Guns on campus: Where do you stand?

[hejduk]

Not to get in a political debate (even though it'll probably turn into that), but where do you stand on school's allowing guns on campus? My school is currently dealing with the issue, and frankly, it scares the living sh!t outta me.

I think it's plain idiotic to allow them anywhere near campus. Thoughts?

[thesnout]

Hmm, my post didn't show up. I'll have to type it again.

I'm against guns on campus. The only people who should have guns on campus are the campus police or security personnel. It would be ludicrous to allow anyone to bring guns into a public or private university. Students have a right to study, live and learn in a safe environment.

A little more clarification would be good though.

Who will be allowed to bring guns onto the campus? Students, Staff/Faculty, Security/Police? I wouldn't feel safe with a student walking into class with a small pistol. What school do you attend? I'm making an assumption that it's in the US.

I hope they vote against guns at your school. Good luck.

[wtncffts]

This 'debate' is inherently political, so I'm not sure what you mean to start with. Not only is it political, it's confined to a particular political culture in places in the US where gun culture is strong. This is all about the second amendment nuts and the gun lobby; it has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. The proponents of such measures seem to have a misguided romantic notion that they're cowboys in training, for lack of a better phrase, such that if something horrible were to happen they would heroically draw their guns and take the baddie down, rather than the much more likely scenario of a gunfight with innocent casualties and escalated mayhem. There's also this inane notion that there are mutually exclusive categories of 'law-abiding citizens' and 'bad guys', and that we need to arm the former to take care of the latter. This is again, I think, something inherent in certain elements of American political culture, this sort of Manichaeanism. In reality, of course, 'bad guys' are law-abiding citizens until they're not, and allowing guns on campus essentially recognizes and explicitly approves their right to carry arms into public places with malevolent intentions.

I put debate in quotes above because I really think this isn't a case in which there are reasonable arguments on both sides. I'm open, however, to be proven wrong if someone here defends and supports such measures, though, to be honest, on a forum of highly intelligent people such as this, I'd be very surprised.

[Eigen]

Here's my 2 cents:

Why should I trust that "campus cop" that only got a job on campus because he couldn't get into any of the city or state police forces with a gun... But not the educated, level-headed faculty member with a concealed carry permit? People tend to innately trust those in a uniform, but why is it always a better idea to arm them than anyone else? Do you trust your schools hiring practices for security that much? I know I sure don't.

Our school (and all the schools in my state) went through the debate about two years ago. It was interesting to listen to. It ended with allowing those who had concealed carry permits to carry on campus (and I'm not sure if you know, but concealed carry permits aren't exactly easy to get), as well as off-duty police officers, ex-military, etc. Our campus chief of police supported it, as did our city chief of police, with those restrictions in place. It was easy for the school and city to know who had and were supposed to have guns on campus.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and I think it very much depends on the school, and exactly what the specific case is. By and large, "preventing" firearms on campus doesn't prevent them from being there... It just prevents them from legally being there. If a student wants to sneak one in, it's not like they'll have a problem doing so. I can't think of any colleges I know with metal detectors around the buildings.

[Waw]

Something else to consider are the class/geography issues involved in a ban on firearms on university property (disregarding for the moment the problems in actually enforcing such a ban). Some people work in jobs that demand that they carry a firearm of some sort. They do so legally (according to local regulations). To ask them not to carry their firearms with them whenever they attend a class, visit a professor or go to a library, would be to limit their ability to partake in higher education. For some people, finding a place to leave their weapon after a shift and before attending class may not be an option. Of course, allowances could be made in any policy, but even the process of providing allowances adds a layer of bureaucracy which might distance some people who would otherwise pursue a degree.

Geographically, and this is probably less true for the US (I hope?), some people live in areas where they really do need to carry a weapon for their own protection, and may have to travel with it whenever they leave the house. I grew up in a country that does have areas like this, and I think many people would find it unbelievable that anyone travelling through dangerous countryside to attend school could not carry a gun.

These are just two considerations that come to my mind, and I'm sure they aren't relevant everywhere and everywhen, but they still seem relevant.

Overall, I tend to feel that if firearms aren't restricted in number in the country in general, it's fairly pointless to decide that they can't be carried into campuses.

[wtncffts]

Here's my 2 cents:

Why should I trust that "campus cop" that only got a job on campus because he couldn't get into any of the city or state police forces with a gun... But not the educated, level-headed faculty member with a concealed carry permit? People tend to innately trust those in a uniform, but why is it always a better idea to arm them than anyone else? Do you trust your schools hiring practices for security that much? I know I sure don't.

Our school (and all the schools in my state) went through the debate about two years ago. It was interesting to listen to. It ended with allowing those who had concealed carry permits to carry on campus (and I'm not sure if you know, but concealed carry permits aren't exactly easy to get), as well as off-duty police officers, ex-military, etc. Our campus chief of police supported it, as did our city chief of police, with those restrictions in place. It was easy for the school and city to know who had and were supposed to have guns on campus.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and I think it very much depends on the school, and exactly what the specific case is. By and large, "preventing" firearms on campus doesn't prevent them from being there... It just prevents them from legally being there. If a student wants to sneak one in, it's not like they'll have a problem doing so. I can't think of any colleges I know with metal detectors around the buildings.

The first point doesn't seem to me to be an argument for guns on campus per se. The answer to your worry about campus police is to recruit and train better people, not allow everyone to carry guns. As an aside, I don't share your low opinion of campus security personnel, though I know the quality probably varies considerably. But there's a fundamental assumption, it seems to me, in your comments, which is that someone has to be armed, the question is who. I don't accept that, and I don't accept the inevitability of the presence of guns. I will acknowledge that, being Canadian and only having gone to schools here, it's hard for me to judge whether the deep-rooted gun culture, constitutional entrenchment, and pervasiveness of firearms in parts of the US is such that my strong preference for working towards a gun-free society rather than accepting and even encouraging firearm ownership and use is naive. Perhaps. In any case, I'm more certain that the whole 'guns on campus' issue, as it's played out, is utterly political, whatever the apparent legitimate concerns; conservatives use it as a 'red meat' issue to appeal to their base.

Overall, I tend to feel that if firearms aren't restricted in number in the country in general, it's fairly pointless to decide that they can't be carried into campuses.

Why? I don't see this. Campuses are institutional property, and surely institutions, especially those with a unique role in society as universities have, have the right to make whatever rules are necessary to provide public safety. Universities have a responsibility for what goes on within their grounds. Do you also think it's pointless to ban firearms on airplanes? How about in government buildings (courthouses, legislatures, etc.)? Now, if you just meant that it's a lot harder logistically to prevent firearms from being carried into campus than onto a plane, I agree that it is. That's not an argument that we shouldn't try. But I thought the thrust of your point was that because some jurisdiction has lax firearm regulation in general, that that laxness might as well be applied to all the subunits in that jurisdiction. I don't think that makes sense. You may as well argue, in the extreme case, that I don't have the right to prevent someone from carrying a firearm into my house.

[studentaffairsgrad]

Gun control is interesting. Even if you impose restrictions on campus, criminals and other people you wouldn't want to carry guns are still going to ignore the rules and carry weapons. Some believe that gun control just takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, who would be the kind of people who would defend themselves and others properly, should a situation arise. The people who are adamant about carrying a gun, are going to do it regardless. The question is - do you want the other side to be armed as well? I go back and forth on it. I would never feel comfortable carrying one anyways...maybe I will go invest in a taser

[starmaker]

To some extent, I feel that if you have a license to carry, you should be able to carry while going about campus and such. There might be particular contexts in which you shouldn't, just as there are in the non-campus world (e.g. no carrying guns into the campus grad student pub). The key is that you should need a license, and that the relevant regulatory/licensing agencies should make sure that the people obtaining licenses are people who can be trusted with them. None of this "You go to a gun show and buy a gun on the spot, with no waiting period and no license required" stuff. Also, you should have to store them very carefully (like in a locked safe that's bolted to the wall, or a container in your car that is designed for firearms transport, or in a secure area at the campus gun range) when you aren't carrying them.

My undergrad institution had a championship pistol team that ran into logistical issues trying to get to competitions and stuff, as that required transporting their guns some place other than the campus gun range. My uncle, who lives in a rural area and was a hunter and woodsman by trade before he went back to college to study nursing, got suspended from his program because a campus cop who was hassling him for looking too much like a hick, found that he'd mistakenly left a hunting rifle under the seat of his truck - I think it would have been entirely reasonable to make him leave campus and store the gun elsewhere before coming back to campus, even to give him a warning that he would be in serious trouble if it happened again, but the school had a "zero tolerance" sort of policy, so he got suspended.

I think that a private institution should be allowed to ban firearms if they want (and a public one should be allowed to do so if we decide that that's what we want to happen with government property), but there's a difference between "I think they should be allowed to" and "I think it's the best option." Though I can see why a school in a state with very lax gun regulations might want to ban the carrying of guns, as they might consider the regulations surrounding who's allowed to carry one to be insufficient.

I know how to shoot and plan to get a license once I quit being lazy and actually get my butt to the relevant city office to do the paperwork, but I wouldn't carry a gun for personal protection on campus. Too much chance of things going badly wrong - a situation escalated that doesn't need to be, a mugger getting ahold of the gun or interpreting it as a signal to shoot me rather than just take some cash, an innocent person getting hit in the crossfire. I don't necessarily agree with all of wtncffts' points, as should be obvious, but I agree that there are too many cowboy-wannabes in this debate (in general, not on this board), who think they're going to be the one to shoot down a mass killer, like in a movie.

[Eigen]

The first point doesn't seem to me to be an argument for guns on campus per se. The answer to your worry about campus police is to recruit and train better people, not allow everyone to carry guns. As an aside, I don't share your low opinion of campus security personnel, though I know the quality probably varies considerably. But there's a fundamental assumption, it seems to me, in your comments, which is that someone has to be armed, the question is who. I don't accept that, and I don't accept the inevitability of the presence of guns. I will acknowledge that, being Canadian and only having gone to schools here, it's hard for me to judge whether the deep-rooted gun culture, constitutional entrenchment, and pervasiveness of firearms in parts of the US is such that my strong preference for working towards a gun-free society rather than accepting and even encouraging firearm ownership and use is naive. Perhaps. In any case, I'm more certain that the whole 'guns on campus' issue, as it's played out, is utterly political, whatever the apparent legitimate concerns; conservatives use it as a 'red meat' issue to appeal to their base.

I was writing that first paragraph mostly to Cherylsafina (post before yours) who expressed the feeling that "only campus security personal should be armed".

The difference between universities can be quite frank, hence my assertion that I hesitate to give an opinion without knowing the details of the situation.

My old university, most of the campus security that were issued guns had next to no shooting experience, were under 24 years old, and were there because they couldn't make it in any other area of law enforcement. My current school, all UPs must have had 6 years of prior experience in a major metropolitan police force, with an excellent record. It's quite different between the two.

That said, my current university is in a city with a quite high crime rate... And the number of armed robberies/armed sexual assaults that occur just off campus are larger than I feel comfortable with. I don't personally carry on campus, but I could understand someone wanting to.

You seem to be making an argument against people carrying firearms in general, which in my mind is a completely separate issue. The fact is, we are allowed to carry firearms in the US. It is one of our fundamental rights. Given that baseline, why shouldn't we be able to carry them on campus assuming that we have them legally registered and are permitted to do so?

I will also note, in terms of legality, that it has been shown in court cases in the past that a private institution (grocery store, etc) cannot prevent someone from carrying either a legally licensed concealed carry, or an "open carry" firearm in states where that is legal. Just something to think on.

Like I said, I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other... But in general, I'm against making laws to prevent people from doing things that do not harm others, but might have the potential to. For instance- I don't think you should crack down on someone who's researching how to make bombs- you should crack down on them if they make and deploy a bomb. I don't think it's a problem for someone to have a gun, or carry it with them.... But it's definitely a problem if they shoot someone (not in a defined case of self defense). Taking it to another level, I think you should nail people who are drunk and driving to the wall. But I don't think it should be a problem to both be drunk and have keys to a car "with possible intent to use them".

This may be a bit of a divergence, but there was recently a quote from a politician saying that any academics and anyone who had taken organic chemistry should be put on watch lists, because they might have the political views that could foster rebellion (the former) and they probably knew enough to make bombs (the latter). Having done both, I don't feel I should be criminalized because of knowledge I have, only if I actually put that knowledge to some negative use.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Eigen

[StrangeLight]

i don't think people should be allowed to carry guns on campus. including security personnel and campus police.

[wtncffts]

There's a lot to respond to here, so please forgive me.

To some extent, I feel that if you have a license to carry, you should be able to carry while going about campus and such. There might be particular contexts in which you shouldn't, just as there are in the non-campus world (e.g. no carrying guns into the campus grad student pub). The key is that you should need a license, and that the relevant regulatory/licensing agencies should make sure that the people obtaining licenses are people who can be trusted with them. None of this "You go to a gun show and buy a gun on the spot, with no waiting period and no license required" stuff. Also, you should have to store them very carefully (like in a locked safe that's bolted to the wall, or a container in your car that is designed for firearms transport, or in a secure area at the campus gun range) when you aren't carrying them.

I know how to shoot and plan to get a license once I quit being lazy and actually get my butt to the relevant city office to do the paperwork, but I wouldn't carry a gun for personal protection on campus. Too much chance of things going badly wrong - a situation escalated that doesn't need to be, a mugger getting ahold of the gun or interpreting it as a signal to shoot me rather than just take some cash, an innocent person getting hit in the crossfire. I don't necessarily agree with all of wtncffts' points, as should be obvious, but I agree that there are too many cowboy-wannabes in this debate (in general, not on this board), who think they're going to be the one to shoot down a mass killer, like in a movie.

Again, I simply don't understand this idea that you, or any regulatory agency, can tell who the people are who can be trusted with guns and who aren't. I don't think our best empirical evidence in criminology, psychology, etc. bears that out. 'Bad guys' don't go around with an X on their foreheads. To repeat, people are law-abiding, upstanding citizens until they're not. Something happens, and they 'snap', or they get caught up in emotion. It's not a coincidence that one of the aspects of American exceptionalism, as an empirical supposition (I don't want to turn this into a poli sci thing, but see, e.g., Seymour Lipset), is the significantly higher rates of homicide and violent crime as compared to other developed countries. One explanation could be that Americans are just inherently more violent than other similarly situated people. What I think is more reasonable, though, is that the widespread pervasiveness of guns and gun culture allows instances of violence to be manifest in much deadlier ways. The whole 'guns don't kill people; people kill people' is, of course, literally true, but it's equally obvious that, when people do kill people, the means make a big difference. A gun has a much greater destructive potential than most other personal weapons.

That said, my current university is in a city with a quite high crime rate... And the number of armed robberies/armed sexual assaults that occur just off campus are larger than I feel comfortable with. I don't personally carry on campus, but I could understand someone wanting to.

You seem to be making an argument against people carrying firearms in general, which in my mind is a completely separate issue. The fact is, we are allowed to carry firearms in the US. It is one of our fundamental rights. Given that baseline, why shouldn't we be able to carry them on campus assuming that we have them legally registered and are permitted to do so?

Basically, it's fight fire with fire? Again, I find it odd that you cite 'armed robberies/armed sexual assaults' as a reason for allowing people to carry guns on campus, as though the perpetrators of such horrible crimes were some distinct species lurking just behind the campus gates, rather than people like you or me, who, according to your argument, have a perfect right to carry guns. Now, I certainly understand that any particular individual might feel safer armed than not, and I don't want to downplay that fear. But public policy is, or should be, about the big picture.

It's true, I suppose, that my arguments are against people carrying firearms in general, but I think circumscribing this right in certain places, such as a university campus, is an important step to combating the problem in general. Think of smoking. People have the right to smoke, but that hasn't stopped authorities from making all sorts of restrictive laws, in terms of the packaging and sale, banning smoking in restaurants, inside buildings, within x meters of doorways, etc. They're all attempts to, ultimately, end the practice of smoking, and they're succeeding: smoking rates are way down. Similarly, to my mind, it's reasonable to want to have some places which are gun-free environments: airports, government buildings, and, yes, university campuses.

As for the right to bear arms, yes, I recognize that it's constitutionally entrenched, all the more so because of recent Supreme Court rulings like DC v. Heller. I don't want to start in about the poverty of rights discourse, because I'd never stop. First of all, it may be a 'fundamental right', but it surely isn't anything close to a basic human right. It's there simply because in 1787, when there was no standing, regular military, the framers thought citizens should be armed in case of invasion by foreign powers. Last I checked, up here in Canada we're not itching for a reenactment of the War of 1812. Obviously, it's extremely unlikely that the second amendment would be repealed, but I don't believe there would be anything antidemocratic or illiberal about it, unlike repealing, say, the first or fourteenth amendments.

Like I said, I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other... But in general, I'm against making laws to prevent people from doing things that do not harm others, but might have the potential to. For instance- I don't think you should crack down on someone who's researching how to make bombs- you should crack down on them if they make and deploy a bomb. I don't think it's a problem for someone to have a gun, or carry it with them.... But it's definitely a problem if they shoot someone (not in a defined case of self defense). Taking it to another level, I think you should nail people who are drunk and driving to the wall. But I don't think it should be a problem to both be drunk and have keys to a car "with possible intent to use them".

This may be a bit of a divergence, but there was recently a quote from a politician saying that any academics and anyone who had taken organic chemistry should be put on watch lists, because they might have the political views that could foster rebellion (the former) and they probably knew enough to make bombs (the latter). Having done both, I don't feel I should be criminalized because of knowledge I have, only if I actually put that knowledge to some negative use.

Just a question: are you similarly accepting of Iran and North Korea's right to build nuclear weapons, against the Non-Proliferation Treaty, arms control, etc.? It seems to me the arguments are analogous. If anything, Iran and North Korea have a stronger case, since state sovereignty has a much more significant historical lineage than the right to bear arms in the US does. I'm a bit confused here about the 'line' you're drawing. What is the difference between possessing a bomb and possessing a gun, assuming in both cases there's no active intent to use them? Or would it be perfectly acceptable for someone for someone to stand in the middle of Times Square with all the bombs they want, as long as they're not actually detonated? How about planning acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit murder? In both of those cases, depending on when in the process, the perpetrators should be absolutely innocent, according to your argument; they become guilty only when they act. Surely, that isn't right.

Unless you personally own the school, I don't think you have any right to restrict peaceful actions on the school campus. Carrying a gun is peaceful, waving it about and aiming at people is not.

If it is a public school, anyone should be allowed to be peaceful on campus. If it is a private school, the owner/s or owners' representatives should decide, although I would feel far safer if my campus were open carry.

OK, I guess I want to go back to my initial post, when I said that, being Canadian (though, obviously, I'm not speaking for all of us), I might simply not be in a position to understand arguments in favour of guns in general, or guns on campus. To me, it's abundantly obvious that carrying a gun is not a 'peaceful action'. In individual cases, it might be, in the sense that a particular person has no intention whatsoever of using the gun in a malevolent fashion. Again, though, big picture: in my opinion, a general allowance of an individual's right to carry guns on campus will tend to create a less safe, less secure, more dangerous community. I also think, though it's unstated, that there is a disagreement here about the nature of campuses themselves. The argument that, since carrying a gun is a general right most everywhere else in society, that a campus is no different: it's just another place. I simply don't agree. Perhaps I have an altogether too reverent and idealistic view, I don't know, but to me a university campus serves a unique role in our society, akin to churches or courthouses. They are places of learning, and should be as free as possible to create and cultivate a community which is safe, welcoming, and isolated from the ordinary patterns of the rest of society. There's a reason it's called the 'ivory tower'. As such, they should have every means at their disposal to achieve those ends. To me, an armed campus is the very antithesis of this ideal, but I certainly understand that others simply don't see it that way.

[Eigen]

Basically, it's fight fire with fire? Again, I find it odd that you cite 'armed robberies/armed sexual assaults' as a reason for allowing people to carry guns on campus, as though the perpetrators of such horrible crimes were some distinct species lurking just behind the campus gates, rather than people like you or me, who, according to your argument, have a perfect right to carry guns. Now, I certainly understand that any particular individual might feel safer armed than not, and I don't want to downplay that fear. But public policy is, or should be, about the big picture.

It's true, I suppose, that my arguments are against people carrying firearms in general, but I think circumscribing this right in certain places, such as a university campus, is an important step to combating the problem in general. Think of smoking. People have the right to smoke, but that hasn't stopped authorities from making all sorts of restrictive laws, in terms of the packaging and sale, banning smoking in restaurants, inside buildings, within x meters of doorways, etc. They're all attempts to, ultimately, end the practice of smoking, and they're succeeding: smoking rates are way down. Similarly, to my mind, it's reasonable to want to have some places which are gun-free environments: airports, government buildings, and, yes, university campuses.

As for the right to bear arms, yes, I recognize that it's constitutionally entrenched, all the more so because of recent Supreme Court rulings like DC v. Heller. I don't want to start in about the poverty of rights discourse, because I'd never stop. First of all, it may be a 'fundamental right', but it surely isn't anything close to a basic human right. It's there simply because in 1787, when there was no standing, regular military, the framers thought citizens should be armed in case of invasion by foreign powers. Last I checked, up here in Canada we're not itching for a reenactment of the War of 1812. Obviously, it's extremely unlikely that the second amendment would be repealed, but I don't believe there would be anything antidemocratic or illiberal about it, unlike repealing, say, the first or fourteenth amendments.

Just a question: are you similarly accepting of Iran and North Korea's right to build nuclear weapons, against the Non-Proliferation Treaty, arms control, etc.? It seems to me the arguments are analogous. If anything, Iran and North Korea have a stronger case, since state sovereignty has a much more significant historical lineage than the right to bear arms in the US does. I'm a bit confused here about the 'line' you're drawing. What is the difference between possessing a bomb and possessing a gun, assuming in both cases there's no active intent to use them? Or would it be perfectly acceptable for someone for someone to stand in the middle of Times Square with all the bombs they want, as long as they're not actually detonated? How about planning acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit murder? In both of those cases, depending on when in the process, the perpetrators should be absolutely innocent, according to your argument; they become guilty only when they act. Surely, that isn't right.

Actually, the right to bear arms was more to do with the ability of a populace to defend itself from it's government than to defend itself from attacking foreign powers. The worry of our early founders was much less to do with keeping themselves safe from other neighboring countries, and much more to do with setting up a system that would give individual citizens a stake in, and protection from, the government that they would create. Hence the elaborate systems of checks and balances, the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms.

As to your question(s):

We don't "owe" Iran and North Korea any rights. We owe the people of those countries basic human rights, you could argue... But we don't owe the government anything. Let's go back to basic social compact theory- government is about a group of people banding together in a larger society. They give up some freedoms in exchange for protection. If we decide another group (who we have not entered into any sort of agreement with) is doing something that we determine to be too dangerous, than that is completely different than a small portion of *our* group (members of the governing party) deciding to take away the rights of the rest of our "group" without agreement at least from the majority. Our government guarantees us rights, it does not guarantee rights to other countries. Personally, I would prefer to see time and resources in the US devoted to good missile defense systems, and then who cares if other countries develop nuclear weapons. For the same reason, I would prefer to see time and resources in the US devoted to a strong defense, rather than the immense amounts of manpower and capital that are spent actually supporting forces overseas. There is the "the best defense is a good offense" strategy, but being as isolated as we are by the nice oceans on either side of us, I don't really feel we need a lot in the way of offensive action against other countries, and that's just a pragmatic approach as opposed to the moral question of "why do we feel that we have a right to tell other groups of people how to behave".

As to the second part, my statement was over simplified, but you brought up the complicating factor: Intent. There are three stages to think about (lets use guns as an easy example): I own a gun, but do nothing illegal with it. I own a gun, and am planning to use it in an illegal way. I own a gun, and have just done something illegal with it. Owning the gun in and of itself should not be criminalized- intent to cause harm/intent to do something illegal, if you can prove it, does. And this is born out in our current legal system- you can be proven guilty of intent to commit a crime.

But intent to commit a crime is separate from simply having the ability to commit a crime, which is in my mind where we take it too far.

For your bomb examples, there's a difference between knowing how to build a bomb, and/or having materials that could allow me to build a bomb... And actually building a bomb, with plans to use it.

But either way, I did not intend to imply that someone is innocent until they act (at least not in the way you seem to intend it), but rather that until you can be proven to do something illegal, you should not be punished circumstantially.

And I am personally not a fan of giving up too many of my personal liberties for the thin veil of additional security. I would prefer a higher risk of isolated incidents to an increased amount of "proactive prevention".

Going back to your original point of fighting fire with fire: if no one is allowed to carry firearms on campus, then someone with ill intentions can be guaranteed unarmed targets (to their armed self) either on or (likely) immediately off campus. The alternatives to fighting fire with fire is to try to get rid of fire altogether, a proposal that I find quite absurd- making it illegal to carry or own firearms simply makes it such that law abiding citizens cannot own them. If you're willing to commit other illegal acts, why would you balk at procuring an illegal tool with which to do them? I won't cite studies, as I don't have the time to go back and find them, but there have been decent results showing that (legally licensed) concealed weapons carry has a moderate effect on decreasing crime. In addition, if you look through records of states with long histories of concealed carry permits, you will find that the proportion of crimes committed by such permit holders (or the weapons they own) is well below average.

[wtncffts]

Actually, the right to bear arms was more to do with the ability of a populace to defend itself from it's government than to defend itself from attacking foreign powers. The worry of our early founders was much less to do with keeping themselves safe from other neighboring countries, and much more to do with setting up a system that would give individual citizens a stake in, and protection from, the government that they would create. Hence the elaborate systems of checks and balances, the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms.

Yes, that's right. I originally had that point in as well, but erased it for some reason. My point is that both rationales are outdated. If you're expecting that you would need to defend yourself against the government by armed force, I'm guessing you're either holed up in an underground bunker in Idaho or a cult leader (not you personally). That doesn't negate the right, obviously, but to my mind it surely undermines the basic purpose of its continued existence.

We don't "owe" Iran and North Korea any rights. We owe the people of those countries basic human rights, you could argue... But we don't owe the government anything. Let's go back to basic social compact theory- government is about a group of people banding together in a larger society. They give up some freedoms in exchange for protection. If we decide another group (who we have not entered into any sort of agreement with) is doing something that we determine to be too dangerous, than that is completely different than a small portion of *our* group (members of the governing party) deciding to take away the rights of the rest of our "group" without agreement at least from the majority. Our government guarantees us rights, it does not guarantee rights to other countries. Personally, I would prefer to see time and resources in the US devoted to good missile defense systems, and then who cares if other countries develop nuclear weapons. For the same reason, I would prefer to see time and resources in the US devoted to a strong defense, rather than the immense amounts of manpower and capital that are spent actually supporting forces overseas.

I'm not talking about owing Iran and North Korea rights. I'm talking about state sovereignty, which has been the basis for our international system since at least 1648. In a sense, then, we do enter a compact with other states, in which we mutually recognize the exclusive authority of states over its people. Of course, there are many complicating factors which muddle the pristine picture of state sovereignty, but my basic point was that arms control in the international system is similar, in principle, to gun control nationally. Now, you seem to have a view which is not, I don't think, shared by many, conservatives or liberals, viz. that other states should be perfectly free to develop nuclear weapons as long as we have a missile defense system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it certainly is out of the mainstream.

As to your points about the social compact, I'm not sure what you mean. Presumably, in a democratic society, the will of the majority is expressed precisely by the "members of the governing party". I never said anything about minorities taking away guaranteed rights without majority support. As I said, I fully recognize that the right to bear arms is a guaranteed constitutional right in the US. You have a right to bear arms, but as with other constitutional rights, it needn't be absolute. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't use 'fighting words', you can't libel or slander. Similarly, you can't bring a gun onto an airplane, and, in my opinion, you can't bring a gun onto a university campus.

As I didn't say in my previous reply, just because something is a right doesn't mean that should be the end of the discussion (this is the idea of 'rights as trumps'). There can be other considerations which should temper the expression of rights, though from what you've argued I doubt you'd accept them: the well-being of the community, respect and tolerance of others, moral and ethical standards. This is an idea underlying what is sometimes called 'communitarianism', and though I hesitate to fall under labels, I do think about many social issues in these terms: abortion, hate speech, guns. In at least these areas, and probably others, I think individual 'rights' which may or may not be constitutionally guaranteed should in any case be tempered by such considerations as the above. Now, I fully understand that we live in a liberal (in the classical sense) democratic society in which individual rights are held as sacrosanct; that doesn't mean I accept all its implications. Rights are wonderful things, but when they're used as shields against others, as supervening over every other possible justification for action and legislation, they become corrosive.

This is, by the way, getting way too into things...

Going back to your original point of fighting fire with fire: if no one is allowed to carry firearms on campus, then someone with ill intentions can be guaranteed unarmed targets (to their armed self) either on or (likely) immediately off campus. The alternatives to fighting fire with fire is to try to get rid of fire altogether, a proposal that I find quite absurd- making it illegal to carry or own firearms simply makes it such that law abiding citizens cannot own them. If you're willing to commit other illegal acts, why would you balk at procuring an illegal tool with which to do them? I won't cite studies, as I don't have the time to go back and find them, but there have been decent results showing that (legally licensed) concealed weapons carry has a moderate effect on decreasing crime. In addition, if you look through records of states with long histories of concealed carry permits, you will find that the proportion of crimes committed by such permit holders (or the weapons they own) is well below average.

What's 'absurd' to you is the de facto case in most other Western countries. Once again, I have to state my inability to understand the concept of 'law abiding citizen'. What was the kid at Virginia Tech? A law abiding citizen until he wasn't, until something happened. What was Jared Lee Loughner? A law abiding citizen until he wasn't, until something happened. What of the countless others who are ordinary people like you or me, who just snap? To reiterate, 'good guys' and 'bad guys' don't wear different clothes. Their driver's licences don't indicate their status. So, there are two options. You have either a universal right to carry guns, in which case some people who will, for whatever reason, have violent intent, have ready access to deadly weapons, or a restriction or outright ban on such weapons, where the violent intent is there but the deadly means aren't so readily available, or are extremely difficult to procure. Now, I've acknowledged a few times that the US is where it is, in terms of the constitutional guarantees, abundance of guns, and pervasiveness of gun culture, and so what I'm arguing may simply not be possible. Fine. That doesn't mean steps can't be taken, and I think preventing guns from being on a university campus, if that's what the university community decides, is not an extraordinary restriction of the constitutional right.

So you actually believe that anyone with a gun intends to shoot you with it? Either it is peaceful or not. Either you truly believe I intend to shoot you if I have a gun, or you believe I am peaceful. You can't have it both ways.

Ah. Here is your answer. You DO believe I am peaceful if I am carying a weapon. You DO believe I have no intention of using it.

That's alright. In my opinion it would create a safer one. The cool thing about us humans is we can all have different opinions, and until we threaten or harm another human, we expect (or would like) to remain unharmed ourselves.

The rest is also your opinion of what should and should not be carried by someone else. You are free to your opinion as to what I "should" carry, just as I am free to carry my personal belongings where I like, so long as I am not harming or threatening anyone.

We can all have opinions on the topic, but there are certain people who would like to commit violence against gun-carriers. Some people hire others to harass and threaten, and eventually harm, peaceful people who carry guns. THIS is what is wrong.

Carrying a gun is not a peaceful action. That has nothing to do with whether individuals who carry guns are peaceful or not. They may be peaceful, but in a dangerous situation, do unpeaceful things. I was talking about some particular individual who truly has no intention of using the gun (though, obviously, this is patently contradictory to the purpose of carrying it in the first place, since were the circumstances to require it, the whole point of carrying the gun is to use it). Public policy isn't individualized, though. It asks: would it further our purposes to allow every and all individuals to carry guns on campus? We can't look into every individual mind and say, okay, peaceful, peaceful, not peaceful, etc., and allocate rights accordingly. Instead, we ask, what are the possible outcomes of alternative policies, and what are their likelihoods of occurring, and we choose as best we can.

I don't see your point about opinions. Of course we can all have opinions. Opinions are words, thoughts, pictures, etc., which express one's views about something. A tangible object like a gun is not an opinion. And when threatening or harming occurs, I sure as heck would want it to be with an opinion and not a gun. It's also absurd to suggest that guns are simply "personal belongings" like combs or toothbrushes. None of us, in 2011, have to hunt for food to survive. It's not 1885. Again, I may be expressing my naivety, but it's clear to me that guns, in this context, have only one purpose: to kill or otherwise harm another person. They are deadly weapons. I guess this simply comes down to differing levels of comfort with being in environments in which deadly weapons are a fact of life.

[wtncffts]

Perhaps the OP would like to check back in and tell us how we're doing...

[Bison_PhD]

Perhaps the OP would like to check back in and tell us how we're doing...

I don't know about the OP, but I am loving this discussion.

I am very liberal (modern usage) but I feel that someone who has gone through the difficult (at least where I am) process of obtaining a CCW should have the ability to carry the weapon where ever it is not explicitly forbidden. I don't think that anyone is arguing that Universities don't also have the right to restrict or ban such usage, but this discussion is whether they should. I think that that those who are arguing pro-guns allowed on campus are not saying that everyone should be issued a gun upon class registration. But, that those who have been vetted by the CCW system (which could be strengthened in some areas but is pretty rigorous in others) are most likely to be peaceful in their actions and more likely (than the average person) to reduce violence. I know that no system can prevent someone from 'snapping' but I really think that is more rare than wtncffts perceives it to be.

Also, I have +1 most of Eigen's posts b/c she does a good job arguing a side that is often represented by the loudest and not the most informed.

[hejduk]

I don't know about the OP, but I am loving this discussion.

Sorry! Been enjoying the show; really don't have anything major to add. I think there have been some good points made (qualifications of those carrying the guns, violence near to campus). I was really just trying to gauge the different reasons for carrying, as well as other people's opinions.

Violence will not be an issue where I'm attending, so that reason doesn't add to the being able to carry. The qualifications of those carrying is definitely something I'm worried about. In my home state, anyone can get a conceal-and-carry license just by attending an 8-hour training. It's quite ridiculous and underscores how easy it can be to obtain a conceal-and-carry license. Pretty sure it should be much, much harder, and individuals should have to show true reasoning/justification for needing to carry a concealed weapon.

The state I will be attending in currently has legislation that allows the school in question to decide their own campus policies. Schools have chosen different policies, with some allowing and deciding against guns on campus, but all are threatened with lawsuits by outside groups. I think I heard that one school has given into the demands of the outside groups, and has decided to to avoid lawsuits, and just go and and allow concealed weapons on campus. What a shame...

[StrangeLight]

guns for all, health care for none!

that's it, i'm moving back to canada.

[starmaker]

Again, I simply don't understand this idea that you, or any regulatory agency, can tell who the people are who can be trusted with guns and who aren't. I don't think our best empirical evidence in criminology, psychology, etc. bears that out. 'Bad guys' don't go around with an X on their foreheads. To repeat, people are law-abiding, upstanding citizens until they're not. Something happens, and they 'snap', or they get caught up in emotion. It's not a coincidence that one of the aspects of American exceptionalism, as an empirical supposition (I don't want to turn this into a poli sci thing, but see, e.g., Seymour Lipset), is the significantly higher rates of homicide and violent crime as compared to other developed countries. One explanation could be that Americans are just inherently more violent than other similarly situated people. What I think is more reasonable, though, is that the widespread pervasiveness of guns and gun culture allows instances of violence to be manifest in much deadlier ways. The whole 'guns don't kill people; people kill people' is, of course, literally true, but it's equally obvious that, when people do kill people, the means make a big difference. A gun has a much greater destructive potential than most other personal weapons.

So, I get everything you're saying. I agree with some of it. I used to agree with more of it. My attitudes changed somewhat, oddly enough, in the wake of September 11. Yeah, I hear you groaning - hear me out, because I'm not going where you probably think I'm going with this.

I am, in general, a bleeding-heart liberal. I have a bunch of lefty activism to my credit. In the wake of September 11, I was in high school, and living in a part of the country that is very right-wing. I got involved with the state ACLU, with its education committee, that was basically doing outreach stuff around the state to counter the anti-civil-liberties wave that was going on. We met quietly in the basements of group members who were willing to take the risk of hosting. Some people in the group wouldn't host meetings or do anything else that might let their neighbors or others link them to the ACLU, because they were afraid of repercussions, possibly violent ones.

A lot of what we were fighting, of course, was infringements on people's personal freedoms, in the name of public safety. And our opponents were saying that by pushing back against the public safety apparatus for the sake of personal freedoms, we were making it harder to achieve public safety. And you know what? They were probably, to some extent, right. Maybe not to the extent that they thought, but it's true that street crime and terrorism tend to be limited in police states. The thing is, I don't want to live in a police state. Hyperbolic rhetoric notwithstanding, I don't think that we were in a police state in 2002-2003, but we went a few steps closer, and I was and am against those steps. Even if they make the job of the public safety apparatus a bit easier, I'm against giving up personal freedoms for them.

Eventually, that got me thinking about gun control. I don't have strong opinions about guns and the Constitution - I find the 2nd amendment very ambiguous. I'm not really into the "We might have to defend ourselves against the government" thing - if the US government wants to attack me, it's not like I can stop a fighter jet or a take with a couple of .22 semiautomatic pistols. But I do consider owning and carrying guns to be a type of personal freedom. And I realized that if I was going to apply the same logic to this particular personal freedom that I did to others, then my opinions on what sort of gun control we should have were too restrictive, even if that restrictiveness was helpful to public safety. So I modified them. That doesn't meant that I turned against gun control (as stated in my previous post, I think we should have a fair bit - I don't think the NRA would care for my positions much), just that I revised how much I thought was optimal.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I just wanted to give a sense of where I was coming from. As far as who should get a gun license - I'd say it should require a gun safety certification, a background check, and a waiting period, and you should have to register your guns (like you would, say, your cars). You should have to get it renewed periodically, which would involve updated checking and such. Also, you should lose it if you're caught doing stuff like letting your unlicensed kid play with the gun or leaving the gun around unsecured. But once you get the license, you should be able, within reason, to carry the gun, and I don't see anything so special about a college campus that it needs different rules from a random town street or a shopping mall or whatever. And yes, there is the potential that a previously law-abiding citizen will suddenly become something else, but personal liberty vs public security is a delicate tradeoff.

Oh, and to StrangeLight, I support single-payer.

[wtncffts]

I don't know about the OP, but I am loving this discussion.

I am very liberal (modern usage) but I feel that someone who has gone through the difficult (at least where I am) process of obtaining a CCW should have the ability to carry the weapon where ever it is not explicitly forbidden. I don't think that anyone is arguing that Universities don't also have the right to restrict or ban such usage, but this discussion is whether they should. I think that that those who are arguing pro-guns allowed on campus are not saying that everyone should be issued a gun upon class registration. But, that those who have been vetted by the CCW system (which could be strengthened in some areas but is pretty rigorous in others) are most likely to be peaceful in their actions and more likely (than the average person) to reduce violence. I know that no system can prevent someone from 'snapping' but I really think that is more rare than wtncffts perceives it to be.

Also, I have +1 most of Eigen's posts b/c she does a good job arguing a side that is often represented by the loudest and not the most informed.

To the last point, I certainly also appreciate her (?), and others, thoughtful, well-argued posts; in a lesser forum, the discussion would have degenerated significantly by now.

It's also interesting to me as an observer to see where the debate is in the US (albeit with a tiny, tiny sample size). Both you and starmaker describe yourselves as liberals, yet you seem basically accepting of the place of guns in society. In that, I think you pretty much reflect the state of the Democratic Party, which seems to have decided that the gun issue is simply not worth the trouble. After the Tucson incident, for example, there was a golden opportunity for the party to rally behind stricter gun control, yet the right seems to have 'won' the message war, resulting in part in the newly found enthusiasm for things like guns on campus. I'm not passing judgment, and I know that you've come to your positions sincerely and not for political-strategical reasons; as I say, just a point of interest.

Again, as an outsider, I'm not familiar with the licensing systems in the various jurisdictions in the US. I will concede that you may very well be right, that with a rigorous vetting procedure only those people who are highly unlikely future criminals will have access to guns. I'm also positive, though, that many states don't have particularly rigorous procedures. There's also the plain fact that guns can be stolen, misplaced, etc. As well, and this is where, funnily enough, I completely see the NRA's point, it seems to me that you're treading on dangerous ground if you restrict gun ownership through more or less rigorous checks. If it's truly a fundamental constitutional right, guaranteed to all citizens through the second and fourteenth amendments (see recent case McDonald v. Chicago), it's difficult to sustain a regime which chooses among citizens in terms of that right, and which chills the exercise of that right. You can't have laws which restrict freedom of speech only to those who, through some rigorous government vetting, are found to have something of value to contribute.

As for the 'snapping', I didn't necessarily mean a mass murderer with deep psychological problems. There were 15,000 or so murders in the US in 2009. How many were of the mass variety? How many were organized crime related? The vast majority of murders are relatively humdrum affairs, carried out by murderers who are just like you or me, who find themselves in situations where they just decide killing another person is what they have to do. Obviously, guns don't have everything to do with this, but I still maintain that the widespread availability and access to guns, especially handguns, contribute to increasing the likelihood of violent intentions becoming murder statistics.

So, I get everything you're saying. I agree with some of it. I used to agree with more of it. My attitudes changed somewhat, oddly enough, in the wake of September 11. Yeah, I hear you groaning - hear me out, because I'm not going where you probably think I'm going with this.

I am, in general, a bleeding-heart liberal. I have a bunch of lefty activism to my credit. In the wake of September 11, I was in high school, and living in a part of the country that is very right-wing. I got involved with the state ACLU, with its education committee, that was basically doing outreach stuff around the state to counter the anti-civil-liberties wave that was going on. We met quietly in the basements of group members who were willing to take the risk of hosting. Some people in the group wouldn't host meetings or do anything else that might let their neighbors or others link them to the ACLU, because they were afraid of repercussions, possibly violent ones.

A lot of what we were fighting, of course, was infringements on people's personal freedoms, in the name of public safety. And our opponents were saying that by pushing back against the public safety apparatus for the sake of personal freedoms, we were making it harder to achieve public safety. And you know what? They were probably, to some extent, right. Maybe not to the extent that they thought, but it's true that street crime and terrorism tend to be limited in police states. The thing is, I don't want to live in a police state. Hyperbolic rhetoric notwithstanding, I don't think that we were in a police state in 2002-2003, but we went a few steps closer, and I was and am against those steps. Even if they make the job of the public safety apparatus a bit easier, I'm against giving up personal freedoms for them.

Eventually, that got me thinking about gun control. I don't have strong opinions about guns and the Constitution - I find the 2nd amendment very ambiguous. I'm not really into the "We might have to defend ourselves against the government" thing - if the US government wants to attack me, it's not like I can stop a fighter jet or a take with a couple of .22 semiautomatic pistols. But I do consider owning and carrying guns to be a type of personal freedom. And I realized that if I was going to apply the same logic to this particular personal freedom that I did to others, then my opinions on what sort of gun control we should have were too restrictive, even if that restrictiveness was helpful to public safety. So I modified them. That doesn't meant that I turned against gun control (as stated in my previous post, I think we should have a fair bit - I don't think the NRA would care for my positions much), just that I revised how much I thought was optimal.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I just wanted to give a sense of where I was coming from. As far as who should get a gun license - I'd say it should require a gun safety certification, a background check, and a waiting period, and you should have to register your guns (like you would, say, your cars). You should have to get it renewed periodically, which would involve updated checking and such. Also, you should lose it if you're caught doing stuff like letting your unlicensed kid play with the gun or leaving the gun around unsecured. But once you get the license, you should be able, within reason, to carry the gun, and I don't see anything so special about a college campus that it needs different rules from a random town street or a shopping mall or whatever. And yes, there is the potential that a previously law-abiding citizen will suddenly become something else, but personal liberty vs public security is a delicate tradeoff.

Oh, and to StrangeLight, I support single-payer.

Great post. I certainly understand where you're coming from. And, to repeat, my personal experience may simply render me unable to relate deeply with many of your points. And, again, I know the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed, which makes a significant difference to the discussion. But from my point of view, I simply don't see gun ownership as a particularly important or fundamental right of personal liberty, bearing in mind what I just said about it being in the constitution. I don't think, abstracting from the US case for a second, that the right to bear arms is self-evidently obvious. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not a part of any UN declarations on rights, and it certainly isn't a guaranteed right in many, if not most, other developed democratic countries. I don't feel an iota of loss of personal liberty because of the very strict gun control regime up here. To me, it's pretty clear that guns are not simply 'another possession' like combs or toothbrushes. You wouldn't have the whole debate around them if they were. Especially in terms of handguns, their only purpose is as deadly weapons. Should individuals have the freedom to carry deadly weapons around? Maybe or maybe not, but it's not an easy answer.

In any case, I'm dubious about whether gun ownership as a personal liberty, if it exists, trumps other kinds of personal liberty. It's at least arguable that an individual's liberty to live free from fear, in a safe and peaceful society, should take precedence over an individual's negative liberty of gun ownership. I certainly think that even were gun ownership a fundamental personal liberty (which, as above, I doubt), it's a more serious infringement on my liberty to compel me to live, work, study, etc., in an armed environment.

Now, of course, some of you have made the argument that the way to a safe and peaceful society is precisely through widespread gun ownership. That's something I cannot buy, but I don't think I can change anyone's mind. Were I to ask the question "If you were designing a society from the ground up, tabula rasa, would you constitutionally guarantee the right to bear arms", to me, the answer's obviously no, for others the answer's obviously yes. There are utterly different paradigms here, borne from differing experiences. The latter simply accepts that guns will inevitably be pervasive, and so citizens should have every right to arm themselves, and/or that it's a fundamental right regardless. I simply do not accept either premise: guns are not inevitable, and gun ownership is not a fundamental personal liberty. But I doubt I could convince anyone in the latter camp.

[Eigen]

I think one of the differences that has definitely been highlighted in this thread is how much the environment you were raised in plays into your feelings about guns and gun control- and in fact, I think there are some distinct points to be made about environment that haven't come up here yet.

Personally, I've lived around guns pretty much my whole life. I grew up in the country, I learned to shoot quite early (5 or 6), and have owned guns since not much older. The dangers inherent in guns were drilled into me from an early age, as was being safe and responsible with them and around them. Also included in these lessons were points about keeping a check on your temper and staying in control when you were around them- clear mind, lots of thought, etc. Most of my friends that were raised in similar environments have similar opinions about guns- if they're used properly, they aren't that unsafe, and we have no particular "fear" (as some seem to have) that leads to us feeling unsafe around people who are armed.

On the other hand, I had a fair number of friends who grew up without any contact with guns, and most of them seem to have very different opinions about them- much more tentative, as well as a greater deal of apprehension about trusting "anyone" to own a gun. And most of the time, I can understand where they're coming from. Similarly, I have friends from Nepal who are petrified of dogs- they only dogs they were ever around were completely feral, with a high incidence of rabies. They know that the miniature Dachshund likely won't do much damage, but how we're raised has a significant impact on our opinions and what we're comfortable.

There's one last category of individuals, and these are the ones that personally scare me a little: those who have gotten most of their exposure to guns from TV, video games, etc. They didn't grow up with a healthy respect for them, they don't know how to use them, and most of the ways they've seen them used are in relatively reckless displays of violence rather than carefully, defensively, as a deterrent or as a last resort. Yet they feel comfortable enough around them that they own them!

I don't find these types of behavior are related to guns, alone.

If we extend the argument into cars- there are those who grew up driving a lot, and are safe, attentive and defensive drivers. There are those who grew up where cars were a rarity, and are slightly apprehensive of driving them. And then there are those who seem to have the feeling that they're invincible, that driving 100 mph is a perfectly acceptable behavior, and that "everyone drives like that". And honestly, you can kill someone just as easily driving as you can with a gun... Probably more easily, given how hard it actually is to hit the target with a handgun unless you've spent a decent amount of time training.

To me, taking away a particular weapon (and it's not like we'll be able to take it away from everyone, see my previous posts about how easy they would be to obtain illegally) doesn't take away that part of someones nature that makes them likely to kill another person. I would be very interested to see what proportion of murders in the US resulted from firearms as opposed to knives, strangulation, electrocution, drowning, poisoning or simply bludgeoning with a heavy weapon. I do agree, however, that some weapons like guns make it much easier to kill someone without prior planning. You'd be amazed at how many people survive gunshot wounds vs. the number of people that die with an unlucky blow to the head, though. I just don't feel that taking away legal access to firearms would really change the degree of safety in my life.

I also strongly agree with Starmaker that I'm not a fan of removing personal liberties just to make myself safer- I think compared to other countries, people in the US have a much lower tolerance for some risk as a fact of life. Every additional measure of security be default must come with a proportional decrease in personal liberties, it's all in where you draw the line. I'd prefer it drawn more on the side of personal liberties than safety by a long shot, it's why I think many of the post-9/11 safety changes were a step in the wrong direction.

I'm also quite enjoying the discussion- it's not often you can talk about relatively hot button issues without things devolving in a fast and fiery manner!

[starmaker]

It's also interesting to me as an observer to see where the debate is in the US (albeit with a tiny, tiny sample size). Both you and starmaker describe yourselves as liberals, yet you seem basically accepting of the place of guns in society. In that, I think you pretty much reflect the state of the Democratic Party, which seems to have decided that the gun issue is simply not worth the trouble.

Heh. And my dad, a Republican-leaning independent, thinks that private ownership of guns should be prohibited (it is perhaps significant that he grew up in an affluent Northeastern suburban environment where guns are pretty taboo). It might be a little more loosely coupled to general political outlook than some other issues (though believe me, there are plenty of people whose views on the issue are more what would be expected for their political worldview, and there are probably a lot of comparably liberal people out there who would think I'm a nut for the stuff that I said in my previous posts).

I do think it's just not one of the more prominent social issues in the national discourse right now, though it possibly is in some local discourses. Most politicians aren't really pushing for more gun control on the national level, and they're also not pushing for less. Though obviously you have exceptions on both sides.

I think Eigen's onto something with his/her comments about environment. I was raised in what you might call a mixed environment - both of my parents are somewhat fearful about guns and favor more restrictions than I do, but we were in a geographic area where people tend to be more pro-gun and guns tend to be more commonplace in the way that Eigen describes (and both of my stepparents reflect that mindset as well).

I agree entirely with Eigen about that last category of people, the ones who like guns but don't have a healthy respect for them. I can also buy into the car analogy. I was terrified of driving for many years past when I could have first gotten a license, partly because it seemed like most of the people my age who were getting licenses were very cavalier about it and seemed not to understand that they were controlling lethal weapons. Riding in a car as a passenger with an experienced driver was fine, because I figured they knew how to deal when they encountered crazy incompetent drivers, but I, a novice, did not, and so I was scared to get behind the wheel.

For what it's worth, with some of the volunteer work that I do, I am probably at a slightly elevated risk of being shot relative to people of comparable socioeconomic status (I am not going to spell this out further here: If you really want to know, send me a PM). Oddly, I don't think this affects my opinion on gun control much one way or the other, though it does increase my appreciation for the concept of self-defense in general.

[rising_star]

Alright, since environment is now in play I'll say what I think. Keep in mind, btw, that I was raised in a town with a big gun culture where something fun to do on the weekends was to shoot soda cans with hunting rifles in the woods. (Yes, I'm totally serious and yes, I did do this.)

I'm against guns on campus for one main reason: there was an incident ~10 years ago at my university where a student held a gun to a professor's head in the professor's office while demanding that this grade be changed. I realize that no one here is thinking about those kinds of extreme situations but, they happen. Given the sense of entitlement around grades (and also around guns), I would not at all be surprised if such incidents happen again if guns are allowed on campus.

I'm weighing in mostly to say something that I haven't really seen expressed here thus far. And now I think I'll go back to just reading this discussion.

[wtncffts]

Alright, since environment is now in play I'll say what I think. Keep in mind, btw, that I was raised in a town with a big gun culture where something fun to do on the weekends was to shoot soda cans with hunting rifles in the woods. (Yes, I'm totally serious and yes, I did do this.)

I'm against guns on campus for one main reason: there was an incident ~10 years ago at my university where a student held a gun to a professor's head in the professor's office while demanding that this grade be changed. I realize that no one here is thinking about those kinds of extreme situations but, they happen. Given the sense of entitlement around grades (and also around guns), I would not at all be surprised if such incidents happen again if guns are allowed on campus.

I'm weighing in mostly to say something that I haven't really seen expressed here thus far. And now I think I'll go back to just reading this discussion.

That's a good, albeit extreme, example of my concerns about guns on campus. Now, obviously, that's a situation where, in one of the discussant's terms, it went from a 'peaceful action' to not, but I can think of several hypothetical examples where there can be subtle intimidation and threats without any overt action. A student, say, brings a gun to campus and puts it in front of him on the desk. Or comes to a prof's office and makes it clear that he's carrying, but not in any explicit manner. Speaking personally, a policy of allowing guns on campus would be a huge obstacle to me as a potential faculty member or grad student, and I imagine it would be for many others. I certainly would not be comfortable as a TA or lecturer in that kind of environment. Now, this thread shows plainly that for many it wouldn't be a problem, but I think the potential effects on hiring/recruiting would at least be among the considerations a university would look at.

As for the discussion, I've said pretty much all I wanted to say, and I really ought not to spend so much time on lengthy replies when I should be doing more 'productive' things This has made me think about the issue a lot more than I have, though, to the point where I've got into a book on the public policy and politics of gun control (specifically, this one), and I may bring some of those points in. But hopefully others will continue the excellent discussion we've been having.

[hejduk]

Speaking personally, a policy of allowing guns on campus would be a huge obstacle to me as a potential faculty member or grad student, and I imagine it would be for many others. I certainly would not be comfortable as a TA or lecturer in that kind of environment. Now, this thread shows plainly that for many it wouldn't be a problem, but I think the potential effects on hiring/recruiting would at least be among the considerations a university would look at.

Hit in on the head! I've struggled with this very decision during the admission process, and still think about the unfortunate but certainly possibly circumstances that may happen while being a TA. It's in this very circumstance where a guy who had no desire to purchase a gun (me!) may actually do so just to protect himself.

See how this very situation can snowball?

Edited June 27, 2011 by hejduk

[Behavioral]

Guns on campus: Where do you stand?

Ideally behind bullet-proof glass