Sheriff calls for guns on campus
 

In a recent editorial, Larimer County (Colorado) Sheriff Jim Alderden wrote, "One of the real tragedies of the situation at Virginia Tech is that misguided administrators created a gun-free zone."

Colorado State University allows students and faculty to carry concealed firearms on campus. Alderden says the last thing universities should do right now is create more gun control.

"When you create an area where law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves, it just creates a greater opportunity for those who are criminally-minded," Alderden said.

You can read the rest of the article here.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this, but I think he makes a good point.

Good for him.

Outstanding!

Do y'all have your tickets...? To the gun show!

I've said elsewhere it's a bad idea, this creating hunting preserves for crazies. Glad to see somebody will say the same ex officio or is it ex cathedra?

(Did half my growing up in Larimer County.)

I await the second half with breathless antici

















































pation.

All it would have taken is one trained, armed citizen and it would have been over.

It will rarely work like that. Campuses are too big and the risks of putting guns in campuses are too high.

Sorry Pierce, ol' mate. But we just attend huge campuses like Minnesota and Illinois, our 30, 40k student bodies aren't the norm. Some campuses are smaller than some urban high schools. I know kids going to 1400 or 3000 small private colleges whilst Lane Tech High School in Chicago has nearly 6000 pupils!

How is a campus any different than anywhere else?
What the hell are you talking about?

Ok, maybe I was leaning more towards bigger campuses for that argument.

What sums my argument up is, the good of putting guns on campuses will not outweigh the bad. The chances of a shooting on campus occurring is one in a million and then the chances of actually being able to stop it is another one in a million. The chances of some fucking prick getting a gun, getting drunk, and using it to show off or intimidate others is much higher. I'm not saying that will happen a lot but the chances are much greater than actually stopping a school shooting for various reasons. And, as I've said many times, campuses do a lot for protection so you do not need one if you use the resources they provide you.

It really depends on where you go to school. Some schools have better resources than others. We have a school down here that is basically imbedded with the city of Savannah, it is called SCAD. They have clusters of buildings that are owned by the school but they are all over the city. There is a LOT of crime here. The SCAD cops don't even carry guns. They have to depend on the local cops, who have their hands full already to take care of the kids. It does not work very well. We already have CCW permits for state residents but the majority of these kids are from all around the states.

None of that addresses that fact that owning and carrying a weapon is an adult's right & responsibility.
Being on a campus means nothing.

Good point.

A campus is much different from the surrounding areas. It is much safer......er....usually (thank you Merc) much safer and usually more patrolled. There will always be violent crimes with or without guns and I think a lot of universities, especially mine, has done a great job of keeping the students safe without the need to carry a gun for protection.

The time I can think of supporting guns on campus is if the students vote to allow guns be on that campus, if there is no vote or the vote loses, then guns should stay banned. That is the only fair and safe way I see campuses and gun control working out.

It is not up to others to say what a free person needs.

Within reason, right? Oh, wait...what is reasonable?

Oh. I guess we have to discuss that part and come to an agreement. There is no black and white answer.

Good call rkzenrage. That bears repeating. The idea that we need to make criminal friendly areas because citizens are not to be trusted really burns my shorts. I don't want a heavy police presence, that is a sign of failing top heavy civilization.

Rocket launchers don't fit in my briefcase or backpack.:rolleyes:

I got a rocket launcher in my britches.

I agree, but... there's this nagging memory of college kids away from home for the first time, binge drinking and being nuts. Even as the exception they would be scary.

I say go all the way with a pocket nuke.

(Snort.)

Well done, sir.

There's no denying the truth of your remarks--it's happening already on and off campuses. The combination of new-found freedom from parental oversight, youthful inexperience in many things, alcohol, and the frequently overwhelming and overstimulating campus life is already an explosive mixture. To add more firearms to this would be a spark to a fire.

That many states restrict handgun ownership, and thus extensively CCW, to age 21 and over does pose a practical mitigation of this problem, though. As a onetime college student myself, I'm not at all certain how severe or immediate such a problem might be. Then too, college was in Arizona.

Yeeup, that's right, y'can go buy yer shawtgun AND yer booze when y'turn 21!

*slaps forehead*

Have any of you ever seen the cops have to take down a crazed student at school? I have. To be truthful I'm really glad that nobody involved or around had a gun.

Let's see... in college you have:
kids away from their parents (many for the first time)
students taking drugs and also selling drugs to other students
the pressure of tests / grades
mental problems developing or worsening (sometimes due to drugs)

And the solution is to add guns to all this?!?

Jebediah, have you ever considered you'd want a defense against all that you listed, should worse come to worst? Must you allow yourself to be murdered because you obeyed a rule that helps you die, or should you take some other path that helps you live?

You already know my thinking on the subject, and the qualms of those disagreeing with that are not sufficient to move me. Their thinking does not persuade someone of sufficient understanding.

Do keep in mind please that a gun out is not necessarily a gun fired, and that a gun fired is not necessarily going to end in a homicide of any description. Really, the civil context for use of deadly force is well worked out, and well understood by those who are proactive in defense of self and other.

I like your English.


I find it worrisome that people keep finding special cases where victim disarmament is needed. The basic argument on this one is that college students are too immature to possess a weapon. This is to be expected in a society which is killing off the remnants of individual responsibility. My Dad lived in a time and place where the rifle team could carry their arms on the school bus. We live in a world where adults can't be trusted to carry at all. Today, the police and criminals are armed to the teeth while honest citizens acknowlege their impotence in the face of violence. Personal responsibility, under attack from so many quarters, is on its way out.

I find the idea of universities being a place where people routinely go armed really difficult to get to grips with. Seems entirely incongruous to me.

I guess the argument is routine vs. special case. Routine would hopefully mean sensible and trained, but we all know the reality. Unfortunately, the special case includes only cops, nutters, and nutter cops. The pragmatist sees that guns don't belong in that environment but that means leaving people exposed. I'd rather the individual student make the call and irresponsible behavior, such as carrying drunk, be punished. We can create expectations for behavior or we can use force the control behavior, I'd prefer to see a creative use of expectations. The bottom line: I have no idea, we've got a diverse society where irresponsibility is often expected. The right thing and the reasonable thing can be in conflict especially considering long term vs. short term visions for society.

The entire notion of an armed citizenry would seem at best incongruous to most anyone not from this country and a fair number of folks in and from this country.

But even tho I advocate gun ownership, I don't think guns belong on state-run college campuses any more than they belong in other state-run institutions like the DMV or the office of state/local government. Private universities are a question I won't address without thinking about it some more. I don't think someone should be issued a permit to own a firearm unless they live on private property (rented or owned). Students in state schools living in the dorm should not be issued a permit unless they also live in that state and agree to store the gun at home. Commuting students who live off campus should not be denied a permit. And none of the students should be permitted to bring their guns on the campus. Virginia Tech notwithstanding. And I'm one person removed from at least three of the victims.

I support gun ownership but I also think its ok to have places where you aren't allowed to bring your weapon(s).

If the students want guns on campus, let them vote for it.

I'm not sure voting on other peoples rights is a good thing. *shrug*

Its state property so its up to the state. I don't think the students should have any say in the matter.

If there is to be a vote, it should be statewide for all registered voters of that state. A referendum, I believe it is called.

That is an interesting idea linking carrying to property, but since the roadways are state property couldn't that eliminate all off property carrying?

I don't like the idea of someone who will never visit or be part of my college campus to have a say on what my "rights" are to own a gun at my college campus. It is an issue that is very personal to the students so it should be in the hands of the students and people who are part of the university, no one else.

If you don't think students are mature enough to have the final say, we don't have the maturity carry a gun on campus. No double standards.

If its a state college then its not your campus. Its state property just like any other state property. State property is "owned" by all the citizens of the state therefore all citizens should be given the right to choose. If you are not an out-of-state student then you also get a vote. If you are an out of state student then you have an obligation to obey the laws of that state without objecting since your decision to enter that state was voluntary.

And the phrase "who will never visit or be part of my college campus" has very little merit really since its a state good and any state citizen can use or not use it at his/her discretion at any time. And as a state asset, the rules concerning its use is a matter for the state to decide which flows through to the citzens thereof. That's what elections are for - pick the candidate who will craft (or uncraft) legislation that suits you.

We can't be deferring to arbitrary sub groups to write their own laws. That would produce horrificly negative consequences that, I think, you have yet to consider.

When you get guns allowed in the white house or an elementry school maybe I'll try to see your point.

You don't know the conditions of my college campus and what if guns prove to be more hurtful than helpful? But that doesn't matter does it?

Yes it does. Without a CC permit, there are very strict guidelines for carrying weapons in motor vehicles, which is the method of choice for most. I don't think they bother the Amish buggies too much.

Well, pierce, I cannot teach you not to take counsel of your fears -- but I'd suggest that you not.

Meanwhile, I see no valid reason for me to take counsel of your fears either. I know how I'd behave, and how well I'd behave.

Thanks!


Worrisome indeed -- I find it maddening, actually. This sort of thing is almost always an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, ill-disguised prejudice, and hoplophobia unbecoming an adult. Such "special cases" must be viewed with deep suspicion, and most generally if not universally vetoed.

Not while such as we still breathe. We shall push it back.

Again, and again and again... the US is NEVER about the majority voting away the rights of the minority.

I've lived through plenty, tyvm. Even somebody trying to crack my skull open while I was asleep. For some strange reason I'm glad he didn't have a gun. How silly of me. Almost as silly as thinking a gun would have helped me in that case.

You're from CA, so I'd expect you remember or at least heard of the riots that took place at many campuses. What do you think would have happened if students were armed?


Wasn't under any illusion it would.

You're more than correct that a gun out is not necessarily a gun fired. I argue that college is a unique place full of pressures / stress and mostly young folk figuring out how to deal with all that stress. I've been witness to many a fight over various things and many a drug-sale and a few breakdowns. To me guns are not a good solution. Arm the campus police, arm the teachers, arm fucking robots for all I care - but not young adults under pressure.

Another semi-related question for you UG: have you been out and about and come across some angry mofo blasting their radio (I believe the atrocities are known as boom cars) loud enough to rattle loose parts while staring down whomever they see? It's rather common around this area. Would you be so bold as to tell one of those clowns to knock it off?

I can agree for the social right of self-preservation but not to hold guns. If you are worried about your protection and the university does not offer something to compensate for a gun, then your point is valid. If the university does offer something in compensation, then the point of owning a gun is not about protection but usually about power. Power is never a good enough reason to protect someone's rights from being voted away by the majority.

You also have to remember that the crime committed at universities is usually different than crimes committed at other places in a city. For example, early last year a group of kids (8-10 of them) would go out at night and then beat random people with baseball bats until they had to go to the hospital. If guns were allowed those kids would certainly have guns too. A gun would not only be ineffective in that situation, but deadly to both groups. The other situation usually happens if someone is alone at night. Your chances of getting robbed or hurt decline dramatically if you stay in groups or have an escort. These apply to most safe, bigger colleges by the way.

Police, including campus police, have no legal obligation to actually protect you, no matter what is says on the side of their cars.

I wasn't talking about campus police. I've never really seen them doing anything useful.

Oh, gracious...
 

Jebediah, do you happen to recall my ever mentioning a martial-arts background? What does the sensei tell his pupils about starting fights, provocations, and so on?

He tells 'em "Don't."

Your difficulty here, not so atypical of the 17-21y.o. set, is that you're mistaking me for an asshole when I'm merely stern and occasionally impatient. And on occasion, military, which has its effect too and grates upon the new and tender ego. This is yet well beyond what you've done.

So, being possessed of mature patience, I just laugh at the boomcar boys. They never get invited over for supper. I laugh louder when the boomcar also rattles and buzzes from poor equipment or blown speakers or the speakers loose in their mounts. I'm with you, though, on that those boys don't show any musical taste.

And if I should really require to serve up a cold dish of revenge, I can always find out for sure if they don't like bagpipes... :p

...or make new friends if they do.

If a situation where you need lethal force were to overtake you -- there is nothing the university could offer, either practicably or extravagantly. Less trouble, actually, for you to handle it rather than saddle the university with some kind of bodyguard obligation.

The power to save life is a worthy power indeed. I do not reject it.


I'd hardly call this "different" from any other gang-up assault. Such goblin-children need to be shot immediately they attempt such assault. One of them hit would likely be enough, but the self-defense man will try for three minimum. A group with ball bats is readily lethal enough to justify lethal force in self defense. Such nasty people must be rendered pantsfilling scared of ever doing such things again, for clearly their minds have insufficient check on their urge to be brutal. When that is the case, sufficient check must be supplied. While arrest and imprisonment may dissuade them sufficiently, seeing their pals-in-brutality go down in a pink mist dissuades permanently.

S-a good thing my rights are none of your business.

Guns also have the power to take lives. If allowing guns saves one life in three years but takes five a year, it is not worth it. You have to look at it from the other side too.

So if you had a gun and you got attacked by eight guys with guns you would shoot at them? You be dead before you got to guy number two, if that.

Everyone has equal rights so it is my business. The idea of the right to own guns was to satisfy our biological need of self-preservation. If you can effectively satisfy your biological need of self-preservation without guns, then you do not need guns for self-preservation.

No, sorry to dissapoint but I'm not printing out your every post and framing them on my wall - let alone reading all of them.

I'm not in the 17-21 year old range. Why would you think so? I never considered you an asshole; rigid and disregarding of others in disagreement sure, but never an asshole.

We're in agreement on their musical taste. What I was getting at is if you actually felt like it, would you tell them to knock it off? I've thought about it plenty of times and the thing that holds me back is you don't know who has a gun. Granted they could have a baseball bat instead, but it takes moderate effort to club somebody to death. My roundabout way of getting to to the point: suppose guns are on campus, will a similar oppression occur? How many people will bite their tongue about this or that because they MIGHT have a gun? Sure, they might have a gun anyway but currently you can be reasonably certain they don't.

I wasn't beating on you about that martial-arts question -- I simply had no idea whether this was something you knew about me or not.

In my personal experience, backed up by absolutely every time I go to a gun range, is that it's a psychological truth that when everyone is armed, everyone is also polite. They are, in fact, downright kindly to each other. This is really very pleasant. If I am any measure of average human psychology, this is not from fear of the other armed guys, but of the desire to keep them reassured.

It strikes me, as it has other philosophers, that the reasonable certainty the other fellow doesn't have a gun allows rudeness to crop up. A reasonable certainty that yes, he does, suppresses any urge to be rude, for the cost might be considerably too high, mightn't it?

Got to admit, I prefer good manners over bad. I'm willing to go to some lengths to get them.

The gun range is a subset of people who like to fire guns for sport or safety. No violent intentions there. I have the odd feeling your average thug doesn't go to the shooting range, though I could be wrong.

I'm imagining a return to the Wild West where things are settled by who draws their gun the quickest. Maybe it would create politeness but how much dissent would be squashed along with that? It's a balance and I don't like either extreme.

Really?
Cite.
Again and again, it is not your place to decide for others what they need.
Man, you are a nosy busybody tyrant.

You seem to fail to realize that guns are a double edged sword. It can hurt society just as much as it can help. No one is trying to take away your need to stay alive, it just happens because their can be bigger consequences. It is like the Iran nuclear issue. They have every right to make nuclear energy because they will need it in 8 or so years but we are taking away their right to do it. Why, because we feel that they don’t have the right to make the best available energy source? No, because it is a double edged sword as well. They could possibly use the nuclear technology to make nuclear weapons, which we find unacceptable. The same concept applies to guns.

Guns are not like heroine, I can not just avoid guns like I can heroine. If someone takes heroine, I will never be killed from it. That is the point of the whole debate, what may be worse for the individual may be best for the community.


The idea that we made rights to satisfy our need of self-preservation is the only idea that makes sense. To say we were born with infinite rights not only does not make sense or backed by nature, can be taken out with Occam's razor. The universe is a nihilistic cage, nothing more; it does not give us anything. It is much easier to say that everyone has no rights but just survives than it is to say that everyone has infinite rights. If you get in a street fight to the death there is no one telling you that you can do anything, you just survive. Nature supports the theory of just surviving as well since we don’t see animals doing whatever they want.

Then once society was more or less created, rights came with it to explain our biological feelings and to keep order. That is the only option that makes sense, the idea of a nihilistic cage gives us infinite rights does not.

To you.
I grew-up on a ranch using guns, yes, handguns, every day. A few times to save my life.
That does not matter... it is still not your place.

They don't? They do unless something interferes with their right to do that.

Tell that to my student loan holders. I think I actually still owe for CSU.

I am not trying to take your guns away from your ranch or the general public, just my college campus. That is the only place I have been fighting to get guns banned on this thread, or on this entire board I think.

That is making it too complicated. You can just say that “you can do whatever you need to survive”. The only law of nature could be simplified too "the most adaptive will have their genes passed on". Every action in nature, besides humans and altruistic behavior, can be seen to follow this law. To bring rights into the mix just makes it more complicated, which goes against Occam's razor.

If you attack a lion's "right to self-preservation" it will fight back because that is the best option to ensure its survival (or at least its instinct tell it so, which has stood the test of time). On the other hand, a lion will never attack a cheetah to eliminate competition because by attacking the cheetah, it will put its survival chances at risk. Sure, it can attack the cheetah, nothing is holding it back, but it won’t because the lion follows that one rule.

In order to have rights, something has to give them to us. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that the universe is anything but nihilistic, so the only other options are a god or humans. The god option has no proof either, which brings us to humans. Is that a definite statement? No, if proof comes up that the universe is not nihilistic or there is a god my statement will be turned around, but until then that is what all available evidence points too.

Hmm. I don't know about that. For the most part, my country is quite a polite place to be. There're the usual problems of loitering teenagers, swearing and getting in peoples' faces, but on the whole we're a relatively polite society. Also on the whole, we don't expect people to be carrying firearms. There is a growing problem in some inner city communities, with gangs and guns, but its a tiny, tiny proportion of the population who'll ever have any real contact with guns, beyond the odd air rifle.