Guns on campus: Where do you stand?

[Eigen]

Too many simultaneous conversations!

I don't believe I ever made a point regarding about all institutions drawing a line between concealed and non-concealed... I mentioned that that was a possible middle ground that could be used as a means of controlling the influx of guns, but said nothing about it being an absolute line, or even a common one. Even then, I was bringing up concealed weapons not because they were concealed, but due to the permitting process in being allowed to carry one.

[ZeeMore21]

Do you honestly expect someone to pull out a concealed weapon and start shooting you because they disagree with your opinions?

Edited June 28, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[Two Espressos]

As I mentioned, I believe there are two major differences:

The first is the inclusion of minors (the majority of the other students). We tend to be much less forgiving of possible breaches of safety when children are concerned.

And yet many college freshman are under 18 and thus still considered children by law. So would concealed firearms be restricted to adult classrooms, where no student is under 18?

The second is the fact that the other students are *forced* to be in that class- K-12 schooling is mandatory. Higher ed is not. In addition, most people have far more options for school choice in higher ed than they do in primary and secondary education.

My hypothetical situation addresses this issue.

In the case of campuses allowing concealed carry- it's not really a problem in your mind then that anyone actually does carry on campus, but rather that someone *could* carry and be in your class.

Do you honestly expect someone to pull out a concealed weapon and start shooting you because they disagree with your opinions?

I do not know if you are addressing ZeeMore21 or me with this post. I have a problem with students carrying concealed firearms on campus, not just the possibility that someone could carry and be in my class. Like ZeeMore21 said, I would be disturbed with the prospect of sitting in a classroom with absolute strangers who are allowed to carry concealed firearms. TheGradCafe is not an accurate picture of the collegiate demographic, but I would assume that many other students share our position.

[ZeeMore21]

As far as college students having the choice to pick whatever institution they choose...is that necessary always the case? What about location or finances? That could limit their school choices...maybe a college that permits guns on campus might be the only choice they have. I don't think students should have to add gun presence as another deciding factor when it comes to making a college decision.

[Eigen]

Two Espressos: I'm not sure about your hypothetical- when I have some more time to think about it, I'll write out my thoughts and response. The point about college freshmen being below 18 is interesting, but I wouldn't exactly say "many" freshmen are under 18- that's the exception, not the norm. I was addressing either of you with that question, really- it's a point of view so far outside that of anyone I know personally that I have a hard time processing it. I would definitely say the GradCafe is not an average of college demographics- I know when our school went through this debate, it was a nearly 50:50 split in both the faculty and student populations between those that would feel safer and those that would feel less safe.

Zeemore:But they are not *required* to go to school as they are at the K-12 level.

To both of you: I think you missed this question earlier, but where do you stand on a schools right to *allow* students to carry firearms on campus? That was the question that sparked this thread. We've been focusing mostly on a schools right to restrict the carry of firearms, but would you have an issue with a schools administration (or a private K-12 school) that decided to allow firearms on campus?

[ZeeMore21]

Two Espressos: I'm not sure about your hypothetical- when I have some more time to think about it, I'll write out my thoughts and response. The point about college freshmen being below 18 is interesting, but I wouldn't exactly say "many" freshmen are under 18- that's the exception, not the norm. I was addressing either of you with that question, really- it's a point of view so far outside that of anyone I know personally that I have a hard time processing it. I would definitely say the GradCafe is not an average of college demographics- I know when our school went through this debate, it was a nearly 50:50 split in both the faculty and student populations between those that would feel safer and those that would feel less safe.

Zeemore:But they are not *required* to go to school as they are at the K-12 level.

To both of you: I think you missed this question earlier, but where do you stand on a schools right to *allow* students to carry firearms on campus? That was the question that sparked this thread. We've been focusing mostly on a schools right to restrict the carry of firearms, but would you have an issue with a schools administration (or a private K-12 school) that decided to allow firearms on campus?

Are you distinguishing between public and private institutions? The reason why I've been focusing on schools having the right to ban guns on campus was due to posters arguing that college gun bans is an affront to the rights of individuals to carry guns, which was alarming to me. I will think about your question for a little bit.

[Two Espressos]

Two Espressos: I'm not sure about your hypothetical- when I have some more time to think about it, I'll write out my thoughts and response. The point about college freshmen being below 18 is interesting, but I wouldn't exactly say "many" freshmen are under 18- that's the exception, not the norm.

I was perhaps mistaken in stating that "many freshman are under 18, but I personally knew several at my undergraduate institution (I'm using the past tense, though I'm still an undergrad, because these people are no longer under 18). They are the exception rather than the rule, but they are not a rarity.

I was addressing either of you with that question, really- it's a point of view so far outside that of anyone I know personally that I have a hard time processing it.

Hmm, in what way is my point of view (or ZeeMore21's) outlandish (you mention that it is "so far outside that of anyone I know personally")?

To both of you: I think you missed this question earlier, but where do you stand on a schools right to *allow* students to carry firearms on campus? That was the question that sparked this thread. We've been focusing mostly on a schools right to restrict the carry of firearms, but would you have an issue with a schools administration (or a private K-12 school) that decided to allow firearms on campus?

All else being equal, I would choose the school that restricts concealed carry rather than the school that allows it. I see absolutely no reason why a college would allow it (the support proffered has been scanty and specious). That being said, I'm unsure as to whether a school should have the right to allow students to carry concealed firearms. I'll need more time to think about it.

[ZeeMore21]

I, too, would like to know the reason behind allowing students to carry guns to campus? Political statements? Honestly don't know why anyone would really need a concealed weapon in a learning environment. People just seem to want to make a political statement with their guns, not really protect themselves.

Edited June 28, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[Eigen]

The viewpoint that was outlandish to me was that you would change your behavior in class if students were allowed to carry guns, or that you would feel unsafe on campus.

I know people on both sides of the debate, but to date no one that feels their safety would be in jeopardy if guns were allowed on campus.

The campus that I know went over to allowing concealed carry on campus after the state passed legislation placing the decision on the individual schools. They felt like it had more benefits to overall student safety than detraction's from it in the end. I suspect it was due to several incidents on campus, as well as a really high percentage of non-active duty military and law enforcement students on campus, but that's just my take on it. The debate was quite heated on either side.

[Two Espressos]

The viewpoint that was outlandish to me was that you would change your behavior in class if students were allowed to carry guns, or that you would feel unsafe on campus.

I know people on both sides of the debate, but to date no one that feels their safety would be in jeopardy if guns were allowed on campus.

The campus that I know went over to allowing concealed carry on campus after the state passed legislation placing the decision on the individual schools. They felt like it had more benefits to overall student safety than detraction's from it in the end. I suspect it was due to several incidents on campus, as well as a really high percentage of non-active duty military and law enforcement students on campus, but that's just my take on it. The debate was quite heated on either side.

You're exaggerating my position a bit. I would feel less safe on a campus that allowed concealed firearms--the realization that students can happily carry guns on them is disturbing. However, I wouldn't go so far as to state that my safety is in jeopardy. It's not like I would worry every day that I was going to be shot or anything.

[Two Espressos]

See you and most others are missing the entire point. Obviously I agree that a gun has the potential to be used to commit violence. It's not about whether you support guns or not. For instance, I happen to be straight. I don't go out and specifically support homosexual actions. But obviously I don't oppose it either! It is none of my damn business what other people do, until they attempt to harm or threaten someone! If I carry a gun peacefully onto a campus, I have every right to be safe from some fool with a badge who tries to attack me and physically drag me away.

It isn't about politics - both sides of the "political aisle" have their fears, and both sides try to control peaceful people in different ways. This is about the basic human right to not be enslaved to other people's irrational fears. I have a right to smoke pot (I don't like it but that's a different issue haha). Some people have a fear of pot and pretend they have a right to commit violence against people for using it. They hire people that are supposed to "protect and serve" to commit acts of aggression against these people. You are calling for the exact same thing but concerning a different personal belonging! Guns are NOT murderous. Some people are. Until someone threatens you, you have NO right to force them to do or not do anything.

If I am carrying, and someone (say an officer) tries to stop me, it is HE who is committing the act of aggression, and it is HE who should be removed from society.

My post was mostly concerned with the specious nature of your analogy; how is that missing the point? You made an illogical analogy to support your conclusions, and I refuted it.

Anyways, this post is all over the place and largely ignores the most recent concerns (both for and against concealed firearms on campuses) that ZeeMore21, Eigen, and I have brought up.

I don't think that bringing a gun to campus is a "basic human right." Is it a basic human right to peacefully carry concealed firearms into governmental buildings, including courthouses? By your logic, no one can intervene into someone else's affairs unless that person explicitly commits a crime or act of aggression. Gun control laws (not exclusively laws against concealed firearms on campuses) exist to prevent the likelihood of crime occurring (hence, why assault weapons are illegal). So are you opposed to assault weapon bans, as well as laws against carrying bombs and other deadly weapons (assume that the person carrying said deadly weapons will not use them)?

[ZeeMore21]

The viewpoint that was outlandish to me was that you would change your behavior in class if students were allowed to carry guns, or that you would feel unsafe on campus.

I know people on both sides of the debate, but to date no one that feels their safety would be in jeopardy if guns were allowed on campus.

The campus that I know went over to allowing concealed carry on campus after the state passed legislation placing the decision on the individual schools. They felt like it had more benefits to overall student safety than detraction's from it in the end. I suspect it was due to several incidents on campus, as well as a really high percentage of non-active duty military and law enforcement students on campus, but that's just my take on it. The debate was quite heated on either side.

I doubt that it is outlandish for someone to feel unsafe because of guns on campus...not appreciated. I think its outlandish to believe that people who have a fear of guns should be labeled weird or strange. Guns end lives...I don't think everyone feels nice and comfortable having strangers walking around with them.

[ZeeMore21]

I wonder when people who feared guns were the minority and somehow strange... can anyone let me know?

Edited June 28, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[Two Espressos]

I wonder when people who feared guns were the minority and somehow strange... can anyone let me know?

[ZeeMore21]

Don't quite see your point here....how exactly do you put guns and homosexual practices on the same level as if homosexual acts has some potential physical danger to outside parties? Don't exactly follow that thinking, please expand.

See you and most others are missing the entire point. Obviously I agree that a gun has the potential to be used to commit violence. It's not about whether you support guns or not. For instance, I happen to be straight. I don't go out and specifically support homosexual actions. But obviously I don't oppose it either! It is none of my damn business what other people do, until they attempt to harm or threaten someone! If I carry a gun peacefully onto a campus, I have every right to be safe from some fool with a badge who tries to attack me and physically drag me away.

It isn't about politics - both sides of the "political aisle" have their fears, and both sides try to control peaceful people in different ways. This is about the basic human right to not be enslaved to other people's irrational fears. I have a right to smoke pot (I don't like it but that's a different issue haha). Some people have a fear of pot and pretend they have a right to commit violence against people for using it. They hire people that are supposed to "protect and serve" to commit acts of aggression against these people. You are calling for the exact same thing but concerning a different personal belonging! Guns are NOT murderous. Some people are. Until someone threatens you, you have NO right to force them to do or not do anything.

If I am carrying, and someone (say an officer) tries to stop me, it is HE who is committing the act of aggression, and it is HE who should be removed from society.

[Two Espressos]

Don't quite see your point here....how exactly do you put guns and homosexual practices on the same level as if homosexual acts has some potential physical danger to outside parties? Don't exactly follow that thinking, please expand.

This is partially what had disturbed me about his earlier post; it was partially why I stated that his post was "all over the place." If he is somehow equating homosexuality and guns, then that is another terrible (and not to mention offensive) analogy on his part.

[wtncffts]

Well, I said I wasn't going to comment further, but I just have to reply to Aaron McDevitt's various replies. They all seem to basically boil down to a version of extreme individualistic libertarianism. It's a legitimate viewpoint, but it's also very difficult to have discourse with, since it takes a reasonable principle, that individuals have a basic right to negative liberty, to be 'let alone', as it were, to its solipsistic extreme. It has one simple answer to every question of public policy. If the only role of government is to allow for maximally 'free' individuals, besides basic functions of law and order, than any appeals to what's good or better for society, what responsibilities the state has to pursue the common good, any actual empirical evidence which shows that some particular aspect of society does appreciable harm, are for nought, if the related policy options hinder at all the 'right' of an individual to be wholly free, autonomous and self-regarding. As I said, it's a legitimate philosophical viewpoint, but it's 1) not particularly conducive to argument, and 2) not instantiated in the real world and probably cannot be, notwithstanding the hopes of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul followers.

Edited June 29, 2011 by wtncffts

[Eigen]

I doubt that it is outlandish for someone to feel unsafe because of guns on campus...not appreciated. I think its outlandish to believe that people who have a fear of guns should be labeled weird or strange. Guns end lives...I don't think everyone feels nice and comfortable having strangers walking around with them.

If you read back to the prior post when I started this line of thought (this was the clarification that Two Espresso asked for), I said that I found the idea outlandish because this is the first time I've encountered it. I did not in any way imply that the people who had the idea were weird and strange- just that the idea was something I had never encountered before. Hence the word "outlandish", referring to something from another land or something that seems to be from a different culture. You might also note that I was not the one to use outlandish to describe it to begin with, but that Two Espresso was- I simply used the same term in expounding on my viewpoint.

That said, I'm sorry if the use offended you.

I've been quite enjoying the discussion, but with the recent string of posts from Aaron (and this misunderstanding), I think I'll bow out. If anyone is interested in continuing, I'll be glad to do so via PMs, but I would much prefer to keep this on the higher level it started on- it was such a refreshing change from the normal gun debates.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Eigen

[ZeeMore21]

Definitely alright...most of the time, "outlandish" refers to something bizarre, so I took it that way. But yes, I will get back to you when I do a bit more reading on this topic. This debate is a good one. Sad that Aaron decided to throw homosexuality in the mix...absolutely ridiculous to be honest.

If you read back to the prior post when I started this line of thought (this was the clarification that Two Espresso asked for), I said that I found the idea outlandish because this is the first time I've encountered it. I did not in any way imply that the people who had the idea were weird and strange- just that the idea was something I had never encountered before. Hence the word "outlandish", referring to something from another land or something that seems to be from a different culture. You might also note that I was not the one to use outlandish to describe it to begin with, but that Two Espresso was- I simply used the same term in expounding on my viewpoint.

That said, I'm sorry if the use offended you.

I've been quite enjoying the discussion, but with the recent string of posts from Aaron (and this misunderstanding), I think I'll bow out. If anyone is interested in continuing, I'll be glad to do so via PMs, but I would much prefer to keep this on the higher level it started on- it was such a refreshing change from the normal gun debates.

[wtncffts]

Alright... just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...

In terms of the 'fear' of guns, I will freely admit that I would not be comfortable in their presence. Actually, I have never even seen a gun in person, outside of decorative or museum pieces, which perhaps attests to the regime up here as well as my personal experiences. But the point isn't about an 'irrational fear' of guns. Going with what zeemore and two espressos said, if Aaron or other gun proponents can show that homosexuality does the same amount of societal damage that guns do, I'd be the first to consider seriously restrictions on it. Of course, though, that claim would be egregiously false. Opposing guns in general, and supporting specific efforts to restrict their proliferation and use, is a legitimate, though obviously not universally shared, response to the harm guns do to society.

[christophinoz]

As a Brit hitting NYC this fall, I hadn't even thought about this topic until reading this thread. Interesting debate, however, I really don't see why you need to carry a glock with your Mac and latte into class irrespective of whether it's legal or not.

[Mal83]

As a Brit hitting NYC this fall, I hadn't even thought about this topic until reading this thread. Interesting debate, however, I really don't see why you need to carry a glock with your Mac and latte into class irrespective of whether it's legal or not.

That's just the point really, no one needs to walk into class with a gun and I think most of us are flat out uncomfortable with the thought of it. A particular campus in a particular part of the country might have some reasons for allowing such a thing, but in general it's a little foreign to me. This is purely a personal injection here because I haven't chimed in at all in the very lengthy and weighty debate and most of what I think about the issue has been said, but the idea of guns in general aren't my problem, I know they exist, I know people use them to kill other people, and I also know they're used to protect one's self from harm that would have otherwise been done to them. I don't mind the idea of having one in the house, I wouldn't necessarily want one, but I completely understand the security they might provide and that's becoming more agreeable to me as a single female get ready to move into an apartment by myself for school. I'll most likely end up with something less lethal but still provides some sense of the ability to protect myself against an intruder.

My objection to them flares when I actually see them being carried by ordinary citizens in public. Here in Arizona, which I would say is a gun friendly state, has a huge gun culture. I didn't grow up here and have only been out here for about 2 years, my parents retired out here and I came to stay with them after serving in the Peace Corps. I'm now finally getting out of here and going back to the east coast for grad school. I'm originally from New Jersey, it's the complete opposite in terms of gun culture. So yes you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon here just about anywhere, although I'm not 100% sure about college campuses, maybe not. It's odd and a little unnerving to catch a glimpse of a gun on someone's hip at the grocery store. That's the way it is here, it's always been like that and the culture and history of the area make it understandable, but for someone who hasn't grown up in that, it's just off putting. Not that I see it that often, but still. I guess my 2 thoughts are when I see someone with a gun in a public setting are: "What if that gun goes off accidentally?" and "what if that person comes unhinged and kills people while they're shopping in the ice cream aisle at Wal-Mart?" These two scenarios actually occurring are probably pretty slim, but they do happen, and my first inclination when I see a gun on someone is to just move away. Maybe that's unreasonable to some, but again, I wasn't raised in a gun culture. It is simply my reaction to someone sitting next to me in a lecture hall with a gun on them is to feel uncomfortable, basically for the same 2 reasons I'm uncomfortable seeing them at a grocery store. If on campuses the logic is to counteract a possible attack by a maniac by allowing everyone else to carry a gun in hopes someone will be in the right place at the right time in order to be a hero and take them down before any stable innocents are injured or killed then I feel like that's understandable but ultimately a lost cause. Someone who really wants to cause harm will always find a way to do it. I'm not so sure that after a tragedy like that the public would turn to the "if we all just carried guns we could have stopped this" logic. It's an emotional reaction to something terrible that can be productive if it gives way to improving security measures and things of that nature. Just my 2 cents.

[ZeeMore21]

Great post Mal83....like I posted earlier, I doubt the sincerity of people who feel the need to walk around with guns in public places. To me, it's all about conveying a political view. I rather people find other ways to convey these ideas than putting other people in danger.

[Mal83]

Great post Mal83....like I posted earlier, I doubt the sincerity of people who feel the need to walk around with guns in public places. To me, it's all about conveying a political view. I rather people find other ways to convey these ideas than putting other people in danger.

Thanks! What I do find quite interesting about Arizona and I guess the Southwest in general is that you can really sense the mentality here, and it really is a mixture of history, culture, and maybe a touch of politics. Everyone knows something about the "wild wild west" and can therefore comprehend on some level why it is the way it is today. Although it's 2011 that era still permeates life here, there are reminders of it all over the place, maybe less so in higher end towns, but where I live there are hitching posts for horses outside of the library. So what I like about the Southwest in terms of this debate is that it serves as an easy example of how something controversial somewhere else can really be of little issue because it's ingrained in the population as something useful, appropriate, and right. They're just used to it. I say it's just a touch of politics because I dont' think it gets anymore complicated politically for the average person than the sentiment that big government is not going to protect me so I have to do it myself, but that's also part of a long established political culture based on an inherent distrust of the government. There has also been a surge in violence due to the escalating chaos of the border situation which has sort of thrust the issue of self protection and defense back into the spotlight, however that is an entirely different can of worms so I leave that alone. Not that everyone here is some gun slinging cowboy and college campuses can have their very own cultures so not everyone is a proponent of guns in public. In the past few years there has been quite a population boom and as people from all over the country flock here attitudes have changed a bit and there's perhaps a little more diversity of thought surfacing. Although I will add that recently new measures have been batted around to actually make it easier to acquire a gun...go figure. Like I said, I'm really not sure about college campuses here and the concealed weapons issue, I suppose it would be interesting to look into, and guns in public is straying a bit from guns on campus, but I think those two inevitably bleed into each other.

[ZeeMore21]

In what universe are guns peaceful? Legally used or not, their only purpose is to kill or injure. Your analogy makes no sense. Better yet, please refrain from putting guns on the same level as homosexuality....it's stupid.

Both are peaceful acts that do not harm or threaten other people. Neither act has a victim. Both are personal acts that other people of various political biases and irrational fears want to control, even though it doesn't affect them. Do you need more?

Edited June 29, 2011 by ZeeMore21