College students in Georgia want to be able to carry on campus

[BlueTrain]

There is a certain logic when you suggest people would be more law-abiding if there were fewer laws. Naturally the problems start when not everyone agrees what the laws should be. In fact you might say there's serious disagreement on a lot of them or in some of the details.

Prostitution is legal in some counties in Nevada, you know, although you have to have a license for your brothel. But it isn't legal in Las Vegas. The city fathers (and mothers) believe it would give the city a bad reputation and damage public morals. And Jack Daniels is distilled in a dry county. The federal government has nothing to do with either law. I always assume when people here refer to government, they always mean the federal government.

As to the detail in laws, where the devil dwells, the question of college students and by extension, high school students (why not?), is a question of age and also of place. How old is an adult? Or rather, what should we consider an adult to be? Sixteen, 18, 19, 21 or something else?

And do we ever become too old?

[hermannr]

For many years prior to 1968 it was completely legal for someone under 18 to purchase a firearm and ammo, I purchased my own ammo at the local hardware store when I was 12, (dad purchased the .22 there for my 12th birthday). Spent my own money, went to the store by myself and purchased a Rem 700BDL and a Ruger revolver at 16. All perfectly legal...never was a problem either.

Same with MJ...to easy to grow locally, harder to tax, and at the time they had the prohibition mentality...and MJ was the "poor mans" "intoxicant" There is no reasonable reason to outlaw Manila rope. Best natural fiber rope in the world. But if you didn't outlaw the rope, there was no way to control the poor mans "demon rum".

That there are people in jail today for failing to follow these laws is such a waste it is incredable. Both of productive peoples lives, and tax money to warehouse them.

[BlueTrain]

You could be right. But I recall a discussion from a college class I had, probably around 1970, in criminology. I also had a class in juvinille delinquency, too. When was the last time you even heard the word delinquency?

Well, anyway, crime control was an election issue around then, whether or not it should have been. Election issues have a way of being more emotion than something that makes a difference to anyone or to the country as a whole. You probably know how classroom discussions go sometimes. One person suggested as a way to control crime was to put more people in jail and keep them there longer.

I don't know whatever became of that guy but I think his suggestion got carried out. But prisons are a growth industry now. They have been privatized in a lot of places. We are employing poor people in the country to keep poor people from the city in prison.

I ran into one my classmates from that class when walking down the street in Chevy Chase, Maryland, one day. It's a small world.

[Webleymkv]

There is a certain logic when you suggest people would be more law-abiding if there were fewer laws. Naturally the problems start when not everyone agrees what the laws should be. In fact you might say there's serious disagreement on a lot of them or in some of the details.

You are, of course, correct that the problem is a lack of consenus on how many laws are necessary and exactly what those laws should be. Obviously, some laws are necessary in order to maintain a civilized society. Without any laws at all, we would digress into anarchy. The 64,000 dollar question, however, is whether or not we need the number of laws we've got in order to maintain a civilized society. There are thousands and thousands of federal laws and probably just as many, if not more, state and local laws. Not only that, but many of the laws currently on the books are very complicated and difficult to understand. For example, a very prominent federal law which has been the subject of much controversy recently (I won't specifically name the law in order to avoid digressing into partisan politics) is well over 1,000 pages long. With such a long and complicated law, it is nearly impossible for the average person to even know exactly what is in it, much less understand all of it.

I am of the opinion that most new laws have crossed the line from maintaining a civilized society into being unnecessarily intrusive into our lives and personal freedom. It seems to me that attempting to legislate all of society's problems away results in turning otherwise law abiding people into criminals. This is all the more we should probably discuss this particular issue though as we're getting away from the original topic of the thread.

As to the detail in laws, where the devil dwells, the question of college students and by extension, high school students (why not?), is a question of age and also of place. How old is an adult? Or rather, what should we consider an adult to be? Sixteen, 18, 19, 21 or something else?

Again, you are correct that the crux of the issue is defining at what point someone is mentally and emotionally mature enough to be entrusted with the rights and responsibilities of an adult. The problem is that there's no really good answer to this as people mature differently (if at all). Insofar as firearm ownership is concerned, I've known grade school children who were, in my opinion, trustworthy with a firearm but by the same token I've known people well into their sixties who I wouldn't trust with a Super Soaker.

The fact of the matter is that we have to draw the legal line between child and adult somewhere. 18 years old happens to be where we've drawn the line, yet for the first three years of adulthood we tell people that they're old enough to be held accountable for themselves and punished as an adult if they break the law, but that they're not yet mature enough to enjoy all the rights and privleages of an adult. This is my point of contention: if people under the age of 21 are, by and large, not mentally and emotionally mature enough to own a handgun or drink an alcoholic beverage, then they are also too mentally and emotionally immature to be married, enter into legal contracts, serve in the armed forces, live alone without the supervision of an adult, get a driver's license without their parent or guardian's consent, vote, or be tried and sentenced as an adult if they commit a crime. If we really believe that people are not mentally and emotionally mature until 21 years of age, then we should simply raise the age of majority for everything to 21 rather than deny 18-20-year-olds some of their rights while saddling them with all of the responsibility.

[BlueTrain]

We must have order!

While there are many laws, I suspect more are administrative than of a criminal nature and they wouldn't get you arrested. All the same, it is possible to write a law so that it is impossible to obey. With some laws, such as the speed limit on the highway, it seems more like it impossible to enforce.

In the case of age limits or majority, with respect to firearms, you know there is no uniform age. There are different minimum ages for different purposes and in different places. I do not know if there are any federal regulations concerning age except at the upper end. Logic is easily twisted and stretched when these laws are written or rewritten. Even then, they are ignored sometimes. If a legal juvenile is accused of a particularly serious crime, they may even be tried as an adult, throwing out completely the whole concept of adult and juvenile, yet when the Penn State football fiasco is spoken of, the football players are invariably referred to as children.

[S_Constitutionist]

I find it interesting that so many of the fallacies used by anti's are being brought up here. I cant tell if it is hypocrisy at its finest or if it is some combination of projection, intellectual dishonesty, or "other man" principle.

I was one of those "kids" that worked to pay my own way through school, lived on my own (in a not so nice neighborhood resulting from same), and took care of myself. In fact, I first found this site after being threatened with a gun near my apartment (lurked here for a few years). Despite going to "party school", I took my time there seriously and worked my tail off. Nearly all of my peers did so as well. Honestly, the argument that guns should be banned from campus because of drunken frat boys would make more sense re-framed as a move towards banning fraternities. They seem to cause a lot more violence, alcohol poisoning, drug-use, hazing, and numerous other problems than firearms have on campus.

I would point to the schools that allow legal CCW, but that has already fallen on deaf ears in this thread. Instead, I will also point out that many if not most campuses are dry and in a majority of those states it is illegal to carry while intoxicated (mine does not, and interestingly enough, it does not seem to be a problem). A drunk person in possession of a weapon is already illegal in most places. How is this any different? Moreover, campus carry makes a lot more sense during the day (you know, when you are going to/from classes) where I never saw too many frat parties break out...

Lastly, the issue extends past the campus curb. I had a long drive home after school/work (often late at night) where car jackings were frequent enough to get newsletters about them. I should not only be defenseless while on school grounds, but while I travel to/from them as well - all because of the potential actions by an immature/immoral minority. Again, this is sounding a lot like the arguments used by antis.

Now I am married, own a home, and I am planning on going back to grad school. If age requirements are somehow a legitimate restrictions on rights, when do I earn mine back again?

[BlueTrain]

I will be 66 a month from tomorrow and I've never been threatened with violence, that is, not since I was a teenager when I got in lots of fights and have the scars to prove it. I've walked many streets alone in Washington, DC, and London. I had company in Berlin. I've also logged many miles in the woods virtally all by myself. I have yet to see even a single wild dog, though I've seen bears. I've seen foxes but no wolves or coyotes. How have I managed to avoid trouble all these years?

Do you suppose that has conditioned my outlook on things in general, compared with other people here?

It is interesting that someone suggested that the problem is fraternities and not something else. That has been suggested by others and in fact, some schools do not have them anyway.

Here's a funny thing. I mentioned that I had bought a bunch of guns through the mail while that was still legal, literally just before the last day it was legal. Of all the guns I bought, by the way, the one I wish I still had was a .30-06 FN 1949. Nice gun. But I digress. I had all of them while I was at school. I never lived in a dorm or fraternity house. My room overlooked the football statium.

[S_Constitutionist]

I will be 66 a month from tomorrow and I've never been threatened with violence, that is, not since I was a teenager when I got in lots of fights and have the scars to prove it. I've walked many streets alone in Washington, DC, and London. I had company in Berlin. I've also logged many miles in the woods virtally all by myself. I have yet to see even a single wild dog, though I've seen bears. I've seen foxes but no wolves or coyotes. How have I managed to avoid trouble all these years?

I am not sure what you are proposing here. I am happy that you have never had a need for a firearm on your person, but that in no way discounts the numerous people who have.

Do you suppose that has conditioned my outlook on things in general, compared with other people here?

All of our experiences condition us. I grew up in a very anti-gun household where I was not allowed to attend boy scout trips/meetings that involved marksmanship/gun handling. Thus, I had the perception that guns were evil and should be banned. When my girlfriend and I were threatened with a gun in a bad part of Phoenix (near my home), I decided that I needed to learn how to protect myself and that one day I would carry. A gun wouldnt have helped me in that situation, but it showed me that the world is not all unicorns and rainbows. I easily could have gone the other way and lobbied for a gun ban (as many do), but I ardently support our constitution and recognized that the guy waving a gun at me could just still have done me harm with another weapon. So, I took responsibility for myself and started learning how to defend myself and my family.

It is interesting that someone suggested that the problem is fraternities and not something else. That has been suggested by others and in fact, some schools do not have them anyway.

I dont believe that fraternities are the problem, my point was that I can create an empirical argument that they cause a lot more problems on campuses than firearms have. If fraternities are the purported reason why legal CCW should not be allowed on campus(as stated many times in this thread), then yes, they would the problem.

[BlueTrain]

I didn't grow up in an anti-gun house but there were no guns in the house. My father apparently believed they were too dangerous when young children, which I once was, were around and probably unnecessary anyway. I'm pretty much the same but nevertheless I had guns when ours were little. In fact, my son later went into the army. He got out years ago but has absolutely no interest in guns. He doesn't even like them. He was a tank crewman in Iraq for about 15 months. My father was a veteran of the Italian campaign in WWII (and was a prisoner of war). I imagine they had seen enough shooting for one lifetime.

[Al Norris]

Starting in the fall semester of 1965, Salt Lake City, I was a freshman at high school and was also part of the Army JROTC program. I used to walk to and from school with my issued M1. We moved to Long Beach CA in '66 and I was enrolled in the Navy JROTC program. There, I walked to and from school with a Springfield '06 (the Navy's firearm at that time).

At both places, I was also part of the Rifle Team and stored my .22 bolt gun in my locker.

I grew up with shotguns parked at the kitchens back door. I was given a 30-30 by an Uncle, after my first successful deer hunt at age 12. My Dad was a Korean vet, my Uncles were WWII and/or Korean vets (Dad was the baby of the bunch).

Marksmanship was a mandatory part of growing up. Hunting, slightly less so.

I have only ever had to draw my weapon once (I didn't have to fire), outside of actual combat - well twice. But the first time I was just back from 'Nam and that's a whole 'nother story - I never want to have to do that again... But I still carry. In case of extreme need.

So BlueTrain, which of our life situations are more relevant? Personally, I think neither.

What I do think relevant is that non-prohibited adults have the right to carry if they so choose and that the government (in the form of Colleges and Universities), do not have enough of a compelling interest to violate that right.

If the mantra of "Public Safety" is enough to thwart the fundamental right of self defense, then it is also compelling enough to thwart all of our other fundamental rights.

[BlueTrain]

I think my feelings on the 2nd admendment are different from the majority here. But I also think people beleive they are defenseless if not armed with a gun. How many agree with that statement?

[BarryLee]

But I also think people beleive they are defenseless if not armed with a gun. How many agree with that statement?

Ok, I’ll bite.

I believe a gun is just a tool like many others that a person might use to protect themselves or their families. I by no means feel defenseless without a gun and in a variety of situations choose not carry one. However, I also believe that as an adult that decision should be made by me and not some disingenuous bureaucrats. I also believe that as adults college students should be able to make that same decision.

[Botswana]

But I also think people beleive they are defenseless if not armed with a gun. How many agree with that statement?

Like it or not, guns are the great equalizer. Especially for women. I used to work in the jail. Police routinely brought in people who had been pepper sprayed or tasered into submission. It's not as easy or effective as some people think and many assailants were still partially successful in inflicting harm. Sometimes even to police officers.

Being hurt is not always a deterrent. A lot of people don't appreciate pain but they might think twice if it will cost them their life.

On the flipside, I think the average person has a right to feel secure and safe. Although both of those things are an illusion. All the same, pepper spray, tasers, or knives may not provide the same sense of security.

Here's the other part, attacks often come from more than one person. I have had to engage two people attacking me. I have had training in hand-to-hand, and it was still flipping hard as hell to come out on top of that fight. The average person regardless of gender, height, weight, or physical fitness would have lost that fight. Period. In fact, I consider some fortunate factors (ie: luck) that kept me from losing.

Retreat is not always an option and the threat of pain is not always a deterrent.

As I said before, any argument one makes about college ADULTS for why they cannot carry could be made for the populace at large. An argument against them applies to everyone else.

Honestly, I think the college prohibition is merely wish fulfillment for gun control advocates on a micro scale.

[MLeake]

Well, BT, one of the great ironies I find is that most of the people I know who:

1) subscribe to the "militia" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which only became fashionable in the last century, not the early part of our country's history); and

2) believe in stronger gun control; and

3) think

people beleive they are defenseless if not armed with a gun

don't realize that they would be helpless against my evil twin.

A friend and I were working out on the mat an hour ago, doing knife takeaways. He raised the pace, and almost ended up with a broken arm - since I had to match his pace, and just barely managed to disengage in time.

But I also took his training weapon.

Now, I'm a nice, law-abiding, security-cleared guy. I don't hurt people unnecessarily. But somebody my size and age, with a similar skill set, but a different moral code (or lack of a moral code) could very easily maim or kill most of the more vocal antis in a matter of seconds.

Snapping joints is easy.

Bashing heads into hard objects (curbs, door frames, table corners, etc) is easy.

Pulling somebody's head down into a rising knee is easy.

Funny thing, though, is that most of the martial arts instructors and practitioners I know also have (and utilize) carry permits. We all recognize there are always bigger, badder bears out there.

Meanwhile, I agree with Al Norris that it's nice you've led a charmed life.

I've had a knife pulled on me, once. (Talked him down; he never knew I had a .357 on him through the car door. He approached after I'd shut off the engine.)

I've been attacked by a road rager, once. (He took a swing at me, and he instantly regretted it.)

My ex-wife was followed home by a stalker and his buddy, once. (She had a gun and a dog; they ran.) She had some idiots try to rob her at a drive-up ATM, after they boxed her in. (She had a gun; they drove away.)

My best friend had to pull a gun on some carjackers in Orlando, once.

My dad's cousin's dog ran off what turned out to be a serial rapist, once. She bought a gun shortly thereafter, on the advice of both her husband and the local cops.

A fellow flight student, while transferring from Whiting to Beeville, shot and killed an armed carjacker in Louisiana, once.

Speaking of which, one of my former flight students was murdered, at random, by some idiots in Washington state who wanted to shoot a passing motorist for fun.

So I'm happy that you've never had need of a weapon. My experiences, and those of several friends and acquaintances, have not matched yours.

And I have to look askance at your contention about people thinking they're helpless - it's obnoxious. "Thinking people" aren't helpless, but recognize a serious disadvantage when they see it.

[BlueTrain]

Botswana is a dangerous place. My boss grew up there when it had a different name.

I find it humorous to discover that I'm an originalist. But I haven't lived a charmed (or charming) life. One makes one's own luck. Would you agree with that statement?

I still have trouble believing some things I read here, especially the ones about roaming packs of wild dogs. I will also admit to having a lot of low opinions of things carried forward from my childhood. For instance, when I was still in grade school, motorcyclists were all evil. Now I have a lot of trouble with Rolling Thunder, although I attended one of their gatherings on the Mall a few years ago. Much that I saw there merely confirmed my feelings.

Thank you, have a nice day.