This article is a bit confusing. A “public right of way” should not include a classroom. Unfortunately, I think this means that any member of the public can now patrol around armed on the campus. The real problem is that this measure will raise stalking to a higher level without any additional recourse if the stalker is armed.

Having gun on campus doesn’t scream safety to me. I’m recalling a few incidents where people have opened fire on a campus and most likely those states didn’t have laws permitting guns on campus. I think it will breed more issues than prevent. I feel safe on my campus knowing there’s a no tolerance gun law restricting even concealed weapons with permits on campus. We don’t need more guns around, we need more help and preventive actions for those who are mentally unstable and would harm other innocent humans. We need to make it more difficult to purchase and own a gun. We need to be more accepting of people different from ourselves because that’s usually how these senseless acts of violence start – with bullying or just not feeling accepted/wanted/loved.

It is no secret that faculty typically do not like guns, are suspect of gun ownership and of gun owners in general, and do not usually share life philosophy of self-reliance. Also they rarely know much about guns (yes, even those who “grew up around guns”). So it comes as no surprise that concealed carry concept is being pounded from all sides here. But, colleagues, please — by now we DO have some data and any discussion of the horrors of CC is simply intellectually dishonest without discussing the evidence to that extent (or vice versa) available for 4+ years now from Utah and for lesser time period from Colorado. So data to the table, please…

It’s not contradictory or illegal what I’m saying. When it’s a three-day process in most states to obtain a gun, that’s what I mean by making it more difficult. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have the right because that was decided for me and the rest of us at the foundation of our country. I’m saying it shouldn’t be so easy to obtain one if you are a disgruntled 18-year-old who’s had enough of the bullying.

As for my second statement. Why can’t we all just like each other for our differences? Have your opinions, but don’t go get a gun to take someone out who’s different from you. The most recent tragedies have occurred mostly because of someone feeling different and not being respected for his/her personality and differences from others. All I’m trying to say is, it starts with accepting and respecting people.

Three day waiting period for purchase of a gun is just harassment of gun owners (do you have to wait three days to exercise you speech or religious rights?). Besides any lack of evidence that three days are enough to cool crackheads (school shootings are planned well in advance, VT for that example or Columbine), how about a beaten wife fleeing her abusive husband and having to wait three days before being allowed to buy a gun?

I am all for people to be nice to each other at all times but this is not how the world happened to be. Why it is no so is a moot point, I leave it to the preachers and psychologists to ponder on.

Are you aware that federal laws make it impossible for people younger than 21 even to buy a handgun? No CC for 18 year old in any state, campus or not.

Precisely: criminals beat the system, so why unnecessary restrictions for the law-abiding?

I agree with physicsprof. The Second Amendment, like all constitutional amendments, allows no exceptions or qualifications. Therefore anyone has the right to carry any kind of weapon anywhere at any time for any reason. As he so powerfully argues, laws don’t prevent lawbreakers (in fact they create lawbreakers). The obvious conclusion is that there should be no laws (then there would be no criminals). Given physicsprof’s impeccable logic and his argument’s grounding in solid empirical evidence, he has every right to insist that those who disagree with him bring their “data to the table”.

Physicsprof’s “under the bridge” arguments win the day!

Your logic is as faulty as your accusation.

Marie, you’re so right! In addition I would like to point out that soldiers aren’t allowed to carry guns on base….

I assumed it was ironic! I mean why restrict carrying handheld misslie launchers on campus? Or what about coming to school in a tank? etc etc etc

I always hear that more guns means that more people will be able to “take out” a violent shooter. What I want to know is how I’m supposed to tell the difference between the violent shooter and the
good samaritan who wants to use a gun to protect others on campus? How long am I supposed to wait between seeing a gun and acting to prevent that gun from being used against innocents? It seems to me that I would have to wait until someone is actually shot, or at least being held at gunpoint, before I could be sure that the gun is a problem.

Remember the guy in Tucson, Joe Zamudio, who rushed into the shooting scene armed and *almost shot the wrong guy* because another citizen had already taken the gun away from Loughner? I suspect more guns on campus would lead to more potentially fatal misunderstandings like this one.

So is the way to prevent airplane hijacking to allow all passengers to bring weapons onto the plane?

Actually, I _was_ being ironic. As for physicsprof’s reference to the Supreme Court’s recent opinion on the Second Amendment, it’s not so much “awareness” of a Supreme Court opinion that “saves one from clownery” as it is 1) having read and understood that opinion 2) in the context of having read and understood many of the Supreme Court’s opinions on constitutional matters 3) against the background of a training in the history of constitutional law. I’ve often found in dealing with my students that an “awareness” of legal opinions means picking out the parts you like and ignoring the rest. Like I said, “arguments from under the bridge”.

This is actually in reply to the last physicsprof message: When was the last time (please cite a source) when your speech or religious right exercise immediately and directly resulted in the death or serious injury of a person near you? In other words, there’s a huge difference between getting angry / drunk / drugged / panicked and yelling, “I wish you were dead!” or, “My [insert diety] thinks you must die now!” versus the same state and shooting a gun.

Biology is important here: traditional college-aged students do not have fully-developed impulse control centers in their brains. They bing drink, they take risks (sexual, physical, emotional, etc.), and they make mistakes. They over-react to situations. If they have access to guns on their hips, in their purses, or strapped to their shoulders, a moment of deficient impulse control can result in the maiming or death of another person.

While I understand the tea party, right-wing, NRA language used to couple basic human rights (freedom of speech, freedom to gather and form groups, liberty, freedom of the press) to gun ownership, they are actually different issues. Your speech does not immediately kill a person. Your use of a gun can.

False.

As an example: https://www.texasonline.state.tx.us/txapp/txdps/chl/. Any person 18 or older currently or previously (honorably discharged) in the miliary may carry a weapon. Any person certified as an instructor (regardless of age or military status) may carry a concealed handgun.

There are other states with similar exemptions. Blanket, knee-jerk responses (typically created by the NRA) are not often correct. Data, not political lobbying group information.

Where you decide to send your children is your choice. To base your decision solely on the decision to allow legal weapons on campus would be a mistake in my opinion. As mentioned earlier, there are more weapons on your campus that you know. Does not matter which state or how tight the regulations. Those carrying the weapons are breaking the law. For the most part, statistics show that the vast majority of permit carriers do not violate the law and would not be in that group. So I would say it is safe to assume that those who are currently carrying weapons on campus are not the type I would want to be around. Yet we blissfully go about our daily business, safe in the knowledge that the laws will keep the bad guys from carrying guns on campus. Heaven forbid we allow someone to defend themselves, geeze, they might shoot somebody. Yet we hang our heads in sadness at the loss of life and say what a tragedy. Since we are not dead, we can finger point much like the republicans and democrats are now doing. It is not our fault. Its those bad guns. Its not the shooter because they have been wronged in some way by our society and it is not their fault. Lets just get rid of the guns. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

As for me, I would rather be on a campus with all the permit holders knowing that they are one of the most law abiding groups and I KNOW that I would be immensely more safe. The likelihood of them having to use a gun is minuscule. So it is your choice. I know which one I would choose.

True, gun ownership as affirmed by SCOTUS is not without restrictions (in particular, the whole issue of campus carry is beyond it). But where above did I argue otherwise? My only referral to it was when I pointed out that Mariemrafa’s urge that “we need to make it more difficult to purchase and own a gun” was unconstitutional. SCOTUS affirmed “reasonable” restrictions (like you outlined). There is nothing reasonable in making it more difficult to simply own a gun, it is clearly harassment of gun owners (if implemented).

Interesting, thank you, I did not know that about Texas. Allowing somebody who is trusted with weapons to serve in the military to be able to carry for her own protection does make sense. (21 is still the federal limit to buy though).

It was my understanding that the restructuring was needed to free up funds to renovate the athletic facilities and hire additional assistant coaches for men’s football and basketball so FAMU can position itself as a BCS competitor. It is not yet known how many new assistants can be hired since the salaries are expected to be well over $100K each.

“As for me, I would rather be on a campus with all the permit holders knowing that they are one of the most law abiding groups and I KNOW that I would be immensely more safe.”

I think there are parts of the country where there is a culture of gun ownership that generates a sense of responsibility that goes with along with the right to do so.

Although, I can’t imagine why most such people would bring their guns on campus except to make a political statement, which suggests that politicization is overtaking the traditional culture.

It also seems to me that the political mobilization to expand gun “rights” does not necessarily transfer the culture of responsibility as it expands its influence. That someone gets a piece of paper along with their gun should not make you feel secure.

I grew up in a supposed “gun culture” area (i.e. an area where people use the word “culture” to defend antisocial behavior), and it was more or less a running story line: boy finds dad’s gun, shoots jaw off by accident, family in shock, etc.

For this reason, I have always been firmly in the camp that carrying a gun in everyday situations is like walking down the street with a running chain saw — fine until it suddenly, horribly isn’t. I guess I feel people shouldn’t provoke the fates with such actions. Every gun rights advocate is about 1 accidental trigger pull from being a person who claims he didn’t see it and is filled with remorse. And in the meantime the rest of us have to suffer.

Here’s a non hypothetical. About 10 days ago, the large university where I work issued a “shooter alert” via e-mail, that went out to 87,000 people. An active shooter was on campus, the e-mail warned; people on campus should flee or hide. Of course, had they had guns, they could have whipped them out and gone running around looking for the villain; at which point real carnage could have easily occurred, especially since the “shooter alert” was an accident — there was no shooter, just a careless employee testing the emergency system. Every hypothetical case where an armed person could take out a ‘bad guy’ needs to be balanced against the hundreds of daily opportunities for lunacy, misunderstandings, and accidents.

Where is the chaos, you ask? I think the answer is that it is hidden in the short news stories no one pays attention to, that I mentioned in my post: boy blows his own jaw off; teen off his meds finds gun, kills self; son shoots father by accident — all incidents that have occurred in my own memory and witness, and I think that most people know several such. And of course, in real life our loose gun laws have aided, not hindered, the serial shootings that occur regularly on campus. So the chaos and tragedy runs like a red thread through our lives, and we’ve just allowed ourselves to ignore it, in the name of our pride.

Do I think students older than 21 are on average dumber than the US population? What kind of question is that? Are you saying only dumb people have accidents, get depressed, get angry? That only dumb people are killers? The combination of pride and naivete packed into the question astounds me, frankly. Once you’re finished cleaning your gun, perhaps some reflection on human nature, and the ability of very intelligent people to do and believe stupid things (as well as human vanity and the way it is prone to self-deception) is in order.

First fragment: Gun accidents happen, just like any others. Yes, and legislation is used to prevent accidents with most other categories of lethal products. But not guns: here the strategy seems to be to expand their prevalence and use. Where is the spike? I’m not talking about a spike connected to concealed weapons legislation, I’m talking about the connection between having guns in an environment and the incident of accidents period. You can’t have a gun accident without a gun present. Looking for a “spike” gets us into the invidious territory of saying, “only 5 shootings on campus this year by mistake, we can live with that.”

Second fragment: Now that you’ve clarified that you were referring to “active shooter” then yes, I do think CC holders will run guns drawn toward the fire, or at least pull their weapons, because THAT’S WHAT GUN ADVOCATES CLAIM the presence of fire arms does — allows people to protect themselves. You’re saying that despite all the machismo surrounding gun rights language, people who have concealed weapons, in that circumstance, will quietly keep that fact to themselves and not reveal their armaments? And, of course, you’re again getting into the whole “smart enough” thing again, as if smart people neither get scared, angry, panicked and do silly things. It seems as if to defend your position, you have to get involved in large generalizations about human nature, public behavior, and the values of gun carriers that are unsupportable.

Remember: this isn’t about you, individually. This is about society as a whole, and the laws of arithmetic and human averages.

What makes the university any different than every other place a licensee can carry a handgun?

It makes more sense to argue about whether people should be carrying handguns than to argue a university is any different. A person with a concealed handgun permit can already carry a handgun to a mall, movie theatre, and just about everywhere else. Why do you suppose that same person is all of a sudden more dangerous because they are headed to class rather than the mall? We are talking about people who already have a concealed weapons permit. Does the university environment cause these people to become mentally unstable? Are they more of a threat in a classroom than a crowded restuarant?

I think it makes no sense to have some artificial line that says someone can legally carry a handgun everywhere else, but not in this building because it is part of a university.

I suspect that most people who are against allowing handguns on campus are against allowing others to carry a handgun in general. That is what the argument should be. Trying the frame the debate as one about guns on campus makes little sense to me. Perhaps having lived in the south and growing up with guns everywhere I am lacking some critical life experience that allows me to understand what makes carrying a handgun on a campus different than everywhere else the people with permits can carry a handgun.

In response to all those asking why guns on campus are any different from guns carried anywhere else:
I have the right to a safe and secure workplace. I have a right to freedom from harrassment on campus and having an armed faculty/staff/ student body in essence creates a hostile work environment for me. While carrying a gun to class may not be illegal (although, oddly enough, sexual harrassment is) it does imply a threat- intended or not. I have quite a few transplanted inner city students who WOULD carry just to impress me with the fact that they were carrying and all of the implicit threats that that would imply. I do not want to even imagine some of my transplanted Philadelphia boys armed in class. I have enough trouble with their lack of basic respect and belief that physical attitudes and violence will solve all of their problems as it is. They have been socialized in a different gun culture and when they hit the laid back west they stick out like a sore thumb. Gun culture here is “old west good guys’ not “inner city bad guys” but that is not the belief set that they would have about any weapon that they carried ( if that makes any sense. One’s attitude about a weapon is VERY important. is it protection or is it threat?)

That doesn’t makle it any different, Do the employees that work at stores and malls not have the right to a safe and secure workplace? Those same inner city students can carry at the mall and stores in states where it is legal to do so. Do college professors feel their rights are superior to bus drivers, waiters, waitresses, and any employees in other places where weapons are allowed?

I just think that most people against guns on campus are against concealed carry in general, so just say so and have that debate rather than try to create the image that the university is in some way different. I just don’t think it is. The debate should be about concealed carry, not universities, just my opinion.

And concealed carry, in most states mean the gun is required to be concealed, it is difficult to try to impress someone with a weapon that is concealed. If they make it known that they have a weapon to “impress” or threaten someone, the police should be involved, that is threatening and is inapproriate, and an indication that the person is not fit to carry a firearm, again just my opinion.

Universities are just another place that fills a particular role in society, however important that role, it doesn’t deserve any special status on this issue, the issue is much broader. Do we want to have people legally carrying weapons for defense or not?