Would Allowing Students to Carry Weapons Make College Campuses Safer?

America has become haunted by the specter of deadly school shootings. As we all work to prevent further tragedy, some are advocating allowing students to carry concealed firearms as a means of defense. But would such measures really make college campuses safer?

Well, I must say that a student should never ever bring any deadly weapons especially inside the campus. Even though this would make them more safer it would never change the fact that they would eventually used it in some cases. Many events happened that police are trying to stop some rebellious students but they couldn't make them stop that easily, they have to use stun guns too. But after all this non lethal weapon can even kill a person, much more the real one who had a bullet. Stun guns are a non-lethal alternative to firearms, and more law enforcement authorities carry a Taser, as the devices are called because of the popularity of a single brand of them, than in the past. An increasing number of people, however, are passing away when law enforcement use them. Here is the proof: Public outrage has not stemmed Taser related deaths

This is nonsense. I just graduated from Liberty University on a Christian Scholarship , and they would never allow anything like this


Fundamentally, criminals are opportunists, whether their intent is to rob, rape , or kill someone.

Consider a convenience store. After dark, say around 3 AM. One car in the lot.

If that car were a Sedan or a Police Cruiser or a Pickup truck with a gun rack, would that impact the robber's decision on that convenience store? You bet it would.

Criminals know where the softer targets are, especially with all the publicity surrounding schools and other "gun free zones."

Time to make schools a harder target. And one simple way is to allow those that have already done the work necessary to acquire a CWL be allowed to carry. Just a simple change , not very expensive. Yet may have a profound effect on the increased safety of college campuses.

i agree that licensed people's who already carry their weapon's rights to protective themselves should not cease simply because they cross over into a university setting. they have the right to protect themselves and having trained armed people may deter shooters or stop one in progress, and given the difficulty it takes to get a CCW the liklyhood of these people commiting the crime is very low if not non existant. and the shooter who is bent on shooting is going to obtain their weapon legally or not, and armed people would really be an asset in protecting everyone. however, there is one problem that may or may not arise with allowing the carrying of conceled weapons on campus: there are many people who have guns legally or not, who do not have a CCW. however if the presence of liscensed gun carriers increases in a campus setting those who have a gun and do not have a lisence may negate the fact that they need a liscense and have it on there person anyway. it is these people who we need to worry about because they are the ones that might misfire do to inexperience or the ones that "got drunk at a party" as previousally mention. i do support liscensed carriers having guns on campus but i can see this problem emerging from it.

How about the drunks, wasted, and incompetents remain unarmed and the rest of us stay armed. A lot of us carried about far more dangerous ordnance in Iraq and elsewhere in defense of our country. We should be allowed to exercise our constitutional right to keep and..bare..arms here at home. Gun control is useless and about dead. Remember, 45+ states already allow for the concealed and/or open carrying of arms by law abiding citizens. According to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, those areas experienced a reduction in violent crime with no increase in accidents. The problem now are the so-called “gun-free” zones like college campuses, military bases, shopping malls, elder and child care centers, offices and other work places where mass shootings still occur.

State Law Enforcement 1988-2004,
Operation Iraqi Freedom 2006-2007,
Teacher 2010-Present,
NRA Member -Life

In times of need, such as self-defense , when seconds count you can count on help being minutes away. If you are not in a city, make that hours.
Now maybe we need to outlaw crimes? Or even punish those who do them?

How about Teachers/Student's can apply for a concealed weapon's license on school grounds from that point they go through a scanning that checks criminal record, family history, and mental stability. If they pass the screening then they go to a week long gun control /safety course. That way it reduces the risk of gang members or mentally insane people being able to carry a gun on campus. Maybe 1/4 of student population and 1/2 of teacher/staff population is able to carry a weapon on campus?

Any permit holder has already done most of that. You have to have screenings, training and background checks to get the permit in the first place. What would this add ?

I fail to see how this is different then obtaining a concealed weapons permit in most states already? All states require a background check, most require you to have no history of mental illness(I am assuming this is all states but I couldn't find statutes for all 50 states so I am just saying most), you must be 21 or older, and most states require some type of firearms safety course before you can get a permit. So the chance of gang members and those that are mentally insane getting a permit anyways are incredibly remote if not impossible already. You are just adding another layer of ridiculous requirements onto something we are supposed to have a right to anyways.

You also forget that those who wish to carry a weapon illegally on campus will do it no matter what the law says, so those that are going to get permits aren't the ones you need to worry about. Those gang members and/or mentally insane wont go through all those requirements they will just carry on campus anyways, they don't care what the laws are. If they are planning on hurting or killing someone why would they care about the laws saying they aren't allowed to carry a weapon on campus?

As for the population numbers you must remember that the ratio of concealed weapon permit carriers and normal citizens is about 1 out of 100. So while I believe campus would be safer if over a 1/4 of campus carried as you propose it would never happen. Also you have to take in account the fact that you have to be 21 to obtain a permit so that takes about 80% of the student population out of the equation to begin with. That doesn't even bring in the part about why you are restricting the rights the other half of teachers (or 3/4 of students). What makes them any different from the others? Also why do you believe teachers deserve their rights more than the student body? Like I have said on here before what makes a 27 year old first year teacher different or more deserving of their right to defend themselves than a 25 year old veteran coming back to school?

I am not saying its a completely bad idea its just that everything you stated is already being done at a state level so why repeat it. Its just another level of government restriction on our right to keep ourselves safe.

I agree why shouldn't we all be allowed to carry a concealed weapon on campus. I believe everyone should have that right. But what I meant was more along the lines of lowering the age requirement for college student's just so everyone can have that security if they so choose.

In the grand scheme of things does it really matter? I mean, if someone wants to carry one concealed they will, permit or not. Just like getting a gun to begin with, the laws mean nothing to a criminal and they will carry one regardless of any law on the books. Its the law abiding citizens that end up getting screwed, or killed because they could not defend themselves against the criminal that could care less. So, lets quit having fear of the unknown. I myself have a conceal and carry(but hardly ever carry it) and part of the process is to take an education class and at that point it is the instructors duty to pass/fail as applicable. After this class, the individual should at least know how to handle the weapon safely and responsibly.

I feel that if any criminal had any intentions of going into a classroom to do ill will and he knew that it was legal and very possible that he could be outnumbered and out gunned by the students themselves, I believe the criminal would think twice if he knew what he was going up against in the beginning. Just like terrorists will probably not hijack a plane again for the fear of the passengers turning on them. Same principal.

Then there is the other point. In order to get a permit, the first requirement is that the person be 21. Now, if I am not mistaken people that are 21 and in college are pretty much a minority and about ready to graduate anyways, the majority would be the ones under 21 and they cannot get a carry conceal to begin with. So allowing students to carry conceal on campus would be relatively a very small number in consideration to the entire student population.

"The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. It's documented that they had guns . They built the first schoolhouse in 1625. We went about 350 years in this country before there was a school shooting . Obviously, guns aren't the problem."
--James Gregory

Myth: Gun availability is what is causing school shootings
Fact: Schoolyard shootings have been occurring since at least 1974, so it is not a new phenomenon due to increases in gun ownership. Fact: More than ? of these terrorists start thinking about their assaults two or more weeks before the shooting, and ? planned-out their attacks. Thoughts: In rural areas, guns are everywhere and children are taught to shoot at young ages – yet these areas are almost devoid of schoolyard shootings. Clearly, availability is not the issue.
copied from http://www.gunfacts.info /

These facts should not be surprising. Gun-free zones are magnets for killers bent on maximizing their body count. These "Gun-Free Zones are literally "Victim Preserves"!

It would help but there is a simpler cost free solution.

In June of 2008 a video game playing temp worker in Japan rented a two ton truck, drove it into a crowd, jumped out and stabbed seventeen killing seven. He could not get a gun.

It's not the guns or video games. It's a problem discovered and solved forty years ago, Sublminal Distraction.

Telling schools and students about Subliminal Distraction and Cubicle Level Protection would prevent these mental events leading to shootings.

The cubicle was the solution when these mental breaks appeared in offices after a design change in workspace.

Contact your school administration and send them to my site. Every student should have this information,


Sorry but after reading many of the pathetic comments in response this topic, I have to wonder about the intellectual capacity of the people making the comments. First off it has been proven on many occasions that guns are not the problem and that more guns in the hands of Law Abiding citizens actually deters crime. You don't have to take my word for it, do your due diligence and go no further than the FBI crime statistics and right to carry states.

Your fear of guns stems from a complete ignorance of facts which is readily displayed in many of the postings here. It would behoove you to actually do some research on the subject at hand before your write something that will be published for public scrutiny. And keep in mind when you go to battle based on emotional hearsay with no facts, you generally lose.

Fact 1. Your math is incorrect. Again I refer to actual crime statistics and right to carry comparisons. Every state, county, city that has restrictive gun control has a higher violent crime rate than those that exercise right to carry. And again that is based on facts in evidence from the FBI, not some emotional knee jerk reaction.. as 99% of the anti-gun rhetoric is wont to be.

Fact 2. Gun control does not solve the problem, education does. Watch these three clips and begin to understand your stance is one of ignorant emotional fear.

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT9SIkQw - John Stossel 20/20
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA - Canada's failed gun control
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec - England's failed gun control
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A&NR=1 - The woman is on the phone with the POLICE! When she has to use her recently acquired hand gun to save her life. Proof that when you have a choice between 911 and 1911.. 1911 is a sure fire way to stay alive.

Fact 3. Over 2,000,000 crimes are deterred annually by legally armed citizens. Again these facts can be verified by FBI crime data.

I am not going to provide you with the links to the FBI crime data because you can easily find it yourself. That is if your are truly an open minded individual that is ready to accept that maybe your stance is not only based on lies but untenable at best.

Thing is I can pretty much with a 99% certainty guarantee you won't even watch any of the videos provided either Mainly because most Liberals I have run into cannot and will not deal with facts. They would rather deal in emotion and use yelling and name calling to attempt to derail a debate or argument that is going against them. Saw that when Ron Paul was kicking arse in the debates, and again with Obama and McCain. Anyhow you will continue to cower in fear due to your ignorance, which you could easily remedy by doing some solid fact searching, while good honest law abiding citizens are out there protecting you by exercising their right to carry.

The bottom line is you and your agenda are not the solution, you are part of the problem. But you are incapable of admitting or seeing that since you use emotion instead of logic, reason and intelligence guide your through life. Too bad too, you are in a position to actually provide a solution through education, but you chose instead to use fear. Just like the last administration did and the current one will continue to do.

Sincerely a law abiding gun owner and a veteran.

Allowing students to carry weapons would provide them with self defense, however it would also give the shooters easier access to shooting. I do think it would be safer if they could carry weapons because if a shooter is gonna do a shooting they are gonna get the gun and shoot no matter what. So it would be nice for people to be able to defend themselves.

I mean come on, you hear about students that carry a gun to school illegally and shut other students. You also hear about students that have "hit lists" but have never done anything about it. Letting them carry a gun would just make it that much easier for someone to shoot people on their "hit list".

How many of the students with the hit lists etc. are permit holders? You are throwing in a red herring. The argument is for legal , licensed permit holders being able to carry, not the nutjobs.

I don't know much about this situation, but I think carrying concealed weapons would precipitate more accidents and violence, although, I suppose it depends on the type of weapon or the definition of "weapon". But, broadly, I think we should keep weapons out of schools.

Just as in our neighborhoods, there are not enough campus police officers to protect every individual student, nor is that their job. Most states that allow concealed carry allow any law-abiding citizen 21 and older to carry. If we believe 21 is the magic age then why not allow a college student that is 21 to protect themselves if they so choose. Concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law abiding citizens in the nation and there are numerous cases when CHP holders have stopped an attack without firing a shot. College campuses are safe but in those rare instances when an attack occurs, an armed student can save lives.

This is a tough decision for me, but I would have to say students should not be allowed to carry concealed firearms on campus. Let me qualify that by saying I strongly support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. In this case, however, there are too many potential problems to warrant such a policy being enacted.

First, most people simply lack the proper training to carry weapons. There would inevitably be people who would show off their shiny new pistols, and someone would get hurt. Then, not many people are expert marksmen. If a firefight ensued, I'd wager that some individual would "go Rambo" and start shooting everything in sight. If not that, then the stress of being shot at would relegate most people's training to the scrapheap, making them dangerous. In a firefight, one must make a split-second decision to acquire and fire. The stress might cause people to shoot the wrong person.

Then you have the issue that possessing a weapon might actually turn someone into a target. Having that weapon might make someone feel invincible and heroic. They may stand their ground in hopes of "saving the day," instead of retreating when doing so might make more sense. this definitely increases the likelihood of the attacker focusing on the individual pointing a weapon at him/her, and killing them.

Probably the worst thing about allowing concealed weapons on campus is that it is a double-edged sword. Just like someone can carry for defense, someone else can carry for offensive purposes! Concealed carry could actually make it easier to get a weapon on campus in order to carry out a massacre. I guess the only thing that concerns me about this line of reasoning is that it isn't too hard to sneak a weapon on to most college campuses to begin with..still, I think allowing concealed carry on college campuses is a bad idea.

What is the difference between carrying on campus and 100 yards away in a store just off campus? This is about carry by those that are already licensed by the state. Do they suddenly turn stupid when crossing the line onto the campus?

Okay, I'll play! You say it's a tough decision then go on to say no the students don't have the right to carry. Then you go on to state that “most people simply lack the proper training to carry weapons.” Do you know what it takes to get a CCW?

1.Applicant must be 21 years of age or older
2.Applicant must be a law-abiding citizen of good character
3.Applicant has not been convicted of a felony
4.Applicant has not been convicted of any crime of violence
5.Applicant has not been convicted of any offense involving the use of alcohol (If it was more than 5 years ago, you may qualify for the permit.)
6.Applicant has not been convicted of any offenses involving the unlawful use of drugs or other controlled substances (If it was a misdemeanor more than 10 to 15 years ago, you may still qualify for the permit.)
7.Applicant has not been convicted of any offenses involving moral turpitude
8.Applicant has not been convicted of any offense involving domestic violence
9.Applicant has not been adjudicated by a court of a state or of the United States as mentally incompetent, unless the adjudication has been withdrawn or reversed.
10.Applicant must perform a handgun safety handling session before a Utah CCW instructor unless the student as at least one of the following:

* Certificate from NRA Basic Pistol course
* Law enforcement experience
* Certification as an NRA Firearms Instructor
Handgun training in military service

Some states require a psychological examination as well. So it's not just some person willy nilly getting the permit and your fears are unfounded.

Then you go on to state that many people are not expert marksmen.. private citizens have been shown to make fewer mistakes in identifying an assailant and then hitting said assailant than the police.

You CLAIM that the stress of shooting will cause a private citizen to shoot the wrong person.. and yet there are very few documented cases when compared to accidental police shootings. http://www.policeone.com/police/products/articles/116587 /


I carry CCW.. noone knows and the last thing I am looking for is to get into a gun fight. Every other CCW holder I know is of the same mentality. I think you have watched way too much TV my friend. Owning and carrying a weapon is a very big responsibility and it is not taken lightly by any of us that carry.

Anyhow your premise that an attacker will focus on an armed resister.. patently wrong. In over 80% of cases recorded, when confronted by an armed resister armed assailants decide they want to be somewhere else and quick and they will leave in a hurry without ever engaging the armed resistance. Go here to get some real life stories of people actually defending themselves.. http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Probably the worst thing about allowing concealed weapons on campus is that it is a double-edged sword. Just like someone can carry for defense, someone else can carry for offensive purposes! Concealed carry could actually make it easier to get a weapon on campus in order to carry out a massacre. I guess the only thing that concerns me about this line of reasoning is that it isn't too hard to sneak a weapon on to most college campuses to begin with..still, I think allowing concealed carry on college campuses is a bad idea.

Double edged sword? Think this through and read the following very carefully, people that bring unlawful (no legal CCW) onto campus are the ones that have the ill intent. There has not been one recorded incident of a CCW initiating any type of massacre. Not one, your fear is unfounded.

Illegal carriers tend not to pay attention to those things called laws. That's why law abiding citizens with a CCW are so effective a deterrent. Now think about this real hard, you want to "make a name" for yourself by killing as many as you can then capping yourself.

Now if your intended victims are all unarmed and you know this, then you know that you can succeed and since schools are stupid because they tell students to play dead or not fight back. In other words instead of teaching survival skills they are training students to be lambs at the slaughter. Anyhow so since there is no credible threat, they can go on killing spree and most likely succeed.

Now the same scenario but the rules are changed in that the targets you have selected have the right to carry. You don't know who is packing and who isn't. Your odds of getting far are pretty slim. Slaughter is stopped before it even happens, and not one person had to pull a gun. Just the thought that armed resistance was a real possibility would be enough for any rational person.

Oh and last bit, almost every massacre in the United States and Europe (Germany just had another one.. and they have strict gun control!) has happened in a gun free zone. Think about that next time you go someplace where guns are not allowed..

So I'm sitting here in class (was a student, now a teacher), some kid pulls a gun on me. I'm a law-abiding, qualified citizen. What am I to do?

Option A), I don't have the ability to carry a handgun and get my butt blown off the face of the earth because I'm defenseless.

Option B), I have a weapon that I only intend to use in dire emergencies and can defend myself when I need to. I have a better chance at survival.

Hmmm..seems like a no-brainer to me.

My "no" response is related to guns and any other body-harming weapon used specifically as defensive weapons. I'm quite in favor of individual defensive devices of some sort - stun guns, tasers, pepper sprays, etc. - insofar as these weapons can theoretically neutralize a perpetrator without permanent damage. I certainly understand the history of weapon carrying and do not have specific criticism of it. It is simply my preference that a dangerous assailant be neutralized - if at all possible - without causing them permanent harm. I believe there is a better way of controlling violence - armed or unarmed - without the injuries inherent to guns and knives or other like tools. It seems to me these alternate devices are at least a hint at substitutes. Certainly others can be developed. It always seems preferable to defend oneself in a way befitting of one who believes there is no place for physical violence in a civilized culture. The nature of guns and other dangerous tools used even for defensive purposes seems to contradict the spirit of such a society. If we cannot show compassion toward our violent assailants, what right have we to the claim of civility?

In any event, I fully support the right of a voting american to own and carry a firearm regardless of the lethality issues. It is a guaranteed liberty, but I would hope the majority of americans would choose a non-violent path when practical.

If someone is bearing down on you, intent to end your life, you have the right and the duty to protect your life by any means necessary.

In a perfect scenario, the attacker should be brought down with the least damage possible. However, if my life is within seconds of ending because of an attacker, I value my life much more than theirs, and they will be shot at.

Yes, all life is precious, but I'm just not willing to give up mine in favor of employing another method which doesn't give me much hope of survival. If it comes down to it, I will gladly kill another human being if it means I get to continue breathing.

Stun guns , Tasers and pepper spray can and have killed people and there is the little problem of getting close enough to effectively use less than leathal options, while your intended target is shooting at you.

Naumadd, I'm not against anyone that thinks there shouldn't be alternatives to lethal force. But consider this, How many times have you heard of an assailant or theif or serial rapist that got out of prison and didn't turn right around and return to their old "habits"? How many time can you tase an attaker before the police arrive? How long do you think it would take for a the guy that broke into some ones house, tried to rape them but were sprayed with pepper spray to wait until he regained his vision and skipped over two or three blocks or even skipped town and finally succeded with his task? I'll agree, alternative measures sometimes may be all it takes to deter violence. But I'd rather be able to take comfort in the fact that I, 1. protected myself and, 2. potentially saved someone elses life.

My pro-gun beliefs are not just intended for my own protection or preservation, but I as an idividual feel it is my civic duty to protect a total stranger if the need arises.

Ummm, there are a quite a few people, such as myself, that are not slowed by pepper spray or CS gas. When I was in the military I was one of those folks that was still 80% combat effective after being exposed to a high does of CS gas. 80% combat effective.. now add rage to that since you just inflicted severe discomfort and you die.

Taser? Come on, those are not exactly non-lethal either. There are several cases in court now due to DEATH caused by tasers. And pepper spray? Ummm I have seen people continue the fight literally undeterred by pepper spray. I am one of those people.

Sorry but you want to defend yourself against an ARMED assailant with non-lethal and short distance weapons? You die. You need to understand something, if someone comes in shooting (which is against the LAW as is MURDER!) then just how much of a chance do you think you will have with your non-lethal defense? Both weapons require you to be within 10 feet to be even remotely effective. You die.

So you will be one that the cops will come in and stuff into a body tag when it's all over. They will see your mace in one hand and your taser in the other. Nice not knowing you.

You, as one who believes there is no place for physical violence in a civilized culture, may go ahead and use your stun guns, tasers, pepper sprays, etc. The world could use a few less of your kind. As someone who looks to the example of those who came before him, however, I see that there are plenty of places for physical violence in civilized culture. Rome, the antiquity's archetype of civilization, was built on violence. The Pax Romana, the closest our species has come to world peace, was achieved through war, conquest, intimidation, assassination, and crucifiction. As a person who believes that physical violence is a necessary part of civilized society, will keep my guns, and woul kindly request that you let me bring them to school with me to protect myself and those I love. President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Talk softly but carry a big stick." You don't even have to use that stick, you just have to let them know it's there. Nobody is going to attempt armed robbery when there is a good chance of armed resistance. No terrorist would have tried anything with box cutters (or anything else) if they knew a couple of people on that flight are packing heat. I just don't see pepper spray having the same effect.

The real crux of the matter is the intent of the perpetrator. It doesn't matter what tool he or she uses to murder, that tool is one hundred percent activated by an individual who is completely determined to murder innocent people: without regard to the individual, family, position in the community or accomplishments. The perpetrator *will* do his best to murder.

".. I believe there is a better way of controlling violence - armed or unarmed - without the injuries inherent to guns and knives or other like tools.."

In the quiet calm of a home, study, seminar or classroom it is logically impossible to argue against the above quote in any reasonable manner. Yet, in real life, an individual who is completely focused on murder rarely presents an opportunity for someone to neutralize that individual with something less than deadly force coupled with sudden action; powered by a singular intent. As of this time, there is not an effective non-violent method or tool available which is relatively inexpensive and available to the public for immediate self protection. When those become available, then, perhaps, differing methods can be employed.

"..If we cannot show compassion toward our violent assailants, what right have we to the claim of civility?"

We both claim and possess civility because we employ less than civil actions toward *only* those who employ violent means toward others and ourselves. Counter question: What value are we, civil and otherwise, if we choose a violent assailant over friends, family and associates?

The 9-11 hijackers used boxcutters, not guns, to steal airplanes, not missiles.

I recall as a child (way back in the seventies) my parents driving a neighbor and his wife to the airport. They were going on vacation. When his turn came to board the plane he was asked to open his briefcase. When he did, I remember the sense of awe when I saw a holstered .38 special and his policemans badge.

Perhaps had someone like him been on those planes on 9-11, thousands of lives would have been saved.

Trying to "neutralize" someone who is trying to kill you without hurting them is idiotic, and so is advocating it.

Think of it this way: You're sitting in a classroom, or office, or cubicle, whatever you'd like to imagine. Someone walks in with a gun and starts shooting people. Which of these would you want to have in your pocket? A gun, a Taser (keep in mind, the types that actually shoot out electrodes often cost more than a quality handgun), or pepper spray? Obviously, two of these aren't guaranteed to work and one of them requires you to carefully aim at someone who's probably 20 or so feet away. Assuming you have the Taser that shoots electrodes, you have one, or sometimes two, shots before you reload. A Glock 19 will give you 15 shots and nobody can shake off new holes being put in them.

Keep in mind, this guy will kill you unless you intervene. The idea of concealed carrying is that you're only going to use it if you think someone is going to kill you. When someone is trying to kill you, you don't want to mess around with Tasers or pepper spray - you want to kill him. Saying "well, I don't want to hurt anyone!" is nice on paper, but you don't want to fuck around if somebody is shooting at you.

I see your point, certainly, however, whether you neutralize the assailant by killing them or otherwise making it physically impossible for them to cause harm to others, neutralization is the point in any violent attack. I agree the Glock has the potential to neutralize their threat quite nicely, however, when given the choice of killing or not killing, is it your choice to kill simply because it's quick and easy to do so? Are we to kill our attackers because killing them is the most convenient approach?

I'm saying only that all life - threatening to us or not - is precious and we ought not be so casual in the taking of it. In a violent attack upon our person or property, our main goal is to end the violent attack. We can do so by any means possible without regard for any life but our own, or we can put an end to violence in an intelligent way that preserves not only our own life but the life of one's attacker.

In any violent event, you can fight savagery with more savagery or with intelligence. I'm saying we ought to choose an intelligent end to violence rather than fall to the very savagery threatening us. By doing so, we in fact advocate the very thing we wish to defend ourselves against. If we truly abhor savagery, let us not be savages to make our point.

I thoroughly disagree with the notion of fighting fire with fire. I firmly believe in fighting fire with intelligence. A gun is the lazy brute's way out. You may stop your assailant from further harming you but, you lose all the same.

“Are we to kill our attackers because killing them is the most convenient approach?”

No, we kill the ATTACKER who has DEADLY INTENT, so that we and/or our loved ones are not MURDERED by the CRIMINAL's DEADLY ATTACK. Simple enough?

Tasers, pepper spray and all other “non-lethal” gimmicks are unreliable for stopping a violent attack at best. Have you noticed the number of cops that now carry “non-lethal devices” and no longer carry guns ? THEY ARE RELIABLE at BEST..and the non-cop versions are even LESS reliable than the cop versions.

“I'm saying only that all life - threatening to us or not - is precious and we ought not be so casual in the taking of it.”

Sooooo, do you emote we should abolish antibiotics as well? They kill “life” don't they?
All a violent attacker would need do, to totally avoid being shot, is to simply OBEY THE LAW.
Why is that so hard for one who keeps talking about “intelligence” to understand?

“In a violent attack upon our person or property, our main goal is to end the violent attack.”

2 “warning shots” center mass, will do more “to end the violent attack” than 10 choruses of “Kum Bah Ya” ever could. Nothing gets a man's attention, like a sucking chest wound.

“We can do so by any means possible without regard for any life but our own, or we can put an end to violence in an intelligent way that preserves not only our own life but the life of one's attacker.”

Years ago I heard they accomplished that on planet Vulcan.
Sadly, I'm stuck here on planet Earth, where violent criminals don't seem to be inclined to follow your noble idea.

“In any violent event, you can fight savagery with more savagery or with intelligence.”

That's certainly a noble idea. Sadly in the real world it is bull-ploop.
I could be wrong, so tell us: Had YOU been a student in that Virginia Tech class room, what “intelligence” would you have used on Cho, to make him say “WHAT?! I killed all these people for NOTHING?! Gee Golly I'm sorry! My bad!”?

Had the “house-mouse” utilized my “2 warning shots” suggestion, it WOULD have stopped Cho and the massacre saving 30 innocent lives. (Most were killed AFTER the cops were “on scene”.)

“I'm saying we ought to choose an intelligent end to violence rather than fall to the very savagery threatening us.”

This opinion is based solely on EMOTION, not intelligence.
Tell us: How should the diners at Luby's have intelligently dealt with George Hennard to stop his massacre? (Hennard quickly killed himself at the very first encounter with armed resistance. One killer 24 innocents murdered/ 25 injured) How would it have worked compared to the “violence method” Thomas Glenn Terry employed to stop the murderers at the Shoney's Family Restaurant a few weeks later? (3 armed criminals that had murdered the manager at their last crime , 21 hostages in a walk-in cooler; 1 ARMED intended victim, NO INNOCENT HARMED.)

“By doing so, we in fact advocate the very thing we wish to defend ourselves against.”

Do you truly not understand the BIG difference between a CRIMINAL'S ACT OF VIOLENT AGGRESSION against an innocent and the victim's acting in SELF-DEFENSE?

“I firmly believe in fighting fire with intelligence.”

While fire mimics life in that it “eats”, “breaths”, “grows” and “reproduces itself”; it is impervious to intelligent discourse . . . it ONLY responds to “cause and effect”.
There is ONLY 3 ways to stop a fire: deprive it of temperature, “ food ” or oxygen.
“Fighting fire with fire” WORKS by depriving the fire of “food”.
Water works by depriving the fire of temperature.
Halon works by depriving the fire of oxygen and to an extent temperature.

We have raised ourselves up the food chain by developing the intelligence to use TOOLS to stop vicious attackers, be they quadrupeds or bipeds.

Why do you emote, that it is somehow, more noble for a woman to be found raped and strangled with her own pantyhose; than explaining to a cop, how her attacker got the fatal bullet wounds?

“You may stop your assailant from further harming you but, you lose all the same.”

Ask Dr. Petit how “intelligent” and “strong” he feels for not using the “lazy brute's way” to protect his family. ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/gruesome-petit-trial-testimony-suspects-snapped-photos-assaults/story?id=11710077 )
Do you really believe Dr. Petit would have rather listened to his wife and daughters scream as they were being raped and BURNED ALIVE; than deal with the ringing in his ears from the gunshots that he firing a gun and killing the rapists/murderers would have caused?
I believe he would have counted saving his wife and daughters lives a “Win”.

Here's a question for you:
Why should a cop risk his life, to save something of such little value (your life), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it by all means possible?

I sense that you have never been in a life threating situtation. When the automatic adrenaline reaction begins, most rational thought ends. The fight or flight reaction is about all you are left with and most people are not trained to react on reflex, so they simply freeze.
I have been under fire several times and I have seen even trained soldiers freeze their first time under fire.
Your assertion of "intellegent response" will get you killed.
The majority of carry permit holders train more than the majority of police officers and, in my experience, are, by far, more accurate and less likely to endanger bystanders.

I was about to commend you for being one of the only no arguments that offered a calm, thought out statement. Then I read your Neutralizing argument and lost hope.

You see all life is not precious. Someone who wold only do harm to thier society has no place in that society. And there are those of us who would be happy to do what you are unwilling or unable to do, remove that person from our society.

To me the most intelligent choice is to arm myself equally or more than anyone who might choose to do harm to me or my loved ones. This is not lazy or brutish.

And beyond all of this your "all life is precious" argument falls flat in the fact that you support a government who murders millions of innocents through collateral damge around the world fighting unjust wars.

But the real issue is deterence. Most of the time the mere presence of an armed citizen is enough to deter any from even initiating an attack.

".. when given the choice of killing or not killing, is it your choice to kill simply because its quick and easy to do so?.."

Any situation which legally and morally requires the use of a firearm is by definition a situation of desperation and last resort. I note that this situation of last resort was created and forced up one or more by an aggressor who is *at that moment* employing deadly force against one or more individuals, who played absolutely no part in this situation of desperation other than merely being there.

Now, having said that, there are always one or more factors which must be considered before you, the defender, even draws a weapon. The 'intelligent' action is that which fits the situation: education, training and calmness under (major) stress are what let you choose your path through a situation in which people have been murdered with very probably more to follow.

"..or we can put an end to violence in an intelligent way that preserves not only our own life but the life of one's attacker.."

There are those who will not engage in any form of dialogue. For "reasons" known only to them, action - meaning someone else's death - is the only course of action. There are others (unfortunately), but I point to Virginia Tech as an example.

"..I thoroughly disagree with the notion of fighting fire with fire.."

There are many degrees of this. A student does not do or turn in his homework. A zero is entered: not an "A" because he meant well or was bullied as a child. There are tens of thousands of other examples, but they *all* point to the same things: duty, obligations, agreements and consequences.

"..A gun is the lazy brute's way out.."

A gun is the lazy brute's way out for the aggressor. For he or she who will oppose the brute whose non-negotiable position is (your) death, a gun is a tool by which to survive and very possibly allow others to survive as well.

"..If we truly abhor savagery, let us not be savages to make our point.." and "..you lose all the same."

Only if you (we) employ the same reasoning(?) and approach as the aggressor.

A couple of thoughts here. In terms of responsibility and duty, carrying a firearm is every bit as weighty as having a family. Your every action has to be weighed and considered in terms of effects on others.

Before you decide to acquire a firearm, look inside yourself. If you truly believe that should the most awful happen, you won't use it, then don't get one. You will only give it to a *really* bad person.

You're thinking about it wrong. I'm not advocating blowing away everyone who might be threatening. If someone can be brought down without permanently hurting them, while also keeping the person who is being threatened safe, that's fine by me. I'm not advocating the police blowing away every whackjob with a knife or a pipe. What I am saying is that if someone has a gun, and is threatening to shoot someone with it, or has already shot someone, trying to use less-than-lethal methods to neutralize him isn't a good idea. To put it simply, a gun is the best way to make bad guys go away. There is no room to be fumbling with a beanbag shotgun when someone is executing people.

Take Virginia Tech for example. The shooter was going from classroom to classroom shooting people, "execution-style", as the media likes to call it. In this case, trying to get rid of him without hurting or killing him would just allow him to kill more people, while the police try to taser him.

Back to the self-defense issue - pepper spray and tasers are for the drunk guy from the bar getting a little too friendly. Not for people who are trying to kill you. Again, I'm not advocating replacing pepper spray with a gun. Pepper spray has it's purpose - and so does a gun. If someone is trying to kill you, you want to get rid of the threat as quickly as possible. Less-lethal options will never be as effective as a gun for this purpose.

My main point is that while we should always value human life, we shouldn't be so caught up with it that we allow others, or ourselves, to harmed as a result of our inability to take decisive action.

There is a reason the Army uses guns. . . they deal with folks trying to kill them. Peper spray and almost anything else "non lethal" is questionable at best as to if it will work. If they attacker is high on something I almost guarantee it won't work. Tasers are great but one shot maybe two. . . not good if my life is on the line - cops don't even use them if it is life or death.

Naumadd I wish we lived in a world your ideas would work in but we don't. I have spent years learning Karate and if attacked and in fear of my life I still would rather have a gun to fall back on.

Only a gun let you deal with the bigger guy, the guy attacking a small woman, drug crazed, the armed attacker or the multiple attacker issue. It also lets you stay out of reach of his knife or other weapon.

If I am in fear of my life there is no reason I should be forced to use anything less effective than a gun and risk further injury or death because what I use didn't stop the guy. For now guns are the best we have. Until something better comes along and we all get to set our phasors on stun then we should be allowed to have a gun if we pass the legal tests to do so.

When you need one you need one, those that are licensed & of age should not be barred from carrying on campus

The overwhelming majority of negative comments on this topic are initial knee-jerk reactions by people that have not been exposed to the facts yet. How do i know? because the concerns have already been adressed in the FAQ sections of every concealed carry website on the internet. This is about ADULTS who ALREADY HAVE PERMITS TO CARRY outside the confines of the campus and DO SO ON A DAILY BASIS without incident. These people are the most law abiding citizens out there, who take care in what they do every day because they understand that thier RIGHT to keep and bear arms is also a responsibility that is not to be taken lightly. The arguments from people that understand the basic facts have progressed towards things like caliber selection, additional training requirements, and how to prevent theft; NOT whether college students will get drunk and shoot thier professor.

I read somewhere on here:

'A student will get drunk, get into a fight and shoot someone.'

That's some sharp logic there, Hawking.

How about being a little more open minded? Consider a few things, if you will:

-What responsible gun owner would bring his weapon to a keg party?
-A majority of legal gun owners are smart people. In other words, NOT STUPID. They're not going to whip out their guns and wave them around with the safety lock off. Most legal gun owners have acquired their weapons legally BECAUSE they have the training to show for it, and are psychologically sound individuals who have the ability to stay calm and level-headed in a time of crisis.
-In case you haven't noticed, gang members don't bother leveling and shooting. They run around blindly shooting without looking. And you wonder why innocent people get hit by stray bullets.
-Did you ever consider the many people whose lives have been saved because they happened to have a gun? A would-be thief is not going to mess with you if you've got your gun trained on him. Hear of the 85-year-old woman who held a gun on a burglar and made him call the police? She could have been injured or killed had she been unarmed.
-Virginia Tech -- had there been a student or teacher on campus who had had a gun, they might have been able to stop the killer. But no, everyone had to wait for 33 people to be shot before 'help' arrived.

Last but not least, consider the 2nd amendment, which protects the individual's right to own a gun. And in case you people didn't know, the 2nd amendment is an integral part of our Constitution. Ban weapons and you've got millions of law-abiding citizens (aka sitting ducks) for all the country's vicious gang members and general scum of society to terrorize while the government lays down thousands more laws to restrict the populace.

It is not an easy feat to be allowed a concealed weapon. You have to be 21 years of age, go through and extensive background check, as well as other things. Students that are too busy getting high and drinking are not going to get guns because they wouldn't be able to pass these tests. Good people, trustworthy people, would be the ones with guns, not the idiots. If I was in class and someone came in to shoot everyone, I would love to know that my teacher or a student that is qualified to carry a gun can save my life and I'm sure my parents would be just as glad. If you're a parent and you think that guns on campuses are a bad thing then you should do some more research. See what happens when a gunman brings an AK-47 to your child's classroom and then tell me that you wouldn't like a good citizen in the room with the ability to save your child's life.

a drunk kid with a permit will get in an argument with another kid at a party and shoot them. The idea that only the most trustworthy and responsible will get permits is wishful thinking.

Utah has allowed legal concealed carry on campus for many years. (CRIMINALS carry in violation of the law.)
Why don't you give us a few dozen examples where a student with a CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT has gotten drunk at a Utah party and illegally shot someone, as your paranoia suggests?

Was it LEGAL for Cho to shoot all those students at Virginia Tech?
Do you REALLY believe, the reason Cho murdered all those UNARMED students, was because he didn't SEE the "NO GUNS ALLOWED" signs?
Each and every rape, robbery and murder that you read about was already an ILLEGAL ACT; how do you emote that stripping the LAW-ABIDING of their means of protection, will somehow effect the CRIMINALS' carrying of guns ?

"a drunk kid with a permit will get in an argument with another kid at a party and shoot them. The idea that only the most trustworthy and responsible will get permits is wishful thinking."

This is the exact kind of argument the Brady Bunch uses every time there's a bill up in a state's house or a local municipality. They say "allowing people to carry in restaurants will only lead to shootouts in the restaurants and in the parking lots when someone takes a parking spot.."

And yet, in the 37 states that now allow carry in restaurants that has not been the case. Their argument is based purely on fear and ignorance while the REALITY is that it is not the case. FBI statistics show that concealed carry contributes to an overall reduction in crime . One is statistics, the other is propaganda. Please don't confuse the two.

Posession of a loaded firearm, while intoxicated is a FELONY.

where are your statistics? if there were such incidents, the media would be all over it.