Guns on school campuses?

**Anonymous D** · 05-30-2009, 01:14 AM

There was a recent bill introduced in Louisiana that would allow people to legally carry gun on campuses that have always been "Gun Free Zones"

Me, being a strong 2nd amendment supporter was very excited about this bill, but like I figured, it did not pass. So my question is this. How do YOU feel about it. Let me give you a break down of it.

In order to carry a weapon on campus, you would also have to be a CCW holder. A CCW is basically a license to carry a concealed weapon. In order to get this license, you have to pay usually around $75 for the class, then pay another $50 or $100 for a 2 or 4 year license, and when you renew, you must take the $75 class again. Now these are the going rates in LA, I dont know what they are in other states. You have to send your finger prints in to the state police for them to keep on record, and you are subject to a background check. And you must be 21 years of age and not restricted from owning a gun for any reason.

People who legally carry a concealed weapon are law abiding citizens. Im not sure how true this is, but the instructor at the class I went to told us that in the state of Louisiana, there has never been a CCW holder commit a gun crime.

Now, knowing what one has to go through in order to actually be able to carry on campus, how would you feel about it?

And to clarify, in the bill, campus was defined as an Elementary, middle school, High school, technical college, or state college. So basically, staff in K-12 schools, and once you get into colleges, thats when students can carry.

**Shinysides** · 05-30-2009, 01:46 AM

I'm very pro-gun rights, but I think this is a terrible idea.

K-12 teachers shouldn't ever need to be carrying a concealed weapon, and if they do, the school needs better security. Teachers with guns is not the answer. As far as college students carrying, as long as you have a CCW, I guess I don't see a problem with it. But K-12? Definitely not.

**Anonymous D** · 05-30-2009, 02:30 AM

Why do you think K-12 teachers should not carry, but college students should be allowed? Sure there is pretty much no chance of someone shooting up a kindergarten class, but what about all the HS shooting? How do you think Colombine would have turned out if a few teachers were legally carrying guns?

**Shinysides** · 05-30-2009, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Why do you think K-12 teachers should not carry, but college students should be allowed? Sure there is pretty much no chance of someone shooting up a kindergarten class, but what about all the HS shooting? How do you think Colombine would have turned out if a few teachers were legally carrying guns?

I think it would have been worse. Armed gunmen in a school is terrifying enough, but a full blown shootout? That would get more people killed. Besides, having a CCW doesn't make you a peace officer. Most people just wouldn't be able to handle a situation like that CCW or no. As I said, better to enforce higher security standards and leave the shootouts to the police. And how many people would one teacher get killed if he had gotten in a gunfight with school shooters? 0? 1? 10? You can't know for sure, but I wouldn't trust most teachers with a gun at school, regardless of a slip of paper telling me it's okay.

**Syme** · 05-30-2009, 10:05 AM

The number of people who get hit by stray bullets during a "shootout" is almost certainly going to be smaller than the number of people who get shot if gunmen are allowed to complete their rampage. The idea that cops are specially capable of handling situations like that, and most people lack that capability, doesn't really have any basis in reality; it's something that people say when they are uncomfortable with the idea of armed citizens and need some reason to disparage it.

**gismo** · 05-30-2009, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Syme

The number of people who get hit by stray bullets during a "shootout" is almost certainly going to be smaller than the number of people who get shot if gunmen are allowed to complete their rampage. The idea that cops are specially capable of handling situations like that, and most people lack that capability, doesn't really have any basis in reality; it's something that people say when they are uncomfortable with the idea of armed citizens and need some reason to disparage it.

How often do cops get into full blown shootouts in packed areas? I'd imagine most of the time they would do their best to evacuate before risking a gunfight.

I don't think more guns is the solution. Whilst not causing school shootings etc, they do play a big part in enabling them. Maybe this is just me being cynical, but authorities have had a hell of a time trying to profile would be rampagers, it is a task close to impossible. The idea that doing a class/having a license means you can be trusted with a firearm in public...I know I would be uneasy with this.

How many school shootings are there in Louisiana? Is it really that common as to merit this? I know people from that part of the world love their guns, but I think this might be taking things too far. I seriously doubt that it would stop school shootings.

I need to ask...am I the only one who thinks creating a mutual climate of fear is...a slightly disturbing way to do things?

**Shinysides** · 05-30-2009, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Syme

The number of people who get hit by stray bullets during a "shootout" is almost certainly going to be smaller than the number of people who get shot if gunmen are allowed to complete their rampage. The idea that cops are specially capable of handling situations like that, and most people lack that capability, doesn't really have any basis in reality; it's something that people say when they are uncomfortable with the idea of armed citizens and need some reason to disparage it.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion of course, but as I said in my first post I really don't have an issue with armed citizens, I just don't think schools are the place for it. Also, what about this: Say for example, a teacher is carrying somewhere on his person. What happens if some kid who is just joking around decides to catch said teacher unawares and tries to playfully take it from him? Obviously not a smart move on the kids part, but now we have a potentially lethal situation, for absolutely no reason at all. And if you don't think a highschool kid would do this I beg to differ, I can think of several people off the top of my head who would have likely done such a thing when I was in high school.

**Syme** · 05-30-2009, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by gismo

How often do cops get into full blown shootouts in packed areas? I'd imagine most of the time they would do their best to evacuate before risking a gunfight.

They certainly try to, but when someone pulls a gun in a crowded place, cops have to react immediately; they can't clear the area of bystanders first. They don't get to choose when they have a gunfight. Again, the risk of a bystander being hit by a stray bullet is a much less significant one than the risk of allowing a school shooter to go on their rampage until the cops arrive.

Originally Posted by gismo

I don't think more guns is the solution. Whilst not causing school shootings etc, they do play a big part in enabling them. Maybe this is just me being cynical, but authorities have had a hell of a time trying to profile would be rampagers, it is a task close to impossible. The idea that doing a class/having a license means you can be trusted with a firearm in public...I know I would be uneasy with this.

Well, it is already the case that getting a CCH license means you can be trusted with a firearm in public; the system obviously works, because CCHL holders are, statistically speaking, far more law-abiding and safe than the general public. This law would just extend that right, which already exists almost everywhere else, into schools for licensed teachers.

Originally Posted by gismo

How many school shootings are there in Louisiana? Is it really that common as to merit this? I know people from that part of the world love their guns, but I think this might be taking things too far. I seriously doubt that it would stop school shootings.

The This happened in Mississippi in 1997, for what it's worth. Because the particular shooting was brief and the shooter tried to escape, the armed principal stopped him from escaping instead of stopping him during the shooting. The principle is basically the same, though.

Originally Posted by gismo

I need to ask...am I the only one who thinks creating a mutual climate of fear is...a slightly disturbing way to do things?

It's probably a better way of doing things than trying to prevent school shootings by putting up "GUN-FREE ZONE" signs outside schools and then hoping that would-be mass murderers will abandon their plans and go home when they see the signs. And actually, it's not about creating a mutual climate of fear; it's about giving people the ability to respond to an attacker. The hope isn't that school shooters will be dissuaded by fear of an armed teacher, it's that they will be stopped by the actions of an armed teacher. I don't think there is anything disturbing about allowing people to defend themselves and those around them. What's disturbing to me is the attitude that safety is served by creating voluntary-compliance gun restrictions (e.g., the "gun-free zones" that currently exist around schools), which any reasonable person should see will be totally ignored by criminals and will, by definition, only serve to filter out non-criminal gun owners. Current school shooting countermeasures are basically the honor system; we hope that people who are willing to commit murder won't be willing to violate a gun-free school zone ordinance.

Originally Posted by Shinysides

Well, you're welcome to your opinion of course, but as I said in my first post I really don't have an issue with armed citizens, I just don't think schools are the place for it. Also, what about this: Say for example, a teacher is carrying somewhere on his person. What happens if some kid who is just joking around decides to catch said teacher unawares and tries to playfully take it from him? Obviously not a smart move on the kids part, but now we have a potentially lethal situation, for absolutely no reason at all. And if you don't think a highschool kid would do this I beg to differ, I can think of several people off the top of my head who would have likely done such a thing when I was in high school.

I think "the place for it" is any place where people are at risk of being victimized by violent crime, which sadly includes schools no matter how much we might wish otherwise. As for students grabbing them, the schools should probably require that armed teachers carry their gun in a secure concealed holster, such as an IWB type. We're certainly not talking about open (unconcealed) carry here.

**Anonymous D** · 05-30-2009, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Shinysides

Well, you're welcome to your opinion of course, but as I said in my first post I really don't have an issue with armed citizens, I just don't think schools are the place for it. Also, what about this: Say for example, a teacher is carrying somewhere on his person. What happens if some kid who is just joking around decides to catch said teacher unawares and tries to playfully take it from him? Obviously not a smart move on the kids part, but now we have a potentially lethal situation, for absolutely no reason at all. And if you don't think a highschool kid would do this I beg to differ, I can think of several people off the top of my head who would have likely done such a thing when I was in high school.

Im not talking about open carry where everyone can see it. Im talking about CONCEALED carry. And when you CC you dont let anyone know that you have the gun.

And as far as MORE people getting killed in a shoot out. Noone can say for sure, but IMO, the shooters will concentrate on the ones returning fire in stead of continuing their rampage.

You say you are all for people carrying guns outside of schools. What are your reasons for that?

And as far as the gun being taken by some idiot student, there are holsters that actually LOCK the gun in the holster and you have to flip a switch to be able to pull it out.

**benzss** · 05-30-2009, 06:32 PM

Aren't campuses private property? So whatever they say goes, really. Beyond that I can't say I have an opinion.

**Anonymous D** · 05-30-2009, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by benzss

Aren't campuses private property? So whatever they say goes, really. Beyond that I can't say I have an opinion.

Private schools would be able to say what goes, but state schools like LSU would have to take down the GUN FREE ZONE signs.

I would love to see those come down. It would be like watching the Berlin Wall come down. lol
Sadly I doubt that will ever happen.

**Anonymous D** · 05-30-2009, 06:49 PM

Heres another question I want to ask some of you. Do you think that someone who is planning a school shooting would rethink if they knew other people might also be carrying guns to defend themselves?

And do you think "gun free zones" such as schools and churches make them more likely to be a target?

**Syme** · 05-30-2009, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by benzss

Aren't campuses private property? So whatever they say goes, really. Beyond that I can't say I have an opinion.

Private schools/universities are private, but in the US, a majority of schools (both elementary/secondary and colleges) are public, operated either by the county/city (in the case of elementary and secondary schools) or the state (in the case of universities). So their no-gun policies are the result of government policy or, in some places, actual law.

**Shinysides** · 05-30-2009, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Heres another question I want to ask some of you. Do you think that someone who is planning a school shooting would rethink if they knew other people might also be carrying guns to defend themselves?

And do you think "gun free zones" such as schools and churches make them more likely to be a target?

1. I can't say with any certainty, but I doubt it. It seems like most of these would be shooters are suicidal or at least have a fatalistic mindset anyways, so I doubt they would be deterred. Besides, at my high school, there would have been someone shooting back. We had a police detachment in the school at all times consisting of two police officers.

2. No, not less likely either, but not more likely. I mean, you see a sign that says "drug free zone" does that make you want to go smoke pot there? Probably not, but at the same time it probably wouldn't deter you if you really wanted to either.

**Syme** · 05-30-2009, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Shinysides

1. I can't say with any certainty, but I doubt it. It seems like most of these would be shooters are suicidal or at least have a fatalistic mindset anyways, so I doubt they would be deterred. Besides, at my high school, there would have been someone shooting back. We had a police detachment in the school at all times consisting of two police officers.

I actually agree with this; as I said earlier, the point of allowing CCW in schools is intervention, not deterrence. I think you are right, anyone who plans to carry out a school shooting is probably not the type of person who is going to make rational self-preservation decisions.

On the topic of cops at schools, that's great where it's feasible, but if it was universally feasible, the whole school shooting thing wouldn't really even be an issue. Not every locality has a large enough police department to keep an officer at every school in the county/city at all times. My high school always had a cop at it too, but our county's police department was large and well-funded and could spare the manpower. That's not the case everywhere in the country.

Originally Posted by Shinysides

2. No, not less likely either, but not more likely. I mean, you see a sign that says "drug free zone" does that make you want to go smoke pot there? Probably not, but at the same time it probably wouldn't deter you if you really wanted to either.

This is a fundamentally flawed analogy, because when you want to smoke pot you don't seek out a place where no-one else will have pot; but when you want to murder people, there IS a good reason to seek out a place where no-one else has a gun and thus no-one can defend themselves against you or stop you. The gun-free school zones are basically big advertisements saying "Guaranteed Defenseless Victims Here!", and that's particularly attractive to people who have decided that they want to kill as many people as possible.

**Shinysides** · 05-30-2009, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Syme

This is a fundamentally flawed analogy, because when you want to smoke pot you don't seek out a place where no-one else will have pot; but when you want to murder people, there IS a good reason to seek out a place where no-one else has a gun and thus no-one can defend themselves against you or stop you. The gun-free school zones are basically big advertisements saying "Guaranteed Defenseless Victims Here!", and that's particularly attractive to people who have decided that they want to kill as many people as possible.

Okay, that's a good point.

**Anonymous D** · 05-30-2009, 07:47 PM

Thats what I was trying to say. IMO a gun free zone is more likely to get shot up by some disturbed guy because when they do shoot up a school, their intentions are usually to kill as many people as possible and then take their own lives. It doesnt seem like they would want to risk getting shot and incapacitated, and then spend the rest of their life in jail. Or even risk getting shot before they get a chance to kill innocents.

If you were going to try and kill as many people as possible, where would you go. A school or a gun show?

**MrShrike** · 05-31-2009, 01:58 AM

Question:

For comparison, how does the fact that retailers can and obviously do carry firearms, in a similar fashion and intent as proposed for teachers (and adult students), affect the rate the rate and result of gun crimes in retail stores?

**Syme** · 05-31-2009, 11:28 AM

I doubt we'll be able to find statistics on that, tbh.

**Anonymous D** · 05-31-2009, 05:50 PM

I wish we could fins some numbers, but since there are no statistics on people who WOULD have committed crime, then I doubt we will.

And robbing a gas station is completely different than going somewhere with the intent to kill as many people as possible before taking your own life. Most of the time when someone robs a gas station, shots arent even fired.

**Atomic** · 06-05-2009, 08:45 AM

I think it's a good idea. The saying "When seconds count the police are just minutes away..." keeps ringing in my head. A threat could be neutralized long before the police arrive and before the second or third harmful shot is fired.

**Kittens!** · 07-25-2009, 11:49 PM

The Journal of Quantitated Criminology ran a very large study on gun bans in the US. For starters, the US is very different than other countries when it comes to gun control: The same methods do not have equal effects. In the US, gun bans have a negative (bad, not -) effect on violent crime. The wide commercial availability of weapons acts as a powerful deterrent. Also, when guns are banned, the black market starts selling them in much higher quantities. This means that mentally ill people can buy guns more easily.

I believe it is obvious that younger people should not be trusted with weaponry, and I see no reason why they need to be concealed on campus (in a college campus in this case). However, being allowed to open carry pistol on a campus could be an effective deterrent as long as the owners of the guns take many classes and know what they are doing.

**Anonymous D** · 07-26-2009, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by Kittens!

I believe it is obvious that younger people should not be trusted with weaponry, and I see no reason why they need to be concealed on campus (in a college campus in this case). However, being allowed to open carry pistol on a campus could be an effective deterrent as long as the owners of the guns take many classes and know what they are doing.

The concealed carry vs. open carry debate is a whole nother thread. But this is what it boils down to. Lets say a shooter wants to take out a few people. He walks into a class, sees noone open carrying, and kills every single one of them. Or maybe he sees a person or two carrying a gun, they will be the first two people he will take out.

VS. a gunman walking into a class and looking around, seeing no guns, and starts to shoot. One person with a concealed weapon is able to get the jump on him and only a few lives are lost compared to many.

As far as younger people not being trusted with weaponry, what would you consider younger? I would consider anyone old enough to get a concealed weapons license old enough.

And another thing about open vs. concealed carry. You dont have to get a license to open carry, for concealed carry, you have to go to an 8 hour class (In my state) and take a shooting proficiency test. Then you have to send your fingerprints, a photo, documents, etc to the state police and they have to issue you a license. Compared to open carry where anyone who is 21 and can own a gun can do it with ni training whatsoever.

You HAVE to be 21 to carry a weapon concealed or open. (In Louisiana and most states). So the young people not being allowed to carry guns is already taken care of.

**Kittens!** · 07-26-2009, 03:58 AM

When I said young I was referring to high school sophomores and lower as a rough guideline. (16 years of age or so)

Concealed carry has its uses in keeping the government from having too much power, but it has no place on a college campus. Visual weapons would be a more effective deterrent.

**Syme** · 07-26-2009, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Kittens!

When I said young I was referring to high school sophomores and lower as a rough guideline. (16 years of age or so)

Those people are nowhere near being able to carry a handgun, though. You have to be 21 to buy a pistol in the US, let alone carry one around. So concealed carry on campuses has absolutely nothing to do with high school sophomores. It has to do with teachers/professors, and upperclassmen in college.

Originally Posted by Kittens!

Concealed carry has its uses in keeping the government from having too much power, but it has no place on a college campus. Visual weapons would be a more effective deterrent.

I disagree with this. Open carry tends to freak people out, and this would be doubly true on a college campus. The only place you can really get away with open carry is in small rural towns in gun-loving parts of the country where everyone is, to be frank, rednecks. There's no way it would be even remotely possible to open-carry on a college campus without freaking the hell out of everyone and causing a huge scene everywhere you go. That aside, why do you feel that it would be a more effective deterrent? If anything, I would think that it's more effective for a potential campus shooter to know that anyone could be armed and to be unable to tell who is and who isn't. If he can visually tell who's armed, he's going to quickly catch on to the fact that very few people actually are.

There's a reason that concealed carry is much, much, much more popular as a self-defense measure than open carry, even though open carry is theoretically easier in most jurisdictions. That reason has very little to do with "keeping the government from having too much power".

**sycld** · 07-26-2009, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Syme

There's a reason that concealed carry is much, much, much more popular as a self-defense measure than open carry, even though open carry is theoretically easier in most jurisdictions. That reason has very little to do with "keeping the government from having too much power".

oh i don't know about that. we residents in and around dc have been concealed carrying handguns for years, picking off government officials that get out of line.

**Anonymous D** · 07-26-2009, 07:09 PM

I was going to say pretty much the same thing syme said. You have to be 21 to buy and carry and gun, and open carry freaks people out.

**Kittens!** · 07-28-2009, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

I was going to say pretty much the same thing syme said. You have to be 21 to buy and carry and gun, and open carry freaks people out.

If I knew that concealed carry was allowed on campus, I would be freaked out by everyone, because anyone could be packing a glock under their jacket. Not to mention that a school shooter would not attack if he saw armed people walking around. He might take his chances if all guns were concealed.

Next, concealed carry is for protection from government. It is used to prevent widespread arrests of armed citizens. If you think such a theory is ridiculous, then you should not support gun rights at all, because gun rights are meant to keep some power with the people, and to prevent total government control.

Of course when it comes to what the school shooter thinks about threats, we are speculating, so I think we tie on that part of the debate. I wonder what a criminal expert would say?

**gismo** · 07-28-2009, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Kittens!

Next, concealed carry is for protection from government. It is used to prevent widespread arrests of armed citizens. If you think such a theory is ridiculous, then you should not support gun rights at all, because gun rights are meant to keep some power with the people, and to prevent total government control.

Hhahahahaha. This isn't the 18th century. Oh dear, it is actually rather scary to hear people say stuff like this.

**Syme** · 07-28-2009, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Kittens!

If I knew that concealed carry was allowed on campus, I would be freaked out by everyone, because anyone could be packing a glock under their jacket. Not to mention that a school shooter would not attack if he saw armed people walking around. He might take his chances if all guns were concealed.

So you're saying that you would be "freaked out by everyone" if you knew you were in a place where concealed carry was allowed. Does this mean that you are "freaked out by everyone" anytime you go to a grocery store, library, coffee shop, movie theater, or basically anywhere EXCEPT a government building, school, or bar? Because under the laws of most states, concealed carry is already allowed in all of those places; almost anywhere you go, anyone you see could be packing a glock under their jacket. I guess you are just freaked out all the time?

Even if you are a total nutbar and get freaked out anytime someone around you might have a concealed weapon (e.g., almost always), this is not representative of how most people respond to the issue. Most people living in shall-issue states somehow manage not to spend their days constantly freaked out by the fact that someone nearby might be packing; yet if you walk into the supermarket with a gun openly carried on your hip, even in a fairly conservative shall-issue state, I guarantee you that some dumb soccer-mom WILL freak out and call the cops. That kind of hassle will follow you everywhere you go if you try to open carry. It would certainly occur if people tried to open carry on college campuses. That's why open carry is widely recognized as a retarded idea by most gun owners, and concealed carry is the way to go.

Originally Posted by Kittens

Next, concealed carry is for protection from government. It is used to prevent widespread arrests of armed citizens. If you think such a theory is ridiculous, then you should not support gun rights at all, because gun rights are meant to keep some power with the people, and to prevent total government control.

I do think such a theory is ridiculous. What is your basis for making this argument? Certainly such goals don't motivate most CCW holders. They also definitely did not inform the lawmaking processes that led to the current widespread state of shall-issue CCW regimes. What are you basing this on? Who says? If concealed carry is used to prevent "widespread arrest of armed citizens", then why don't the states that still don't allow CCW have a problem with such widespread arrests? Are you claiming that before the spread of shall-issue CCW regimes, there was a big problem with such arrests, but that the growth in CCW availability curtailed this problem? Explain your argument here, because frankly, it seems pretty absurd and baseless on it's face. CCW is for protection from crooks, not the government.

Originally Posted by Kittens

Of course when it comes to what the school shooter thinks about threats, we are speculating, so I think we tie on that part of the debate. I wonder what a criminal expert would say?

What we do know is that self-defense experts widely agree that concealed carry is much, much better idea than open carry, for a variety of reasons. So I think it's safe to say that allowing CCW on campus is a much, much better idea than allowing open carry only.

**sycld** · 07-28-2009, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Syme

What are you basing this on? Who says?

i think this person thinks that all gun rights advocates are members of anti-government militant groups holed up in the rocky mountains, as this what kittens! is saying is pretty much in line with their ideology.

of course, the vast majority of gun rights advocates are not members of anti-govnerment militant groups holded up in the rocky mountaints...

**Anonymous D** · 07-28-2009, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Kittens!

Next, concealed carry is for protection from government. It is used to prevent widespread arrests of armed citizens. If you think such a theory is ridiculous, then you should not support gun rights at all, because gun rights are meant to keep some power with the people, and to prevent total government control.

WHAT?
Dude where are you hearing this stuff? Im a HUGE 2nd ammendment supporter, and CC is NOT for protection from the Gov. CC is for protection from criminals on the street. Do you honestly think someone will pull a gun on cops if even if they KNOW they are being wrongfully arrested? Thats just asking for trouble. The 2nd amendment was originally created to give the people power to keep the gov. from becoming a tyrannical one. Not CC.

As far as a shooter not doing anything because he sees a guy with a gun, and this is purely speculation, but realisticly, most people, including myself, would not want to open carry. Which would make the number of people with a gun very low, if any at all. So it would be no problem for an active shooter to focus on just the armed people and take them out even before they can react. Then he would continue on with the killing or unarmed people.

For example. Cops open carry, if someone is robbing a bank, the FIRST people they will take care of is the ones that are a VISIBLE threat. If there is a plain clothed officer with a hidden gun, that gives him the ability to blend in and look like a non-threat.

**gorefinger** · 07-29-2009, 12:02 AM

Personally, I don't think you should bring guns to school unless you bring enough to share with the rest of the class.

**Syme** · 07-29-2009, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by sycld

i think this person thinks that all gun rights advocates are members of anti-government militant groups holed up in the rocky mountains, as this what kittens! is saying is pretty much in line with their ideology.

of course, the vast majority of gun rights advocates are not members of anti-govnerment militant groups holded up in the rocky mountaints...

Right, but even so, he's talking specifically about concealed carry of a handgun, not about gun rights in general. So what he's saying is basically absurd, and reveals that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and knows nothing about CC.

**sycld** · 08-04-2009, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Syme

Right, but even so, he's talking specifically about concealed carry of a handgun, not about gun rights in general. So what he's saying is basically absurd, and reveals that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and knows nothing about CC.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%. That was just my attempt to get into the mind of this omega semi-moron here, and it hurt my head

**jojo** · 08-05-2009, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by gorefinger

Personally, I think don't think you should bring guns to school unless you bring enough to share with the rest of the class.

This made me lol, and remember the old elementary school days. (should see the look on a teachers face when ya pull a big bag of candy out of ya back pack to "share with the rest of the class")

Seriously though I gotta agree with annony that open carry tends to freak people out. Also only concealed is allowed in SC with a permit. I think if other people in a college class had went thru the training to get there permit and all that i'd be perfectly comfortable setting there with them armed.

As far as k-12 only the teachers and staff would be applicable under current CWP laws because of age. I do support there right to carry with a permit. My high school also had 2 police officers full time and thats all fine and dandy. However there office was on one end of the building about a 2-3 minute walk in empty hallways. If shit hit the fan and bullets started flying at the opposite end of the building and or upstairs the halls would be crowded with people running there ass off heading for the exits making it much harder for the police officers to respond. An armed teacher could easily bring an end to the situation long before the cops could get there.

**Syme** · 08-06-2009, 12:10 AM

I would say that cops in a school building will generally be able to respond in time. It might be a 2-3 minute walk to the other end of the building, but if they are responding to gunfire, they sure as shit won't be walking; a 2-3 minute walk is like a 30 second run. I suppose if the shooter(s) happens to start shooting in the very same room where a teacher happens to be packing, then the teacher would be able to respond before the cops managed to run over, but generally, having cops stationed in schools is a pretty sure-fire defense against school shooters. The real issue, and the real reason that allowing teachers to CC might be helpful, is that in many localities it is not practical to permanently station a couple of cops at every school. In populous counties/cities that type of duty can take up literally hundreds of officers every day.

**jojo** · 08-07-2009, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Syme

I would say that cops in a school building will generally be able to respond in time. It might be a 2-3 minute walk to the other end of the building, but if they are responding to gunfire, they sure as shit won't be walking; a 2-3 minute walk is like a 30 second run. I suppose if the shooter(s) happens to start shooting in the very same room where a teacher happens to be packing, then the teacher would be able to respond before the cops managed to run over, but generally, having cops stationed in schools is a pretty sure-fire defense against school shooters. The real issue, and the real reason that allowing teachers to CC might be helpful, is that in many localities it is not practical to permanently station a couple of cops at every school. In populous counties/cities that type of duty can take up literally hundreds of officers every day.

It might be a 30 second run if the halls are empty if everyone is running scared for there life its gonna be a bit harder to get thru the crowd, somewhat akin to going the wrong way down the streets with the running of the bulls. Even if they made it in 30 seconds, it takes very little time to unload a full magazine of ammo into a class room full of students and by then it will be a little late. Having someone that can respond properly right there right then could be a good solution.

**Syme** · 08-07-2009, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by jojo

It might be a 30 second run if the halls are empty if everyone is running scared for there life its gonna be a bit harder to get thru the crowd, somewhat akin to going the wrong way down the streets with the running of the bulls. Even if they made it in 30 seconds, it takes very little time to unload a full magazine of ammo into a class room full of students and by then it will be a little late. Having someone that can respond properly right there right then could be a good solution.

Hmmm, maybe, but you should also bear in mind that even if ES/HS teachers are allowed to CCW, most of them won't--it's not like there's going to be an armed teacher in every class, so an armed teacher responding to a shooting is probably going to have the same problems getting to the scene that a cop would. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it--the more people around to possibly intervene in a shooting, the better--but what I'm saying is that when schools already have cops stationed at them, armed teachers become decidedly less important as a safety measure. Again, the real issue is that it's often not practical to keep cops at all the schools all the time.

Also, school shootings usually don't produce a flood of people crowding into the halls. The regular procedure is for teachers to keep their students in the class room and try to lock/block the door.

**Anonymous D** · 08-08-2009, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Syme

Also, school shootings usually don't produce a flood of people crowding into the halls. The regular procedure is for teachers to keep their students in the class room and try to lock/block the door.

Yep. And I dont know about you, but if I hear shooting out in the hall, or another class down the hall, the last place I want to go is in the hall. Im going out a window.

Unless Im in one of my classes on the 3rd story. Then Im wishing CC on campus was legal.