Guns on campus. What do you think?

[Dirty Penguin]

Idaho House Panel Backs Guns on Campus - ABC News

A bill to allow students, staff and visitors to carry guns on Idaho's college campuses passed out of a legislative committee Friday afternoon, despite objections from students, multiple police chiefs and leaders of all eight of the state's public colleges.

I recently came across this during a search for firearm accessories. I had to take a double take given some of the recent and past events of shootings on campus. I was suprised that it isn't isolated and it really isn't a new phenomenon.

See....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/texas-house-campus-carry-guns-colleges_n_3225310.html

Some students want to be allowed to carry concealed weapons on University of Kentucky campus | Education | Kentucky.com

I'm concerned about kids that are stressed being away from home, bullying, relationships issues, drugs and alcohol as well as some other factors alongside those carrying guns.

Tell me what you all think.

 

[metis]

I think it's crazy because it's an accident waiting to happen. Is it more likely that some deranged madman or woman will just go in and shoot up the campus, or that some stressed out student or argument causes someone to "solve" their problem with a gun? I tend to think the latter is far more likely.

 

[Apex]

I have no problem with it. Several states and campuses already allow it and have had no problems. I think a lot of the opposition to it are just knee jerk reactions where people have not actually thought all the way through their arguments.

There is a national group dedicated to this as well:
Students for Concealed Carry

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have no problem with it. Several states and campuses already allow it and have had no problems. I think a lot of the opposition to it are just knee jerk reactions where people have not actually thought all the way through their arguments.

There is a national group dedicated to this as well:
Students for Concealed Carry

Given that there have been campus shootings and some mass shootings I'm not so quick to dismiss the concerns of others and write them off as (knee jerked reactions). Personally I'm on the fence about it. I'm cautious about situations erupting because of mental instability, relationship problems or drugs, alcohol, partying. I think they're valid concerns but I also would respect the will of the people if they decided to allow firearms/concealed firearms on campus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think colleges should be free to allow (within the limits of the law) or ban weapons on their property as they see fit. IMO, it's overreaching for the state government to step in and overrule a college administration this way.

When I was in school, my university had a rule against beer containers more than 5 litres in residences. This put a damper on my home brewing for a while, but I dealt with it. Gun afficionados can deal with their bans, too.

 

[shadowcat]

What should be the benefit of that? I do believe that the world would be a better place without everyone carrying guns in their everyday life. Why would I carry a gun on a campus?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think colleges should be free to allow (within the limits of the law) or ban weapons on their property as they see fit. IMO, it's overreaching for the state government to step in and overrule a college administration this way.

When I was in school, my university had a rule against beer containers more than 5 litres in residences. This put a damper on my home brewing for a while, but I dealt with it. Gun afficionados can deal with their bans, too.

We don't have a right to bear alcohol here, so banning that is less problematic.
Certainly, the state has full authority to allow guns on campuses of state run universities.
As for the private ones, I'd give them them 2 options:
1) Allow concealed carry or....
2) Beef up campus security for this group they require to be otherwise defenseless.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is civilian ownership and carry that demand justification, in any case, so I can hardly understand why a campus would bother to give a blanket permit like that.

 

[esmith]

we have open carry in this State. If a student or faculty has passed the training for carrying a concealed weapon that is their right.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

we have open carry in this State. If a student or faculty has passed the training for carrying a concealed weapon that is their right.

I agree but I'm not talking about rights. I'm concerned with (stress shooters). If something goes down with that student who is carrying deal with the situation properly or be under a lot of stress and accidentally shoot an innocent person or them self. Again, I also am thinking about drugs, alcohol and other stress factors college students deal with. What about other various mental disorders as well as teen and young adult suicides. These are just issues I'm raising. If ultimately a campus and/or state legislature allows such a thing then I have no real problem with their decision.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We don't have a right to bear alcohol here, so banning that is less problematic.
Certainly, the state has full authority to allow guns on campuses of state run universities.
As for the private ones, I'd give them them 2 options:
1) Allow concealed carry or....
2) Beef up campus security for this group they require to be otherwise defenseless.

This seems to assume that allowing concealed carry actually increases a campus' level of safety. I'm fine with you arguing for concealed carry from a personal freedom standpoint - it relies on value judgements that I realize are subjective - but if you're going to argue on the basis of safety, then I'm going to need some evidence that your position is based in fact. Do you have any?

Also, what's wrong with this option:

3) No new laws at all.

This gives the college the freedom - if they so choose - to provide information about their gun policies and their campus security, which prospective students can use to inform their decision about whether to go there. It would also allow colleges to not do this and run the risk of losing students as a result.

Frankly, this position seems like the obvious Libertarian position. I'm surprised that you're so apparently eager to impose new restrictions on private institutions.

 

[Revoltingest]

This seems to assume that allowing concealed carry actually increases a campus' level of safety.

That is not clear, so I don't make that argument.

I'm fine with you arguing for concealed carry from a personal freedom standpoint......

If I have a right to carry a gun for self defense, & someone wants me to give up that right in their facility,
then it's reasonable to expect security to deal with a malefactor bent on evil sneaking in a gun.

Also, what's wrong with this option:
3) No new laws at all.

Universities require that occupants be defenseless, yet they provide
little more than scattered rent-a-cops. This is inadequate.

This gives the college the freedom - if they so choose - to provide information about their gun policies and their campus security, which prospective students can use to inform their decision about whether to go there. It would also allow colleges to not do this and run the risk of losing students as a result.

This requires more sacrifice to be a student than I think is reasonable.
If the university doesn't want to comply with my new law, they have the freedom to shut down.

Frankly, this position seems like the obvious Libertarian position.

To a non-Libertarian perhaps.

I'm surprised that you're so apparently eager to impose new restrictions on private institutions.

Tis a balance of rights in a society where LIbertarians are not running things. If the private institution wants to
infringe upon my right to defend myself, then this imposes an obligation upon them to ensure a level of safety.

 

[esmith]

I agree but I'm not talking about rights. I'm concerned with (stress shooters). If something goes down with that student who is carrying deal with the situation properly or be under a lot of stress and accidentally shoot an innocent person or them self. Again, I also am thinking about drugs, alcohol and other stress factors college students deal with. What about other various mental disorders as well as teen and young adult suicides. These are just issues I'm raising. If ultimately a campus and/or state legislature allows such a thing then I have no real problem with their decision.

And you are assuming that this "stress shooter" only happens on a campus, are students the only ones that have to deal with stress, that accidental accidents only happen on campus? Why is it that you are assuming that only students have issues? Or is it you are only putting forth this because of the discussion is on concealed carry on campuses?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not clear, so I don't make that argument.

You kinda do. Let's see:

If I have a right to carry a gun for self defense, & someone wants me to give up that right in their facility, then it's reasonable to expect them to provide security that no malefactor bent on evil sneaks in a gun, & to provide me with protection.

Why is this reasonable?

Universities require that occupants be defenseless, yet they provide little more than scattered rent-a-cops. This is inadequate.

How are you measuring "adequacy"?

This requires more sacrifice to be a student than I think is reasonable.

Wouldn't the properly libertarian position leave that judgement up to the student? That extra security would have to get paid for somehow; is it necessarily unreasonable for a person to not want that extra expense of security being tacked onto his tuition?

If the university doesn't want to comply with my new law, they have the freedom to shut down.

Or... if a prospective student doesn't like the university's rules and procedures, they can go to a different school.

To a non-Libertarian perhaps.

Explain it to me, then. How is it "libertarian" to force a private institution to either allow guns or incur the expense of extra security?

Tis a balance of rights. If the private institution wants to infringe upon my right to defend myself, then this imposes an obligation upon them to ensure a level of safety.

That's nonsense. Are you sure you're a libertarian? How does a private organization's freedom to conduct its affairs as it chooses create any sort of obligation the way you're suggesting?

 

[Revoltingest]

You kinda do.

I kinda don't.
You'll just have to take my word for it.

Why is this reasonable?

Universities have it advertised that law abiding denizens will be unarmed, unlike the general populace.
This creates an attractive venue for mass murderers. Tis my right to defend myself & my family.

How are you measuring "adequacy"?

Rent-a-cops are not well prepared to deal with any violent altercations, let alone
mass murderers. There are no security stations to control access to the facility.

Wouldn't the properly libertarian position leave that judgement up to the student?

Sure. Students can decide for themselves whether they carry or not.

That extra security would have to get paid for somehow; is it necessarily unreasonable for a person to not want that extra expense of security being tacked onto his tuition?

The university would take cost into consideration when deciding which path to take.

Or... if a prospective student doesn't like the university's rules and procedures, they can go to a different school.

We pay taxes for state schools. The option of going elsewhere prevents me from
getting full value from my taxes. But the university has a choice too under my plan.

Explain it to me, then. How is it "libertarian" to force a private institution to either allow guns or incur the expense of extra security?

As I explained, this is not a libertarian society, so laws must be crafted to fit the one we have.
I'd like to have these laws be as libertarian as possible, which is why I give universities the choice:
If they want to take away a right to self defense, they must provide adequate security.

That's nonsense.

You're impolite.

Are you sure you're a libertarian?

Card carrying member of the party.
If you have some stereotype I'm supposed to fit, I will disappoint you.

How does a private organization's freedom to conduct its affairs as it chooses create any sort of obligation the way you're suggesting?

Public policy in this country often imposes a burden of providing safety upon an
organization which has control over those in its facilities, eg, factories are required
to provide safety devices, fire protection & training for employees.
Again, this is not a libertarian society, so compromises are necessary. I seek laws
which will achieve the larger goals of the society we have, with as much libertarian
flavor as possible. This means an emphasis on choices & civil liberties/rights.

 

[Sees]

I am a fan of carry on campuses for sure

I've spent a lot of time surrounded by college/university-aged kids who are armed and under much, much more stress constantly and consistently... incidents are extremely rare.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Universities have it advertised that law abiding denizens will be unarmed, unlike the general populace.
This creates an attractive venue for mass murderers. Tis my right to defend myself & my family.

But you can "defend" yourself and your family by simply not going there.

And universities that allow weapons advertise to mass murderers that they can freely roam the campus with the tools of their trade. Do you have any evidence that this is less attractive to mass murderers than banning weapons would be?

Rent-a-cops are not well prepared to deal with any violent altercations, let alone
mass murderers. There are no security stations to control access to the facility.

Can you try again, this time actually answering the question?

Again: how do you measure "adequacy"?

Sure. Students can decide for themselves whether they carry or not.

They can decide whether or not to go there.

The university would take cost into consideration when deciding which path to take.

And students who want neither to be around armed students or to pay for security would just be SOL, eh?

We pay taxes for state schools. The option of going elsewhere prevents me from
getting full value from my taxes. But the university has a choice too under my plan.

I've been specifically addressing private schools.

As I explained, this is not a libertarian society, so laws must be crafted to fit the one we have.
I'd like to have these laws be as libertarian as possible, which is why I give universities the choice:
If they want to take away a right to self defense, they must provide adequate security.

Nothing that a college can do can "take away a right to self defense", since regardless of any restrictions the college places on people on its campus, this right can simply be maintained by choosing not to go there. Nobody forces you to attend a particular school.

You're impolite.

I'm being honest.

Card carrying member of the party.
If you have some stereotype I'm supposed to fit, I will disappoint you.

I used a small "L" for a reason.

And the only stereotype I was expecting you to fit was a position that's against unnecessary interference by government in the freedom of private individuals and organizations to be free to conduct themselves as they see fit. You know... libertarianism.

Public policy in this country often imposes a burden of providing safety upon an
organization which has control over those in its facilities, eg, factories are required
to provide safety devices, fire protection & training for employees.
Again, this is not a libertarian society, so compromises are necessary. I seek laws
which will achieve the larger goals of the society we have, with as much libertarian
flavor as possible. This means an emphasis on choices & civil liberties/rights.

Often, the rules for things like fire protection allow for "approved equivalent" methods: if one approach works just as well as some previously approved approach, it will often be allowed.

Now... you seem to be okay with the approach of "status quo plus allowing concealed carry". So... do you have any evidence that the approach of "status quo without concealed carry" provides any less of a level of safety than the approach you consider acceptable?

If you don't have any evidence to this effect, then what justification do you have for making institutions jump through extra hoops?

 

[McBell]

This seems to assume that allowing concealed carry actually increases a campus' level of safety.

No more so than the idea that a firearm ban increases a campus' level of security.

Out of curiosity, of all the school shootings in the past say 50 years in the USA, how many were conducted on a campus that allowed firearms?

I'm fine with you arguing for concealed carry from a personal freedom standpoint - it relies on value judgements that I realize are subjective - but if you're going to argue on the basis of safety, then I'm going to need some evidence that your position is based in fact. Do you have any?

Likewise.
If you are going to argue on the basis of safety then we will need some evidence that your position is based on fact.

so, how many of the school shootings the last 50 years were conducted on a campus that allowed fire arms?

Also, what's wrong with this option:

3) No new laws at all.

Um...
The fact that no new laws means no change in school security?

Frankly, this position seems like the obvious Libertarian position. I'm surprised that you're so apparently eager to impose new restrictions on private institutions.

An unsolicited ad hominem?
Shame on you.

 

[McBell]

And universities that allow weapons advertise to mass murderers that they can freely roam the campus with the tools of their trade.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are going to argue on the basis of safety then we will need some evidence that your position is based on fact.

I'm not arguing on the basis of safety. I'm arguing on the basis of the idea that private institutions should be free to conduct their affairs as they see fit unless a compelling justification can be made for why they shouldn't be.

An unsolicited ad hominem?
Shame on you.

It's not unsolicited and it's not an ad hominem.