I believe there are some additional considerations on this issue.
First, the chance of a student with a CWL being on campus when a situation arises is fairly small.
Second, the chances of a student with a CWL actually being in the situation to do something is extremely small.
Third, the chances of a student with a CWL actually doing something to solve the situation (fire the weapon), is by the military’s own estimation 1 in 5.
Now, it is evident that the chances of an armed student intervening in a life or death situation is incredibly small. Never the less, NO ONE has the right to take the right of self protection away from a citizen! The Universities of Idaho simply don’t have the right to exclude concealed carry by a licensd citizen!

Yeah, no guns! Students should all carry rocks and knives to throw at anybody who’s shootin’ up the classrooms.

You need to remember a couple of things:

— you have to be 21 to get a CWP, that means only the more senior students will have the ability to carry as will the staff.

— the fact that there “could” be folks carrying guns is a deterrent in itself. They don’t need to be used to be effective. The perception that there could be someone that might be around to foil your plans if you are a bad guy will deter them from doing it in the first place.

How many shootings do we have on Military installations? We have the same types of populations of people…

This is a tough one. Here is the nightmare scenario (for responding cops): Shooter starts shooting innocents,student with a CWL runs to scene, cops show up sees CWL with gun drawn shoots CWL,or focuses on CWL and not the perp who started it. It is one thing to talk about all this but quite another to actually do it. Shooting at targets at a range is WAY different than being in a firefight. Cops have been known to miss horribly while in a gun battle. How accurate do you think those with a CWL will be once the shooting starts? I do know that short of having an officer at every building that there is no way for every campus to be made safe. I just am not so sure that allowing more guns on campus is the answer.

Horse farts have more substance than Verdolini’s logic.

The knowledge that other people might have guns, or positively do have guns, is not a deterrent.

For sweet steamin cow pies, John HInkley waded into enough heat to take out a medium sized armada when he went after Reagan. That didn’t slow him down much. Didn’t do Reagan that much good either.

Are we supposed to believe these people write up a business plan, and calculate the probability of return fire, before lobbing a few rounds into their sociology class? Of course not. They are CRAZY. And, even if they do consider the possibility of return fire, who is to say they won’t think that makes the act even more enticing. Again, THEY ARE CRAZY.

And, anyone who thinks that a bunch of of college kids are going to suddenly drop their cell phones, lattes, and lap tops to quick draw their colt 45’s and take out a shooter, may be suffering from a severe bump to the head. Trained secret service agents couldn’t get the drop on a loony teenager trying to impress a movie star. I don’t know why we should expect the members of a frosh lit class to do any better.

Guns: The fewer the better.

Maybe someone can explain why, when there is a “discussion” of gun rights, the “pro” side speaks of inherent rights, the Constitution, Bill of rights and history. The “con” side seems to center on “lines of crap” “horse farts”, “sweet steaming cow pies”. and a hearty dose of penile compensation? While the perspective of academia is that a university is a place for sharing ideas! The problem arises when someone doesn’t agree with their ideas. Are there too many guns? Probably! Are there crazy people that have access to guns? Absolutely! But, as I see it, that still doesn’t give you the right to remove my right to protect myself.

Guardian – thanks for giving Mr. Verdolini a soapbox to stand on. I happen to agree with him.

The State of Utah dealt with this exact issue, 2 or 3 sessions back. Utah college campuses are no longer off-limits to guns. Unless I missed something, the policy change has not resulted in carnage on their campuses.

And I’m confident that the prospect of armed resistance will deter a large segment of our society from criminal mischief. (There are exceptions; John Hinckley was cited earlier. But most bad guys would much rather choose easy targets. Nobody in his right mind wants to get shot.)

If you don’t have a gun in your house, your armed neighbor is doing you a favor. A criminal doesn’t know if you’re prepared to resist with deadly force. (If you’re confident that I’m wrong, put a sign in your front window: “THIS IS A GUN-FREE HOME!” Or put a sign on your college campus: “NO GUNS HERE!”)

Unfortunately, these sort of debates rarely serve to convince people who have already made up their minds, one way or another. Nor do they result in new ideas or insights… mostly just a rehashing of the same talking points.

I say try it. If it creates more problems than it solves, the issue can be revisited.

Logic,

I will raise to the challenge.

Google and Yahoo list many places that will sell me body armor in a variety of configurations and costs. Most of them take plastic, and all of them will deliver to my door. None of them ask for a background check or 5 day waiting period.

I could find no one who would sell me a rifle, shotgun or pistol under the same conditions.

EDITOR NOTE– You may have me on the plastic purchase. I was thinking local.

Good job to Mr. Verdolini for raising this issue. I won’t get into countering the “what if” scenarios posted in this discussion thread as they will be created ad nauseam by proponents of both sides of the augment. What I will do is state the simple fact that an armed citizenry has been, is, and will continue to be a foundational part of our successful democracy.

The notion that creating a “gun-free zone” on collage campuses somehow increases safety is the feeble schlock of those who prize political correctness in Thomas More’s dream world over the reality present in today’s world. Armed citizens with the proper training will have a chance to stop the heinous actions of those who would, at the whim of their disturbed minds, take innocent life. Unarmed citizens in the same place will surrender their lives or the lives of others because they do not have the tools to act and stop violence that erupts instantly and unexpectedly.

I note we wander afield. The issue is simple. Do we continue a program that has acted to increase deaths and do we treat adults like drooling fools so academic administrators can feel potent and pander to the PC crowd. I do not find a compelling case for either.

Rod, well said and I agree about the lawyers. My problem with gun free zones is when someone confuses placing a sign on the door removing my right to self defense, with that owner providing such defense to me. A sign is not security nor is a PC college policy. I have few problems with real gun free zones like the County Court in Boise where we have real armed guards and real screening. They replace my right with a real security plan. Universities replace my right with a piece of paper, and then hide when the result is a mass shooting, blaming the immature students instead of addle minded academics and their enablers in the legislature.

Cyclops, you and I dont always agree, but here we do.

I equate the Anti-carry arguments with the anti-condom and the anti-sex ed arguments, and hell, also with he creationism arguments in public education…..

Founded on good intentions, knee jerk reactions, and even a little bit of bigotism by people who dont live , work , or even have a “clue” what the real world is like. Worse, they expect “us” to live in their world too.

Again, as I mentioned in a much older thread, the fundamental difference between these two groups is discussed in “On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs” By Dave Grossman.
http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

Some people don’t want to be sheep. The constitution was developed so they wouldn’t have to be. At the other end, Some don’t want to think about it, they don’t want to even be reminded there are wolves in the world, nor no need for protection in their gum-drop world. They (the anti-carry crowd) simply should go around saying…Baaaaa Baaaaaa

I have to agree with Sisyphus – the well publicized shootings usually involve someone who is off his rocker. It is too bad that these people don’t get the health care they need. On the other hand, I also see some logic in the idea that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Handguns are so easily concealed.

I personally have never purchased a gun. I have a gun that I inherited but I have never fired it, nor do I have bullets for it. I live in a seemingly safe neighborhood, and have neighbors who I believe are armed – I have their phone numbers on speed dial.

In my younger years the guys who liked to bird hunt took their rifles to school in their cars so they could go hunting after school. (Here in the Boise area.) No one got into a snit about it. The problem isn’t about guns but about the attitudes we have about each other. We seem to have come into the fear generation. I worry about getting run over trying to cross a busy intersection. That is a more likely risk.

Sisyphus, what’s your source for the 1/2 million dead figure in the Dresden fire storm bombings? The sources I see cited on Wikipedia list between almost 25,000 and 35,000. The Tokyo fire bombings were much more deadly due to all of the wooden structures.
I particularly liked the, “all but won the war”, comment. We “all but won” in Vietnam also, look where that got us. Suppose Hitler comes up with the Bomb while we’re, “all but” winning the war. Or maybe you could put yourself in the shoes of the Brits who had civilians dying everyday with the Nazi rocket attacks while we were, “all but” winning the war.
They don’t call war hell for nothing.

Rod,

Actually, I’m willing to bet that “back then”, we simply warehoused our mentally ill… just look at the history of mental health care in society.

Not that I am in disagreement with your general principle that today we suck at it (mental health care). Our tools have changed, but we still do almost as bad. I just wanted to set the record straight.

Now, regarding the rest of your statement regarding over-population. I would simply state that its not so much overpopulation as we have raised a society of, well, less than human beings. They are not as resiliant socially, physically, mentally, or educationally to deal with todays society of chaos and corruption. I am speaking in terms of the “tools” (coping skills, impulse control, education, money management, family support networks, you name it).

Bottom line, we have a wounded society, and we are enabling the next generation to fit in to it, rather than survive it, and be better in spite of it.

Do guns solve this larger problem, no of ocurse not. But teaching responsible exercise of all of our rights, including the right of gun ownership, is essential to “survival” as I describe it above.

Boy has this thread grown way out of its original contxt.

-Nemo the well armed fish in a sea of mentally deranged predatory sharks.

Blue, my source was Ken Burns’ recent WWII series. The stat wasn’t just for Dresden but for the entire campaign of firebombing civilian targets in Germany at the end of the war. The point of that comment is that more weaponry merely created an excuse to use it since the war “was all but won” and many non-combatants died as a result. I strongly disagree that we “all but won” in Vietnam. Different circumstances, different objectives.

Bike boy is right on. I encourage all my law abiding lefty, commie and anarchist aquaintances to get a handgun and get familiar with it. Take classes in safety and any stressfire courses that are available. I highly reccomend getting a carry permit for them as well. Some have already attended IAWCA (automatic weapon gun club)full auto shoots out in Parma to get familiar with various machineguns and full auto rifles. Talk about the sound of freedom! Koombayah just aint the same after that experience.