news-record.com

You make some valid points regarding campuses not being disciplined environments with drinking and depression, etc. However, people who obtain a concealed handgun permit are not going to be out carrying and drinking. It is a violation of current Virginia law be legally intoxicated while carrying a concealed weapon (§ 18.2-308.J1). People who carry concealed weapons are proven to be more law-abiding than the everyday citizen and are very aware of the elevated responsibility and care required when carrying.

Rick
http://vagunforum.net

I appreciate Mr. Johnson's desire to bring this issue into the realm of public discourse. I do disagree with him wholeheartedly. I think Mr. Johnson did not fully consider the issue, but I know he's not alone. The academic community generally refuses to consider this issue on the merits, resulting in the deluge of disapproval Mr. Johnson cites in his writing. I challenge him and any other academics with a genuine deep interest in this topic to go back and hit the books. The statistical data and scientific studies on concealed carry along with a real logical analysis of the degree of change advocated will in all likelihood point an open-minded investigator in the direction of support for a concealed carry on campus measure.

First consider what it is that concealed carry on campus would and wouldn't change. It wouldn't change who owns guns in the home (and thus wouldn't change suicide rates). It wouldn't change who can carry off campus (and thus, wouldn't change who's carrying at parties and bars). It wouldn't change the illegality of weapon possession while intoxicated (so even if you have a wet campus, it would still be illegal to mix alcohol and guns, and your licensees are acutely aware of that rule). It would allow licensed individuals to carry while they're in class. Given how sparse licensees are in the general population, that means you'll probably have about 1 gun per 100 students. That gun will be in a holster under a jacket or tee shirt, not a backpack. That licensee is often a veteran like Mike Guzman, SCCC President. They're sometimes ex police officers like the two in my section in law school. They are, at minimum, trained and trusted by the state to carry anywhere else you might encounter them like Wal-Mart, a movie theater, or a public mall. Licensees, in states that keep these statistics, are 5-14x less likely than the general population to be convicted of a crime. In some places that number is lower than some police forces. In all the public universities in Utah, Colorado State University, and Blue Valley Community College in VA, where concealed carry is already allowed on campus, there has yet to be a single negative incident (accidental discharge, assault, gun theft, you name it) related to a permitted individual.

The impact of concealed carry has been historically positive. While critics may point to one study that says guns are more likely to be used against the law abiding citizen than for him or her, the weight of the evidence falls on the other side. That study only counted incidents in which the trigger was pulled. It should stand to reason that criminals are much more likely to pull the trigger than law abiding citizens. In fact 98% of defensive gun uses don't involve pulling the trigger. Most estimates put the number of lawful defensive gun uses annually in the millions (1.5 million by the CDC under Clinton, 3 million by criminologist Gary Kleck). It is unquestioned that the number of accidents criminal shootings is only in the thousands. Specifically to the issue of concealed carry, John Lott's research is considered the most thorough, and it says unequivocally that where concealed carry is permitted, crime drops. His biggest critic, John Donohue III, concedes that his factual conclusion is correct and differs only in his explanation of causality. When the National Academy of Sciences took up the issue in their study Firearms and Violence, amid a nearly totally neutral report on firearms laws, the only conclusion even entertained (see Appendix A) was that Lott's conclusions were correct. The academic evidence here is at worst neutral. If this measure is, at worst, neutral, and the consequences of its absence (like the VT and NIU tragedies) are great, why not give it a try? If it backfires, we can undo it. If it works, like it appears to in Utah, where there haven't been any University shootings since 2004, then we've all made progress.

Thanks again to Mr. Johnson for his writing. I hope I've inspired him and others who share his views to go back and reexamine the issue.

These are good points regarding the military environment, very regimented and no idle time. However you are ignoring some important factors regarding CHL or concealed handgun license holders. You make the situation more sensational by making blanket statements like “everyone will be able to carry guns, its going to be Dodge City all over again". The bill is not to allow just anyone to carry concealed. Its to expand the places where current CHL holders can. People who have CHL holders submit to all the rigorous checks and accountability measures state and federal government can think of. CHL holders have submitted to a state and federal background check. Our prints are taken and stored in a federal database along with our pictures so we can be identified. We are putting our reputation, our livelihood and the pursuit of our own happiness on the line so that we can defend our selves or own. We are taking responsibility just as those brave men and women to had attacked that gunman, some with a pencil. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? We have no reason to hide or be suspicious of any law enforcement authority. We have no illusions of being heroes or replacements for law enforcement. Your ignorance of the whole situation is typical of most folks who oppose the measure.

I read some accounts of what happened at VT. There were guys that rushed the gunman, they stood up and argued with him, some after hearing the gun shots from class rooms 3 doors down barricaded their doors and hid behind desks and books but he still pushed his way in. They would have time to prepare, to draw their weapons, to make shots that count. If you are in one corner of the room waiting for a crazy gunman to burst in to the room you have time to point. They could have made more of a difference. There will always be crazy killers, and there will always be individuals who will take it upon themselves to do what is right. Do you want them to use a pencil or a pistol?

As a college student, some of your arguments are offensive to me. I go to UNC, and plenty of us in fact did not go burn things. We celebrated the victory normally, as any adult would. But because the news media, including the news and record, is sensationalistic, the students in the orgiastic mob on Franklin Street suddenly represent the whole student body--even college students in general.

There's a better argument for why college students shouldn't carry weapons. How about the fact that killing another human being is wrong, no matter what the motivation. If the Virginia Tech killer came into the classroom and shot several of my classmates, it would still be wrong for me to take out a gun and kill him. Turn the other cheek. He will get what's coming to him in the end. Shooting him out of "self defense" puts you on the exact same level as the killer.

That guy in Texas stole my idea, except I had it back in 2001 as a solution for airport security problems. Instead of restricting guns from airplanes, we should issue everyone on every flight a gun with a single bullet in it. There would never be another hi-jacking ever. Think of the billions of dollars we would have saved in airport security. Think how calm the irate passengers would be if they knew everyone around them was carrying.

Binge drinking and firearms, two great tastes that go great together!

To say that all college students are irresponsible, unintelligent, and lazy drunkards is an insult to those students who choose not to indulge in such mindless activities. How convenient of you to protect all of the children and then when they go to college, throw them in the grinder and say they are instantly turned into "hormonal teenagers" addicted to "sex, drugs, and rock and roll."

And if you think that the answer to gunfire isn't more guns, then why do the police bring theirs and almost everything they have to the scene. If you respond "hire more police," you just did EXACTLY that.

Question: If a CCW holder and a police officer receive the exact same training, what is the difference between them in terms of capability?

Great points Allen. I went to UNC too and saw the craziness after a basketball game too. These days I live in Hampton and have taught at HU. And no, you don't want those kids, or any college students, to be walking around with guns. I wonder sometimes if even some cops should have guns -- give their reckless use of them sometimes. So no, college kids do NOT need guns.

The author quotes Van Cleave as saying "if just one student 21 or older had a permit and had been armed that day," but then the author accuses Van Cleave of wanting "everyone" to have guns. I would like to thank the author of this article for providing the world with an excellent example of what a straw man argument is.

One of the problems with guns as a means of self-defense (or assault) is that the parties blasting away at one another can do so from a distance, rendering a sort of emotional abstraction from the consequences of their actions.

I propose that each and every American citizen be issued by the government a Bowie knife, an ice pick and a machete and be required by law to have them on their persons at all times.

Where should I begin? Should it be with your completely illogical argument, or with your insulting assumptions?

I will begin with the latter. You have insulted me personally. I have just graduated with my MBA from VA Tech. I am 41 years old. I worked for the last twenty years to be able to return to school. I have held a concealed carry permit for more than ten years. I have never been drunk in my life, let alone arrived for classes in an inebriated state. I await your apology, Mr. Johnson.

Rather than repeating the same logical flaws that I see addressed by other responders, I will ask you to consider the two issues at the core of this debate.

First, universities and colleges can abridge the rights only of their faculty, staff, and students. Any other citizen is within his or her rights to carry a weapon (or not) as he or she would in any other non-restricted public place. In effect, only people over whom the university has some sort of hold (either a paycheck or a diploma) are singled out to be sitting ducks.

Why is it that the legislature can declare that I am competent and responsible on one side of a street, yet by crossing that street and setting foot on campus, suddenly the university administration can decide that I am dangerous? If I am not dangerous on one side of the street, then chances are I am not dangerous on the other side of the street.

Second, your argument regarding drunkenness does not hold together. Where do students obtain and consume alcohol? Off campus. (I have yet to find beer taps in the university dining facilities alongside the soda fountains.) In the off-campus world, firearms exist. Therefore, students, firearms, and alcohol exist in the same spaces together and yet they do not combine to produce murder and mayhem on every street corner every hour of every day. So why do we suddenly lose our status as adult citizens simply because we take a job at a university, or enroll in its classes?

Once again, Mr. Johnson, I do await your personal apology.