Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In my opinion, yes it does.
But then I have gone through said training.
So I know first hand what it entails.
Now the training I received may or may not be to the same degree as other places that offer the same type training.
So I am basing my opinion on the training that I have received.

What does the training actually cover?

It seems like most of the concealed carry laws are designed to enable a person to defend themselves in an in-your-face encounter with a single attacker or small group... would a person going through concealed weapon training necessarily be equipped with the skills to handle the situation that concealed carry on college campuses is apparently intended to address, i.e. a crazed gunman wandering the classrooms and halls with lots of innocent people running around?

In particular, what's the approach to bystanders? In the training you had, was this addressed, or was it assumed that every nearby person is a target? Is preventing injury to bystanders (either by the attacker or the defender) even addressed?

A concealed weapon is appropriate whenever/where ever the need for said weapon is present.

And at least in one state being discussed, general fear for safety, i.e. the situation we're talking about in college classrooms, isn't considered a legitimate reason to have a concealed weapon.

Then in that state they will not get a CCP and it is therefore irrelevant to the topic.

Why do you say that?

My point was that the guy who works part time in a jewelry store might get a CCP on that basis (i.e. he handles expensive goods at work and is at an elevated risk for being accosted by armed thieves), but in the situation we're talking about, the classroom, neither one really has any greater claim to need for a weapon... but if people with CCPs were allowed to carry their weapons in the classroom, one of them could have a weapon and the other couldn't, even though it's just as "warranted" (or not warranted) for each of them to have one in the situation at hand. It seems like unequal treatment to me, that's all.

 

[McBell]

What does the training actually cover?

I did not get the training to get a CCP.
I showed an interest in going to the firing range and my father asked if I would like to go to a training camp.
I said yes and since one of the owners was an old Army buddy of his, I was able to get in.

When I went to get my CCP I found out that the training I recieved at that camp met the requirements for the CCP.

It seems like most of the concealed carry laws are designed to enable a person to defend themselves in an in-your-face encounter with a single attacker or small group... would a person going through concealed weapon training necessarily be equipped with the skills to handle the situation that concealed carry on college campuses is apparently intended to address, i.e. a crazed gunman wandering the classrooms and halls with lots of innocent people running around?

I suspect that that will depend upon the training they received.
I was trained in hand to hand, knife, and firearm.
However, I did not go through the training solely to receive a CCP.
A friend of mine told me that the training she received was nothing more than a fire arm safety course.

So I would have to say that her training would not have prepared her for a school shooting situation where as mine did.

In particular, what's the approach to bystanders? In the training you had, was this addressed, or was it assumed that every nearby person is a target? Is preventing injury to bystanders (either by the attacker or the defender) even addressed?

My training stressed that if you cannot safely fire your weapon, meaning you are guaranteed to hit the target, then you are not to fire.
Period.

And at least in one state being discussed, general fear for safety, i.e. the situation we're talking about in college classrooms, isn't considered a legitimate reason to have a concealed weapon.
Why do you say that?

I say that people in that state are screwed.

My point was that the guy who works part time in a jewelry store might get a CCP on that basis (i.e. he handles expensive goods at work and is at an elevated risk for being accosted by armed thieves), but in the situation we're talking about, the classroom, neither one really has any greater claim to need for a weapon... but if people with CCPs were allowed to carry their weapons in the classroom, one of them could have a weapon and the other couldn't, even though it's just as "warranted" (or not warranted) for each of them to have one in the situation at hand. It seems like unequal treatment to me, that's all.

Unequal treatment?
You mean to say it is 'not fair?'

What is your basis for comparison?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did not get the training to get a CCP.
I showed an interest in going to the firing range and my father asked if I would like to go to a training camp.
I said yes and since one of the owners was an old Army buddy of his, I was able to get in.

When I went to get my CCP I found out that the training I recieved at that camp met the requirements for the CCP.

Okay... I didn't realize your training went over and above what was required.

On the one hand, I have a concern with what seems to be an assumption of the "pro" side of the debate: that, by virtue of the training and testing required to get their permit, the presence of armed CCP holders in a classroom either would not create any material increase in risk, or at the very least would create a benefit that would outweigh any associated risk. Is that a fair assessment?

Because of this, I think it's fair to ask what sort of training and testing CCP holders actually have to go through - does a person who meets the bare requirements for his or her CCP have the necessary skills to create a more positive outcome in some sort of school shooting, or would they be mainly another potential source of harm?

On the other hand, it seems like in the places where CCP is legal and some process is in place, society has already made up its mind. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the idea of people carrying guns everywhere, but I don't think there's anything inherent about a college campus that gives it elevated status above, say, a mall, that gives us any real justification to say "concealed weapons there, but not here".

I suspect that that will depend upon the training they received.
I was trained in hand to hand, knife, and firearm.
However, I did not go through the training solely to receive a CCP.
A friend of mine told me that the training she received was nothing more than a fire arm safety course.

So I would have to say that her training would not have prepared her for a school shooting situation where as mine did.

Which is my main worry - from what little I know of fire arms safety courses from friends who have took them, my general impression is that they don't really equip a person for the types of scenarios we're talking about here. Even if you personally have skills beyond the requirements of your permit, that doesn't mean that this will be the general rule. If there does happen to be a CCP holder in the classroom when a gunman presents himself, all we can be reasonably sure of is that the permit holder meets the base requirements for the permit, nothing more.

If having CCP holders bring their guns to class wouldn't actually improve the situation, then the point of the plan disappears... unless it's actually part of a larger campaign for general freedom to bear arms. I'm still not certain that that's not the real reason behind this campaign.

My training stressed that if you cannot safely fire your weapon, meaning you are guaranteed to hit the target, then you are not to fire.
Period.

Okay. That's good to know.

I do worry whether everyone who's had that training would stick to it while being shot at, though.

Unequal treatment?
You mean to say it is 'not fair?'

What is your basis for comparison?

They're both students, in just as much need (or lack of need) for a firearm in the classroom. If one gets a firearm and the other doesn't, and the reason for the discrepancy is a government licence that has nothing to do with the situation at hand, I'd call that unequal or unfair.

 

[McBell]

On the one hand, I have a concern with what seems to be an assumption of the "pro" side of the debate: that, by virtue of the training and testing required to get their permit, the presence of armed CCP holders in a classroom either would not create any material increase in risk, or at the very least would create a benefit that would outweigh any associated risk. Is that a fair assessment?

I suspect that it is an attempt to counter measure the "Gun Free Zone" signs that criminals likely interpret to mean "Sitting Duck Zone"

Because of this, I think it's fair to ask what sort of training and testing CCP holders actually have to go through - does a person who meets the bare requirements for his or her CCP have the necessary skills to create a more positive outcome in some sort of school shooting, or would they be mainly another potential source of harm?

Anytime you add another firearm to the mix there is potential for more harm.
But in a way, that is sort of the point.
To harm the assailant before more innocents get harmed.

Yes, I know that that is not what you mean.
But anytime you add any weapon to a violent situation there is more potential for innocents being hurt.
So the real question should be "where do you draw the line?"

On the other hand, it seems like in the places where CCP is legal and some process is in place, society has already made up its mind. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the idea of people carrying guns everywhere, but I don't think there's anything inherent about a college campus that gives it elevated status above, say, a mall, that gives us any real justification to say "concealed weapons there, but not here".

And that is my point.
There is no reason to say "no, not on campus, but you can carry it most anywhere else."

If there does happen to be a CCP holder in the classroom when a gunman presents himself, all we can be reasonably sure of is that the permit holder meets the base requirements for the permit, nothing more.

That is true.

If having CCP holders bring their guns to class wouldn't actually improve the situation, then the point of the plan disappears... unless it's actually part of a larger campaign for general freedom to bear arms. I'm still not certain that that's not the real reason behind this campaign.

Perhaps, but I wonder if the shootings all happening on "Gun Free Zone" campus's is a coincidence?

I do worry whether everyone who's had that training would stick to it while being shot at, though.

I would like to think that I would.
However, since I have never been in said situation, or any situation like it, I honestly do not know if I could.

They're both students, in just as much need (or lack of need) for a firearm in the classroom. If one gets a firearm and the other doesn't, and the reason for the discrepancy is a government licence that has nothing to do with the situation at hand, I'd call that unequal or unfair.

But the government license has everything to do with one having a CCP and the other not having the CCP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suspect that it is an attempt to counter measure the "Gun Free Zone" signs that criminals likely interpret to mean "Sitting Duck Zone"

OTOH, a criminal might also interpret a "Concealed Carry Campus" sign to mean "Campus with expensive items in backpacks". Think of all the thefts of things like iPods that go on on college campuses; people even go to the point of getting new headphones so that they don't have those white ones as a "steal my stuff" flag to pickpockets.

How much more attractive to a thief than an iPod do you think a poorly-guarded handgun would be?

Anytime you add another firearm to the mix there is potential for more harm.
But in a way, that is sort of the point.
To harm the assailant before more innocents get harmed.

Yes, I know that that is not what you mean.
But anytime you add any weapon to a violent situation there is more potential for innocents being hurt.
So the real question should be "where do you draw the line?"

I'd say that if you're just looking at this pragmatically and ignore the larger questions of gun freedom vs. gun control generally, you draw the line at the break-even point: if having more guns in the classroom would prevent more harm than it causes itself, then you let them bring the guns in. If it doesn't, you don't.

And that is my point.
There is no reason to say "no, not on campus, but you can carry it most anywhere else."

Yes - it seems like the objections are more about concealed carry generally than about college campuses specifically.

Perhaps, but I wonder if the shootings all happening on "Gun Free Zone" campus's is a coincidence?

Are "all the shootings" actually statistically significant? A school shooting gets a lot of news coverage because it's a school shooting. I'm not sure that the media gives a very representative picture of the situation.

I'd be interested to see how the actual risk of being in a mass shooting on a gun-free college campus compares to, say, a large workplace in a state that allows concealed carry.

I would like to think that I would.
However, since I have never been in said situation, or any situation like it, I honestly do not know if I could.

I've never been shot at, but I have seen people do dumb things in other life-threatening situations completely against the training that had been drilled into them. Most people fall back on the habits they built up in training, but some don't.

However, another worry I have is that the CCP courses might not be rigorous enough, or re-certification might not be frequent enough (if it happens at all) to make sure that the permit holder develops and maintains those habits that they'd need in a panic situation.

 

[Apex]

OTOH, a criminal might also interpret a "Concealed Carry Campus" sign to mean "Campus with expensive items in backpacks". Think of all the thefts of things like iPods that go on on college campuses; people even go to the point of getting new headphones so that they don't have those white ones as a "steal my stuff" flag to pickpockets.

How much more attractive to a thief than an iPod do you think a poorly-guarded handgun would be?

Except Utah already allows CC permits on campus and there have been no problems with gun theft.

 

[McBell]

How much more attractive to a thief than an iPod do you think a poorly-guarded handgun would be?

Poorly guarded?

I'd say that if you're just looking at this pragmatically and ignore the larger questions of gun freedom vs. gun control generally, you draw the line at the break-even point: if having more guns in the classroom would prevent more harm than it causes itself, then you let them bring the guns in. If it doesn't, you don't.

Yet how do you know without an incident occurring on a CC campus?
However, that point (that there has yet to be an incident on a CC campus)seems to me to be better evidence than all the "what if" arguments that have been brought up thus far.

Yes - it seems like the objections are more about concealed carry generally than about college campuses specifically.

That is because the program is merely to allow those who already have the CCP to be able to CC on campus.

Are "all the shootings" actually statistically significant? A school shooting gets a lot of news coverage because it's a school shooting. I'm not sure that the media gives a very representative picture of the situation.

I agree that the media is not a very reliable source for details.

I'd be interested to see how the actual risk of being in a mass shooting on a gun-free college campus compares to, say, a large workplace in a state that allows concealed carry.

The thing is, how would it apply to the topic?

I've never been shot at, but I have seen people do dumb things in other life-threatening situations completely against the training that had been drilled into them. Most people fall back on the habits they built up in training, but some don't.

However, another worry I have is that the CCP courses might not be rigorous enough, or re-certification might not be frequent enough (if it happens at all) to make sure that the permit holder develops and maintains those habits that they'd need in a panic situation.

Fair enough.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

However, that point (that there has yet to be an incident on a CC campus)seems to me to be better evidence than all the "what if" arguments that have been brought up thus far

Isn't the incident at the church in Colorado close enough?

 

[McBell]

Isn't the incident at the church in Colorado close enough?

I am actually undecided about that.
The church knew, or at least the guard knew if they had any lick of sense, to be on particular guard that Sunday.

And although I have been unable to verify it otherwise, I have heard on the radio that the church does not normally have armed guards, yet did that Sunday.
If this is true then the church well aware there could be an incident that warranted an ARMED guard rather than an unarmed guard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Poorly guarded?

Left somewhere that a pickpocket or dorm room burglar could get at it.

Yet how do you know without an incident occurring on a CC campus?
However, that point (that there has yet to be an incident on a CC campus)seems to me to be better evidence than all the "what if" arguments that have been brought up thus far.

I'm having trouble finding real data - how many campuses allow concealed carry, and how long have they done so? I imagine that the sample size is a bit small for making statistical inferences, especially when the vast majority of campuses haven't had mass shooting incidents.

That is because the program is merely to allow those who already have the CCP to be able to CC on campus.

I had a look at the web site in the OP, and I'm not clear on one detail that seems to be fairly major: is this a campaign to remove/change the existing laws that prohibit concealed carry at colleges (i.e. to untie the hands of college administrators to allow concealed weapons if they see fit) or is it a campaign to force colleges to allow concealed carry (i.e. to tie the hands of administrators to allow weapons, even if they do not want them)?

I think equal treatment is probably warranted, but if a mall owner could decide to have a "no concealed weapons" rule on his property, why shouldn't a private college have the same right?

As the law stands now, could a mall enact a "no concealed weapons" rule?

The thing is, how would it apply to the topic?

I'm looking for roughly equivalent situations where the main difference was presence or lack of concealed weapons. I figure a large workplace is similar enough to a college campus that we can reasonably compare the two. What has been the actual effect of concealed carry on the sorts of situations we're talking about?

 

[Reverend Rick]

9-10 Penguin, People who own firearms are suppose to lock them when away from them. There are car safes designed with a strong cable to run through the seat frame of a car, or some are bolted in a trunk. At home there are gun safes or at the very least a trigger lock. Some guns have locks on them now.

As far as pick pockets or gun grabs, a level three retention holster solves that problem. Most of us carry very sharp knives to remove the fingers of gun grabbers and many have taken hand to hand defense training.

One training session taught us how to fight with a writing pen and a flashlight. A very small flashlight that fits in your hands. One of the most surprising training I recieved was the use of an umbrella. You have no idea how much a person can do with a simple rainy day device.

You have to realize that there are so many folks carrying now out in areas that are far more dangerous than a college campus. Gun grabs don't happen very often because you don't know who has a gun or where they are carrying it.

Believe it or not, the majority of gun grabs happen to uniformed officers who carry out in the open, not people who conceal their weapons.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Whether mandated legal or illegal, I'd say that people of any worth would realize the situation and act accordingly.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

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.

It was a joke. I was only half-kidding, however.

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

Yet how do you know without an incident occurring on a CC campus?
However, that point (that there has yet to be an incident on a CC campus)seems to me to be better evidence than all the "what if" arguments that have been brought up thus far.

How aboot this?