Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concealed Carry on a college campus

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LPD003
    replied
    PS, let's just agree to disagree on this. I'm sick of anticipating a response. haha

    Leave a comment:


  • LPD003
    replied
    Maybe some common sense should go a long way here.

    Let 1, 2 or 3 students in a class of 30 have simunition guns. Give a student in the hall one as well and tell him he's the active shooter. Tell him to go into the classroom and start shooting as many kids as fast as he can.

    Let 0 students in a class of 30 have simunition guns. Give a student in the hall a simunition gun and tell him he's the active shooter. Tell him to go into the classroom and start shooting as many kids as fast as he can.

    This shouldn't be rocket science. You can do this 1 million times and your kid is going to have more of a chance to survive in a classroom if someone besides the shooter is armed. You can't argue with that.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLieguy
    replied
    Even if concealed carry cannot stop all psychopaths from killing there are plenty of instances where concealed carry has stopped a specific psychopath from killing more people including at least one at a church.

    Based on a collection of such incidents an active shooter will average one victim killed or injured every 10 seconds or so unless deterred. In most jurisdictions That's about 30 victims before the police respond.

    Civilian attempts to stop an active shooter might fail to stop the shooter, but I challenge you to produce some evidence that those attempts fail more than they succeed. You can't.

    I can guarantee you that NOT attempting to stop the shooter has a significantly lower chance of success.

    The whole idea of concealed carry relating to defense against an active shooter is tied to the concept is that the only way to stop these people is to kill them or cause them to select a softer target.

    Guns are not a symptom of psychopathic action any more than a bid lighter is a symptom of arson. Yours is a silly contention.

    There are several obvious differences between your position and mine.
    First and foremost is that there is a multitude of evidence both statistical and anecdotal on multiple levels that criminals acknowledge the deterrent factor of an armed citizenry despite your unsupported snarky commentate the contrary.

    Second lawfully armed citizens have actually stopped the actions of active shooters on more than one occasion. As a matter of fact, 75% of active shooters who are stopped, are stopped by civilians. Not the police. One can absolutely stop one of these monsters from killing people. We might not be able to prevent him from starting, but it has been proven that he can be stopped from completing his criminal act.

    Third, while I have never been a security guard at a gun range, I have some experience in dealing with armed and hostile individuals for a good number of years.

    Your analysis concerning the percentages and effectors related to the actions of combat soldiers engaging the enemy is superficial at best. You aren't even close to a reasonable understanding of the variables involved.

    You have certainly expressed your opinion eloquently. Unfortunately you haven't provided much at all in the way of facts to support your position.

    The simple fact is that the prohibition of concealed weapons on campus will have absolutely no deterrent effect on someone who intends to commit an unlawful act of violence. " No guns on campus" didn't work very well at all at Virginia Tech, did it?

    Leave a comment:


  • irish21
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLieguy View Post
    But Irish, this isn't about what you would want or what restrictions you arbitrarily decide are appropriate. It is patently unfair to place a stricter requirement upon CCW permit holders just because of where they work or go to school. Everyone should follow the same rules and meet the same qualifications.

    It is disingenuous to construct a statutory maze in which a lawfully armed citizen must change is route of travel and lock his firearm away or face arrest simply because he crosses an imaginary line on a sidewalk.

    It is stupid to argue that a persons inalienable right to self defense is somehow affected by geographic location.

    Post Offices, Court Houses, Wal Mart, Any posted area, College Campuses, Military Bases, Every other country in the world, Most malls, movie theaters, etc. Sorry, but that's the way the law is. That "unalienable" law, just got the hell alienated out of it

    You would probably be shocked to learn just how few of these "Combat Veterans", that you argue are somehow more qualified , are actually willing to fire a shot with intent to disable an enemy combatant. I have read that during the Normandy invasion the number was 25% or less.

    They found that was actually due in large part to training; in fact, something as little as the "type" of target people practice on. It's actually a pretty interesting change the type of target made.

    25% for WWII and the "circle" targets
    50% for Viet Nam and the "silhouette" targets
    75%+ for recent soldiers/LEO for the "detailed" targets

    Regardless of what you might expect or suspect, the fact is that in incidents where active shooters went unopposed they usually shoot or kill as many people as they want until they run out of ammo get tired or law enforcement finally shows up. In every incident where they faced armed resistance, the death and destruction was stopped before they ran out of ammunition, and as far as I know there aren't any incidents where police officers shot an armed civilian by mistake because they couldn't identify them as defenders instead of attackers.

    Your argument appears to be mostly conjecture about what might happen. What isn't conjecture, is that defenseless victims are just that, defenseless. They are totally at the mercy of their attackers.

    And your argument is exactly the same, there's no solid data showing "what" may happen if we allow CCW in classrooms. Until a college allows it, and an incident happens, we can only guess what will occur.

    HCI made arguments similar to yours that concealed carry would lead to permit holders shooting it out instead of talking it out. That concealed carry would lead to increases in violent crime, and that concealed carry would lead to police shooting law abiding citizens. THEY WERE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

    You should ask yourself why there has never been an active shooter style attack at a gun show. Any guesses? Anyone?

    I would love for you to offer some evidence that a young adult who is old enough to enlist in the military is less mature because he went to college rather than boot camp.

    No one is promoting the arming of college students. This discussion is about allowing them to arm themselves and allowing them as law abiding adults and citizens to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the second amendment so that they may exercise the right of self defense which predates any written law. We should not deny them these rights based upon the supposition that some MIGHT misuse the right.

    P.S. Audie Murphy was just 19 when he became a hero.
    And again your not looking at the big picture. You can start CCW in campuses, malls, movie theaters, etc. ITS NOT GOING TO STOP THESE PSYCHOPATHS FROM KILLING. They DO NOT THINK LIKE ME AND YOU THINK, just because we arm a handfull of people in colleges these people aren't going to stand up and say, "Oh gee wiz! A couple students have guns, I guess I won't go on a killing spree today!"

    We need to treat it as a societal/psychological problem, you can argue with me up and down how it might give a few students a fighting chance....That's fantastic. Except for the fact that these MONSTERS WILL find a way to kill people, period. They'll go to a church, they'll go to a kindergarten, they'll go on a bus, they'll go to a pool.

    Your treating the symptom(guns) not the cause(psychopaths)

    And for the record, I DO NOT think only L.E. should carry firearms. I just want higher standards in order to carry that weapon. I used to work as a security guard at a gun range; I've seen the quality of people that can qualify. I went through 80 hours of formal training to hold this handgun, there's no reason the average citizen can't do the same thing for a CCW.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPD003
    replied
    Bottom line, crazies are getting crazier. Your "active shooter attack at a gun show" argument is a prime example of this. Until last month, this argument could have been made, but ask the Detroit PD if it still holds true. Again, I'm just pointing out that your argument there is no longer valid. I agree with the message, but making that point is inaccurate. Bottom line, allowing law abiding citizens the chance to defend themselves is going to help to deter or at least curb the body count and save lives.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLieguy
    replied
    Originally posted by irish21 View Post
    True. But again, I'd want tougher standards for CC in order for anything like that.
    The average 21-25 year old college student CC carrier that hasn't seen combat has a high probability of going into "sheep mode" if shots are fired.

    Not to mention, I'd HATE to be the LEO that arrives on a Campus where there's an active shooter AND CC defenders. No way to tell Who is Who. Is the kid with the Glock the shooter? What about the kid with the 1911? And who's that with the revolver? That CC defender might have the best intentions in the world, and end up 6 feet under because SWAT takes him down. There's a good reason why a lot of departments have a mandate, "If your in plain clothes, you don't help in shootings until your 10-8", otherwise it's far to easy to succumb to friendly fire.
    But Irish, this isn't about what you would want or what restrictions you arbitrarily decide are appropriate. It is patently unfair to place a stricter requirement upon CCW permit holders just because of where they work or go to school. Everyone should follow the same rules and meet the same qualifications.

    It is disingenuous to construct a statutory maze in which a lawfully armed citizen must change is route of travel and lock his firearm away or face arrest simply because he crosses an imaginary line on a sidewalk.

    It is stupid to argue that a persons inalienable right to self defense is somehow affected by geographic location.

    You would probably be shocked to learn just how few of these "Combat Veterans", that you argue are somehow more qualified , are actually willing to fire a shot with intent to disable an enemy combatant. I have read that during the Normandy invasion the number was 25% or less.

    Regardless of what you might expect or suspect, the fact is that in incidents where active shooters went unopposed they usually shoot or kill as many people as they want until they run out of ammo get tired or law enforcement finally shows up. In every incident where they faced armed resistance, the death and destruction was stopped before they ran out of ammunition, and as far as I know there aren't any incidents where police officers shot an armed civilian by mistake because they couldn't identify them as defenders instead of attackers.

    Your argument appears to be mostly conjecture about what might happen. What isn't conjecture, is that defenseless victims are just that, defenseless. They are totally at the mercy of their attackers.

    HCI made arguments similar to yours that concealed carry would lead to permit holders shooting it out instead of talking it out. That concealed carry would lead to increases in violent crime, and that concealed carry would lead to police shooting law abiding citizens. THEY WERE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

    You should ask yourself why there has never been an active shooter style attack at a gun show. Any guesses? Anyone?

    I would love for you to offer some evidence that a young adult who is old enough to enlist in the military is less mature because he went to college rather than boot camp.

    No one is promoting the arming of college students. This discussion is about allowing them to arm themselves and allowing them as law abiding adults and citizens to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the second amendment so that they may exercise the right of self defense which predates any written law. We should not deny them these rights based upon the supposition that some MIGHT misuse the right.

    P.S. Audie Murphy was just 19 when he became a hero.

    Leave a comment:


  • Camo Cop
    replied
    Then there are the times that a CCW permitted person comes to the aid of an officer...

    http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4527526

    Leave a comment:


  • LPD003
    replied
    Originally posted by irish21 View Post
    Not to mention, I'd HATE to be the LEO that arrives on a Campus where there's an active shooter AND CC defenders. No way to tell Who is Who. Is the kid with the Glock the shooter? What about the kid with the 1911? And who's that with the revolver? That CC defender might have the best intentions in the world, and end up 6 feet under because SWAT takes him down. There's a good reason why a lot of departments have a mandate, "If your in plain clothes, you don't help in shootings until your 10-8", otherwise it's far to easy to succumb to friendly fire.
    I think this is the problem we have. Cops tend to only think cops should carry weapons and I think it's sometimes an ego thing. For gawd sakes, we're not the ONLY individuals on the planet that should be carrying weapons. (Canada) Doesn't work well... Listen, I've worked hard to be proficient at handling my weapon and becoming a law enforcement officer and nobody can take that away from me, but I'm not going to tell someone they can't protect their lives because they might not have the same training as I do. With that being said, I would like a more strict firearms training for EVERYONE that wants to carry a weapon, even us as officers.

    My response:
    "Not to mention, I'd HATE to be the student that arrives in the hallway where there's an active shooter and not have a weapon. Knowing that I may possibly be able to stop other people from getting murdered if I would have brought my gun." - They're already in sheep mode if they're not carrying, so arguing that they may turn into sheep is a moot point. Thanks Grossman!

    Please keep in mind I don't think EVERYONE should be armed. I'm not going to go out and start handing guns to people and say "You have to carry on campus." It's a choice that the student is going to have to make and they're going to have to be comfortable and live with that choice. But telling them they can't is ludicrous.

    PS Going 10-8 isn't going to identify you to responding officers if you're still in plain clothes and if you've had time to change your clothes, you haven't been to an active shooter training or done any research as to how you're supposed to respond.

    10-8 in Iowa might mean something different where you're from as well. I think the only reason maybe your SOP has that is in case you are hurt, you'd need to be on the clock to claim some sort of workman's comp. (Insurance reasons)
    Last edited by LPD003; 03-15-2011, 07:36 PM. Reason: Correction

    Leave a comment:


  • Bearcat357
    replied
    Originally posted by irish21 View Post

    Not to mention, I'd HATE to be the LEO that arrives on a Campus where there's an active shooter AND CC defenders. No way to tell Who is Who. Is the kid with the Glock the shooter? What about the kid with the 1911? And who's that with the revolver?
    Errr....don't you have CCW in NM...?

    If you do, that scene could play out anywhere on the streets/grocery store/mall/movie theater/etc..... not just a campus.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Camo Cop
    replied
    Sorry in advance for the length of this post. I'm copying and pasting from my little stockpile of stuff. Also, I ask your forgiveness, in advance, if it's worded a little poorly for a friendly debate. Enjoy...

    Cowards fear armed resistance. Here's proof:

    October 1, 1997: 16-year old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death. He then took a deer rifle (not an “assault rifle”) to his school, Pearl High School (in a small town). He shot nine students killing two of them including his ex-girlfriend. The hero who was the assistant principal of Pearl High, Joel Myrick, pulled a .45 caliber handgun from his truck, intercepted Woodham and held him until police arrived. The coward, Woodham, surrendered when he encountered armed resistance. Our hero, Joel Myrick, never fired a shot. The police readily identified the "good guy" upon their arrival.

    April 24, 1998: 14-year old Andrew Wurst, shot and killed a teacher from Parker Middle School (in a small town), at Nick's Place, a nearby restaurant, during an 8th grade graduation dance. Wurst’s weapon of choice was a .22 caliber handgun (not an “assault weapon”). Before running out of ammunition, Wurst proceeded to enter into Nick's Place where the dance had been held, and subsequently fired and hit a teacher and two students. Further loss of life was prevented when the owner of Nick's Place, James Strand, confronted the coward with a 12-gauge shotgun and held him for 11 minutes until police arrived. The coward, Wurst, surrendered when confronted with armed resistance. Our hero, James Strand, never fired a shot. The police readily identified the "good guy" upon their arrival.

    January 20, 2002: 43-year-old former student Peter Odighizuwa
    arrived on the campus (in a small town) with a .380 semiautomatic pistol (not an “assault weapon”). The coward, Odighizuwa, killed three and wounded three. Two students, Tracy Bridges, and Mikael Gross, who were both off-duty law enforcement officers, retrieved handguns from their vehicles. Together with an unarmed student, Todd Ross, they confronted the cowardly Odighizuwa and held him until police arrived. The coward, Odighizuwa, surrendered when confronted with armed resistance. The heroes, Tracy Bridges, Mikael Gross and Todd Ross, never fired a shot. The police readily identified the "good guy" upon their arrival. Some debate exists about some of the finer points of this incident but it remains true that Odighizuwa shot people, was confronted by armed students and surrendered. He may have been out of ammo.

    August 30, 2006: 19-year-old Alvaro Rafael Castillo killed his father then went to Orange High School in Hillsborough, North Carolina (another small town), where he injured two students. Corporal London Ivey, the deputy assigned to work at the school confronted and disarmed the cowardly Castillo. It was later discovered that Castillo had pipe bombs and other weapons in his van. It was also later discovered that because of a treatment option, Castillo was allowed to purchase weapons after having nearly being involuntarily committed to a mental institution for being suicidal a few months earlier (thank a liberal). When confronted with armed resistance the cowardly Castillo surrendered. The hero, Ivey, never fired a shot. Driver education teacher Russel Leblanc, who was unarmed, heroically assisted Ivey.

    ***Compiled information is from various sources.
    Pearl High School shooting, Parker Middle School shooting, Appalachian School of Law shooting, & Orange High School shooting.
    Last edited by Camo Cop; 03-15-2011, 07:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • irish21
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLieguy View Post
    Granted that an armed student in a classroom doesn't have a very good chance against an unexpected shooter bursting through the door an blasting away, but he does have a small chance he would't have otherwise.

    HOWEVER; that same armed student has an excellent chance of stopping the shooter if he happens to attack the class next door. An armed student can take a defensive position to control the classroom doorway and effectively defend himself, his teacher, and his classmates by requiring the shooter to walk through the fatal funnel to continue his attack. Providing of course that he is both armed and willing to do violence if the shooter tries to enter.

    If it becomes common knowledge that a particular campus allows concealed carry, I would argue that it increases the likelihood that a gunman would seek victims elsewhere.
    True. But again, I'd want tougher standards for CC in order for anything like that.
    The average 21-25 year old college student CC carrier that hasn't seen combat has a high probability of going into "sheep mode" if shots are fired.

    Not to mention, I'd HATE to be the LEO that arrives on a Campus where there's an active shooter AND CC defenders. No way to tell Who is Who. Is the kid with the Glock the shooter? What about the kid with the 1911? And who's that with the revolver? That CC defender might have the best intentions in the world, and end up 6 feet under because SWAT takes him down. There's a good reason why a lot of departments have a mandate, "If your in plain clothes, you don't help in shootings until your 10-8", otherwise it's far to easy to succumb to friendly fire.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPD003
    replied
    Lieguy, good points. I don't want to go into techniques on a public forum. But, I get what you're saying. I firmly agree on the fact that it may act as a deterrent to announce that a campus allows concealed carry. Although these shooters generally don't care about their own lives, they basically want a body count when they walk in to the school. As a shooter, knowing your number may be limited before your desired "body count" could possibly act as a deterrent as well, even for these idiots. Even these shooters need some sort of outcome and do have a plan.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLieguy
    replied
    Granted that an armed student in a classroom doesn't have a very good chance against an unexpected shooter bursting through the door an blasting away, but he does have a small chance he would't have otherwise.

    HOWEVER; that same armed student has an excellent chance of stopping the shooter if he happens to attack the class next door. An armed student can take a defensive position to control the classroom doorway and effectively defend himself, his teacher, and his classmates by requiring the shooter to walk through the fatal funnel to continue his attack. Providing of course that he is both armed and willing to do violence if the shooter tries to enter.

    If it becomes common knowledge that a particular campus allows concealed carry, I would argue that it increases the likelihood that a gunman would seek victims elsewhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLieguy
    replied
    Students interested in promoting this issue should check out CONCEALEDCAMPUS.COM. My sons printed out one of the flyers for their Dorm doors and there is a nationwide campus event in April called the "Empty Holster" protest.

    Does anyone else find it a bit odd that we expect our young men and women of college age to do violence in our defense on the other side of the world, yet question their maturity to defend themselves and others on their own soil?

    Leave a comment:


  • Camo Cop
    replied
    LPD03, You're right... we could go back and forth until we both throw up. Bottom line for me is: An armed person has a fighting chance. An unarmed one is at the complete mercy of the shooter.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 2867 users online. 163 members and 2704 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X