[qkslvrsrfrboy]

If it is so much safer, than why do schools through out the country maintain the gun free zones?

students dont need to carry. I agree with SJ on whats been said before, allow faculty, dont allow students. Id say no to staff due to the fact that alot of staff members are students.

LUPD already carries. The best solution would be to just make them more of a presence around campus. Consistently walking hallways of academic buildings, etc..

I think the only place that would be a threat for someone to do a shooting would be convo. A shooter could walk in there and take out mass amounts of people very easily. And there is so many people in there, that even if concealed carry was allowed, it wouldnt be a deterrent.

You are also forgetting one of the key characteristics of the shooters at columbine, VT, NIU, etc. They all wanted to die. They all planned on killing themselves anyways, they basically just wanted to take a couple of people out with them. Is someone else having a gun really going to deter them from doing it?

[asforme]

If it is so much safer, than why do schools through out the country maintain the gun free zones?

Why are so many campuses across the country hostile to Intelligent Design? Secular universities typically uphold academic idealism while ignoring the facts.

students dont need to carry.

That's pretty high and mighty for you to determine the needs of other people whom you do not know, and have not met. Tell me, how did you get this insight into the lives of the entire student body?

I agree with SJ on whats been said before, allow faculty, dont allow students. Id say no to staff due to the fact that alot of staff members are students.

How do you justify dividing human beings into classes like this? How is it that faculty, by mere status of being faculty, should be able to provide for their own defense and others should not? We have adult commuter students who have done tours in Iraq. We have students from every conceivable background and who are many different stages of life, yet you take it upon yourself to determine who is and is not capable of defending themselves. The state has laid out specific requirements and they have been proven to be effective.

LUPD already carries. The best solution would be to just make them more of a presence around campus. Consistently walking hallways of academic buildings, etc..

Police officers are more likely to commit a crime than a Concealed Carry Permit holder, yet you trust them and not the group of citizens who is the least likely demographic to ever commit any crime.

I think the only place that would be a threat for someone to do a shooting would be convo. A shooter could walk in there and take out mass amounts of people very easily. And there is so many people in there, that even if concealed carry was allowed, it wouldnt be a deterrent.

Having more people potentially carrying is not a deterrent? Please explain.

You are also forgetting one of the key characteristics of the shooters at columbine, VT, NIU, etc. They all wanted to die. They all planned on killing themselves anyways, they basically just wanted to take a couple of people out with them. Is someone else having a gun really going to deter them from doing it?

Yes, armed victims will still be a deterrent. Notice how they all shot themselves when they knew the police were close. They want to go out in a blaze of glory, they want to make a name for themselves and then they want to end their own life. An armed victim can ruin everything. If they just wanted to commit suicide, then they would just shoot themselves.

[SuperJon]

Allow faculty and staff.

Don't allow students.

I'm done.

Why not commuter students?

Because commuter students are still students and go through the same exact crap as residential students. They just happen to live off campus.

You're not going to persuade me on this issue. It's a moot point to even try. I'm all for your rights. However, in regards to where I go to school and where I work, I don't want students carrying guns. As an alumnus of the school, a current student, and an employee, I feel it's my right to complain about this if it happens. Just like it's the right of alumni across the country to choose not to send their sons and daughters here because of this if it were to pass. Just like it is the right of students to consider transferring if this were to pass.

I love Jerry Jr. I have a better relationship with him than most people and I respect his opinions. I respect that he is giving you guys the time of day to even have the board of trustees discuss the issue. However, I will be absolutely against it if this school allows its students to carry guns in the classroom. There is absolutely no need for it and it's irresponsible at best.

[pbow]

students dont need to carry.

That's pretty high and mighty for you to determine the needs of other people whom you do not know, and have not met. Tell me, how did you get this insight into the lives of the entire student body?

aren't you doing the exact same thing??? I have no problem with people having guns, but having my fellow classmates being allowed to pack heat around campus is a ludicrous idea at best

[asforme]

students dont need to carry.

That's pretty high and mighty for you to determine the needs of other people whom you do not know, and have not met. Tell me, how did you get this insight into the lives of the entire student body?

aren't you doing the exact same thing??? I have no problem with people having guns, but having my fellow classmates being allowed to pack heat around campus is a ludicrous idea at best

I am not determining anyone ease's need to do anything. I am willing to allow people to determine their own needs and I am willing to trust the screening methods of the state that have been proven to be extremely effective, even more effective than the screening methods used for admittance into the police academy. The fellow classmates who are affected by this rule are peacefully carrying their weapons off campus the same places you frequent.

I would love to hear some type of factual data that shows any evidence that these students would somehow turn into irresponsible menaces by continuing the same daily routines that they already do off campus as responsible citizens. But so far no one has been able to offer anything but emotional responses and stereotypical generalizations. Hopefully the administration and the board of trustees will base their decisions on data and facts and follow the example of 40 states and 11 campuses nationwide that have become safer as a result of allowing concealed carry by law abiding, state permitted, citizens.

[qkslvrsrfrboy]

Only 11 campuses nationwide?

Thats not saying much to help your case, how many thousands of campuses have chosen not to allow concealed carry? Im sure they are all pretty smart as well.

And I would hope that if the administration does go off date and fact they add in the data and facts of the number of students against this as opposed to those who are in favor of it.

And the states rules as far as allowing someone to carry a gun are fine, but they dont say "And a student needs to have a gun in class just in case..."

Data and fact show how often and regular women get breast cancer, that doesnt mean that all women get their breasts removed to stay safe

[asforme]

Only 11 campuses nationwide?

Thats not saying much to help your case, how many thousands of campuses have chosen not to allow concealed carry? Im sure they are all pretty smart as well.

And I would hope that if the administration does go off date and fact they add in the data and facts of the number of students against this as opposed to those who are in favor of it.

And the states rules as far as allowing someone to carry a gun are fine, but they dont say "And a student needs to have a gun in class just in case..."

Data and fact show how often and regular women get breast cancer, that doesnt mean that all women get their breasts removed to stay safe

Public opinion is not factual data, it is simply what most people believe. Polls do not indicate truth or what is the best decision.

Liberty is one of very few campuses that will even allow discussion on the topic of intelligent design, popular opinion of what schools are currently doing is not any indicator of what is the right decision either.

Factual data is looking at the results, not popular opinion. The results are that the crime reports for campuses that allow concealed carry make LU look dangerous.

The states don't say that anyone "needs" to have a gun, but they allow citizens who choose to provide for their own self defense the ability to do so. We are not trying to control anyone else's decision, no one should have a gun who doesn't want one. You on the other hand are trying to regulate our lives because of your baseless feelings.

To follow your analogy, we're not forcing anyone to cut off their breasts, everyone else can do what they want, but you have no right to tell others that they can't take whatever precautions they choose to provide for their own safety.

[newandimproved]

I still don't understand how this right trumps other rights that are sacrificed by students everyday if you decide to be a student at liberty...you can have your opinion and try your best to change it...but in the end it is LU's right as a private institution what their staff and students are permitted to do...and that is what it comes down to...and there is no way LU will allow guns on campus...it just won't happen

[qkslvrsrfrboy]

Only 11 campuses nationwide?

Thats not saying much to help your case, how many thousands of campuses have chosen not to allow concealed carry? Im sure they are all pretty smart as well.

And I would hope that if the administration does go off date and fact they add in the data and facts of the number of students against this as opposed to those who are in favor of it.

And the states rules as far as allowing someone to carry a gun are fine, but they dont say "And a student needs to have a gun in class just in case..."

Data and fact show how often and regular women get breast cancer, that doesnt mean that all women get their breasts removed to stay safe

Public opinion is not factual data, it is simply what most people believe. Polls do not indicate truth or what is the best decision.

Liberty is one of very few campuses that will even allow discussion on the topic of intelligent design, popular opinion of what schools are currently doing is not any indicator of what is the right decision either.

Factual data is looking at the results, not popular opinion. The results are that the crime reports for campuses that allow concealed carry make LU look dangerous.

The states don't say that anyone "needs" to have a gun, but they allow citizens who choose to provide for their own self defense the ability to do so. We are not trying to control anyone else's decision, no one should have a gun who doesn't want one. You on the other hand are trying to regulate our lives because of your baseless feelings.

To follow your analogy, we're not forcing anyone to cut off their breasts, everyone else can do what they want, but you have no right to tell others that they can't take whatever precautions they choose to provide for their own safety.

What Im trying to say about the majority opinion of LU students, is that you, by giving yourself and a handful of other students the right to do what you want, are sacrificing the safety of the students and faculty and staff of the school.

Regardless of what facts you present, the fact of the matter is the majority of students would not feel safe knowing there are guns in class and that Liberty allows it.

Do you really feel that unsafe without your gun? When you sit in class without it, are you really sitting there panicking because you werent allowed to bring your gun to class with you? Maybe you should transfer, you have a legit reason. Or maybe stop pissing people off and having them leave you with the thought your life is in danger.

[asforme]

I still don't understand how this right trumps other rights that are sacrificed by students everyday if you decide to be a student at liberty...you can have your opinion and try your best to change it...but in the end it is LU's right as a private institution what their staff and students are permitted to do...and that is what it comes down to...and there is no way LU will allow guns on campus...it just won't happen

Nobody said our right trumps others, I believe first and foremost in property rights. If I didn't I would be carrying anyway with no respect for the University's rules. However, all of the other practices that students forfeit the ability to do on campus are for well founded reasons. Alcohol is dangerous and leads to reckless behavior and has no positive effects except for enjoyment and recreation. The same is true of nearly every other rule LU has in place. However, data analysis provides hard evidence that prohibiting licensed concealed carry does nothing to increase safety and in fact make the campus more dangerous by providing criminals with easy victims. The "rights that are sacrificed by students everyday" as you put it, contribute many negative effects and no positives effects to the university if permitted. This "right" is completely different, it is not about having fun drinking or having sex, it is about campus safety and being able to defend ourselves.

[qkslvrsrfrboy]

I mean look at this thread alone, of all the different people posting their opinions on this matter, from different schools, from different states, the only person I can think of with an opinion in favor of it is you, asforme.

And im from Illinois, about twenty minutes away from NIU. I have several friends that go there. They still dont allow concealed carry on campus even after what has happened (that should show you there are obviously better solutions than allowing guns in class for safety) as well as the fact that my friends who were in school when that happened feel just as safe without a gun.

I also went to highschool at Merced Highschool, in Merced, CA. If you google that you will find it is a pretty heavily gang populater area. The school averages 5 fights a day. Multiple times there have been gang fights that resulted in gun shoot outs, on campus, while I went there. I wouldnt feel safer just because I had a gun on me at that school. And, even when people knew the other gang had guns, they still went after them with their own.

If someone really wants to do a school shooting and go through the halls with a shotgun, they arent going to give a **** about how many other people might have a gun.

Allowing the concealed carry on campus would do absolutely nothing across the board with the exception of giving you and less than 1% of the rest of people on campus a false sense of security and the ability to feel macho.

Some of us dont rely on things of the world for safety, rather, we rely on God for safety, following after Doc's mindset that you aint gonna die until God says so. It doesnt matter whether or not you have a gun, Gods going to kill you when he wants, how he wants, no matter what.

[qkslvrsrfrboy]

I still don't understand how this right trumps other rights that are sacrificed by students everyday if you decide to be a student at liberty...you can have your opinion and try your best to change it...but in the end it is LU's right as a private institution what their staff and students are permitted to do...and that is what it comes down to...and there is no way LU will allow guns on campus...it just won't happen

Nobody said our right trumps others, I believe first and foremost in property rights. If I didn't I would be carrying anyway with no respect for the University's rules. However, all of the other practices that students forfeit the ability to do on campus are for well founded reasons. Alcohol is dangerous and leads to reckless behavior and has no positive effects except for enjoyment and recreation. The same is true of nearly every other rule LU has in place. However, data analysis provides hard evidence that prohibiting licensed concealed carry does nothing to increase safety and in fact make the campus more dangerous by providing criminals with easy victims. The "rights that are sacrificed by students everyday" as you put it, contribute many negative effects and no positives effects to the university if permitted. This "right" is completely different, it is not about having fun drinking or having sex, it is about campus safety and being able to defend ourselves.

You agreed earlier that convocaton was a vulnerable place because someone could walk in there and shoot everyone. If concealed carry is permissible, im going to fight for not forcing people to go to convo, because its an unsafe environment and the students would be safer if they werent there. And, if the campus is so dangerous, then we shouldnt be required to stay on it, so curfew should be gone, because the longer we are off campus the safer we are. The school would have no grounds for keeping those rules in place due to the precedent you are using to allow concealed carry.

[asforme]

What Im trying to say about the majority opinion of LU students, is that you, by giving yourself and a handful of other students the right to do what you want, are sacrificing the safety of the students and faculty and staff of the school.

This is what I've been waiting for, now please provide a citation from a reputable source. Every piece of data points to the fact that concealed carry does not sacrifice any safety, and it always results in a safer environment for everyone, not just those who carry.

Regardless of what facts you present, the fact of the matter is the majority of students would not feel safe knowing there are guns in class and that Liberty allows it.

Feeling safe is not being safe. This is what I've been talking about, everyone I have talked to who has been against this has based their entire opinion on feelings and emotions without any facts to back them up.

Secondly, they would not know there are guns in the class, that's why it's concealed carry. It stays hidden and nobody knows it's there. The odds are that if the rule changes, it will be news for a little while and then most students wont have a clue what the rules are and will be oblivious to whether or not concealed weapons are allowed (of course there could already be guns in the class carried by criminals, but hey as long as they feel safe, right?).

Do you really feel that unsafe without your gun? When you sit in class without it, are you really sitting there panicking because you werent allowed to bring your gun to class with you? Maybe you should transfer, you have a legit reason. Or maybe stop pissing people off and having them leave you with the thought your life is in danger.

Do you and these other students really feel that unsafe whenever they're somewhere that guns aren't prohibited? When they crowd into the dollar theater and are sitting next to me and my gun are they panicking because I was allowed in? Maybe they should stop going to movies, walmart, Sundae Grille, Macadoos, Hardees or any other public place or street in Lynchburg.

[qkslvrsrfrboy]

What Im trying to say about the majority opinion of LU students, is that you, by giving yourself and a handful of other students the right to do what you want, are sacrificing the safety of the students and faculty and staff of the school.

This is what I've been waiting for, now please provide a citation from a reputable source. Every piece of data points to the fact that concealed carry does not sacrifice any safety, and it always results in a safer environment for everyone, not just those who carry.

Regardless of what facts you present, the fact of the matter is the majority of students would not feel safe knowing there are guns in class and that Liberty allows it.

Feeling safe is not being safe. This is what I've been talking about, everyone I have talked to who has been against this has based their entire opinion on feelings and emotions without any facts to back them up.

In terms of the safety of the students and faculty and staff of the school, regardless of what you say, if someone feels unsafe, then in their mind they are unsafe. Thus, your sacrificing the idea of safety.

In the end, people are going to feel less safe if concealed carry is allowed.

And as far as emotions and feelings, you feel like you are more safe when you have your gun on you. I feel less safe with guns in my class. I look at the statistical data that I stay away from guns as much as possible, and the stats show I have been 100% safe for 21 and a half years straight.

In the end, this thread is going nowhere, and will do nothing. Youll take your case to Jerry Jr. and the rest of the administration, and being the Logical and Responsible people will not approve of it.

Even if in some sort of bizarre turn of events concealed carry is allowed on campus, it wont last long. Alumni, current students, parents of students, and others wont stand for it and the ruling will be reversed.

You are only considering your own desires, feelings, and emotions, and not considering the overwhelming percent of those in opposition of this.

You seem to have alot of facts and numbers and research, so would you mind pulling up the 11 schools nationwide that allow concealed carry on campus and show us the crime rates from before concealed carry was allowed compared to after concealed carry was allowed.

[asforme]

I mean look at this thread alone, of all the different people posting their opinions on this matter, from different schools, from different states, the only person I can think of with an opinion in favor of it is you, asforme.

As I said before, the popular decision is not necessarily the right decision. This online community is also a very small sample size. The national Students for Concealed Carry has over 30,000 members.

And im from Illinois, about twenty minutes away from NIU. I have several friends that go there. They still dont allow concealed carry on campus even after what has happened (that should show you there are obviously better solutions than allowing guns in class for safety)

Illinois is one of 2 states that has no concealed carry law, the school couldn't do so if they wanted to.

as well as the fact that my friends who were in school when that happened feel just as safe without a gun.

So now you're blatantly admitting that as long as the students feel safe it doesn't matter if they actually are. There was a gunman shooting people in their school, but your friends felt safe so who cares?

I also went to highschool at Merced Highschool, in Merced, CA. If you google that you will find it is a pretty heavily gang populater area. The school averages 5 fights a day. Multiple times there have been gang fights that resulted in gun shoot outs, on campus, while I went there. I wouldnt feel safer just because I had a gun on me at that school. And, even when people knew the other gang had guns, they still went after them with their own.

And now you're admitting that criminals already are carrying guns regardless of the rules and laws, but it's okay, you felt safe.

If someone really wants to do a school shooting and go through the halls with a shotgun, they arent going to give a **** about how many other people might have a gun.

Then why do mass shootings always occur in a "gun free zone"? Theres large groups of people crowded together at gun shows, and they could even stock up on ammo while shooting, but it hasn't happened.

Allowing the concealed carry on campus would do absolutely nothing across the board with the exception of giving you and less than 1% of the rest of people on campus a false sense of security and the ability to feel macho.

All the data points in the opposite direction, I don't know what more to say, sorry about your feelings but they're baseless and irrelevant.

Some of us dont rely on things of the world for safety, rather, we rely on God for safety, following after Doc's mindset that you aint gonna die until God says so. It doesnt matter whether or not you have a gun, Gods going to kill you when he wants, how he wants, no matter what.

Good then I can get rid of this fire extinguisher that's taking up space under my sink and stop wearing that uncomfortable seatbelt. Thanks for the tip!

[qkslvrsrfrboy]

also keep in mind those same laws that restrict madmen from getting guns allow madmen to get guns everyday

[SuperJon]

Here's the deal: You can throw out whatever statistics you want and it's not going to change the opinions of most people on this argument. Statistics can be skewed to say whatever someone wants. The fact of the matter is I don't feel safe allowing students to carry guns to the place where I work. I'm 22, a college graduate, and currently in graduate school and I wouldn't trust 90% of the people I'm around on a daily basis to carry a gun around.

[asforme]

The fact of the matter is I don't feel safe allowing students to carry guns to the place where I work.

Well at least we've gotten somewhere. I came into this hoping for a debate where someone could show me some kind of data analysis to backup your opinion, but it's really about your feelings. Regardless of how decisions should be made, ultimately feelings do play a large role so it is still an important issue, I just hoped it wasn't the only issue.

So regarding your feelings, do you feel unsafe in public places all over Virginia where students are carrying concealed weapons? Has it influenced your decision making in any way? I really want to understand these feelings, because ultimately if permit holders are going to gain acceptance, these feelings must be addressed.

[SuperJon]

In the public places you speak of, the students are likely not experiencing the same heated emotions that go on every day on college campuses. I can't accept allowing guns to be present around the extreme emotions that college kids go through. I'm sorry, I just can't. I've tried to get my mind around it and I've talked to plenty of people, on both sides, and I just can't get my mind around it. I've defended it to people who were against it and I've questioned it to people who were for it just to hear both sides of the argument. At the end of the day, I can't accept having guns in the hands of college students on a college campus.


Most examples I could give would be extremet likely would never happen. However, it's much more likely if students were permitted to have the weapons. Yes, if someone really wanted to do something, they would, but the availability increases the chances of something happening and I can't be supportive of that.

[qkslvrsrfrboy]

I dont feel unsafe when I go to walmart or other places around town where concealed carry is allowed. A college classroom is different, though. If im paying $30,000 a year to go to school, I dont want other students in my class to have a gun.

The fact of the matter is that (1) Concealed handguns would detract from a healthy learning environment;(2) More guns on campus would create additional risk for students;(3) Shooters would not be deterred by concealed carry permit holders;(4) Concealed carry permit holders are not always “law-abiding” citizens, and (5) Concealed carry permit holders are not required to have law enforcement training.

In 2003, there were 11,920 total gun homicides in the United States, but only 10 total murders on the nation’s college campuses.

As far as the background checks, The bottom line is that even if someone passes a background check and qualifies for a concealed carry permit (if their state requires one), that person is not necessarily a law-abiding citizen. They could have a substantial criminal record involving misdemeanor offenses, or a history
of mental illness. It is notable that campus shooters including Gang Lu, Wayne Lo, Robert Flores, Biswanath Halder, Seung-Hui Cho, Latina Williams and Steven Kazmierczak passed background checks in acquiring the firearms used in their attacks. Some possessed a concealed carry permit in their home states; others would have qualified had they applied. Finally, individuals who are prohibited under federal law from owning or purchasing firearms can still pass a background check (and potentially qualify for a concealed carry permit) if their disqualifying records have not been transferred to NICS.

A Violence Policy Center study found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81% higher than the general population of Texas aged 21 and older (offenses included 279 assaults, 671 unlawfully carrying a weapon, and 172 deadly conduct/discharge of a
firearm). Between January 1, 1996 and August 31, 2001, Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 5,314 crimes—including murder, rape, kidnapping and theft. A 2007 investigation by the Florida Sun-Sentinel found that the state’s permit system had granted concealed carry permits to more than 1,400 individuals who pled guilty or no contest to a felony, 216 individuals with outstanding warrants, 128 individuals with active domestic violence restraining orders, and six registered sex offenders.

[qkslvrsrfrboy]

I should also clarify, im not against the idea of having guns. Im not against concealed carry laws. i have no problem with the way things are currently set up, that students can store guns in a locker at LUPD and take them out when they need them.

What im arguing about is the fact that a student does not need a gun in his dorm or on their person in class. There is no need for that.

[newandimproved]

I still don't understand how this right trumps other rights that are sacrificed by students everyday if you decide to be a student at liberty...you can have your opinion and try your best to change it...but in the end it is LU's right as a private institution what their staff and students are permitted to do...and that is what it comes down to...and there is no way LU will allow guns on campus...it just won't happen

Nobody said our right trumps others, I believe first and foremost in property rights. If I didn't I would be carrying anyway with no respect for the University's rules. However, all of the other practices that students forfeit the ability to do on campus are for well founded reasons. Alcohol is dangerous and leads to reckless behavior and has no positive effects except for enjoyment and recreation. The same is true of nearly every other rule LU has in place. However, data analysis provides hard evidence that prohibiting licensed concealed carry does nothing to increase safety and in fact make the campus more dangerous by providing criminals with easy victims. The "rights that are sacrificed by students everyday" as you put it, contribute many negative effects and no positives effects to the university if permitted. This "right" is completely different, it is not about having fun drinking or having sex, it is about campus safety and being able to defend ourselves.

there are studies that show drinking a glass of wine a day can prevent heart disease...sounds like a good enough reason to me to make it ok for student 21 or older to drink...

ok..so I don't really believe that. But that is the kind of logic I see you using. You can make studies and numbers read any way you like...but that still does not mean Liberty is wrong in their stance that they do not want guns on campus...

we will not see eye to eye on this...and that is fine. I have no problem with you carrying your gun around town with you...I mean I personally do not see the point...but that is not my call, and it is your right as a US citizen to do so in a lawful way. On the flip side Liberty has every right in the world to ban guns on campus, and I believe that is smart.....you and I just see it differently...oh well

[asforme]

I dont feel unsafe when I go to walmart or other places around town where concealed carry is allowed. A college classroom is different, though. If im paying $30,000 a year to go to school, I dont want other students in my class to have a gun.

The fact of the matter is that (1) Concealed handguns would detract from a healthy learning environment;(2) More guns on campus would create additional risk for students;(3) Shooters would not be deterred by concealed carry permit holders;(4) Concealed carry permit holders are not always “law-abiding” citizens, and (5) Concealed carry permit holders are not required to have law enforcement training.

In 2003, there were 11,920 total gun homicides in the United States, but only 10 total murders on the nation’s college campuses.

As far as the background checks, The bottom line is that even if someone passes a background check and qualifies for a concealed carry permit (if their state requires one), that person is not necessarily a law-abiding citizen. They could have a substantial criminal record involving misdemeanor offenses, or a history
of mental illness. It is notable that campus shooters including Gang Lu, Wayne Lo, Robert Flores, Biswanath Halder, Seung-Hui Cho, Latina Williams and Steven Kazmierczak passed background checks in acquiring the firearms used in their attacks. Some possessed a concealed carry permit in their home states; others would have qualified had they applied. Finally, individuals who are prohibited under federal law from owning or purchasing firearms can still pass a background check (and potentially qualify for a concealed carry permit) if their disqualifying records have not been transferred to NICS.

A Violence Policy Center study found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81% higher than the general population of Texas aged 21 and older (offenses included 279 assaults, 671 unlawfully carrying a weapon, and 172 deadly conduct/discharge of a
firearm). Between January 1, 1996 and August 31, 2001, Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 5,314 crimes—including murder, rape, kidnapping and theft. A 2007 investigation by the Florida Sun-Sentinel found that the state’s permit system had granted concealed carry permits to more than 1,400 individuals who pled guilty or no contest to a felony, 216 individuals with outstanding warrants, 128 individuals with active domestic violence restraining orders, and six registered sex offenders.

Alright, now here is at least an attempt at using some data, though it is highly inaccurate. But I applaud your ability to find the Students for Gun Free Schools.

Since you have thrown out a stock argument, without even citing the source or quoting it (http://www.studentsforgunfreeschools.org/) here is a stock reply. Please do the courtesy I have done you and read it.

from http://www.concealedcampus.org/sccc_package.pdf

1) CONCEALED HANDGUNS WOULD NOT DETRACT
FROM A HEALTHY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
An opponent of concealed carry on campus isn’t doing his or her job unless he or she
argues, “Concealed handguns would detract from a healthy learning environment.” The SGFS
essay contends, “If concealed carry were allowed on America’s campuses, there is no doubt that
many students would feel uncomfortable about not knowing whether their professors and/or
fellow students were carrying handguns.” This argument not only ignores the fact that, in the
absence of metal detectors and X-ray machines at every campus entrance, students already have
no way of knowing who, if anyone, is carrying a gun; it also assumes that students would be
made more uncomfortable by the presence of guns on campus than they are by the presence of
guns off campus.
In most U.S. states approximately 1% of the population (one person out of 100) is
licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Are students afraid to sit in 300-seat movie theaters
knowing that, statistically speaking, as many as three of their fellow moviegoers may be legally
carrying concealed handguns? Are they afraid to walk through crowded shopping malls knowing
that one out of every hundred shoppers they pass is potentially carrying a legally concealed
handgun? Or do they go through their daily routines, both on and off campus, never giving much
thought to what is concealed beneath the clothing and within the handbags of the people they
pass? Does SGFS honestly contend that students on the eleven U.S. college campuses where
concealed carry is currently allowed (all nine public colleges in the state of Utah, Colorado State
University, and Blue Ridge Community College in Weyers Cave, VA) are afraid to engage in
intelligent debate for fear that somebody nearby might have a gun? Does concealed carry
discourage debate on the floor of the state legislatures in Texas and Virginia and the other states
where it is allowed in the state capitol?
The SGFS essay points to a 1999 survey that asked 1500 respondents, “Do you think
regular citizens should be allowed to bring their guns [onto] college campuses?” This survey,
which asked only about “regular citizens” and made no distinction for concealed handgun license
holders, took place nine years ago, when America’s right-to-carry laws were still in their infancy
and before many current right-to-carry states adopted “shall-issue” licensing laws. At that time
very few Americans were familiar with the process or even the notion of obtaining a concealed
handgun license, and it is absurd to suggest that this outdated poll reflects current national
opinion on the rights of trained, licensed adults. However, accepting for the sake of argument
that a majority of the general public does oppose allowing concealed carry on college campuses,
what does that prove? Beyond the 1% who possess concealed handgun licenses, what percentage
of Americans can tell you the requirements to obtain a concealed handgun license in their state,
much less accurately comment on whether or not concealed carry leads to more or less crime?
Public opinion does not always dictate public policy on complicated issues of public safety. The
FDA does not poll the public on acceptable procedures for sanitizing meatpacking plants.


2) MORE GUNS ON CAMPUS WOULD CREATE LITTLE
IF ANY ADDITIONAL RISK FOR STUDENTS
The SGFS essay goes on to assert, “More guns on campus would create additional risk for
students.” Citing a study by the Brady Campaign, the essay points to “(1) The prevalence of
drugs and alcohol; (2) The risk of suicide and mental health issues; (3) The likelihood of gun
thefts, and; (4) An increased risk of accidental shootings.” The essay doesn’t mention that after
allowing concealed carry on campus for a combined total of more than seventy semesters, none
of the aforementioned eleven U.S. college have seen a single resulting incident of a student under
the influence of drugs or alcohol using or brandishing a weapon on campus, a single resulting
suicide, a single resulting gun theft, or a single resulting gun accident.
The essay points to a 2007 Columbia University study that concluded, “[N]early half of
America’s 5.4 million full-time college students abuse drugs or drink alcohol on binges at least
once a month;” however, the essay fails to differentiate between underclassmen and
upperclassmen. Since the age limit to obtain a concealed handgun license in most states is 21, it
seems only fair to note that a three-year study by The Task Force on College Drinking,
commissioned by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), found that
ages 18 through 21 is the period of heaviest alcohol consumption for most drinkers in the United
States, that college students under the age of 21 are more likely than older students to binge drink
and have alcohol related problems, and that the average levels of drinking drop off significantly
by the age of 23. In July of 2008 more than 100 university chancellors and college presidents,
recognizing that binge drinking is primarily a problem among students under the age of 21 and
convinced that college binge drinking occurs because students under the age of 21 are not
allowed to drink in the same safe, controlled environments as students over the age of 21, signed
on to the Amethyst Initiative, a movement aimed at creating a dialogue over the wisdom of the
national drinking age.
According to Dr. Robert D. Foss, manager of alcohol studies at the University of North
Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), “Almost everybody misperceives how much
college students actually drink. When people are asked to estimate it, they almost always way
overshoot the reality.” Between 1999 and 2003, HSRC conducted a study that used breathalyzers
(as opposed to the anonymous surveys used in the studies cited by SGFS) to gauge the drinking
habits of students at the University of North Carolina. According to Dr. Foss, “Our findings ran
counter to reports in the national media that portrayed excessive college student drinking as a
rampant epidemic.” The study found that two out of three students returning to their residences
on Friday and Saturday nights had not had anything to drink and that many of the remaining 1/3
had only had a few drinks. The rate of alcohol consumption during the rest of the week was
found to be much lower.
The SGFS essay also points to a 2002 Harvard University study that found that students
who have firearms at college are more likely to binge drink, drive while under the influence, use
illegal drugs, vandalize property, and get into trouble with the police. What the essay doesn’t
point out is that a comparison of the Harvard study’s data to concealed handgun licensing data
from that same period of time suggests that fewer (most likely far fewer) than 5% of the gun
owners surveyed were concealed handgun license holders. Studies* show that concealed
handgun license holders, unlike unlicensed gun owners, are significantly less likely than the
general population to engage in criminal behavior.
Despite all of these statistics, the issue of alcohol consumption and reckless behavior by
college students is a moot point—this is not a debate about keeping guns out of the hands of
college students. Allowing concealed carry on college campuses would not change the rules
about who can purchase a firearm or who can obtain a concealed handgun license. It also
wouldn’t change the rules at off-campus parties and bars, the places where individuals over the
age of 21 are most likely to consume alcohol. And it would not make it legal to carry a handgun
while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Changing the rules would simply allow the same
trained, licensed adults who carry concealed handguns, without incident when not on campus, to
do so on campus. There is no reason to assume that the same individuals who aren’t getting
drunk and shooting people outside of college campuses would suddenly get drunk and start
shooting people on college campuses.
SGFS’s arguments about suicide and the vulnerability of dorm rooms to theft carry very
little weight when viewed in light of the fact that this is not a debate about who can own or carry
a gun. The overwhelming majority of suicides are committed in the victim’s home. Under
current regulations, the only students prohibited from keeping firearms in their homes are
students living in on-campus housing. At most colleges, on-campus housing is occupied
primarily by freshmen and sophomores, students typically too young to obtain a concealed
handgun license. A comparison of housing statistics at the University of Texas (a major
university with over 50,000 students) to Texas concealed handgun licensing statistics shows a
probability of only 10 to 20 concealed handgun license holders living in on-campus housing.
Statistically speaking, how many of those ten to twenty individuals are likely to commit suicide
in a given year? As for theft, the vulnerability of dorms to theft does not necessitate a campus-
wide ban on concealed carry. There are a multitude of security options, from floor safes to safes
that bolt to bed frames to community gun lockups.
Concerns about accidental discharges are overblown, to say the least. Accidental
discharges of concealed firearms are very rare—particularly because modern firearms are
designed with safety in mind and because a handgun’s trigger is typically not exposed when it is
concealed—and only a small fraction of accidental discharges result in injury. It is silly to
suggest that citizens should be denied a right simply because that right is accompanied by a
negligible risk.


3) SHOOTERS MAY OR MAY NOT BE DETERRED BY
CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDERS, BUT
DETERRING SHOOTING SPREES IS ONLY ONE OF
SEVERAL POTENTIAL BENEFITS
SGFS goes on to argue, “Shooters would not be deterred by concealed carry permit
holders.” To quote Louisiana State Representative Ernest D. Wooton, speaking at the 2008
SCCC National Conference in Washington, D.C., “If we don’t try it, are we going to know?”
Though campus shooters are frequently suicidal, they are not simply suicidal—if they
were, they would simply shoot themselves at home and leave everyone else alone. Campus
shooters go on armed rampages because they misguidedly seek to make a point or attain infamy.
It’s hard to attain infamy if a concealed handgun license holder ends your shooting spree before it
begins. Even if the knowledge that concealed handgun license holders might be present isn’t
enough to deter all would-be gunmen, an attempted shooting spree thwarted by a licensee might
be enough to deter a few.
The SGFS essay points to two attacks on facilities where the shooters knew that law
enforcement officers would be present, as evidence that suicidal gunmen are not deterred by
armed resistance. Those particular shooters may not have been deterred, but they also didn’t
cause nearly as great a loss of life as is often caused by shooters in “gun free zones.” In those
two incidents, the shooters killed a combined total of five people, less than one sixth the total
body count from the Virginia Tech massacre.
The issue of concealed carry on college campuses is not just about preventing campus
shooting sprees. Though it’s the mass shootings that get the headlines, college campuses play
host to assaults, rapes, and every type of criminal activity found in the rest of society. The
question of whether or not concealed carry would deter would-be mass-shooters should not be
the determining factor in whether or not it is allowed on college campuses. Why should a 105 lb.
pound woman who is allowed the means to defend herself against a 250 lb. would-be rapist
outside of campus not be afforded that same right on campus? Why should a professor who is
allowed the means to defend himself at the local bank and at his neighborhood church be forced
to hide under his desk listening to gunshots getting closer, with no recourse but to hope and pray
the gunman doesn’t find him?


4) CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDERS ARE NOT
ALWAYS “LAW-ABIDING” CITIZENS, BUT THEY’RE
STATISTICALLY MORE LAW-ABIDING THAN MOST
Students for Gun Free Schools unnecessarily points out, “Concealed carry permit holders
are not always ‘law-abiding’ citizens.” This is true. Likewise, law enforcement officers, elected
officials, and clergy members are not always “law-abiding” citizens. Every segment of society
has its bad apples, but statistically speaking, concealed carry has fewer than most. Numerous
studies* by independent researchers and state agencies suggest that concealed handgun license
holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes. A
comparison of statistics** in the mid-nineties, when Florida was still one of the few shall-issue
states, found that Florida concealed handgun license holders were three times less likely to be
arrested than were New York City police officers.
Despite the fact that Students for Concealed Carry on Campus does not advocate
concealed carry by unlicensed individuals, SGFS finds it necessary to point out that Alaska and
Vermont do not require (though Alaska offers) a license to carry a concealed handgun. The
essay then goes on to erroneously suggest, “The primary requirement for obtaining a permit in
[the 38 shall-issue] states is to pass a background check through the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System.” In reality, many states, such as Texas, require applicants to submit
to extensive state and federal fingerprint and background checks that often take one to three
months (far from instant) to complete.
The essay further blurs the line between the requirements to purchase a firearm and the
requirements to obtain a concealed handgun license by stating, “The only misdemeanor
convictions that would prohibit someone from owning and purchasing firearms, however, are
those related to incidents of domestic violence. Someone who obtains a concealed carry permit
in a shall-issue state could have a rap sheet with other types of misdemeanor convictions,
including violent offenses.” The factors that can disqualify an individual from obtaining a
concealed handgun license vary from state to state, but most states place certain restrictions and
time limits on misdemeanor offenders. For instance, in the state of Texas you cannot obtain a
concealed handgun license if you have had any misdemeanor convictions greater than a traffic
citation in the past five years. A current license holder who commits a misdemeanor greater than
a traffic violation would immediately have his or her license revoked.
The SGFS essay refers to several mass-shooters and erroneously suggests that several of
them either possessed or would have qualified for concealed handgun licenses. For example, the
essay mentions Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech Shooter, even though his adjudication as a
danger to himself and others would have disqualified him from obtaining a concealed handgun
license in most shall-issue states. Contrary to the claims of SGFS, mental health rulings are
commonly considered by states when deciding whether or not to issue a concealed handgun
license.
Perhaps most discrediting of SGFS’s many claims is its citation of a widely discredited
2001 study by the Violence Policy Center, a highly biased gun control advocacy group. The
study claims that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related
offenses at a rate 81% higher than the general population of Texas age 21 and older, between
January 1, 1996, and August 31, 2001. This study, which took place during the first five years of
Texas’s concealed handgun licensing program, when police officers were not always clear on the
new weapons laws and often took a “better safe than sorry” approach to making arrests, focused
solely on arrests, not convictions. According to Texas Department of Corrections statistics from
that same period of time, Texas concealed handgun license holders were 7.6 times less likely
than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes (as opposed to the weapons crimes
researched by the Violence Policy Center). A four-year study by engineering statistician William
E. Sturdevant found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were 5.5 times less likely than
non-license holders to be convicted of violent crimes. According to statistics from the Texas
Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported by the San Antonio Express-
News in September 2000, Texas concealed handgun license holders were 14 times less likely
than the non-license holders to commit a crime of any kind and five times less likely to commit a
violent crime. The SGFS essay mentions murder as one of the crimes for which Texas concealed
handgun license holders were arrested during the course of the VPC study, but the essay fails to
mention that as of 2008 no Texas concealed handgun license holder has ever been convicted of
capital murder. This discrepancy between arrests and convictions is caused, in large part, by the
way law enforcement officers respond to a self-defense shooting. If the facts of a self-defense
shooting are not immediately evident, a shooter who acted within the letter of the law may still be
arrested for murder and held until investigators are able to sort out the sequence of events.
The SGFS essay concludes its attack on the integrity of concealed handgun license
holders by pointing to a 2007 investigation by the Florida Sun-Sentinel that purportedly found
more than 1,400 convicted felons in possession of Florida concealed handgun licenses. Though
the Florida licensing system may have a few cracks in its screening process, the cracks appear to
be relatively minor. Those 1,400 convicted felons constitute only about 0.1% of all Florida
concealed handgun license holders. And the cracks apparently aren’t causing problems.
Statistics show that Florida concealed handgun license holders are still significantly less likely
than non-license holders to commit violent crimes. In fact, according to Florida state agencies,
you are more than twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than by a concealed handgun
license holder in the state of Florida.
The truth is that possessing a concealed handgun license and/or having the right to legally
carry a firearm does not enable a person to carry a gun or commit a crime. There are no
checkpoints where officials screen for guns and check licenses. A person intent on carrying a
gun can easily do so throughout modern American society, including on college campuses,
regardless of whether or not he or she is licensed to do so. An individual engaged in criminal
activity is typically not concerned with the prospect of committing a misdemeanor (carrying a
concealed handgun without a license) on his or her way to commit a felony (armed robbery,
assault, rape, murder, etc).


5) CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDERS ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRAINING BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
For its final argument, the essay points out, “Concealed carry permit holders are not
required to have law enforcement training.” This is true. Concealed carry permit holders are not
required to have law enforcement training because they are not law enforcement officers. Law
enforcement officers do not go through academy training to learn to carry concealed handguns
for self-defense; they go through academy training to learn to be law enforcement officers.
Concealed handgun license holders have no need of most of the training received by law
enforcement officers. Concealed handgun license holders don't need to know how to drive police
cars at high speeds or how to kick down doors or how to conduct traffic stops or how to make
arrests or how to use handcuffs. And concealed handgun license holders definitely don't need to
spend weeks memorizing radio codes and traffic laws.
Contrary to what SGFS and other opponents of concealed carry might claim, concealed
handgun license holders don't need extensive tactical training because they are not charged with
protecting the public. Concealed handgun license holders don’t go looking for bad guys—it’s
not their job to act like amateur, one-man SWAT teams. All a concealed handgun license holder
needs to know is how to use his or her concealed handgun to stop an immediate threat of death or
serious bodily harm. That type of training can be accomplished in the one-day training courses
required to obtain a concealed handgun license in most states.
The SGFS essay accurately points out that police officers in the field typically hit their
intended targets approximately 25% of the time. What it fails to point out is that police officers
frequently encounter scenarios that a concealed handgun license holder would never encounter.
License holders do not chase bad guys down dark alleys or raid drug labs or engage in standoffs
with criminals barricaded inside buildings. According to experts on the issue, most self-defense
shootings occur at close range and are over in a matter of seconds.
Interestingly enough, law enforcement officers in most states are only required to
requalify with their weapons once a year, and in some states, such as Texas, the requalification
test for law enforcement officers varies very little from the shooting test that must be passed by

concealed handgun license applicants.
Not surprisingly, the SGFS essay presents the typical farfetched scenarios of self-defense
shootings resulting in “collateral damage” and of multiple students drawing weapons and finding
themselves unable to identify the actual “shooter” in prolonged shootouts. This ignores both the
findings of a 1997 FBI study*** that concluded that most shootouts last less than ten seconds and
the fact that the rate of concealed carry among individuals in their twenties is typically about one
half of one percent. How nine seconds of exchanged gunfire between two armed individuals
could possibly lead to greater loss of life than a nine-minute, uncontested execution-style
massacre, such as the one that occurred at Virginia Tech, is something Students for Gun Free
Schools, like most opponents of concealed carry on campus, doesn’t attempt to explain.
Likewise, they make no attempt to explain how one of these brief shootouts could lead to
multiple students drawing their weapons and losing track of the shooter, when statistically
speaking, only about one out of every 200 students would be armed. Given the fact that even a
huge 400-seat lecture hall would statistically contain only two students with concealed handgun
licenses, the chance of one of those armed students losing track of the actual shooter during a few
seconds of exchanged gunfire is highly unlikely.
Students for Gun Free Schools concludes its essay by suggesting that the relatively small
number of justified shooting deaths each year somehow proves that concealed carry is
ineffective. Like many opponents of concealed carry, they fail to realize that the key factor is not
the number of bad guys killed but, rather, the number of good guys saved. According to a 1991
FBI study****, less than one out of a thousand lawful defensive uses of a firearm results in the
death of the attacker. By that estimate, firearms are used almost five times more frequently to
save lives than to take lives in the U.S.
In the end, Students for Gun Free Schools’ arguments against concealed carry on campus,
like all arguments against concealed carry on campus, rely entirely on speculation, false
assumptions, and emotion. Most college campuses in America are surrounded by neighborhoods
where concealed handgun license holders, including college students, lawfully carry concealed
handguns at movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, office buildings, restaurants,
churches, banks, etc. Yet, we don’t hear of spates of accidental discharges or alcohol-fueled
shootings by licensees in those places. If the majority of college campuses are safer than their
surrounding areas because they don’t allow concealed carry on campus, why don’t we see higher
crime rates at the eleven U.S. colleges that do allow concealed carry on campus? After a
combined total of more than seventy semesters, why haven’t we seen any negative results on
those eleven campuses? There is absolutely no verifiable evidence to suggest that allowing
concealed carry on college campuses makes campuses any less safe; therefore, reason dictates
that current school policies and state laws against concealed carry on campus serve only to stack
the odds in favor of dangerous criminals who have no regard for school policy or state law.
SCCC simply seeks to take the advantage away from those who seek to harm the innocent.

[SuperJon]

Yeah, no one's reading that.

[JDUB]

so if you are in favor of staff and faculty having them but not students, what about students who are also staff?

also, what extreme emotions do college kids go through that regular people don't? i don't consider anything in my life extremely emotional, and there is nothing that i have been through in college that would have made me misuse a gun in any way had i had one on me. most of the crazy people that I know that I would be scared of pulling a gun in public already carry one in their car or on them, so for me that takes away that point.