Weapons on Campuses--Some New Thoughts
- Thread starter lwestatbus
- Start date
They only training needed for ccw
Beyond competent operation of the firearm is a through grounding in your legal rights and responsibilities. Period. NO training in tactics is required, nor should it be. As previously stated, the armed citizen is not a replacement LEO, nor are they intended to be.
All the citizen should be required to know is their legal role, their responsibility, should they need to fire in defense of self or others. ALL else is a personal decision of the individual, and should not be mandated by the state, or a university, in order to exercise the basic human right of self defense.
I can see no difference in a university, shool, mall, or any other location. Law abiding armed citizens are not a problem. If a ccw holder acts as a LEO, or some wanna be Rambo, and violates the law, come down on him like the hammer of the gods. Otherwise, ignore them.
Also as previously stated, the idea that one cannot have a gun on campus, while being legally able to do so other places is nothing more than pure bald faced elitism. College kids and professors are special and need to be more protected than the public at large? I, for one, heartily disagree.
Beyond competent operation of the firearm is a through grounding in your legal rights and responsibilities. Period. NO training in tactics is required, nor should it be. As previously stated, the armed citizen is not a replacement LEO, nor are they intended to be.
All the citizen should be required to know is their legal role, their responsibility, should they need to fire in defense of self or others. ALL else is a personal decision of the individual, and should not be mandated by the state, or a university, in order to exercise the basic human right of self defense.
I can see no difference in a university, shool, mall, or any other location. Law abiding armed citizens are not a problem. If a ccw holder acts as a LEO, or some wanna be Rambo, and violates the law, come down on him like the hammer of the gods. Otherwise, ignore them.
Also as previously stated, the idea that one cannot have a gun on campus, while being legally able to do so other places is nothing more than pure bald faced elitism. College kids and professors are special and need to be more protected than the public at large? I, for one, heartily disagree.
I think I see where lwestatbus was headed. From the OP, I could see a state issuing a standard CCW permit and some kind of endorsement for campus carry - much like some states do for adding a motorcycle endorsement to a driver's license. It says you've had the extra training/experience to be able to safely operate in a different environment.
Not that I necessarily agree, but I don't see this as a big deal. An adjunct course for an extra $50-$120 that covers specific differences for campus situations (or crowds perhaps). But the problem here is that in the aftermath, a it could give a prosecutor extra leverage to criticize anything you did.
In any target-rich situation - a campus, the mall's food court, a concert, inside a busy McDonalds, etc. - if the shooter is not stopped, anyone remaining in the area is a likely fatality.
I've mentioned this in other threads, using the San Ysidro, CA., McDonalds and Luby's cafeteria as examples. When a madman enters and begins firing indicsriminately, few people will immediately vacate the area. Most will sit in denial for several seconds before trying to leave or get their family to safety. Their movement may get them killed. Hiding under the table might get them killed too. If no one takes defensive action, scratch off anyone remaining inside after the first 15-30 seconds.
If a CCW holder engages and neutralizes the subject, but one of the his/her rounds injures another person, it is still a net gain if people walk out of there alive. Resultant injuries and deaths should be litigated against the estate of the crazy shooter for initiating the situation.[1]
As far as college shootings go, the same thing applies. VTech showed us that doing nothing results in mass casualties. A psychotic with a plan can delay arrival of LEOs with a simple chain and padlock. All those "potential backstops" become, instead, "potential fatalities".
To lwestatbus' scenario posted above:
Lacking any indications of violence from the gun toter in the hallway, it's a no-shoot. Since classroom doors usually open outward I'll be in a kneeling barricade position with the door open a minimum. If I have to look around the door, I'll be ready to reverse inside and defend the door from intrusion - IF it turns out he is the shooter. If he begins gunning down people in the hallway, I'll have to decide if I have a clear enough shot at any given moment or not. If not, other tactics may be employed, up to and including closing the door and defending my "local space" [classroom].
CCW holders don't have to engage directly either. They can be the "rear guard" on the door as other student exit from windows or other egress points.
I'm neither a SF operator nor a highly skilled SWAT member. My goal will be to minimize contact and help others escape and/or remain secure. If opportunity permits engagement to end the conflict, I may take it to end the threat.
Not that I necessarily agree, but I don't see this as a big deal. An adjunct course for an extra $50-$120 that covers specific differences for campus situations (or crowds perhaps). But the problem here is that in the aftermath, a it could give a prosecutor extra leverage to criticize anything you did.
In any target-rich situation - a campus, the mall's food court, a concert, inside a busy McDonalds, etc. - if the shooter is not stopped, anyone remaining in the area is a likely fatality.
I've mentioned this in other threads, using the San Ysidro, CA., McDonalds and Luby's cafeteria as examples. When a madman enters and begins firing indicsriminately, few people will immediately vacate the area. Most will sit in denial for several seconds before trying to leave or get their family to safety. Their movement may get them killed. Hiding under the table might get them killed too. If no one takes defensive action, scratch off anyone remaining inside after the first 15-30 seconds.
If a CCW holder engages and neutralizes the subject, but one of the his/her rounds injures another person, it is still a net gain if people walk out of there alive. Resultant injuries and deaths should be litigated against the estate of the crazy shooter for initiating the situation.[1]
As far as college shootings go, the same thing applies. VTech showed us that doing nothing results in mass casualties. A psychotic with a plan can delay arrival of LEOs with a simple chain and padlock. All those "potential backstops" become, instead, "potential fatalities".
To lwestatbus' scenario posted above:
Lacking any indications of violence from the gun toter in the hallway, it's a no-shoot. Since classroom doors usually open outward I'll be in a kneeling barricade position with the door open a minimum. If I have to look around the door, I'll be ready to reverse inside and defend the door from intrusion - IF it turns out he is the shooter. If he begins gunning down people in the hallway, I'll have to decide if I have a clear enough shot at any given moment or not. If not, other tactics may be employed, up to and including closing the door and defending my "local space" [classroom].
CCW holders don't have to engage directly either. They can be the "rear guard" on the door as other student exit from windows or other egress points.
I'm neither a SF operator nor a highly skilled SWAT member. My goal will be to minimize contact and help others escape and/or remain secure. If opportunity permits engagement to end the conflict, I may take it to end the threat.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
1. More than likely you are not trained to engage an active shooter in a gunfight (I don't think it is easy).
2. You have no duty to do so
3. You are not a LEO
4. You might get shot by some LEOs responding to the shooting
5. See number one above.
I can definitely see it happening and it does all the time (mostly civil) to police who are sworn to protect us. Don't think for a minute some civilian wouldn't sue you for mental distress or damages if someone shot them by mistake trying to take out a BG.
I'm kind of old, and, knowing I would go to jail if I pull a firearm, I'm STILL not going to sit there and let someone kill people. Well, maybe if I was in Congress...
The sad part is I might have to wait until the guy actually shoots someone prior to engaging him, so that when the Monday Morning quarterbacking in the legal system see my actions, I have a solid basis for self-defense, or defense of others, that is not arguable.
We are already way down this slippery slope, and the deaths at campus', due to mad man shootings are already a matter of record. All these laws do is restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Adding another layer of training, and or expense, is against the concept of Equal Protection.
It is NOT a perfect world, but, there is NOTHING reasonable about a ban on carrying firearms on campus, and the morons we elect to congress may get the warm and fuzzies when they pen such idiotic legislation, but, all it does is make schools a free fire zone. In this not so perfect world, we will not have perfectly trained citizens, unless we adapt the Swiss mode of training, and citizenship.
What really needs to be done is the knee jerk, stupid laws against carry on campus need to be revoked, and, we make up for in quanity what we lack in quality.
I can't help but think of the Airplane scene where the bad guy pulls a gun, and EVERYONE in the airplane draws on him. THAT would be a very sobbering, or short lived experience.
The sad part is I might have to wait until the guy actually shoots someone prior to engaging him, so that when the Monday Morning quarterbacking in the legal system see my actions, I have a solid basis for self-defense, or defense of others, that is not arguable.We are already way down this slippery slope, and the deaths at campus', due to mad man shootings are already a matter of record. All these laws do is restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Adding another layer of training, and or expense, is against the concept of Equal Protection.
It is NOT a perfect world, but, there is NOTHING reasonable about a ban on carrying firearms on campus, and the morons we elect to congress may get the warm and fuzzies when they pen such idiotic legislation, but, all it does is make schools a free fire zone. In this not so perfect world, we will not have perfectly trained citizens, unless we adapt the Swiss mode of training, and citizenship.
What really needs to be done is the knee jerk, stupid laws against carry on campus need to be revoked, and, we make up for in quanity what we lack in quality.
I can't help but think of the Airplane scene where the bad guy pulls a gun, and EVERYONE in the airplane draws on him. THAT would be a very sobbering, or short lived experience.
El Paso Joe
New member
First, let me say that I agree with Iwestabus' position. I do not think that it is elitist. I do believe that some of it has to do with his training and experience (Welcome home. Thank you for your service.). In my 9+ years of college (and I was not stoned during any of it), I was the vet who sat in the corner of the room where I could see the door and was close to the exit (most rooms had two doors). No scenario in mind - just where I felt comfortable.
Even years ago when I do not think the laws were on the books, I did not CCW at school. These days students are told under no uncertain terms that if they carry, they will be expelled and reported to the police.
In a classroom, the person at the front of the class has a measure of responsibility and power. If gunshots are heard, the students will (somewhat naturally) look to them for direction - in many ways like the flight crew of an airplane. But here's the rub - on the airplane, the pilots may be trained to carry and there are (often) Air Marshals who will be carrying. Not so in the classroom.
There are some changes to the "hard wiring" that happens when one is exposed to hostile fire. The military will train their people to take the fight fork of the fight or flight reaction. Most students will not have the training or experience and will need to be led or they will freeze. This is the context of the OP as I understand it. If I were at the head of the class, I would want to be able to get them to safety and address the threat if need be. It would be a bonus if some students had been trained and were CCW. And if they were also vets, that would be even better.
Even years ago when I do not think the laws were on the books, I did not CCW at school. These days students are told under no uncertain terms that if they carry, they will be expelled and reported to the police.
In a classroom, the person at the front of the class has a measure of responsibility and power. If gunshots are heard, the students will (somewhat naturally) look to them for direction - in many ways like the flight crew of an airplane. But here's the rub - on the airplane, the pilots may be trained to carry and there are (often) Air Marshals who will be carrying. Not so in the classroom.
There are some changes to the "hard wiring" that happens when one is exposed to hostile fire. The military will train their people to take the fight fork of the fight or flight reaction. Most students will not have the training or experience and will need to be led or they will freeze. This is the context of the OP as I understand it. If I were at the head of the class, I would want to be able to get them to safety and address the threat if need be. It would be a bonus if some students had been trained and were CCW. And if they were also vets, that would be even better.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I guess I take a different tack. I do not view CCW holders as auxillary LEOs. If that is what you want then call it that and train them appropriately and pay them.
I view CCW as limited to protecting myself and my immediate family. Even though I have trained a bit with my firearm because I like to shoot, I have neither the training nor the duty nor the inclination to consider myself a volunteer LEO. I will report crime if I see it and render aid to injured folks if I can but I will use my CCW for my own self-defense only, and not to enforce the law.
I am old too but I will stop somebody from killing me and mine and probably let the police do the other saving. That is a personal decision and for those that subscribe to the sheep dog model, have at it but realize you might suffer a lot for trying to be the hero.
Socrates, that stuff kind of scares me. Kind of like some of these militia debates I have had on here before.
Lots of people with guns I think serve more as a deterrent to crime individually rather than collectively. What I mean is that I believe that in an armed society (and I agree with you fully on the stupidity of gun free zones!)BGs fear the person they choose to attack might have a gun more than they believe that the whole community is armed and will rally and come to the aid of the victim. That is just my opinon, maybe you have evidence to the contrary.
However, as per the OP, untrained people with guns trying to function as LEOs is not something I would support, but then I don't think that is the purpose of CCW.
My bottomline is that there should be no gun free zones unless the zone itself has armed security and physical barriers (e.g. metal detectors) to keep all others from bringing in weapons, but the reason for CCW is not to protect either the airplane or the classroom but rather the individual who CCWs. If at the moment the CCW's self defense fortuitously helps others as well then great but acting as a LEO is where I get off that train.
Last edited:
Running deliberately to the sound of the guns without help can get you dead as well as the people that you attempted to help. You can save more people by creating and holding a defensible retreat than you can by stepping into a gunfight and getting yourself shot.
My first duty is to myself, then to my family, then to others. Getting home to my family is higher on my list than trying to be a hero.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I've thought about this a long time and I come down on the side of not making faculty/staff on campuses empowered as agents of the state or school to act as pseudo-LEOs.
Being a teacher does not necessarily empower you to be captain of the ship or guardian of the class.
If one can obtain a permit/license to carry - it should be good on campuses.
Then you act accordingly to your values and the laws of self-defense - you have no added responsibility in a mandated fashion. If you want teachers to become LEOs - then they go to the academy and have the protections that officers have in post shooting incidents. They qualify every 4 months. They take intensive FOF training. They get liability protection and insurance coverage for their actions. That's if you want them to act pro-actively.
However, I do think it is morally mandated that if you talk the campus carry talk and get hissy about not having the priviledge you should train beyond the permit course (which is no tactical training). I've managed to get a fair amount of relevant training for a FOG - I'm no cop. But I have colleagues who rant about not being able to carry. So I say to them, if we went to the president and asked for permission to carry and he asked - well, what have you done to demonstrate competence? Many would have to say - Well, I shot a rock in the country and passed the trivial CHL test. And yes, I read Guns and Ammo. On the other hand, quite a few have significant training. Should the school have to parse this?
One hitch in a great deal of current debate is that the laws will only cover state schools and private schools will still be allowed to ban carry under the general provisions of the private property exemptions. That makes the latter schools more target attractive.
When I suggest this should not be the case, the private property zealots go nuts. They accept state mandates that they must have working toilets in their businesses or can't discriminate on race, etc. but then go crazy when one suggests they can't ban the right of self-defense. It's my castle, wah, wah!! So, don't have a business that invites folks in.
As far as the probability of you shooting an innocent: Schools are no different than other target rich, crowded places like malls or churches. You should be capable of knowing if you could take the shot.
Another psychological factor is that folks seem to have a principle that you don't take the life of an innocent even if it furthers the greater good. Meaning that for some reason it is better for more to die than kill an innocent to stop those deaths. Thus, the risk of a bystander taking a round, drives the argument for some.
I do appreciate the OP's analysis and don't think a reasoned approach is necessarily elitist. Unless the pros and cons are discussed without reflexive RKBAish rants - we get nowhere.
Note, I discussed faculty/staff carry - I am still mixed about student carry for several issues regarding the unusual nature of dorm life and the youngest possible carriers (21 years olds) that live on campus. They are in a different social circumstance than the returning mature adult student.
The current CCW/CHL folks tend to have a low trouble rate as they are older and seasoned by life. Students in dorms are a touch different and this issue takes more thought.
Last - most schools only care about liability issues and PR. Their programs are designed to be after the fact defenses against lawsuits and to maintain their images. They are focused on the best outcome for the corporate entity of the school and the outcome for the individuals (while sad and let's have a memorial service) is secondary.
Being a teacher does not necessarily empower you to be captain of the ship or guardian of the class.
If one can obtain a permit/license to carry - it should be good on campuses.
Then you act accordingly to your values and the laws of self-defense - you have no added responsibility in a mandated fashion. If you want teachers to become LEOs - then they go to the academy and have the protections that officers have in post shooting incidents. They qualify every 4 months. They take intensive FOF training. They get liability protection and insurance coverage for their actions. That's if you want them to act pro-actively.
However, I do think it is morally mandated that if you talk the campus carry talk and get hissy about not having the priviledge you should train beyond the permit course (which is no tactical training). I've managed to get a fair amount of relevant training for a FOG - I'm no cop. But I have colleagues who rant about not being able to carry. So I say to them, if we went to the president and asked for permission to carry and he asked - well, what have you done to demonstrate competence? Many would have to say - Well, I shot a rock in the country and passed the trivial CHL test. And yes, I read Guns and Ammo. On the other hand, quite a few have significant training. Should the school have to parse this?
One hitch in a great deal of current debate is that the laws will only cover state schools and private schools will still be allowed to ban carry under the general provisions of the private property exemptions. That makes the latter schools more target attractive.
When I suggest this should not be the case, the private property zealots go nuts. They accept state mandates that they must have working toilets in their businesses or can't discriminate on race, etc. but then go crazy when one suggests they can't ban the right of self-defense. It's my castle, wah, wah!! So, don't have a business that invites folks in.
As far as the probability of you shooting an innocent: Schools are no different than other target rich, crowded places like malls or churches. You should be capable of knowing if you could take the shot.
Another psychological factor is that folks seem to have a principle that you don't take the life of an innocent even if it furthers the greater good. Meaning that for some reason it is better for more to die than kill an innocent to stop those deaths. Thus, the risk of a bystander taking a round, drives the argument for some.
I do appreciate the OP's analysis and don't think a reasoned approach is necessarily elitist. Unless the pros and cons are discussed without reflexive RKBAish rants - we get nowhere.
Note, I discussed faculty/staff carry - I am still mixed about student carry for several issues regarding the unusual nature of dorm life and the youngest possible carriers (21 years olds) that live on campus. They are in a different social circumstance than the returning mature adult student.
The current CCW/CHL folks tend to have a low trouble rate as they are older and seasoned by life. Students in dorms are a touch different and this issue takes more thought.
Last - most schools only care about liability issues and PR. Their programs are designed to be after the fact defenses against lawsuits and to maintain their images. They are focused on the best outcome for the corporate entity of the school and the outcome for the individuals (while sad and let's have a memorial service) is secondary.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I have recently become really concerned about highway drivers. My sister has for years refused to drive on highways because she feels herself incapable of handling the higher speeds and merging. Recently she needed to drive on the highway for about a mile to get from one road to another and got in an accident(no injuries). I think that people who want to drive on the highway should take some sort of special "highway test." At higher speeds, with merging in to a lane filled with caravanning trucks that are tailgating each other to stay in the slipstream. If a person can not handle this they should have a lower level drivers license.
Amazing how "reasonable" these regulations on guns are when very similar regulations on automobiles are just crazy. Which claims more lives due to negligence again?
Don't forget your 0th amendment, your right to drive a car.
Amazing how "reasonable" these regulations on guns are when very similar regulations on automobiles are just crazy. Which claims more lives due to negligence again?
Don't forget your 0th amendment, your right to drive a car.
The more I think about this, the more I realize that we may be mixing up two separate issues. I am adamantly opposed to government mandated "gun free zones" on college campuses. I am, however, equally opposed to the government telling colleges that they must allow their students and faculty to carry on campus. If an individual college wants to pass a school policy banning guns on school grounds, that's their business and someone who disagrees with that policy is free to pursue their education or employment elsewhere. However, sweeping legal reprecussions for carrying on campus I do not support. Basically, I don't think that it's any of the government's business and that it should be left up to the individual institutions with penalties similar to those for violating other school policy (suspension, expulsion, etc.).
I see this argument quite a bit but I rarely hear of young CCW holders causing any more trouble than older ones. Here in Indiana, a CCW permit is available at age 18 with no class or training requirement and we still don't have any undue problems (I obtained my CCW at this age under these circumstances and never got into trouble more severe than a traffic ticket). I keep coming back to the notion that most people irresponsible enough to be reckless with a firearm are also too irresponsible to bother going through the process to obtain a CCL to begin with. I think you're also buying into a false assumption that older people are inherently more responsible than younger ones. I assure you that I've met several people well into their fifth and sixth decades of life who still did not have a responsible bone in their bodies as well as teenagers who were far more responsible than the majority of the adults I've met.
I see this argument quite a bit but I rarely hear of young CCW holders causing any more trouble than older ones. Here in Indiana, a CCW permit is available at age 18 with no class or training requirement and we still don't have any undue problems (I obtained my CCW at this age under these circumstances and never got into trouble more severe than a traffic ticket). I keep coming back to the notion that most people irresponsible enough to be reckless with a firearm are also too irresponsible to bother going through the process to obtain a CCL to begin with. I think you're also buying into a false assumption that older people are inherently more responsible than younger ones. I assure you that I've met several people well into their fifth and sixth decades of life who still did not have a responsible bone in their bodies as well as teenagers who were far more responsible than the majority of the adults I've met.
And likewise, a person may choose not to attend or be employed by an institution that accepts such "government intrusions". All I'm saying is that it's a two way street. As a side note, I have my own opinions on on allotment of government money to such institutions, but that's really a separate issue that isn't within the realm of this particular discussion nor is it firearms related.
Last edited:
Think about what you are saying:
I think that a college, being a private property owner, has exclusive right to control its property, and the government has no place intruding on this property, that is until it comes time for the government to pay.
My teenage daughter felt the same way. She told me over and over how it was her life, and how she was all grown up and responsible for herself. Then she asked for money.
Kind of hard to claim control over something that you have no responsibility for.
I think that a college, being a private property owner, has exclusive right to control its property, and the government has no place intruding on this property, that is until it comes time for the government to pay.
My teenage daughter felt the same way. She told me over and over how it was her life, and how she was all grown up and responsible for herself. Then she asked for money.
Kind of hard to claim control over something that you have no responsibility for.
Few colleges and fewer Universities are private. The great majority of Universities are State Universities whether they have the word State in their titles or not. Further, State or private they are PUBLIC settings.
Universities and colleges are not sacrosanct places. they have no properties that make them inherently unique from office buildings, malls, apartment complexes, or amusement parks and few would argue those places should require special treatment when the right to carry (bear arms) is discussed. Colleges and Universities are only set apart because it has the premise of doing so has been accepted, no other reason. And please let's not pull the 'but the CHILDREN' plea, it is hollow in a virtually all adult environment.
The students, staff, faculty, vendors, contractors, and so on that go onto and off of campuses are no different after arrival then before. Further, the principle of the knowledge that law abiding citizens in a crowd are probably armed in an unknown number will influence someone tempted to act a fool with gun just as well on campus as off when it is common knowledge that those citizens are not restricted to do so as the risk is perceived to be high. The same is true that the knowledge that law abiding citizens are restricted, the risk is far less, events and where they occure pan this out the be true.
A couple more points, first, as campuses are not different then the other public places described above (malls, amusement parks, etc.) there need not be any specialized training required as would be needed in an aircraft.
Second, let us not forget that we carry for DEFENSE of self and others, NOT to clear rooms or secure perimeters. Too often carry gives some a FALSE sense that they are supplemental law enforcement or worse, para military operatives in waiting.
Lastly, in reading I have seen that some feel that the requisite class for concealed carry is supposed to be handgun training. While it would give me a bit of comfort to think that folks were ALL familiar with, and proficient in the use of their firearms it is not the premise of the classes. They are to assure that those people are familiar with the LAWFUL use of their firearms and the CONSEQUENCES of irresponsible use. Namely that they are not supplemental law enforcement nor should they ever take on para military adventures regardless of circumstance.
Universities and colleges are not sacrosanct places. they have no properties that make them inherently unique from office buildings, malls, apartment complexes, or amusement parks and few would argue those places should require special treatment when the right to carry (bear arms) is discussed. Colleges and Universities are only set apart because it has the premise of doing so has been accepted, no other reason. And please let's not pull the 'but the CHILDREN' plea, it is hollow in a virtually all adult environment.
The students, staff, faculty, vendors, contractors, and so on that go onto and off of campuses are no different after arrival then before. Further, the principle of the knowledge that law abiding citizens in a crowd are probably armed in an unknown number will influence someone tempted to act a fool with gun just as well on campus as off when it is common knowledge that those citizens are not restricted to do so as the risk is perceived to be high. The same is true that the knowledge that law abiding citizens are restricted, the risk is far less, events and where they occure pan this out the be true.
A couple more points, first, as campuses are not different then the other public places described above (malls, amusement parks, etc.) there need not be any specialized training required as would be needed in an aircraft.
Second, let us not forget that we carry for DEFENSE of self and others, NOT to clear rooms or secure perimeters. Too often carry gives some a FALSE sense that they are supplemental law enforcement or worse, para military operatives in waiting.
Lastly, in reading I have seen that some feel that the requisite class for concealed carry is supposed to be handgun training. While it would give me a bit of comfort to think that folks were ALL familiar with, and proficient in the use of their firearms it is not the premise of the classes. They are to assure that those people are familiar with the LAWFUL use of their firearms and the CONSEQUENCES of irresponsible use. Namely that they are not supplemental law enforcement nor should they ever take on para military adventures regardless of circumstance.
I am a college faculty member and a concealed carry instructor.
I think every single CCW permit holder should be able to carry on every single inch of a public college or university.
I do not buy the idea of college being any more dangerous to carry in than a crowded McDonald's, or a crowded Wal-Mart, or a public park, or a hardware store, or any other place in public where it is legal to carry, and there are large numbers of people.
As for the scenario of hearing gun shots, pulling your gun, and heading out into the hallway, only to get popped by another over-zealous "do-gooder," I think that's misguided what-iffing.
As a CCW instructor who is also a college faculty member, if I hear shots in my building, and I'm in my classroom, and I have a pistol (not currently legal to have a pistol in my state) I don't go looking for the sound of the shots.
I barricade in my classroom, have students lay on the floor out of the line of the door as much as possible and designate somebody specific to call 9-11 and tell the operator my name, that I'm armed, what building, floor, and room we're in, and what we can hear going on in the building.
I also try to find out how many, if any, of my students have CCW permits and are also packing, and position them around the room strategically.
As far as colleges being "private property owners" that's all well and good until you start talking about colleges paid for, brick by brick, with public tax dollars.
If you're a private institution, well that's one thing.
But a heck of a lot of colleges are funded with public tax dollars.
I am certified by my state to teach the CCW course for my state.
But my state also says that I have to be unarmed at work.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
possum
I think every single CCW permit holder should be able to carry on every single inch of a public college or university.
I do not buy the idea of college being any more dangerous to carry in than a crowded McDonald's, or a crowded Wal-Mart, or a public park, or a hardware store, or any other place in public where it is legal to carry, and there are large numbers of people.
As for the scenario of hearing gun shots, pulling your gun, and heading out into the hallway, only to get popped by another over-zealous "do-gooder," I think that's misguided what-iffing.
As a CCW instructor who is also a college faculty member, if I hear shots in my building, and I'm in my classroom, and I have a pistol (not currently legal to have a pistol in my state) I don't go looking for the sound of the shots.
I barricade in my classroom, have students lay on the floor out of the line of the door as much as possible and designate somebody specific to call 9-11 and tell the operator my name, that I'm armed, what building, floor, and room we're in, and what we can hear going on in the building.
I also try to find out how many, if any, of my students have CCW permits and are also packing, and position them around the room strategically.
As far as colleges being "private property owners" that's all well and good until you start talking about colleges paid for, brick by brick, with public tax dollars.
If you're a private institution, well that's one thing.
But a heck of a lot of colleges are funded with public tax dollars.
I am certified by my state to teach the CCW course for my state.
But my state also says that I have to be unarmed at work.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
possum
One more thing, that's bound to ruffle some feathers on this thread.
Here's my response to the posts on this thread arguing that there need to be special restrictions on which CCW holders can or cannot carry on a college campus because of the "special circumstances" allegedly found on a college campus.
I defer to a higher authority here, specifically David Codrea's statement on his War On Guns blog about the "only ones."
http://www.waronguns.blogspot.com/
"About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents. "
Here's my response to the posts on this thread arguing that there need to be special restrictions on which CCW holders can or cannot carry on a college campus because of the "special circumstances" allegedly found on a college campus.
I defer to a higher authority here, specifically David Codrea's statement on his War On Guns blog about the "only ones."
http://www.waronguns.blogspot.com/
"About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents. "
The point is not whether CCW permit holders run to the defense of others in a situation, the point is that they be able to protect themselves in such a circumstance. If there are enough CCW holders around, then the potential for mass murder, ala Virginia Tech, is greatly reduced.
Further, any CCW holder who has as their objective, any goal other than to protect themselves or their immediate family, is sadly mistaken. There is no obligation to act in defense of others. In fact, in most states, a CCW holder is prohibited from acting in defense of others. The fact that there are legal defenses if a CCW holder does act in defense of others, does not change the law.
Again, if there are enough CCW holders, able and ready to defend themselves carrying in enough places, the opportunity for mass murder is greatly reduced.
Finally, a CCW that does not require at least a minimal performance standard with a live weapon may put the holder at risk if they do act. If your state does not require weapons proficiency as part of the licensing, you would be well advised to attend a recognized self-defense class. This will give you at least a very basic understanding, and provide an affirmative defense in the event of an incident.
If you genuinely want to protect others, become a LEO; otherwise, learn to protect you and yours only.
Further, any CCW holder who has as their objective, any goal other than to protect themselves or their immediate family, is sadly mistaken. There is no obligation to act in defense of others. In fact, in most states, a CCW holder is prohibited from acting in defense of others. The fact that there are legal defenses if a CCW holder does act in defense of others, does not change the law.
Again, if there are enough CCW holders, able and ready to defend themselves carrying in enough places, the opportunity for mass murder is greatly reduced.
Finally, a CCW that does not require at least a minimal performance standard with a live weapon may put the holder at risk if they do act. If your state does not require weapons proficiency as part of the licensing, you would be well advised to attend a recognized self-defense class. This will give you at least a very basic understanding, and provide an affirmative defense in the event of an incident.
If you genuinely want to protect others, become a LEO; otherwise, learn to protect you and yours only.
Originally posted by divemedic
As I said, I have my own opinions about allotment of government funds to colleges but that's another issue. Apparently, you favor government micromanagement of anything and everything that gets any government funding. Under your guidelines, I'd sure hate to be a company that gets a government grant or contract. Remember, government micromanagement can work both ways. The federal government, under your ideals, could just as easily force private compaines (General Motors and Chrysler come to mind) that accept government money to enact draconian firearms policies.
Originally posted by Bruxley
And just like malls, apartment complexes, and amusement parks, they do have the right to prohibit firearms on their own property. Please don't misunderstand me, I think such policies are pointless and misguided and I think that having legal reprecussions to violating such policies is stupid as well. However, I think that the situation on college campuses should be similar to that of a business that prohibits firearms on it's premises: someone who violates such policy may be asked to leave and an employee who violates the policy may be dismissed. The other side of the coin is that as a student or educator, I now have the choice to seek out another institution without such inane policy. Unfortunately, under the current circumstances, I don't have that choice as firearms are banned on all campuses by law rather than by individual policy.
As I said, I have my own opinions about allotment of government funds to colleges but that's another issue. Apparently, you favor government micromanagement of anything and everything that gets any government funding. Under your guidelines, I'd sure hate to be a company that gets a government grant or contract. Remember, government micromanagement can work both ways. The federal government, under your ideals, could just as easily force private compaines (General Motors and Chrysler come to mind) that accept government money to enact draconian firearms policies.
Originally posted by Bruxley
And just like malls, apartment complexes, and amusement parks, they do have the right to prohibit firearms on their own property. Please don't misunderstand me, I think such policies are pointless and misguided and I think that having legal reprecussions to violating such policies is stupid as well. However, I think that the situation on college campuses should be similar to that of a business that prohibits firearms on it's premises: someone who violates such policy may be asked to leave and an employee who violates the policy may be dismissed. The other side of the coin is that as a student or educator, I now have the choice to seek out another institution without such inane policy. Unfortunately, under the current circumstances, I don't have that choice as firearms are banned on all campuses by law rather than by individual policy.
Last edited: