Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

[Apex]

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus - ConcealedCampus.com

I would like to know everyones opinion on this. Please try to keep the debate to dull roar.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Law abiding adult students who have the proper gun permit should not have their licence negated while they are attending school. Gun free zones are not gun free always. Students who can protect themselves would be a better route than being sitting ducks.

How many more children must die before we allow them to fight back? Many of these kids could be in the armed forces. If we trust them with planes and tanks, why not a hand gun?

Of course it would be better if weapons were never on campus, but that is becoming a deadly folly.

What is more important, our feeling about guns or our children having a fighting chance to not be executed one by one like the VT students were.

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

I was in the military for 5 years and am trained in the use of several types of small arms. Now that I am a student, I would like to take my concealed weapon to school with me.
CNN ran a story today that said that the 4 campuses in the US that have allowed concealed weapons for a combined total of 60 months to date have yet to have one incident of any kind.

 

[Reverend Rick]

How many police stations are attacked? Why is the number so low?

 

[Apex]

I was in the military for 5 years and am trained in the use of several types of small arms. Now that I am a student, I would like to take my concealed weapon to school with me.
CNN ran a story today that said that the 4 campuses in the US that have allowed concealed weapons for a combined total of 60 months to date have yet to have one incident of any kind.

Actually if you watch the interviews on the website I posted the statistic, if I remember right, is somewhere around 16 campuses and 60 combined semesters with zero incidents. Its kind of funny, if you watch the first interview, they have a victim of the VT shootings presenting the side of not allowing guns on campus. The only catch is he tries to make his point by claiming college students (who have already gone through all the qualifications to receive a concealed carry permit) are full of "hormones" and are emotionally unstable. Also "the criminal mind is smarter than the collegiate mind" and that professors are so strung out that if they were allowed to carry weapons they would use them on their students.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The anti gun crowd said that if we issued carry concealed permits and allowed every day citizens to carry their guns, we would return back to the wild west days. This has not happened. Law abiding citizens are responsible enough to conduct themselves appropriately.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus - ConcealedCampus.com

I would like to know everyones opinion on this. Please try to keep the debate to dull roar.

A red state, Virginia, has a school shooting. Their solution is fewer guns.
A blue state, Illinois, has a school shooting. Their solution is more guns.

The irony meter just exploded.

 

[Apex]

A red state, Virginia, has a school shooting. Their solution is fewer guns.
A blue state, Illinois, has a school shooting. Their solution is more guns.

The irony meter just exploded.

Umm... could you better explain your position? And technically, since the shootings happened on a school campus, both instances would be of the "Their solution is fewer guns" type.

 

[Fluffy]

On the 13th of March, 1996, 18 people were killed in the Dunblane school massacre here in the UK. This caused a host of hard line gun ownership restrictions to be implemented including, most notably, the banning of hand guns. Since then, there has been one school related attack in the UK. The attacker used a knife and although 7 people were injured, nobody was killed.

Since the 13th of March, 1996, there have been 59 shootings in American schools (including elementary, middle, high and university). There have also been a few (about 3 or 4) attacks involving knives. In total, 146 people have been killed in these attacks (including deaths of shooters where applicable) and 210 people have been injured.

That means that since 1996, 18 people have died in the UK in school related attacks. By comparison, 146 have died and 210 have been injured in the USA in school related attacks.

Surely, therefore, the focus should be on stopping whatever is causing so many attacks to happen in the USA as opposed to the UK rather than attempting to arm students in the event of such attacks. All I can say is that after Dunblane, we could have taken the route of arming our students but we didn't and it appears to have been the right route to take because there has not been a single death in a school in the UK since.

Edit: I should also note that in 3 (I think) of those 59 incidents, the shooter was stopped because another person in the vicinity owned a gun. Deaths or injuries still occurred in all of these incidents before the shooter could be stopped but the other gun owner being there undoubtedly saved lives.

CNN ran a story today that said that the 4 campuses in the US that have allowed concealed weapons for a combined total of 60 months to date have yet to have one incident of any kind.

In the UK, no student or teacher is allowed to carry a gun on campus. In every single university in the UK, at least since 1996 (i.e. 132 months) there has never been a single gun related death or injury.

Of the campuses in America in which no guns are allowed, what percentage of them have had gun related deaths or injuries?

 

[Apex]

On the 13th of March, 1996, 18 people were killed in the Dunblane school massacre here in the UK. This caused a host of hard line gun ownership restrictions to be implemented including, most notably, the banning of hand guns. Since then, there has been one school related attack in the UK. The attacker used a knife and although 7 people were injured, nobody was killed.

Since the 13th of March, 1996, there have been 59 shootings in American schools (including elementary, middle, high and university). There have also been a few (about 3 or 4) attacks involving knives. In total, 146 people have been killed in these attacks (including deaths of shooters where applicable) and 210 people have been injured.

That means that since 1996, 18 people have died in the UK in school related attacks. By comparison, 146 have died and 210 have been injured in the USA in school related attacks.

Surely, therefore, the focus should be on stopping whatever is causing so many attacks to happen in the USA as opposed to the UK rather than attempting to arm students in the event of such attacks. All I can say is that after Dunblane, we could have taken the route of arming our students but we didn't and it appears to have been the right route to take because there has not been a single death in a school in the UK since.

Edit: I should also note that in 3 (I think) of those 59 incidents, the shooter was stopped because another person in the vicinity owned a gun. Deaths or injuries still occurred in all of these incidents before the shooter could be stopped but the other gun owner being there undoubtedly saved lives.

In the UK, no student or teacher is allowed to carry a gun on campus. In every single university in the UK, at least since 1996 (i.e. 132 months) there has never been a single gun related death or injury.

Of the campuses in America in which no guns are allowed, what percentage of them have had gun related deaths or injuries?

This isn't really about banning guns completely. That is a completely different (and entirely too jaded) issue. This is about allowing those who have already received concealed carry permits, and are legally allowed to carry in most places, to carry on school campuses.

 

[Fluffy]

This isn't really about banning guns completely. That is a completely (and entirely too jaded) issue. This is about allowing those who have already received concealed carry permits, and are legally allowed to carry in most places, to carry on school campuses.

And what is the purpose of allowing these people to carry their guns on to school campuses?

If the purpose is to reduce the number of school related attacks or provide students with a way of defending themselves in the event of an attack then my position, based on the statistics I provide in my last post, is that such a move would be unnecessary because banning guns does both of these things already.

 

[Apex]

And what is the purpose of allowing these people to carry their guns on to school campuses?

If the purpose is to reduce the number of school related attacks or provide students with a way of defending themselves in the event of an attack then my position, based on the statistics I provide in my last post, is that such a move would be unnecessary because banning guns does both of these things already.

No offense, but it does not sound like you have gone to the link I posted and looked around to get an idea of what the issue is, have you?
They have a FAQ and an About us sections.

 

[Fluffy]

None taken but I am actually already acquainted with this group. I apologise if I appear to have misrepresented them but it is not apparent to me that I have. If you want to point out to me where I have gone wrong then I'll know what you mean but, having already seen their page, and their FAQ and About Us sections in particular, I doubt that rereading them will reveal this to me.

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

On the 13th of March, 1996, 18 people were killed in the Dunblane school massacre here in the UK. This caused a host of hard line gun ownership restrictions to be implemented including, most notably, the banning of hand guns. Since then, there has been one school related attack in the UK. The attacker used a knife and although 7 people were injured, nobody was killed.

Since the 13th of March, 1996, there have been 59 shootings in American schools (including elementary, middle, high and university). There have also been a few (about 3 or 4) attacks involving knives. In total, 146 people have been killed in these attacks (including deaths of shooters where applicable) and 210 people have been injured.

That means that since 1996, 18 people have died in the UK in school related attacks. By comparison, 146 have died and 210 have been injured in the USA in school related attacks.

Surely, therefore, the focus should be on stopping whatever is causing so many attacks to happen in the USA as opposed to the UK rather than attempting to arm students in the event of such attacks. All I can say is that after Dunblane, we could have taken the route of arming our students but we didn't and it appears to have been the right route to take because there has not been a single death in a school in the UK since.

Edit: I should also note that in 3 (I think) of those 59 incidents, the shooter was stopped because another person in the vicinity owned a gun. Deaths or injuries still occurred in all of these incidents before the shooter could be stopped but the other gun owner being there undoubtedly saved lives.

In the UK, no student or teacher is allowed to carry a gun on campus. In every single university in the UK, at least since 1996 (i.e. 132 months) there has never been a single gun related death or injury.

Of the campuses in America in which no guns are allowed, what percentage of them have had gun related deaths or injuries?

Your statistics are interesting, but I think that I should add that there are five times more people in the US than the UK. Your statistics don’t reflect the difference.

 

[doppelganger]

I'm not a gun control advocate, though I think reasonable restrictions on modern military assault weapons, and who can own firearms is probably a justifiable intrusion on the right to bear arms. And I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on encouraging everyone to carry concealed firearms . . .

I have a question though: the bedrock principle underlying the Second Amendment in almost all of the original arguments and writings in favor of it was the idea that citizens must maintain the right to bear arms to provide a means of exerting power against the force of the state. Several of the authors of the Bill of Rights were following the advice of Aristotle, who suggested that the denial of weaponry was a hallmark of a tyrannical state. In short, the right to bear arms is there for the purpose of allowing citizens to act as terrorists/freedom fighters to overthrow an established government again should it ever stand itself above the law, just as the founders of the country had just finished doing at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted. In short, the Second Amendment really has nothing whatsoever to do with shooting criminals (except criminals of the government kind).

So here's my question: Why do so many so-called "conservatives" feign such a dramatic response to intrusions on gun rights, but in this age of increasing naked grabs of governmental power over our privacy and the security of our lives and families offer not only no resistance, but outward support for, things like warrant less surveillance, laws limiting private sexual morality, the disregard of habeas corpus, the use of torture on political prisoners and the disregard of the separation of Church and state - all of which are also hallmarks of a tyrannical state?

Put another way, why bother with gun ownership if you're going to be a spineless coward without the wits or the will to stand up to tyranny - which was the whole point in reserving the right to arms in the first place?

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

On the 13th of March, 1996, 18 people were killed in the Dunblane school massacre here in the UK.... no guns are allowed, what percentage of them have had gun related deaths or injuries?

And...
There are literally hundreds of articles shouting that the UK gun ban is grossly ineffective, and that violent crimes involving handguns have increased exponentially in the past 10 years.

"It makes sense. Criminals are encouraged to increase their violence when the risk of doing so has been drastically lowered. They have the guns. The good guys don’t. Do the math."

"Right now (2005) about 6,000 of the approximately 142,000 policemen in the country (UK) are armed."

"In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease. Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing."

"THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998."

“People are very surprised to learn that survey data show that guns are used defensively by private citizens in the U.S. from 1.5 to 3.4 million times a year, at least three times more frequently than guns are used to commit crimes.”

The problem we are facing is that our legislators are unwilling to let American students defend themselves for whatever reason. Gun control is not the answer. Gun bans do not work.

 

[Zephyr]

And what is the purpose of allowing these people to carry their guns on to school campuses?

If the purpose is to reduce the number of school related attacks or provide students with a way of defending themselves in the event of an attack then my position, based on the statistics I provide in my last post, is that such a move would be unnecessary because banning guns does both of these things already.

The big issue here is that banning guns is a stupid move. To bring up a pretty stereotypical point, without guns how will we defend ourselves from our own government if things get out of hand?

 

[kai]

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus - ConcealedCampus.com

I would like to know everyones opinion on this. Please try to keep the debate to dull roar.

you know this gun thing with americans i will never understand it, you are in a catch 22 situation where it seems too late to give them up and it just keeps on going.

 

[kai]

And...
There are literally hundreds of articles shouting that the UK gun ban is grossly ineffective, and that violent crimes involving handguns have increased exponentially in the past 10 years.

"It makes sense. Criminals are encouraged to increase their violence when the risk of doing so has been drastically lowered. They have the guns. The good guys don’t. Do the math."

"Right now (2005) about 6,000 of the approximately 142,000 policemen in the country (UK) are armed."

"In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease. Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing."

"THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998."

“People are very surprised to learn that survey data show that guns are used defensively by private citizens in the U.S. from 1.5 to 3.4 million times a year, at least three times more frequently than guns are used to commit crimes.”

The problem we are facing is that our legislators are unwilling to let American students defend themselves for whatever reason. Gun control is not the answer. Gun bans do not work.

it is not grossly inefective every single handgun in the UK is illegal, there are some 60 million people living here and the problem at the moment is a very small minority try to emulate american gang culture and obtain illegal guns

Facts & figures

• The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year.
• Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%.
• The number of armed robberies involving guns dropped by 3%
• There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07.
• The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07.
• The number of reported crimes involving air guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07 over 2005/06.

(Source: Crime in England and Wales 2006/07; Homicide, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2006-07.)

Home Office | Gun crime

 

[yossarian22]

Your statistics are interesting, but I think that I should add that there are five times more people in the US than the UK. Your statistics don’t reflect the difference.

"It makes sense.

"Right now

"In a pattern
"THE government

“People are very surprised

The problem we are facing is that our legislators are unwilling to let American students defend themselves for whatever reason. Gun control is not the answer. Gun bans do not work.

Population size is irrelevant. Unless, that is, you are going to argue that the population of the UK is lower than 30, in which case you have a point.
A far better angle of attack is a cultural difference, but even that is probably not too valid.
A mixture of anecdotes and a irrelevant statistics hardly make your point convincing.