx I believe your might have to check with your local law enforcement before you broadly state you can carry on/in a public school. I believe it is Federal regulation that prohibits such carrying. I also seem to remember while attending the UofO specific rules about not having firearms in the dorms. I'm glad there has not been any shooting in Oregon school. I hope there never is. But when these idiots decide to commit suicide by cop I doubt they care if anyone is armed. So far the BG going wacko all over the country don't seem to be concerned with who else may or may not be armed.
I don't mind taking the flack for my position. I believe every time I send letter to any politician regarding RKBA I get more credibility in their eyes for outlining positive reasons for them to support the cause. I've never once found anything published by NRA of any other pro-gun organization that said you could attain positive action by telling politicians that complete access to firearms by anyone at any time in any place was going to make a convincing argument. I doubt you find any organization pro or anti any issue that would encourage its supporter to not follow common courtesy, present reasonable arguments and prescribe a course of action that makes the politician believe in the cause.
Since so many seem to think the way to retain RKBA is to present ourselves as armed and ready to take on the BG. Enlighten me by showing where such statements have had favorable responses against implementing gun controls.
A long time ago I learned that when you go to court don't pissoff the judge. The same goes for politicains.
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Our local, and very effective second amendment rights organization: the Virginia Citizens Defense League, organizes a "Lobby Day" each year down in Richmond.
Specific legislation is supported or opposed by groups of volunteers who divvy up the House and Senate, concentrating on the appropriate committee members.
Getting to your question, the leadership of the VCDL does testify at the appropriate committee hearings, with large numbers of the rank and file filling the hearing rooms.
This year, the VCDL leadership testified to exactly the points you raised, i.e., that allowing students to CCW on VA public college campuses would have ended the VA Tech shooting spree early and would have saved lives.
The testimony was well received by most legislators. Those who objected to it were mainly the Liberal Democrats from Northern Virginia.
The testimony must have been effective, because nearly ALL of the new gun control measures were shot down (passed over by committee etc.). This despite heavy lobbying from Governor ("I promise I won't support new gun control legislation if elected") Tim Kane (D).
You can see videos of the testimony and a lot more at the VCDL website: http://www.vcdl.org
toybox99615
New member
good refernce
coolhand I checked out the VCDL site. They definitely take a strong position.
I looked at a few of the projects they are working on. How did the restaurant ban bill ever get passed to begin with? It seems so out of character with the rest of the pro gun visions I would have of Virginia. Having to identify your self as carrying concealed to the bar tender. Wow that's a different bunch of nonsense.
Nice to see you have an organized group to keep track of the legislatures. Here we just find out what the legislature is up to by sheer luck. Fortunately there are very few regulations in Alaska. CCW is not regulated as a past governor repealed the requirement. Anyone can carry concealed with a few limits on where: schools, courts, bars.
coolhand I checked out the VCDL site. They definitely take a strong position.
I looked at a few of the projects they are working on. How did the restaurant ban bill ever get passed to begin with? It seems so out of character with the rest of the pro gun visions I would have of Virginia. Having to identify your self as carrying concealed to the bar tender. Wow that's a different bunch of nonsense.
Nice to see you have an organized group to keep track of the legislatures. Here we just find out what the legislature is up to by sheer luck. Fortunately there are very few regulations in Alaska. CCW is not regulated as a past governor repealed the requirement. Anyone can carry concealed with a few limits on where: schools, courts, bars.
The federal law has an exemption for ccw permit holders who have a ccw permit for the state in which the school is located.Also, UofO's rules mean nothing legally.All they can do is expell you if you are a student,or ask you to leave the property if you're not, and to do either, someone would have to see your concealed weapon.Conceal it well, and its a non-issue, unless you need pull it out and use it,at which point given the choice between possible expulsion and possible death, I'll take expulsion every time.You can't come back from the dead, but you can go to a dfferent college.
State law only prohibts carry in courthouses and the secure areas of jails and prisons.Any place other than those is perfectly legal with an Oregon ccw permit (the same goes for open carry too, if you have a ccw permit).
http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/schools/laws/gunfree.htm
18 USC 922(q)(1) Federal Gun-Free School Zones
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm--
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is--
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone
and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
Last edited:
Toybox (and others).
Let's try and get something straight about "Campus Carry".
Nobody is advocating arming the campus, handing out glocks at orientation, or mixing various recreational substances and firearms. That's all hype whipped up by the anti-crowd.
When we talk about the "Campus Carry" that we are pushing for it means this...
Those of us who have gone through the entire process of obtaining a CCW permit (the background checks, the time expense, the money expense) have been vetted by the state as "certified good guys". We -already- carry concealed outside the boundaries of a college campus and if we aren't causing any problems off campus, we aren't going to cause any problems ON campus. In short we've already proven that we are responsible and can be trusted.
We simply wish to have our right to carry acknowledged within the campus as well. Yes this includes a small percentage of students, but even more so it includes faculty and staff.
All this talk about hard partying college kids and how irresponsible they are is a bunch of anti "might happen" misdirection because we're not talking about those kids, we're talking about folks who ALREADY have a proven track record of responsibility with CCW.
Let's try and get something straight about "Campus Carry".
Nobody is advocating arming the campus, handing out glocks at orientation, or mixing various recreational substances and firearms. That's all hype whipped up by the anti-crowd.
When we talk about the "Campus Carry" that we are pushing for it means this...
Those of us who have gone through the entire process of obtaining a CCW permit (the background checks, the time expense, the money expense) have been vetted by the state as "certified good guys". We -already- carry concealed outside the boundaries of a college campus and if we aren't causing any problems off campus, we aren't going to cause any problems ON campus. In short we've already proven that we are responsible and can be trusted.
We simply wish to have our right to carry acknowledged within the campus as well. Yes this includes a small percentage of students, but even more so it includes faculty and staff.
All this talk about hard partying college kids and how irresponsible they are is a bunch of anti "might happen" misdirection because we're not talking about those kids, we're talking about folks who ALREADY have a proven track record of responsibility with CCW.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
And people with CCW permits should be allowed to carry on campus, at least at public schools anyway.
We often talk about how negative the media is. I was surprised to see a letter emailed in to CNN commenting the events that was read at least 3 times (with the text appearing on the screen) that called for campus carry. The other letters I saw/heard them reading included those folks who worry that such events can happen at any time and how terrible such events are. So the pro-gun letter fit in very nicely and was not contorted in any way to make the writer appear to be an idiot. It actually made the idea sound solid in the context of how these things happen.
On top of that, I thought the NIU police spokesman (chief?) made a good points as well. He said that no matter how much police presence there was that you aren't going to stop these things from beginning. In other words, even if his people had arrived quicker or been on scene, the shooter still would have shot several folks before cops likely could intervene.
Put another way, it fits with the notion of campus carry being a good idea since even when cops can respond very quickly (inside of 2 minutes from the 911 call, so about 2.5-3.00 after it started), it may be too late and so campus carry would potentially save lives the cops could not.
So the cops arrived within 2 minutes of the 911 call and the whole event was over already.
We often talk about how negative the media is. I was surprised to see a letter emailed in to CNN commenting the events that was read at least 3 times (with the text appearing on the screen) that called for campus carry. The other letters I saw/heard them reading included those folks who worry that such events can happen at any time and how terrible such events are. So the pro-gun letter fit in very nicely and was not contorted in any way to make the writer appear to be an idiot. It actually made the idea sound solid in the context of how these things happen.
On top of that, I thought the NIU police spokesman (chief?) made a good points as well. He said that no matter how much police presence there was that you aren't going to stop these things from beginning. In other words, even if his people had arrived quicker or been on scene, the shooter still would have shot several folks before cops likely could intervene.
Put another way, it fits with the notion of campus carry being a good idea since even when cops can respond very quickly (inside of 2 minutes from the 911 call, so about 2.5-3.00 after it started), it may be too late and so campus carry would potentially save lives the cops could not.
So the cops arrived within 2 minutes of the 911 call and the whole event was over already.
ForksLaPush
New member
^^^
What he said.
And how about the faculty for crying out loud?
Not grown up enough?
What he said.
And how about the faculty for crying out loud?
Not grown up enough?
ZeSpectre-It's sad that you would even have to point that out to people, especially on a gun forum.The fact that ANYONE would think we were saying EVERYONE should be armed, just shows how deep the rediculous lying, made-up anti-gun propogana goes.I have NEVER heard ANY pro-gun person say that ALL people should be armed,all students should carry, or we should issue/hand out guns to ANYONE, ANYWHERE (outside the military of course).All we are all saying is that those who are allowed to carry concealed, should be allowed to do it in schools/colleges too, just like they can at wal-mart.It's the anti-gun/anti-carry people who invent the idea that we are saying "give everyone guns and let them shoot it out!", in order to scare epople, and try to make us all look like nuts and idiots.One would think gun forum members would know better than to beleive that, but obviously not.Thanks for for clarifying, yet again, for the confused/lied to.
Yep. That's why I used the word "commoner" rather than citizen. Because that's how the anti-gun crowd views us regular folk.
It boils down this way: The government is more important than the governed. That's why the government can legislate your rights away and intrude into your personal life, because commoners can't be trusted to take care of themselves.
Because the government is so important, and the rest of us aren't, certain government employees such as politicians, law enforcement, and judges are allowed to carry concealed and protect themselves. (Does that scream "police state" to anyone?) Also, in the American system, celebrities are a form of royalty, which of course makes them more important than the commoners. For that reason, celebrities are allowed to have armed bodyguards.
Basically, if you are important - law enforcement, judge, politician, celebrity - your life is worth taking extra measures to protect. But if you are not important - average commoner - your life is not worth anyone taking any extra measures to protect. Instead, your life, once extinguished, is worth a midnight candle vigil and a group song or two.
Found this on the web:
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20080214205048AAHy7LK
Steven Kazmierczak was the shooter!
skazmierczak@gmail.com <== from niu criminal justice student association page
U of I, Champaign-Urbana phonebook:
alias: skazmie2
name: Kazmierczak Steven Phillip
pretty_name: Steven Phillip Kazmierczak
first_name: Steven
middle_name: Phillip
last_name: Kazmierczak
email: skazmie2@express.cites.uiuc.edu
student_department_name: School of Social Work
student_program_name: MSW:Social Work -UIUC
student_level_description: Graduate - Urbana-Champaign
student_major_name: Social Work
phone: (815) 508-2416
address: 1207 W. Oregon
: M/C 140
: Urbana, IL 61801
office_address: 1207 W. Oregon
: M/C 140
: Urbana, IL 61801
title: ACADEMIC HOURLY
department: School of Social Work
type: person phone student staff
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20080214205048AAHy7LK
Steven Kazmierczak was the shooter!
skazmierczak@gmail.com <== from niu criminal justice student association page
U of I, Champaign-Urbana phonebook:
alias: skazmie2
name: Kazmierczak Steven Phillip
pretty_name: Steven Phillip Kazmierczak
first_name: Steven
middle_name: Phillip
last_name: Kazmierczak
email: skazmie2@express.cites.uiuc.edu
student_department_name: School of Social Work
student_program_name: MSW:Social Work -UIUC
student_level_description: Graduate - Urbana-Champaign
student_major_name: Social Work
phone: (815) 508-2416
address: 1207 W. Oregon
: M/C 140
: Urbana, IL 61801
office_address: 1207 W. Oregon
: M/C 140
: Urbana, IL 61801
title: ACADEMIC HOURLY
department: School of Social Work
type: person phone student staff
I see no one in this thread ask as to why this shooting and other like it occur, what is it in our society that would cause so much hate in someone. I grew up in an era of boys taking their rifles to school and hunting on the way home, a Saturday afternoon was shooting rats at the local dump, at 12 walking down to local corner store with a 22 and buying coke and a box of long rifle, guess what we never considered shooting anyone. Please I'm not trying to turn this into a then vs now thread however I would like to hear opinions as to the root cause of problems within modern America.
Trust me our lawmakers will says guns are the problem however we know it is not. If we are to maintain freedom in an extremely fast growing diverse population we must come to understand the cause of problems like this and stop with the idea additional laws cure the problem.
Trust me our lawmakers will says guns are the problem however we know it is not. If we are to maintain freedom in an extremely fast growing diverse population we must come to understand the cause of problems like this and stop with the idea additional laws cure the problem.
Wingman,
Good questions, I started another thread on this so that we could discuss it and not hijack this one.
Hop over to "why all the shootings" and lets talk about it.
Good questions, I started another thread on this so that we could discuss it and not hijack this one.
Hop over to "why all the shootings" and lets talk about it.
These tragedies never seem hate-oriented to me. Hate is an emotional response, but these murderers strike me as having little or no emotion at all.
I think that for a long time our society has been trending toward disconnection. We have too many things done for us, keeping us from forming emotional connections with various aspects of our lives and the lives of others. When you lack such connections, you lack sympathy and empathy. The loss of something for which you have no connection is not a loss ... for you. That isn't hate.
Perldog007
New member
There is something true about suicidal shooters not being deterred by armed citizens. There can be no debate that armed citizens have a better chance of survival against maniacs than unarmed people.
Still, we are left with these mass shootings in places where unarmed people are found in large numbers.
Still, we are left with these mass shootings in places where unarmed people are found in large numbers.
Whether or not it would deter a suicidal attacker, it would stop them faster, or perhaps make them choose less densely populated venues where they're less likely to encounter another gun. Because they'd know that, in a school, they'll only get off 10 shots instead of 100.
I carry to work. I carry around the city. I carry when travelling. The gun has yet to do more harm than bruising my hip from time to time. If I'm otherwise qualified, why do I have to take it off for class? I'm with ZeSpectre on this one.
I carry to work. I carry around the city. I carry when travelling. The gun has yet to do more harm than bruising my hip from time to time. If I'm otherwise qualified, why do I have to take it off for class? I'm with ZeSpectre on this one.
The problem with this statement is that it doesn't address why there are so many shootings at gun-free areas and so few at places such as gun shows and police stations.
If someone just wanted to commit suicide, he could easly pull the trigger at home. But if someone wants to commit suicide and make national headlines, murdering some innocent people before he offs himself is what that person will do. Going to a gun show or police station will likely keep the murderer's "tally" down, which means less attention in the news.
Just because someone is insane does not mean he or she is entirely stupid.
Torontogunguy
New member
My thoughts and prayers to the families involved and to the victims, including the shooter. He was obviously sick in the head as this is not a rational thing that one human does to another. Unfortunately it takes lethal force in many if not most of these situations to prevent or put a quick stop to the situation.. and lethal force is obviously warranted.
1. Shall issue. Make it happen. It is our god given right to have the means to protect ourselves against madmen and evil.
2. There is no place on the planet where a concealed weapon ban is warranted. It is our god given right to protect ourselves against madmen and evil.
3. This is just going to keep happening in its various forms until our lawmakers realize that guns in and of themselves are not evil things but are simply tools; people are evil; guns are tools and in the hands of good upstanding citizens can be the tools of good, preventing or mitigating evil people from having their way.
One could go on at great length but I think that this pretty much sums it up. One trained CCW permit holder in the midst of the fracas could have likely put a rapid end to it with a distracted madman. It is really that simple.
And in closing? My mind recounts a statement that always seems to pop up when these things happen (asides from "let's ban all the guns"). And that statement is simply that "An armed society is a polite society". Would this gunman have even considered taking such irrational action knowing that an end would be put to it almost instantly by CCW holders in his immediate vicinity? The bad guys and nutbars will get their hands on whatever weapons they deem necessary regardless of the law(s). Give us the opportunity to protect ourselves.
1. Shall issue. Make it happen. It is our god given right to have the means to protect ourselves against madmen and evil.
2. There is no place on the planet where a concealed weapon ban is warranted. It is our god given right to protect ourselves against madmen and evil.
3. This is just going to keep happening in its various forms until our lawmakers realize that guns in and of themselves are not evil things but are simply tools; people are evil; guns are tools and in the hands of good upstanding citizens can be the tools of good, preventing or mitigating evil people from having their way.
One could go on at great length but I think that this pretty much sums it up. One trained CCW permit holder in the midst of the fracas could have likely put a rapid end to it with a distracted madman. It is really that simple.
And in closing? My mind recounts a statement that always seems to pop up when these things happen (asides from "let's ban all the guns"). And that statement is simply that "An armed society is a polite society". Would this gunman have even considered taking such irrational action knowing that an end would be put to it almost instantly by CCW holders in his immediate vicinity? The bad guys and nutbars will get their hands on whatever weapons they deem necessary regardless of the law(s). Give us the opportunity to protect ourselves.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I oppose any place open to the public having the ability to ban carry by those with permits or licenses. I do not buy into the private property mantra if you are open to the public and expect the police to come to your 'private' property to save your butt.
If you ban carry by those you invite to your business, don't ask for the fire and police to come either, save yourself.
On college campuses, those who meet the requirements of the state to carry should be able to.
One nuance is that the dorms are noticeably lacking in security against thefts. That would have to be resolved for licensed students who live on campus. In fact, I would suggest that such live off campus.
If one bans guns in dorms, that is different from banning licensed carry by faculty and staff.
The reason colleges do ban is simple - liability - I know this issue well and rants about 'liberals', etc. are secondary to the schools' risk management types that regard the payoffs for a mad shooter as less than the payouts from a licensed gun carrier being allowed on campus and going nuts or shooting an innocent during a righteous gun fight. Money talks and that's what rules.
If you ban carry by those you invite to your business, don't ask for the fire and police to come either, save yourself.
On college campuses, those who meet the requirements of the state to carry should be able to.
One nuance is that the dorms are noticeably lacking in security against thefts. That would have to be resolved for licensed students who live on campus. In fact, I would suggest that such live off campus.
If one bans guns in dorms, that is different from banning licensed carry by faculty and staff.
The reason colleges do ban is simple - liability - I know this issue well and rants about 'liberals', etc. are secondary to the schools' risk management types that regard the payoffs for a mad shooter as less than the payouts from a licensed gun carrier being allowed on campus and going nuts or shooting an innocent during a righteous gun fight. Money talks and that's what rules.
- Status