Carrying Guns On Campuses For Defense

[tyciol]

I'm not sure it's a good idea. If you're allowed to carry guns then you can't keep psychos from bringing them in by using metal detectors.

Also, a lot of people might try to 'suicide by gun defense' by bringing in a water pistol or something and pulling it on a guy. It might also provoke people who might not otherwise shoot people to do so. It's repulsive to pull a gun on unarmed people, but if they're also armed, maybe you'll feel better about doing it.

[ghostofdavid]

I frequently see the thing about the fact that if we remove guns from the circulation , then all the criminals will have one , but we will all be left harmless ( Oh noes !). Where I live, you can't carry a firearm unless you're going hunting or you,re a cop. If you get caught with one , you're in trouble. Want to make sure the criminals don't have guns? Give em a 10-20 year sentence for carrying. I'm not sure if they'll still think it's worth the risk.

Capital punishment or life in prison does not prevent people from murdering. Criminals don't care about breaking the law, even with stiff punishments.

[Blue Midnight]

I frequently see the thing about the fact that if we remove guns from the circulation , then all the criminals will have one , but we will all be left harmless ( Oh noes !). Where I live, you can't carry a firearm unless you're going hunting or you,re a cop. If you get caught with one , you're in trouble. Want to make sure the criminals don't have guns? Give em a 10-20 year sentence for carrying. I'm not sure if they'll still think it's worth the risk.

Capital punishment or life in prison does not prevent people from murdering. Criminals don't care about breaking the law, even with stiff punishments.

The logic of this comment really doesn't make sense.

Just because murders happen in our country now does not mean that people don't care about the punishment. Most criminals still fear the death penalty or life in prison. Almost anyone would. At the same time, people are also idiots and think they can get away with their crimes, or they commit crimes in the heat of the moment. Still, I can guarantee that if we didn't punish people for murder (or punished them to a smaller extent) we would see a substantial rise in murders.

I used to live in Thailand. The punishment for shoplifting in that country consists of a good solid beat down from the shopkeeper, as well as being arrested afterwards and incarcerated by cops who will congratulate the shopkeeper for his kung fu skills. This punishment is well known to everybody in the countrty. However, it is only really a theory becuase shoplifting is so rare across the country. The reason why it is rare is because would-be criminals fear the punishment and decide it is not worth the risk. We, on the other hand, don't have particularly stiff penalties for shoplifting, so we have a lot of people who do it.

The bottom line is that criminals do care about punishment, and how severe the punishment is will be a significant factor in how often a particular crime is commited. Increasing the severity of the penalty for carrying an illegal firearm would be a deterring factor and would significantly reduce the amount of illegal firearms out there on the streets. Edited June 13, 2007 by Blue Midnight

[ghostofdavid]

It makes plenty of sense to me. You just don't like the fact that I am for guns and you are not only against the, but don't believe in my Supreme Court judge-based constitutional right to own one.

If a criminal is aware of the potential punishment of his actions and he does it anyway (like what happens every day), then the deterrent isn't much of a deterrent.

If shoplifting isn't a big deal, why is it a class five felony in Indiana, regardless of dollar amount?

According to Wiki:

"In most states in the United States, shoplifting is a misdemeanor crime of petty larceny when specifically committed against a retail establishment by a patron. Some states do not distinguish between shoplifting and other forms of petty larceny, although a judge may consider the context of any crime in sentencing.

In some jurisdictions within the United States, certain egregious instances of shoplifting involving large dollar amounts of merchandise and/or a high degree of criminal sophistication may be prosecuted and punished as burglary or otherwise as a felony. The dollar amount to constitute felony shoplifting can range from being quite low such as $100 in Vermont, to quite high such as $2,500 in Wisconsin. In some states a high dollar amount can constitute a higher felony, a prime example being Arizona where a shoplifting incident greater than $2,000 constitutes a class five felony. Indiana is the only state in the country where an act of shoplifting is considered a felony regardless of dollar value.

Shoplifting can lead to far more serious charges than normally would be assumed. In most states an employee who shoplifts from their employer can be charged with shoplifting and embezzlement. In Arizona a shoplifter who is caught attempting to steal without any means of payment is guilty of third degree burglary. In Illinois a shoplifter who resists detainment is guilty of aggravated battery. In some U.S. jurisdictions, a repeat misdemeanor shoplifting offender can be charged with a felony for recidivism."

I'd take a good ole fashioned ass whuppin' from "kung fu" (wouldn't kick boxing be more appropriate in Thailand?) than becoming a felon.

The bottom line should be that the would-be-criminal wouldn't care about the punishment and by doing so, he wouldn't commit the potential crime.

[ghostofdavid]

An Article posted in US News by Michael Barone:

"The murders two weeks ago at Virginia Tech naturally set off a cry in the usual quarters-the New York Times, the London-based Economist-for stricter gun control laws. Democratic officeholders didn't chime in, primarily because they believe they were hurt by the issue in 2000 and 2004, but most privately agree.

What most discussions of this issue tend to ignore is that we have two tracks of political debate and two sets of laws on gun control. At the federal level there has been a push for more gun control laws since John Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and some modest restrictions have been passed. At the state level something entirely different has taken place. In 1987 Florida passed a law allowing citizens who could demonstrate that they were law-abiding and had sufficient training to obtain permits on demand to own and carry concealed weapons. In the succeeding 20 years many other states have passed such laws, so that today you can, if you meet the qualifications, carry concealed weapons in 40 states with 67 percent of the nation's population (including Vermont, with no gun restrictions at all).
Related News

When Florida passed its concealed-weapons law, I thought it was a terrible idea. People would start shooting each other over traffic altercations; parking lots would turn into shooting galleries. Not so, it turned out. Only a very, very few concealed-weapons permits have been revoked. There are only rare incidents in which people with concealed-weapons permits have used them unlawfully. Ordinary law-abiding people, it turns out, are pretty trustworthy.

Unfounded fears. I'm not the only one to draw such a conclusion. When she was Michigan's attorney general, Democrat Jennifer Granholm opposed the state's concealed-weapons law, which took effect in 2001. But now, as governor, she's not seeking its repeal. She says that her fears-like those I had about Florida's law 20 years ago-proved to be unfounded. So far as I know, there are no politically serious moves to repeal any state's concealed-weapons laws. In most of the United States, as you go to work, shop at the mall, go to restaurants, and walk around your neighborhood, you do so knowing that some of the people you pass by may be carrying a gun. You may not even think about it. But that's all right. Experience has shown that these people aren't threats.

Virginia has a concealed-weapons law. But Virginia Tech was, by the decree of its administrators, a "gun-free zone." Those with concealed-weapons permits were not allowed to take their guns on campus and were disciplined when they did. A bill was introduced in the House of Delegates to allow permit holders to carry guns on campus. When it was sidetracked, a Virginia Tech administrator hailed the action and said that students, professors, and visitors would now "feel safe" on campus. Tragically, they weren't safe. Virginia Tech's "gun-free zone" was not gun free. In contrast, killers on other campuses were stopped by faculty or bystanders who had concealed-weapons permits and brandished their guns to stop the killing.

We may hear more about gun control at the national level. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment's right "to keep and bear arms." Judge Laurence Silberman's strong opinion argues that this is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in a 1939 case upholding a federal law banning sawed-off shotguns; limited regulation is allowed, Silberman wrote, but not a total ban. Somewhere on the road between a law banning possession of nuclear weapons and banning all guns the Second Amendment stands in the way. This is the view as well of the liberal constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe. The Supreme Court may take the case, which is in conflict with other circuits' rulings.

If it upholds the D.C. decision, there is still room for reasonable gun regulation. The mental health ruling on the Virginia Tech killer surely should have been entered into the instant check database to prevent him from buying guns. The National Rifle Association is working with gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy to improve that database. But even as we fine-tune laws to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, maybe the opinion elites will realize that in places where gun ownership is widespread, we're safer than in a "gun-free zone."

This story appears in the May 7, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report."

[Blue Midnight]

It makes plenty of sense to me. You just don't like the fact that I am for guns and you are not only against the, but don't believe in my Supreme Court judge-based constitutional right to own one.

And what, exactly, does this have to do with the points I was making above? Answer: NOTHING.

Secondly, man, you just are missing what I am saying. The gun issue isn't as simple as being "for them" or against them. I am for the right of a law-abiding citizen to own a gun. What I am not for is unregulated gun ownership. I believe in background checks. The obvious points that some people seem to be missing in this debate is that 1)The nutball in Virginia got his gun legally and 2) A solid background check would have shown that this guy was literally a mental patient before he acquired his guns over the counter.

Any person in this debate who looks at the facts of VT should be pushing for more comprehensive background checks. THAT WAS THE WAY TO AVOID THE SHOOTINGS! The whole "more guns would have solved this" schtick is just nonsense, and I think most people realize that. As a former college instructor, I will fight the notion of guns on campus until the day I die. That is no type of environment for students to learn in, and schools as a whole are nowhere near dangerous enough to even suggest such drastic measures. I also think the people who are trying to promote this idea are just using the VT tradgedy to promote a preconceived agenda that they held prior to this incident, and that is just sad.

As a personal matter, I think any citizen carrying around a gun with them everywhere they go is a bad idea (especially if they plan on drinking). That is not my opinion on what the law should be. Again, I think that person should have the right to carry the gun around, I just think it is a bad way to live your life. Lfe is full of risks, and we fool ourselves if we think guns are going to save us from those risks. That is my philosophy on life, not my opinion on the law.

If a criminal is aware of the potential punishment of his actions and he does it anyway (like what happens every day), then the deterrent isn't much of a deterrent.

Once again, you are missing the point. I never said that potential punishments deter ALL criminals. What I said was that the more strict the penalty is, the less the chance someone is going to commit a crime. Deterrants are designed to cut back on crime. Of course they will never eliminate crime completely. Are you really going to argue that if crimes had no punishment whatsoever, then crime rates would stay the same? Our entire justice system is based on the premise that punishment deters crime. I agree with that premise, and I would hope that almost everyone reading this does as well. Our justice system means nothing without this idea.

If shoplifting isn't a big deal, why is it a class five felony in Indiana, regardless of dollar amount?

Because Indiana is a state full of backwards hicks?

JK

According to Wiki:

In some jurisdictions within the United States, certain egregious instances of shoplifting involving large dollar amounts of merchandise and/or a high degree of criminal sophistication may be prosecuted and punished as burglary or otherwise as a felony. The dollar amount to constitute felony shoplifting can range from being quite low such as $100 in Vermont, to quite high such as $2,500 in Wisconsin. In some states a high dollar amount can constitute a higher felony, a prime example being Arizona where a shoplifting incident greater than $2,000 constitutes a class five felony. Indiana is the only state in the country where an act of shoplifting is considered a felony regardless of dollar value.

Shoplifting can lead to far more serious charges than normally would be assumed. In most states an employee who shoplifts from their employer can be charged with shoplifting and embezzlement. In Arizona a shoplifter who is caught attempting to steal without any means of payment is guilty of third degree burglary. In Illinois a shoplifter who resists detainment is guilty of aggravated battery. In some U.S. jurisdictions, a repeat misdemeanor shoplifting offender can be charged with a felony for recidivism."

In my post, I was referring to petty shoplifting. I should have been more clear. My guess as to why people continue to shoplift in states where the penalties are so stiff is because they have no idea what the law is (or they are just idiots, nothing is beyond the realm of individual human behavior). I grew up in Arizona, for example, but I had no idea about the laws on shoplifting there until I read your post. You learn something new everyday. I wouldn't shoplift regardless, but I should tell a person I know in Arizona who continues to shoplift about this. Maybe it will convince him to stop...

I'd take a good ole fashioned ass whuppin' from "kung fu" (wouldn't kick boxing be more appropriate in Thailand?) than becoming a felon.

Well, in Thailand you would get both. Oh, and the correct term would be Muay Thai boxing.

[Scheetz]

Secondly, man, you just are missing what I am saying. The gun issue isn't as simple as being "for them" or against them. I am for the right of a law-abiding citizen to own a gun. What I am not for is unregulated gun ownership. I believe in background checks. The obvious points that some people seem to be missing in this debate is that 1)The nutball in Virginia got his gun legally and 2) A solid background check would have shown that this guy was literally a mental patient before he acquired his guns over the counter.

Ok, I did not read past this as I am about to leave.

But to answer your two questions there. Yes the nut job got his gun legally, why, because his files are locked and are not accessible to background checks. If it wasn't any future employer/past employer/current employer would have access to it. This is why its kept secret because it can ruin a persons life in trying to find a decent job. Virginia background checks do not show mental health that is locked away in files. He had no criminal history therefore he is cleared to buy a firearm. All it takes is a 3 minute phone call which the store gives your name and social security number and a bit of other information. After that you are able to walk out with your gun if you are cleared.


NOW, they are working on passing a LAW this VERY WEEK on allowing that information to be shown when buying guns. I completely agree with this being done.

As a personal matter, I think any citizen carrying around a gun with them everywhere they go is a bad idea (especially if they plan on drinking). That is not my opinion on what the law should be. Again, I think that person should have the right to carry the gun around, I just think it is a bad way to live your life. Life is full of risks, and we fool ourselves if we think guns are going to save us from those risks. That is my philosophy on life, not my opinion on the law.

Well I do not live my life in fear. I choose to carry a gun just as you choose to have smoke detectors in your home. I do not push my views on others, if people do not like guns so be it. If you like guns but choose not to carry so be it. Just because their is a gun on my hip does not make me a bad ass. Carrying a gun makes you smarter, more attuned to what is going on around you and much much much more polite. I am already as polite as I possibly can be. However, when that gun is on your hip, you have to be extra careful about what you are doing with your movements and your hands. It only takes one moronic citizen to yell "GUN" in a starbucks to have everyone fleeing for their lives while I enjoy my Frap.


Ok, here is the VA law.

No person shall carry a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in §4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia, nothing herein shall prohibit any owner or event sponsor or his employees from carrying a concealed handgun while on duty at such restaurant or club if such person has a concealed handgun permit. NOTE: only concealed handguns are prohibited.


In Virginia, you are allowed to carry a firearm and drink if you are under the legal limit. Now, the Concealed Carry in Maryland states:

MD Criminal Code § 4-207. Permit holder carrying, wearing, or transporting handgun under the influence.
(a) Prohibited.- A person to whom a permit has been issued or whose permit has been renewed under Article 27, § 36E of the Code may not wear, carry, or transport a handgun while the person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs.


We also need to take into consideration that the people who are carrying understand these laws and also understand that GUNS AND ALCOHOL DO NOT MIX. Everyone that carries a firearm legally understands that using their weapon in self defense while being intoxicated is a fast way to end up in jail without your case being saved by any form of Castle Doctrine or Self Defense stance.

[Rani]

I frequently see the thing about the fact that if we remove guns from the circulation , then all the criminals will have one , but we will all be left harmless ( Oh noes !). Where I live, you can't carry a firearm unless you're going hunting or you,re a cop. If you get caught with one , you're in trouble. Want to make sure the criminals don't have guns? Give em a 10-20 year sentence for carrying. I'm not sure if they'll still think it's worth the risk.

Oh, they will. You forget that our courts are bogged down, overworked and overloaded. Public Defenders and District Attorneys do the deals under the guise of "business as usual". It is their job to negotiate together and get cases off the books and out from under the necessity of a trial by a jury who don't want to be there in the first place. Get arrested for any felony and you're likely to end up convicted by courtesy of a deal that was offered you as too good to pass up and risk the years. Put 10 to 20 on the books and you'll just end up with a whole lot of 5 year probation periods. And we're back to the fact that a gun never killed anybody. The guy who pulled the trigger did. That said, there's no answer. If only it were the fictionalized future and you had to go through a psychiatric screening process after which if you pass a chip was implanted that allows a gun to unlock and be fired. But what if a doctor puts you on a prescription for a medical condition and it changes your brain chemistry? Maybe you're no longer mental capable of having the ability to fire a gun. But you still have the chip. As far as airlines coming up in this thread, I seem to recall that effective 9/11 every single flight has two plain clothed air marshals on it, that are armed. Not that they can fire the things at 30,000 feet and risk explosive decompression. My point is that even the seemingly ideal solution has flaws. There is no absolute solution except to repair the problems in society that cause the need to express ourselves in violence. That is not going to happen so long as compassion is considered a weakness, and tolerance as some kind of misguided endorsement of this weeks version of "sin".

By the way, as a Native American, I was raised with guns because I hunted with them almost from the cradle. They were kept loaded and accessible in various places in my home at all times. I'm a sniper level shot just because hunting for dinner day after day makes you very damned good. My experience and exposure have convinced me of one thing. The last place a gun of mine needs to be is at my side at all times. It frightens people, intimidates them, and is way too easy to hide behind in moments of anger even for someone who was raised with them and respects them for the tools they are. Vulnerabiltiy is a fact of life and all around us. Just because you don't go down from the sniper on the tower doesn't mean you're not going to go down from the burst blood vessel near your heart. Everything that lives will die. It is a great sadness that some die too soon because of the actions of another. But it will not stop until we fix the problems that create the need to harm others out of our own pain and anger. Arming the population isn't the answer. It might be momentary stop gap, but it won't resolve the problem. Not even close.

[Blue Midnight]

We also need to take into consideration that the people who are carrying understand these laws and also understand that GUNS AND ALCOHOL DO NOT MIX. Everyone that carries a firearm legally understands that using their weapon in self defense while being intoxicated is a fast way to end up in jail without your case being saved by any form of Castle Doctrine or Self Defense stance.

Interesting. Thanks for the law info. Sheetz. Appreciate that!

[Scheetz]

Interesting. Thanks for the law info. Sheetz. Appreciate that!

While sometimes it may seem what I am typing may come off in a rather harsh tone I try my best not too. I'm just here to inform, protect mine and your rights, smoke my hookah and enjoy my life.


So, regards to anyone reading what I have stated in the past and future. I do my best not to let tempers flare.

[Skarredmind]

First let me say, it is nice to see what seems to be a well reasoned and thoughtful response to this kind of thing... I love arguments like this :-) Another thing I love about hookah, sitting around chatting about this stuff

Any person in this debate who looks at the facts of VT should be pushing for more comprehensive background checks. THAT WAS THE WAY TO AVOID THE SHOOTINGS! The whole "more guns would have solved this" schtick is just nonsense, and I think most people realize that. As a former college instructor, I will fight the notion of guns on campus until the day I die. That is no type of environment for students to learn in, and schools as a whole are nowhere near dangerous enough to even suggest such drastic measures. I also think the people who are trying to promote this idea are just using the VT tradgedy to promote a preconceived agenda that they held prior to this incident, and that is just sad.

I don't really believe that a better background check would have prevented the shootings, all it would have done is make it more difficult for the guy to find a gun... as has been demonstrated earlier in this topic there are quite a few ways to engage in mass killings. Many are cheaper and easier than buying a gun. I don't think that the argument that restricting access to a weapon will stop violent crime, if you are determined to do something, you will find a way... its what makes the human race great and terrible at the same time.

I don't think anyone really believes that more guns would have prevented the incident. Unfortunately the boy was disturbed, I am willing to go so far as to say that nothing would have PREVENTED the incident in this case... more guns COULD have shortened the spree though. In many cases where things like this have happened MOST are on gun free campuses or in gun free zones. Making an area gun free simply ensures that only criminals will be armed. For my part I believe that if someone carrying a gun, uses it and saves only one life, carrying that gun for however long they have to is completely justified and should even be celebrated.

Yeah some people are using the tragedy to argue against gun control... of course the other side is using it to argue FOR gun control in a proconcieved agenda as well... hell the Scientologists were using the tragedy to recruit more scientologists. Sad? Probably. But unfortunately, its not going to stop or change anything... humans by nature are opportunists.

As a personal matter, I think any citizen carrying around a gun with them everywhere they go is a bad idea (especially if they plan on drinking). That is not my opinion on what the law should be. Again, I think that person should have the right to carry the gun around, I just think it is a bad way to live your life. Lfe is full of risks, and we fool ourselves if we think guns are going to save us from those risks. That is my philosophy on life, not my opinion on the law.

I appeciate and respect that. My philosophy of course holds that while it may not protect us from all (even MOST) of those dangers, it certainly can help. Similarly, wearing a seatbelt or a helmet on a motorcycle won't protect you from all of the dangers of driving, but I still buckle up every time I get behind he wheel.

Looking at odds, you are extremely unlikely to ever need a gun. But like I said above, if me carrying one every day for 45 years (no I am not that old) means that I save only one life, then it was wel worth it.

Once again, you are missing the point. I never said that potential punishments deter ALL criminals. What I said was that the more strict the penalty is, the less the chance someone is going to commit a crime. Deterrants are designed to cut back on crime. Of course they will never eliminate crime completely. Are you really going to argue that if crimes had no punishment whatsoever, then crime rates would stay the same? Our entire justice system is based on the premise that punishment deters crime. I agree with that premise, and I would hope that almost everyone reading this does as well. Our justice system means nothing without this idea.

Studies have shown that stiffer punishments do not equal lower crime rates though. Just ask someone who is against the death penalty, there is tons of research out there on this. Punishment and enforcement are necessary, but at the end of the day the police, and the laws are not there to defend you. They are there to avenge you. Given the choice, I would rather defend myself and my family than get avenged...

I wouldn't shoplift regardless, but I should tell a person I know in Arizona who continues to shoplift about this. Maybe it will convince him to stop...

Here's hoping, but I doubt that it will. He already knows he can get in trouble, you will just be telling him something he already knows. When he gets caught he will realize, but not likely before that.

Well, in Thailand you would get both. Oh, and the correct term would be Muay Thai boxing.

Completely unrelated, but when that kid got caned for vandalism in Singapore years ago I laughed my ass off.