Weapons on Campuses--Some New Thoughts

[El Paso Joe]

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.

[Don H]

The military will train their people to take the fight fork of the fight or flight reaction.

That's a pretty broad statement that is, in my military experience, not necessarily true.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

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

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'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.

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.

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 quantity what we lack in quality.

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.

[divemedic]

I'm STILL not going to sit there and let someone kill people.

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]

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.

[johnwilliamson062]

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.

[Webleymkv]

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.).

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.

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.

[divemedic]

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.

I will bet that the same college that says this has absolutely no problem accepting federal funding, federal grants, following federal education mandates, or any other government intrusion, but when it comes to concealed carry it all of a sudden becomes a property issue.

[Webleymkv]

I will bet that the same college that says this has absolutely no problem accepting federal funding, federal grants, following federal education mandates, or any other government intrusion, but when it comes to concealed carry it all of a sudden becomes a property issue.

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.

[divemedic]

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.

[Bruxley]

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.

[possum]

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

[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. "

[gretske]

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.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by divemedic

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.

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

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.

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.

[divemedic]

Apparently, you favor government micromanagement of anything and everything that gets any government funding.

Actually, I don't. I just feel that it is hypocritical to complain when the government interferes in your business when you just got done taking the government's money.

You see, in order to accept government money, you have to support the government taking that money from someone else. This tells me that you are only opposed to the government interfering in YOUR affairs, while having no objection to the government interfering in MY affairs.

[Webleymkv]

You see, in order to accept government money, you have to support the government taking that money from someone else. This tells me that you are only opposed to the government interfering in YOUR affairs, while having no objection to the government interfering in MY affairs.

In post #34, I said the following

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.

In post #40, I said this

As I said, I have my own opinions about allotment of government funds to colleges but that's another issue.

Apparently, you didn't quite understand my meaning in those two statements so I'll be blunt about it (Mods, I apologize for the possible thread veer).

I don't like nor do I support the allotment of tax money to supposedly private colleges as their private status is what allows them to charge correspondingly high tuition. I also oppose government bailouts of private companies like Chrysler and GM. So no, I don't feel as though I'm being hypocritical. As far as state colleges go, the way I see it the campus is the government's property and if they don't want guns on it then that is part of their property rights. The nice thing about government colleges is that unlike most other government institutions, if I don't like their policies I have the option to go somewhere else. I do not, however, view violation of the government's property rights as being any more serious than violation of anyone elses. I cannot have someone arrested for bringing something I object to onto my property, all I can do is tell them to take their objectionable object and leave. If they refuse to do so, then I may have them arrested for trespassing but that's another circumstance.

[Bruxley]

Originally Posted by Weblymkv

And just like malls, apartment complexes, and amusement parks, they do have the right to prohibit firearms on their own property.

Point of clarification, I was addressing the assertion that 'above and beyond' training be required to carry on campus, not wether or not campuses do or don't have the right to restrict firearms.

For the record however I belive they do not. That is arguable based on if they are in fact private property. But even if they are, I would challenge the premise that private property that is open to the public gives the owner the discretion of wether or not CODIFIED rights can be restricted.

State laws must be challenged and I believe that if challenge in the SCOTUS in it's current incarnation that the challenge would succeed. Scalia's own words in the Opinion of the Court in Heller v. DC could show a right to bear such arms in a public setting for self defense as he has expressed in that decision that 'bearing' arms in the event of confrontation is in fact a right. Walking onto a university or college campus as a public place is not a contractual agreement to waive that right.

It could be argued that since it has been established by Heller v. DC as a right, just as freedom of speach and of the press are rights, the the right to bear arms can no more be waived by de facto of entering a campus then the right to protest, pass out flyers expressing unpopular ideas, or distribution of newspapers can. Can a College or University use the fact that it is private property to seach your Dorm room and seize your property restricting your 4th Amendment right against such action? Can they tell you you can't say certain things or read certain publications? Clearly not. Then why accept that the defense of your own life be second to the predilictions of a board or faculty to gun bans?

(from p.19 of the Opinion of the Court)

Quote:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

emphasis mine

I see the decision specifically stating that the second amendment, just like the 1st and 4th are CODIFIED rights. It would be a strain to try and say a College or University campus is not a public setting.

[Webleymkv]

For the record however I belive they do not. That is arguable based on if they are in fact private property. But even if they are, I would challenge the premise that private property that is open to the public gives the owner the discretion of wether or not CODIFIED rights can be restricted.

While the owner of a private property cannot take legal action against you for violating policies that are in conflict with COTUS, he or she may expel you from that property for any reason that he or she sees fit. The proprieter of most businesses is well within his rights to expel you from his business if you exercise your 1st Amendment rights in a vulgar or offensive fashion that he takes issue with. I see no reason why the same would not apply to the 2nd amendment. Like I said, I am totally against a college having you arrested for carrying a gun on campus, but I think that it is within their rights, whether we agree with it or not, to expel you from their campus if you choose to violate their no-firearms policy.

[Bruxley]

While the owner of a private property cannot take legal action against you for violating policies that are in conflict with COTUS, he or she may expel you from that property for any reason that he or she sees fit.

I realize we agree fundamentally and hope you don't find me as challenging you as if we do not. But asking someone to leave is a far stretch from making law against such a right. I would have issue with someone bearing their firearm in a threatening fashion such as pointing it at people or simply waiving it around wildly. But to have it concealed.....with a permit to do so elsewhere.....no, not a constitutional law. And a general policy against it is no different then policies against distribution of pro-choice literature or against a specific newspaper being on campus. How about a no praying on campus policy or a policy that your on-campus housing be subject to search for any reason that campus security or faculty finds fit.

Don't like it, well don't come on campus, or to the bus stops or depots or supermarkets or Parks or......etc., etc.

Tolerating a LAW against a RIGHT out of coercion due to loss of employment or housing would have people up in...well...arms if it were the right to free speech, press, religion, against unreasonable search or seizure or warrentless wiretapping or mail being opened and read before delivery to on-campus housing.

The point is that a premise has been made that College or Universities are somehow different them other public places. They are not just a group of schoolhouse buildings that are left empty when school is out. They are always open, public spaces, with shops and public streets, and public events, shows, theaters, museums, libraries, etc. They are as public as any place.

What place is more public then a College or University campus after all.

Easier question, if a law directly conflicts with a civil right, is it valid? If a public policy does is it valid.

A bit of quick research without an in-depth digging reveals that the wide majority of Universities are in fact public. Further I found no law against carrying on private University campus . Virginia Tech is a State, not private, University.

State property open to the general public would find it very hard to assert private property rights to infringe upon Constitutional rights if that right were anything other then the right to bear arms.

[divemedic]

he or she may expel you from that property for any reason that he or she sees fit.

Really? And here I thought that the "no coloreds" signs were illegal.

Property rights are mostly codified rights, and they can easily be legislatively modified (with a few minor exceptions) Just like the Civil rights act bans discrimination against race, religion, etc., a law can be passed allowing concealed carry, and prohibiting a business that is open to the public from barring people on that basis. There is nothing in the COTUS preventing such a law.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Private colleges stagger under all kinds of regulation. I was on the Animal Research committee - you should see what kinds of approvals are need and legally mandated for a chicken or a rat to keep them safe and happy.

We are mandated to provide certain facilities for you to take a dump in or else the state comes a calling.

The way sports teams are funded and opportunities for gender equality are controlled.

How crime is reported is mandated by the government.

So when the private property folks say - It's private - they basically have blinders on.

Only when it comes to denying the right of self-defense do these folks have a hissy. How many of you didn't send your kid to college because there were state laws about the crapper or the rat cage? Did you stand on principle then?

[Al Norris]

After reading this thread through, a couple of times, does everyone understand what the OP is really proposing?

lwestatbus: What you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is in fact, a form of militia training: Citizen Response and Reaction Training. I'm actually surprised that Tennessee Gentleman didn't catch that.

However, I'm actually all for it - As long as it is State sponsored and fully State funded. Under the current anti-gun atmosphere within academia, I just don't see it happening.

I think I'm about to write something... No. I know I'm about to write something some, if not many of you, won't like. The older and more informed I become, the less tolerant I am of civil rights violations.

No person should have to jump through hoops, in order to exercise to his/her civil right to carry for self defense. Open carry must be legal if the State is going to regulate concealed carry. Why? The right we are talking about is the basic fundamental right to exist. If we are not allowed the necessary and proper tools to insure that right, then the right is indeed infringed.

Guns are in fact, the great equalizer. I think it's safe to say that. But guns alone are not the answer. Training is the counterpart to guns. "That every man be trained in the use of arms," is how one founder put it. I also believe that if such is made mandatory, then the State needs to pay for it.

People should not have to relinquish their right, simply because they choose an education or choose to teach or choose to work or choose to shop.

For those that want to abrogate my civil right (in the name of private property) to have the means to protect myself, then those people must assume all liability, both civil and criminal. Moreover, these folks need to have in place some sort of proactive protection. Simple liability does nothing to protect me, before the fact. That's the kind of "common sense" gun laws I would like to see.

[the_pragmaticist]

I read through the responses and I didn't see any (sorry if I missed) addressing the REAL reason I think everyone should be able to carry on campus. I don't fear much for the lone shooters who take out places like Virginia Tech. They're few and far apart. While an armed student could possibly stop a thing like that, it's a spaghetti plate of hypothetical guesses. While those incidents are tragic, they are thankfully too rare to be statistically significant in terms of personal protection and your actual chances of being involved.

No sir, what I worry about is walking down a half-lit campus street with no recourse to muggings (or rapes, should you be of the fairer sex) other than sprinting to a blue-lit phone and hoping the police get there before it's over. The commonplace muggings, assaults, and rapes on campuses need to be addressed. Think like a criminal: Where do you seek a victim, at the shopping mall parking lot or the campus parking lot? Lots of classes run until 8-9 PM, and predictably unarmed students disperse into the dark every night of the week. If I were looking for $5 for my next crack rock, I'd be sitting in one of those school parking lots with a baseball bat and a plan.

These every day crimes don't involve people being used as backstops the way the OP described the situation. It's you and bubba, all alone - may the best armed win.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is in fact, a form of militia training: Citizen Response and Reaction Training. I'm actually surprised that Tennessee Gentleman didn't catch that.

Well, I was asleep at the wheel again Al Anyway, you know how I am about the militia anyway so I won't rehash that.

People should not have to relinquish their right, simply because they choose an education or choose to teach or choose to work or choose to shop.

You are completely correct! Any rule or law that forces you to choose between safety and being legal or employed is immoral. I agrued this in the T&T forum and one guy there said I was dishonest! He said I waived my right to self defense in order to enjoy the benefit of employment or whatever. Sounded like the Brady's. Nobody "waives" their right to SD and if they are forced to it is wrong!

For those that want to abrogate my civil right (in the name of private property) to have the means to protect myself, then those people must assume all liability, both civil and criminal. Moreover, these folks need to have in place some sort of proactive protection. Simple liability does nothing to protect me, before the fact.

And may not after the fact! Many companies might be protected by legal precedent from lawsuit which does you no good if you are dead. Ultimately as we all know self-defense is OUR responsibility.

No sir, what I worry about is walking down a half-lit campus street with no recourse to muggings

In my county the NRA and some of us stopped an initiative that would have banned the carrying of legal firearms in county buildings. One of the commissioners I called to complain about this proposed ordinance asked why I needed a gun in the library (one of the places they wanted to prohibit CCW) I told him I needed a gun there for the same reason I needed it in a dark alley or a rest stop on the Interstate at 2:00AM. To protect myself from harm.