0 ...

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:33:44 +0100

SCCC, your doing a great job and keep it up. Hopefully, the law makers in the states who believe they can protect people on college campus as well as they the people in thier homes will eventually see the mistakes that have been made for the good of the people and correct the laws. I hope and pray that you are successful for until you do I intend to be a violator of the state laws. I have trained my daughters in all aspects of firearms and are active members of the IDPA. I will bear the burden of the cost of the handguns to ensure that my daughters will be prepared to defend themselves if necessary. I do not advocate violence and I make every effort possible to avoid situations that may become violent. But the one thing that I do know is that sh%t happens and when it does, the advanage goes to the one that is most prepared. I believe in the chaos theory and nothing that is human is absolutely certain. I intend to give my girls every advantage to protect themselves and those that they care about. I cannot and will watch over them every minute of every day but I'll be d%mn if I don't do everything within my power to help them to help themselves. I will not send them into the world without them knowing that there are some really bad people in this world and that they may have to take a stand for themselves. If this is too drastic for you please consider the alternatives. I wish this wasn't something I need to do but in reality if I intend to proctect my children and see them grow into adults, I , a father must take every responsibles step to ensure the rights to life. - BillyW

...

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:43:33 +0100

You're assuming that people fit into precise binaries- that people are either inherently good citizens or bad citizens.\n\nNo, Tim. You're assuming we're putting people into binaries. We are stating facts. Licensees, in every single jusrisdiction where such statistics are kept, have exceptionally clean records. The vast majority of even the tiny percentage (we're talking sub 1% here) of those that have their licenses revoked, only have it revoked for non-firearm or even non-violent charges.\n\nYour mace argument is silly and needs no further rebuttal as it has already been thoroughly shot down by others who type much faster than I do.\n\nWhat interests me most is your comment that you "worry" about legal firearm owners slipping down the spectrum of violence and lawlessness moreso than other people. Do you have anything to base this assumption on other than your own preconceived bias? This conclusion is especially interesting given that the evidence so overwhelmingly refutes it.\n\nI suppose for now, that like so many other thoughtless, baseless comments I've heard on this subject before that I'll have to assume you're just parroting something that you heard a actor/politician/doctor/etc. say in an interview once. \n\nI can think of maybe 3 people I know with a perfect legal slate... \n\nThis one made me chuckle a little bit. How could this statement bear any possible relavance to the argument you were trying to make? Who cares about the people you know or their records. This discussion is about licensees (and student licensees in particular) about having their right to defend their life restored in a place that has been shown time and again not to be safe from heavily armed criminals intent on shooting innocent people. When we discard your irrelevant, statistically flawed sampling of "who you know " (along with your other logic-hampering bias) in favor of valid statistics kept by people who do this sort of thing professionally, I think it is fairly clear that removing restrictions on college campuses for licensees will do far more good than harm, which is really the core of the gun carry argument.\n\nMy advice to you is not to let political rhetoric designed to score cheap points and interviews with airheaded movie stars who don't have to live in the violence filled world that they get paid to glorify shape your opinions without thinking about what's really going on in the world around you.\n\nBest of luck!\n\nReid - Reid

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:02:54 +0100

"written by lam, November 28, 2007 \n\nStephen and Michael seem to rely too heavily on their belief that once you get a license to carry a concealed weapon you will behave is a responsible manner. You need education and training to get a driver's license, everyone has learned endlessly about the dangers of drinking and driving and yet in 2005 there were 16,885 alcohol related traffic fatalities. Now we all know the amount of alcohol consumed on college campuses, do we really want to throw firearms into the mix? Scary thought." \n\n\nTo assume that someone is going to go through all the trouble of getting a Carry License is then going to go out and get drunk and do stupid stuff is just false. Where are all the cases of this happening??? My driver license test was a peice of cake compared to my CCW training. I went through ten hours of classroom training on firearms, and then went through another eight hours on the range learning how to shoot safely, and efficiently. \n - Zach P

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:50:17 +0100

written by tkrueger, November 27, 2007 \n\n\n"You're assuming that people fit into precise binaries- that people are either inherently good citizens or bad citizens. I can think of maybe 3 people I know with a perfect legal slate... I think a more accurate perspective is that people fall somewhere in between the ideal, law abiding citizen, and the dangerous miscreant. The larger truth is that people aren't somehow tethered to their place on that spectrum; people evolve." \n\nI don't believe anyone is assuming anything. Anything is possible, but I'm really not concerned about someone who has a license to carry a firearm harming me. \n\n"And people who are fixated on buying guns are those about whom I might worry more when it comes to tendencies for slippage across that spectrum."\n\nWhy does gun ownership concern you? I work with a young woman who was against ownership of firearms until a man broke down her door and raped her eight years ago. He cut her phone line before breaking in so she couldn't call for help. Her stance on gun ownership has changed since this incident. She could have stopped a violent, life changing attack if she was prepared to defend herself. Instead she was left to beg for her life while a man terrorized her for more than an hour in her own home in front of her two young sons. I own and carry a handgun for self defense. I look at it like extra insurance, or wearing a seatbelt. I don't act recklessly (this includes my driving, although I still wear my seatbelt), and avoid places where I think I may need my handgun as much as possible. BUT I don't want to be left at the mercy of some nut with no way of defending myself. I don't want to shoot anyone, but if it comes down to protecting myself or my family I'll do whatever I need to do.\n\n"Also aren't there non-lethal mechanisms of deterrence? is mace not working? or has is just fallen out of vogue? or is it that the image of mace isn't so closely associated with norms of the ideal, second-amendment-quoting citizen?"\n\nThere are less-lethal options for self defense, but no non-lethal. You could kill your attacker simply by fighting with him, and just because you shoot someone does not mean they will die. The vast majority of self defense cases in the United States end with no shots ever being fired. The sight a victim drawing a gun in defense almost always is enough to convince the attacker to flee. Pepper spray may not stop a determined attacker, and it is not a good option to spray an attacker who is mad at you because you don't have a lot of money in your wallet. Police officers are instructed to fight through being sprayed, and I have talked with many officers who have had little luck using pepper spray on a combative person. You must also realize you stand a good chance of getting sprayed yourself by the blowback from your own spray inhibiting your ability to fight back. Less lethal options are not good options when someone is intent on doing you great bodily harm.\n\n"Finally, why give college kids the impetus to spend money on arms (they're expensive!)? Aren't there better things for us to be spending money on? maybe tuition? coffee? things that help us do well in college since we are, um, students, not Sylvester Stallone? \n\njust some thoughts." \n\nYou could get a good used handgun for $250 to $400 dollars. To me that is a cheap price to pay for something that I may need to save my life someday. I am a very healthy adult, but I still bought health insurance. I can't foretell the future, and may need either of them-though I pray that is never the case. I also wear a seatbelt, and even if it wasn't required by law I still would. I don't speed, or drive recklessly. Unfortunately, some people do and I may need that seatbelt to save my life. I just finished college, and on several occasions while leaving classes at night I wished I had other options for self defense other than my hands and feet. There are violent, selfish people out there who don't care if you go home at night to your family.\n\n\nZach P - Zach P

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:40:51 +0100

\nThere is no booze in Utah sufficient enough to compared it to even a modest drinking state. \n\nThat's like arguing that joggers are in better shape in cities that don't have burger kings than the joggers in cities that do. - guest

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:13:41 +0100

Pardon, but I just fail to see a correlation between alcohol and drinking statistics and the right of a licensed concealed weapons holder to carry a firearm to campus.\n\nCan you find any data to correlate the number of licensed concealed carry holders that routinely get drunk in public, or to the number of DUI traffic stops that involve a concealed carry firearm?\n\nWhat does "drinking state" have to do at all with licensed concealed carry laws or specific individuals within those states and whether or not historical evidence and fact supports the hypothesis that because alcohol is available, concealed carry licenseholders will get drunk.\n\nI'm a concealed carry license-holder in my state, and have been for years, and I don't drink, even though it's readily available all around me. Generalizations simply do not hold weight against specific evidence.\n - a guest

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:58:21 +0100

Look at Utah as an example of what will happen if campus carry is allowed--No problems from license holders\n\nTake a look at this site: http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/2k6/stateUnderageDrinking/underageDrinking.htm\n\nUtah has one of the lowest underage drinking populations. Low underage drinking populations means low of-age drinking populations. There is no booze in Utah sufficient enough to compared it to even a modest drinking state. - a guest

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:05:32 +0100

It is my experience that most people who are against ADULT students carrying on campus, have never handled/shot a firearms themselves. They project their own lack of knowledge and experience on everyone else, and adopt a vague "alcohol mixed with guns can be baad" argument. What makes you think that someone who went to the trouble to get a CHP would go drinking while carrying, and ON CAMPUS no less? Are there any bars at VT that I should be aware of? ;-)\n\nYou might as well argue that students licensed to drive a car shouldn't be allowed to drive on campus because drinking and driving don't mix, and those crazy "students" sure drink a lot at college... ;) - a guest

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:28:01 +0100

There are a lot of "what if" scenarios that appear logical on the surface. "What if they get drunk with a gun" "What if they let their gun be stolen" "What if they get in an argument". In almost all cases, these can be answered by looking at the history where carry is legal. Look at Utah as an example of what will happen if campus carry is allowed--No problems from license holders. I am amazed and proud of the record of license holders--In every comparison I've seen, license holders are far more law-abiding than the general public, and even slightly more law abiding than the high standards of police. \n\nIf experience refutes the arguments against carry, does logic support continued opposition? - a guest

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:10:10 +0100

Golly, why would anyone need a gun - that's what we have police for. OK, why would anyone need a fire extinguisher - that what we have fire departments for. And before someone says "That's different," please be prepared to explain how. Both are potentially lifesaving tools that can be used in an emergency situation prior to the arrival of trained professionals. - a guest

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:00:43 +0100

\nWhen I was in college, maybe it was just the college I went to - but a great deal of my fellow students were retired Army soldiers - a couple of which had pulled multiple tours in Vietnam. One of the guys was a former Apache pilot out of Ft. Rucker, and several of my fellow co-students were still active-duty millitary.\n\nAnd that's just the military students. We had other students in class who were police detectives, some former, and some still current sheriff's dept., etc.\n\nIt's easy for the anti-carry folks to make blanket generalizations about "who" a "college kid" is - as an extension from a "high school kid", but college just isn't that way. I've sat in college English class with grandmothers, and one great grandmother, sitting across from a retired USMC Colonel - in the same room.\n\nI honestly can't remember now if my college prohibited concealed carry or not, but I had to work my own way through college, plus keep a fulltime job so I could make my mortgage payments, so it took me 6 years to get my degree. I didn't live on campus though, so I really don't know a lot about dorm life or even campus-life, but when I was on campus from the time I was 21 and got my CCW - I carried a little Walther .380 in my pocket.\n\nIf it was prohibited by the school, then I guess technically I was breaking school law on that one. A lot of the time when I was at school it was after I got off work that day, and I was there for a lot of night classes. I never felt any compelling need or desire to take my pistol out of my pocket and wave it around at folks or go harass any of the other students with it, and during my 6 years in college there was never any incidents I was aware of where anyone was shot or stabbed, but there were rumors of rapists at night and warnings for the female students to be cautious going from class to their dorms or their cars after class.\n\nAnd again, it's real blurry now - college was close to 20 years ago for me, so I don't recall the actual school policies in place at the time. It may have been fine for CCW on campus if you were a license holder, I just don't remember. \n\nBut, even if it wasn't, college is not high school. These folks are making blanket generalizations that 6 active-duty Army Rangers who may have state issued CCW licenses and want to take a class together aren't safe to carry a gun to school and pose an immediate risk to the other students.\n\nWe really need to re-evaluate our laws and who we're trying to stop. Criminals will, and ARE, ignoring existing gun laws, and it's the rest of the populace that suffers because we can't defend ourselves. \n\nFor the guy who recommended mace for self defense. In the Virginia Tech case, when the criminal is carrying his own illegal gun and coming down the hallway towards you killing folks left and right as he passes them, exactly what is that mace supposed to do again? Say you're still alive when the criminal gets to within 10 feet of you, it still hasn't given you a tool to protect the lives of the other students between you and the attacker. - a guest

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:06:23 +0100

When I was in college, this 'guns in the dorm' was a non-issue. Many students had guns in their dorm rooms. Most were rifles and shotguns we used to go hunting, but their were also a lot of handguns. There was never any problem.\n\nHeck, in high school, kids had firearms in their cars if they were hunting before or after school, and kids on the rifle team often carried their rifles form class to class since the lockers were too small for the cased guns. Never was any school shootings.\n\n - a guest

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:04:44 +0100

tkruger says "Also aren't there non-lethal mechanisms of deterrence? is mace not working? or has is just fallen out of vogue? or is it that the image of mace isn't so closely associated with norms of the ideal, second-amendment-quoting citizen? "\n\nHow did mace work in the Va Tech shooting?\n\n\ntkruger aslo says "Finally, why give college kids the impetus to spend money on arms (they're expensive!)? Aren't there better things for us to be spending money on? maybe tuition? coffee? things that help us do well in college since we are, um, students, not Sylvester Stallone?"\n\nwhat right does anyone have to tell another how to spend his or her money? - a guest

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:17:08 +0100

Good job Steve and Mike! Keep up the effort.\n\nWBL (1 of over 100,000 Ohio CHL holders ;)) - a guest

...

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:35:38 +0100

According to the CDC on their own website - http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html\n\nFrom 1999 to 2004, United States Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000 was 10.23. Yes, that is people who are injured, and who die, from firearms - both during criminal activity and suicide. If you take out the suicide factor, it now drops to 4.4. Taking out accidents, it now drops to 4.14.\n\n\nDuring that same period of time, per 100,000 people, 15.41 will die on America's roadways.\n\n4.41 per 100,000 will suffocate, and 5.71 per 100,000 will die due to falls.\n\n\n\nThe firearm is simply an inanimate object, it is a paperweight without human intervention. To claim that people can, and will be, in more dangerous due to it's mere presence is ludicrous - I've put multiple guns on my kitchen table and told them to go kill people, and even put ammunition along with them - they didn't move ironically enough.\n\nPeople are not safe because of the prohibition of firearms. In fact, every single state that has shall issue licensing clauses has a lower rate of crime. People only feel safe in spite of the prohibitions, but when push comes to shove, those little signs that say "NO GUN" haven't stopped one iota of violent crime.\n\n\n\nIam - Have you ever considered that outside of college campus properties there exist places where people go with the SOLE intention of getting wasted? They're called bars, and in Cheviot, OH there are 40 bars per square mile. They have no issues there. The real world has bars, stress from jobs, home foreclosures, paying the bills, etc., and is much harsher than a college environment - yet those people who are licensed don't have any issues in the presence of alcohol or stress (some states even forbid being in a restaurant that serves beer if you're carrying, regardless if you're drinking it). What makes that piece of property within 4 sidewalks a magical place where these people will behave any differently than they do outside the property?\n\n~Michael Flitcraft - a guest

...

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:35:17 +0100

Tim: It's not an assumption to say that licensees are law-abiding citizens, it's more of a generalization supported by facts. In Ohio, less than 0.4% of licensees get their license revoked and I have heard that many of these revocations are due to the licensee dying. In Florida, where more than 1 million licenses have been issued, the number is far less than that. No one is saying that licensees are perfectly crime-free. I've got a speeding ticket but does that make me so imperfect that I can't carry a gun?\n\nYou're deviating from the topic, too, regarding your comments on people fixated on buying guns and how students can better spend their money on "better things". First of all, we're talking about a license to CARRY a gun, not OWN one. It's an individual's choice to determine how he or she spends his or her money and just because you may disagree with it doesn't make it wrong. It's not a fixation on buying guns, either. I know some licensees who have an extensive collection (and some guns can be quite collectable) while others have only one, so this notion of people fixated on buying guns is irrelevant. \n\nRegarding pepper spray, it can be effective, but some people don't stop by being sprayed. Either they're repeat offenders who are just used to it, or they could be high on PCP or meth and feel on top of the world. Plus, the range of these sprays is very limited whereas under ideal conditions I KNOW I can stop a threat at 15 yards and possibly from further away if it was on an open field or something. Pepper spray is an option, why can't firearms be an option? We're not advocating arming anyone; the students (and professors and staff members and friends and guests and parents and etc.) who want to get a license will if they meet the requirements.\n\nWhat do you really mean when you say "students"? When you say that students shouldn't be armed, you fail to realize that you're excluding atypical students. I recently received an email from a gentleman who finished his undergrad degree at 55. Some of our biggest supporters are soldiers who have already done a tour overseas. They have years of weapons and combat experience. Are they dangerous? Police officers in Ohio have to requalify with a firearm a minimum of once ever six months. I train at least once a month. I've seen police officers at the range that can outshoot me but I've also seen a fair share of ones who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn while inside of it.\n\nYou also fail to realize that the students you're so afraid of already carry in banks, restaurants, supermarkets, malls, etc. Statistically 1% of everyone you pass by is legally carrying a firearm and you probably don't even know it.\n\nLastly, we're not kids. In almost every state you have to be 21 to buy and carry a handgun. Last time I checked, that wasn't an age to be called a "kid".\n\nlam: In Ohio and many other states, you must receive some firearm training to receive a license, much like a driver's license. Look at my above statistic regarding revocations. How much do you want to bet that there's a higher rate of drivers license revocations? Your argument doesn't make sense. By your logic we should ban cars since licensed drivers kill/injure INCREDIBLY more people than concealed handgun licensees. The only difference is, if a drivers licensee acts recklessly, there's not a good chance that responsible individuals can stop them, but if a concealed handgun licensee decides to act recklessly amongst responsible licensees, the responsible ones will take care of the situation. It's why you don't see shootings at gun shows or NRA conventions.\n\nAlcohol and firearms do not mix, you're absolutely right, and there is a lot of alcohol consumed on campus, but why don't college students drink this much off campus? Surely it's easier to drink off campus than it is to drink on campus, right? What about college-age non-students, surely they must be drinking a lot of booze, right? If there was such a high probability of a licensee drinking and carrying (a felony in Ohio) then why is concealed carry still legal just about everywhere?\n\n-Stephen (the one from the interview) - a guest

...

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:50:21 +0100

Stephen and Michael seem to rely too heavily on their belief that once you get a license to carry a concealed weapon you will behave is a responsible manner. You need education and training to get a driver's license, everyone has learned endlessly about the dangers of drinking and driving and yet in 2005 there were 16,885 alcohol related traffic fatalities. Now we all know the amount of alcohol consumed on college campuses, do we really want to throw firearms into the mix? Scary thought. - lam

...

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:43:24 +0100

"You have to make a clear cut distinction between license holders and the people that commit crime"\n\nYou're assuming that people fit into precise binaries- that people are either inherently good citizens or bad citizens. I can think of maybe 3 people I know with a perfect legal slate... I think a more accurate perspective is that people fall somewhere inbetween the ideal, law abiding citizen, and the dangerous miscreant. The larger truth is that people aren't somehow tethered to their place on that spectrum; people evolve.\n\nAnd people who are fixated on buying guns are those about whom I might worry more when it comes to tendencies for slippage across that spectrum.\n\nAlso aren't there non-lethal mechanisms of deterrence? is mace not working? or has is just fallen out of vogue? or is it that the image of mace isn't so closely associated with norms of the ideal, second-amendment-quoting citizen?\n\nFinally, why give college kids the impetus to spend money on arms (they're expensive!)? Aren't there better things for us to be spending money on? maybe tuition? coffee? things that help us do well in college since we are, um, students, not Sylvester Stallone?\n\njust some thoughts.\n\n-Tim - tkrueger