Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Univ. of Colorado to appeal repeal of gun ban

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
AmericaIsGreat Donating Member (611 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 04:48 PM
Original message
Univ. of Colorado to appeal repeal of gun ban
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kunc/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1667862/Regional/CU.Regents.Vote.to

Last year the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against a gun ban on the campus of CU. CU is appealing.

Now, I think guns are fun as a hobby and I don'y want to take them away from anyone who can legally own them, but do we REALLY need to allow them on college campuses? What the fuck? The bottom line is there should be establishments where guns are never, ever allowed. I think a college campus is one of those places. Maybe that's just me, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. And they will loose again...
State law, in Colorado, STATES they don't have the legal authority to "ban guns", so they will get their asses kicked, again... and spend more of the taxpayers money..

Why not "allow" them for properly licensed folk?? Seems like banning them for everyone creates a large number of UNARMED targets...Because, anyone bent on death and destruction, will not be stopped by a "no guns" policy..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmericaIsGreat Donating Member (611 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Because our college kids are stupid?
And spend most of their time getting hammered and doing stupid shit? The last thing we need in that environment are guns.

Fine, don't give CU the right to ban them; make some other authority do it. Guns do not need to be on f'ing college campuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Broad-brush, bigotry, and complete lack of comprehension on how carry laws work.
What else you got?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Fact remains, in truth, you can't "ban guns"
Collage kids, as a rule are NOT ELIGIBLE for the proper permits to be able to carry a handgun on campus anyway. You must be 21 to get the proper permits.

Gun Free zones, have been an abstract failure, and to plead for more of them, is silly. BTW I, am a Virginia concealed handgun permit holder, I DO carry a sidearm, EVEN ON COLLAGE PROPERTY...It is completely legal for me to do so...Thire are no "legal" sanctions against me doing this.

My safety is more important than someone else's failed idea.

The State Legislature in Colorado, has spoken on this matter...CU DOES NOT HAVE THAT ABILITY....

They can whine, moan, plead, cry, SUE, and when they loose, they can SUE again.....It will not change the FACT that state law, in Colorado, states that for them, they DO NOT, have the authority to "ban guns"...

All the lawsuits in the world will not change that...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travis Coates Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. Are you not aware
that concealed carry on CU campuses has been the norm for several years? With ....wait for it.... zero incidents to date?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. Guns do not need to be on f'ing college campuses
I was a college student. I took a gun to campus sometimes. Yet no one died. How strange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
29. It's amazing, I went to college for oh...6 years now (Professional school).
Edited on Sat Jun-26-10 08:10 AM by Callisto32
I have managed to NEVER get hammered during those 6 years. In fact, I have NEVER been drunk, and always had the presence of mind to remove my weapon and secure it before I drank.

But everybody's rights should be relegated down to the lowest common denominator, I guess.

Edit: Typographical error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
32. College students
What about those non-traditional college students? I was 46 years old when I retired from the Army and went to college using my GI bill benefits. There are plenty of soldiers doing that now.

In fact one of the big incentives to enlisting in the Army is getting money for college. So you are conflating kids wasting their parents money getting drunk and getting laid with all students?

All of these returning GI's are over 21, the FIRST requirement to possess a concealed carry permit. Additionally, a tour or two in Iraq or Afghanistan would indicate they have some passing familiarity with firearms.

Or do you think they are all ticking time bombs and shouldn't be mixed in with teenage gun-toting drunken frat boys?

What course was that? Stereotype 401?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
34. College students do NOT spend most of their time getting hammered.
By "hammered" I assume you mean getting drunk. A student with an alcohol problem is going to flunk out in a real hurry. College students spend most of their time SOBER, and in classes, or studying, or working part-time/full-time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
46. "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men
with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878


If these kids are 21, then they aren't kids. They are adults. Time to be responsible members of society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. They NEED the right to ban the guns on campus.
If any student gets shot on any public campus in the state, there should be a major suit brought against the state for such a stupid prohibition.

Guns have no place on college campuses, other than in the possession of security and military personnel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Well lets check with the Bureau of "needs" and get back to you on that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Yes, ONLY the military personnel should have the guns on campus...
REMEMBER Kent State....I do, you don't...





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

O well....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Banning something is not the exercise of a right
It's the exercise of a power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. How about the converse?
If there is a gun ban in place at a public institution of higher learning, and a student gets shot in spite of it, do you think that student (or the student's next of kin) should be able to sue the state for failing to adequately enforce the gun ban, thereby depriving the student of the means of defend himself while failing to provide adequate protection? I mean, that seems only fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. "other than in the possession of security and military personnel"
Spoken like a true authoritarian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. You really don't like those pesky Civil Rights, do you? n/y
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
30. What a canard.
What's up with all the "except for military and police" crap?

I know several police officers, and a lot of military folks. As a rule they are the LAST people I want handling guns around me.

They are trained, sure, but poorly, with little live fire practice. Hell, most of them I've shot with are BARELY PROFICIENT in basic marksmanship.


I'm not saying all military/police are like this, but being a member of one of these groups is hardly a magical talisman that confers competence with weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
47. Military Personell with guns worked out real great at Kent State campus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Are you implying that self-defense is un-needed on campuses?
Are you saying it is a good thing to violate Civil Rights?

Are you willing to provide your personal time to help ensure security on campuses?

If not, then please keep your hands off my Constitutional Rights. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmericaIsGreat Donating Member (611 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. I know that nothing has happened at CU that would suggest a gun is needed
Edited on Fri Jun-25-10 05:33 PM by AmericaIsGreat
for self defense.

If any college is that lacking in security then it should be forced to correct it; no need for people to carry weapons.

And my hands are nowhere near your constitutional rights. It just seems excessive. Should we just let everyone carry them everywhere at all times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Really?
Do you think a woman is justified to use a gun to stop a rape?

Do you know for a fact that there have been no rapes there? If you do, that would mean that the U of C is an exceptional school. It would also mean that you are likely a highly placed administrator or on their security team. Schools take great pains to keep mommy and daddy from finding out how many rapes take place on campuses; I've read more than one investigative report about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. Got the Clery crime stats right here...
...which every institution of tertiary education is required by federal law to publish for the previous three years (though lord knows they do try to make them hard to find sometimes).

http://www.colorado.edu/police/statistics/2009%20Clery%20Statistics.pdf

Forcible rapes on campus - 2007: 5, 2008: 7, 2009: 4
Aggravated assault - 2007: 7, 2008: 7, 2009: 5
Robbery - 2007: 2, 2008: 3, 2009: 2

So offenses do take place on campus that would justify use of lethal force in self-defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
53. Once again, a little documented fact acts as "poster repellant" here. nt
Thanks again, Euromutt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travis Coates Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Because it worked so well at VA tech ? NT



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
44. That's what the Amendment says.
Don't like it? Push for another Amendment. Been done 17 times with only one correction, so far. Not a bad track record, eh?

On the gripping hand, if it's not broken (and it isn't), don't start throwing rocks at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
48. That's the general idea, yes.
"Should we just let everyone carry them everywhere at all times?"

I do. I'm no risk to you. Hell, I might even save your life someday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
James H Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. guns on campus?
So some deranged person shoots up a college campus. The swat team arrives, and a dozen or so "heroes" are running around waving glocks, supposedly to protect the unarmed colleagues. Just imagine the fun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Wow! Confused cops shoot the good guys - just like every other defensive gun use
Only ... that never seems to happen ... outside of the fevered imagination of gun control supporters.

Or maybe you can give us a single cite of a case where the cops actually shot the good guy?

Or was that an old episode of Mannix you were thinking of?

The people we're talking about, already have carry permits and are carrying concealed all over Colorado right now. Do you assume they go crazy the minute they get on campus and shoot up the Biology building where they didn't shoot up the train station off campus?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. That sounds like a Brady fantasy..
Like "Wild Wild West" and "blood in the streets".

Wild statements, that has no basis at ALL, in fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. Please let us know where that has occured in the past...
You folks keep hypothesizing... and it keeps not happening.

How mysterious... to the ignorant masses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
27. "Imagine" is a remarkbly apt choice of wording
Because there have actually been instances of mass shootings in which bystanders either had firearms on their persons, or were able to get them from their cars. In none of these instances is there any indication that so much as a single shot was fired that wasn't at or by the active shooter.

So the situation in which the hypothetical events you describe could potentially have come about has already occurred more than once, and your scenario did not occur in any of them. Friendly word of advice: an ounce of evidence beats a ton of speculation, and lessons learned at the College of
It Stands To Reason don't tend to fly very far in this sub-forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
31. Because...
the police, (you know, the only ones special/professional enough to have guns) won't be able to tell the difference between an active shooter an armed would-be victim.

Seems if they can't make that distinction, then they ain't so competent after all, are they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. Don't expect a reply to your last sentence.
Awkward observations like that tend to be studiously ignored...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
35. Hasn't happened in real life.
There have been several real life mass shootings that were stopped by armed citizens. Your absurd fantasy has never happened. By posting such a fantasy you demonstrate that you know very little about how real life defensive gun uses happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
37. There'll be blood in the carrels and in the student union!
OH NOES!!!

You are aware that at least three states allow students to carry on campus and this hasn't happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
38. History shows
Edited on Sat Jun-26-10 04:26 PM by one-eyed fat man
From a practical standpoint that is actually pretty unlikely. At Columbine it was hours before the first SWAT team member actually entered the building, AFTER the shooting had stopped.

At Virginia Tech, campus police "secured a perimeter" around the building so Cho was able to wander about for half an hour leisurely shooting people before the SWAT team showed up.

In the incidents in Mississippi and Appalachian School of Law the armed faculty or students had the situation contained and there was little or no confusion when the cops arrived.

While it is trite, it is true, when seconds count cops are only minutes away. The national average hovering around 8 minutes for priority calls in major metropolitan areas. Many cities are worse.

The Detroit Police Department reported today that its officers' average response time to priority 911 calls fell nearly 28%, from 34 minutes to 24, between last month and March 2009.

Read more: http://detroit.blogs.time.com/2010/04/19/in-detroit-improved-911-response-times/#ixzz0rzmS1nk2

Some rural areas have counties bigger than some eastern states and if the cops had a helicopter they couldn't get there in 8 minutes. Even here in a relatively developed county after midnight there is only one Sheriff's Deputy to patrol 630 square miles.

Odds are, even with cell phone in your hand, the police responding in record breaking time, the police will only arrive in time to draw a chalk outline around your corpse, unless you possess some means of defense yourself, along with the skill and the willingness to use it, then they will take your statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. The police response at Virginia Tech was actually a lot better than that
As I recall, the police reached Norris Hall within two or three minutes, but what delayed their entry into the building was Cho's having chained all the exterior doors shut, and it took about ten minutes for someone with a breaching shotgun to show up.

It has to be acknowledged that police procedures with regard to "active shooters" are constantly evolving. At Columbine, the SOP was for the responding patrol officers to hang back and wait for the SWAT team; that practice was discarded because it allowed the shooter too much time to wreak mayhem unchallenged. By the time of Virginia Tech and Binghamton, SOP had become to wait to assemble a scratch team of three or four patrol officers before going in; that too proved too slow. The idea is now catching on that the first one or two patrol officer on the scene should go in as soon as they arrive on the scene (http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/articles/1695125-Ohio-trainer-makes-the-case-for-single-officer-entry-against-active-killers/). Part of the problem there is that with the huge number of disparate law enforcement agencies across the country, you can't be entirely certain how up to date your police or sheriff's department's procedures are.

The interesting point about the "single-officer entry" response is that the arguments in favor of it actually apply at least as much, if not more so, to armed private citizens who may already be present. From the Police One article:
Borsch, who logged 17 years as a part-time SWAT team member before retiring from street work, has analyzed more than 90 active-shooter incidents on the basis of data largely ferreted out from Internet reports. Most involved schools and colleges, but workplaces, shopping malls, churches and other public places are also represented. Among his findings that have helped shape his tactical thinking:

• 98% of active killers act alone.

• 80% have long guns, 75% have multiple weapons (about 3 per incident), and they sometimes bring hundreds of extra rounds of ammunition to the shooting site.

• Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%.

• They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”

• “They absolutely control life and death until they stop at their leisure or are stopped.” They do not take hostages, do not negotiate.

• They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”

• 90% commit suicide on-site. “Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.”

Because active shooters seem so intent on killing, it’s often difficult to convince first responders that “this bad guy is one of the easiest man-with-gun encounters they will ever have,” Borsch observes. “Most officers have already faced worse opponents from a personal safety standpoint than these creeps.”

<...>

Unlike conventional criminal predators, who often have no reluctance about attacking police, active shooters tend to be “cowardly,” Borsch says.

They choose unarmed, defenseless innocents for a reason: They have no wish to encounter someone who can hurt them. They are personally risk- and pain-avoidant. The tracking history of these murderers has proved them to be unlikely to be aggressive with police. If pressed, they are more likely to kill themselves.” In his research, he has found no evidence of any LEO in the U.S. yet being wounded or killed in an active-shooting incident where mass murder was intended or accomplished.

Emphases in bold mine.

The salient argument, then, is that "active shooters," for a number of reasons, aren't dangerous gunfighters, and that even a single person offering armed resistance can stop a mass shooting in progress; the earlier, the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. active shooter response
Edited on Sat Jun-26-10 07:43 PM by one-eyed fat man
You are correct, there was a lot of ink in LE professional journals about responding to active shooters. In one sense it has almost come full circle.

Going back to the Texas tower shooter, it was a beat cop who climbed the stairs and took him out with a lowly .38 Special revolver. Granted there were civilians shooting from below affording him some cover, it was largely his doing what had to be done, because he was there first.

The Montreal shooting, intervention by the first officers on the scene changed the outcome.

Columbine and its aftermath is what caused the reassessment. Essentially the cops there did as they were trained. The secured a perimeter and waited. It has been pointed out that some of wounded bled to death waiting for help long after the shooters had killed themselves. I was recalling the cell phone footage on TV from Virginia Tech where the campus police were shooing people away from Norris Hall while you could hear gunshots. It was armed officers from the city and county that eventually entered the building, not the campus cops.

As you point out, until they are confronted they are content 'strike stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush.'

The perpetrators of mass shootings have, in every case, blatantly disregarded all gun prohibitions, rules, laws and signage. That mass shootings have been interrupted or ended by off-duty cops or citizens with concealed carry permits is fact. In most cases, the sooner someone takes the shooter under fire the better. Absent an escape, or a means to defend yourself, you can only hope somebody shows up to stop him or he kills himself before he gets to you.

And the part that needs to be hammered home:

• “They absolutely control life and death until they stop at their leisure or are stopped.” They do not take hostages, do not negotiate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. Great website. Bookmarked it. Thanks. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
49. You realize active shooter situations have been resolved by non-law enforcement
with firearms on school property before, without the police showing up and killing everyone right?

I mean, there's actual precedent that runs 180 degrees against your hysterical scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
51. No, you don't run around waving guns. You shoot them.
That you would make such a silly statement shows that you know next to nothing about self-defense, or defense of others, with a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
16. In an ideal world, I might agree with you
The problem is, we don't live in an ideal world, and there is plenty of evidence that so-called "gun free zones" cannot be relied upon to stop persons intent on nefarious activity from carrying a firearm onto a college or university campus. "Gun free zones" didn't stop the shootings at Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University, University of Alabama Huntsville, etc., nor has it prevented various armed robberies on University of Washington grounds, or the rape at gunpoint of a student at The Evergreen State College a couple of years ago, to name but a few examples.

It's not enough to say guns shouldn't be allowed on campus: you actually have to do something to enforce such a ban, or the only people you're going to disarm are the prospective victims of crime, not the criminals. Or am I supposed to think that someone already intent on committing a class A/1st degree felony is going be deterred by the threat of an additional charge for illegally carrying?

But institutions of higher learning are consistently unwilling to do what it takes, which would be to implement levels of security like those found in courthouses and penal facilities; they don't want "to turn the school into a fortress." Which means any gun ban is in effect worthless, in that it'll only be obeyed by people who weren't intent on committing a violent crime with a firearm in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Any collage can be a "gun free zone" only if
They surround the campus with a barrier, install check points with metal detectors, full body searches and searches of ALL bags and packages. ID cards to be issued and carried at all times, spot checks and roving search areas. Also the Administration will be held legally and civilly liable if ANY weapon is used on campus.

Then you MIGHT have a gun free campus.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
20. Okay, look at it this way.
My girlfriend is a college student. Fortunately, her campus is pretty safe, but if it weren't, I'd feel more comfortable with her being able to carry a weapon than just trusting fate that she won't attract the attention of some idiot fratboy who then decides to rape her. The same would be true if I had a daughter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
23. I hope CU fails miserably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
28. Ah yes, the college campus.
Bastion of freedom and free thinking.

As long as its the freedom WE want, right?

Sorry, we are not talking about children, here. College students, USUALLY are adults. Once they are over 21, and licensed by the state to carry, why should they not be allowed to carry on campus?

Why do you think there should never ever be guns on a college campus?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
33. Here is the problem with your stance.
Your law would only be obeyed by law-abiding people. A wacko with mass murder on his mind will not be deterred by your rules. But he may be deterred by a legally armed citizen. There have already been several mass-shootings that were stopped in the early stages by a legally armed citizen.

Perhaps you may wish to notice that mass-shootings happen ONLY in so-called gun-free zones.

The only students that would be armed would be those who had passed a very strict sceening process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. "Your law would only be obeyed by law-abiding people."

The blind bias of so many pro-"control" folks precludes them from grasping a large number of excruciatingly simple principles.

Among these, perhaps the most conspicuous is the one you have cited here GSC.

The nonsensical belief that the mere possession of a firearm corrodes the character of the owner to the extent that he/she "becomes" a killer is astoundingly pervasive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
36. I'll give you this much
At least you stayed around and posted a few replies instead of doing the typical drive-by troll-post. Bonus points for not replying with the ever-so-tired Bradyisms as the regular crowd of antis do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-26-10 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
40. At a minimum, some of the school staff or professors should be armed ...
You could even have higher requirements for the armed individuals on a college or school campus than for the average concealed carry permit. For example, you might require the holder of a college or school carry permit pass a course designed around school shootings.

SWAT teams are great but by the time they arrive, deploy and make entry many innocent people can be dead.

All too often, an individual with a severe mental problem chooses a gun free zone such as a school or college campus as his shooting gallery. He realizes he can rack up a high score before he is threatened. The fact that some people on a campus are armed and don't wear uniforms or display the firearms in an obvious manner may help to discourage a shooter.

I don't know if you are aware that guns have stopped school shootings in the past. Here is just one example.


Pearl High School shooting

The Pearl High School shooting was a school shooting that occurred on October 1, 1997 at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, United States. The gunman, 16-year-old Luke Woodham (born February 5, 1981), killed two students and injured seven others at his high school. Before the shooting at Pearl High School began, Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned his mother to death in his home.

***snip***

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and a trenchcoat,<1> he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. He went on to wound seven others before leaving through school and intending to drive off the campus. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car. Then Myrick demanded "Why did you shoot my kids?". Woodham replied "Life has wronged me, sir".<2>emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting


The situation might have ended quicker had the assistant principal not had to go to his car to get his firearm.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #40
50. The dichotomy that you would trust your child's mind with a teacher, but not his (or her) life
just boggles me.

I feel empowered to go about my day at work, with the idea that my child is safe at school, because people in the school are willing to fight to the death to protect my kid, should some dirtbag come in with guns and a funny idea.

I would feel even better if they were allowed to carry a tool that would improve their odds against such scumbags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-27-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. One of my grandsons had an excellent teacher in middle school ...
who had a concealed carry permit.

This fact came up during my conversation with her at a boy scout meeting and was just a passing comment. If some mentally deranged individual attacked the school she was in, I have a feeling that she would be willing to give her life to defend her students.

Far better if she had a chance against an armed shooter. Better yet, the shooter might chose a different target than her school if he knew he might encounter an armed teacher who would try to ruin his score.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar 01st 2024, 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC