If you are against concealed weapons on campus, then are you against concealed weapons in grocery stores?  Banks?  Shopping malls?  How is a campus really any different than these other places - where, yes, shootings do occur?

To echo what Ike said, what makes campus any different?  It's true that corridors and lecture halls can be crowded, but so can a movie theater, and people carry there without incident.  Second, if students are denied the best means by which they can defend themselves, how do you suggest campuses be secured?  NIU had one of the more thought-out and sophisticated emergency response systems in the nation, but it didn't stop the perpetrator from killing several people and himself before campus police could arrive.  And they set a record with their quick response.  If one of the better campus security systems in the nation couldn't stop the perpetrator, what else could?  You seem to advocate keeping campuses gun-free.  NIU and VT were supposed to be gun-free, too.  How much good did their no-gun policies do their students?  Zero. 

You say, "Maybe they have taken heart because of some state laws that allow licensed people to carry on campus such as Texas."  And then you go on to point out the mistakes of Jared and his cohorts in their collective understanding of Texas law.  Are you aware that the state of Utah allows individuals, including students, with licenses to carry to do so on public college and university campuses?  Are you aware that people have done so for some time without any incident?  (Granted, Utah's licensing laws are more strict than Idaho's.) 

You probably remember the arguments that detractors used when the first shall-issue/right-to-carry laws were being considered and passed.  "There will be blood in the streets!" was their cry.  Now, "There will be blood in the classrooms!" is what they, and you, are saying.  There has not been blood in the streets.  If anything, violent crime has dropped in the states that have adopted shall-issue laws.  But I'm sure you're aware of that.  Why should we not expect the same result on campus?

I think you and I will agree that campus violence is a problem.  And like all problems, it needs a solution.  Clearly, the no-gun policy does not work.  If it did, neither you nor I would know the names Virginia Tech or Northern Illinois University.  But we do.  Among the colleges whose names don't appear in the headlines are Utah's public colleges and universities, which allow guns on campus.  Jared and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, now boasting over 24,000 members nationwide, have proposed a solution.  What's yours?

I disagree strongly with the concept of a "gun-free" campus. V-Tech has a gun-free campus and the policy surely failed to save lives. The policy did not cause the shooting, but it ensured that the shooter would face little to no opposition on his killing spree. We, as Americans, have a right to defend ourselves and others should the need arise. No one is talking about handing out firearms on campus or allowing felons or the insane access to guns. We are talking about allowing those that already carry in many public places to be allowed to carry when on campus as well. These licensed individuals carry at the movie theater, grocery stores, public events and many other places. When it comes time to go to school they head home to secure their firearms and head to class because they are law abiding citizens. The school shooter simply tosses his gun in his backpack and heads to class to ruin lives, regardless of the schools policy against guns. Utah changed its policy in 2006 and there has not been a single incident to date.

As far as the above article is concerned, I can sympathize with your desire for a peaceful, firearms free, campus. Wouldn't that be nice for everyone in the community? The simple fact is that there is no way to ensure that without arming the campus police, doubling their number, and installing metal detectors at every entrance. Perhaps this is what we should encourage, but until they are all trained and the detectors installed, there is little to no chance for a student to defend themselves against a wacko with a gun. V-tech is a small campus in a quiet area, similar in a lot of ways to ISU. Also, I am sure that many of you remember the Crossroads Mall shooting, which was fortunately halted by an off duty officer who had chosen to carry a concealed weapon to the mall that day.

Concealed carry is a huge responsibility and it is reserved for those that are 21 or older and can pass a background check and prove that they have received at least limited firearms training. The first time that a CWL holder brandishes his or her weapon or fires it without a just cause his or her license is revoked and they  lose the privilege of carrying a weapon. Training is important, but your scenario of the untrained CWL holder attempting to "clear the school" seems like a fantasy position. No one is asking for night vision goggles and floor plans of ISU. Clearing the halls and engaging in tactical operations is the job of trained law enforcement officers, not students and faculty. These law abiding civilians are merely asking for the ability to defend oneself when confronted by a violent criminal with the intent of killing innocent people.

On a side note, I was surprised at your problem with the holster that Jared was wearing in the article. Perhaps you failed to notice that the holster was empty? I have never heard it said that "you should not point a holster at anything that you don't want to destroy". I am not so sure that it is safe to assume that he would use that holster to carry his firearm. Many of us that have firearms have a drawer full of holsters that didn't work out or are no longer considered safe for use. For the purpose of the protest I would wear the most visible holster possible, not necessarily the one that I would choose to use if allowed to carry on campus.

Your article was well written and I respect your right to your opinion, I simply disagree with it.

Thank you for your comments Ike and Brett. When I talk about Lack of training for certain environments, I do so from the perspective of one who has has had a fair amount of training in simulated senarios including building searches, traffic stops, school and campus emergencies, perpetrator in store with gun, and actual experience with intruder in the home.

You are quite correct in assuming that movie theaters and stores present some of the same challenges that would be faced with a shooter on campus. The real difference being that a shooter on campus can have a great deal more mobility until police can effectively contain the individual. Also, the fact that one can't control who or what is behind the perpetrator becomes a nightmare of a problem on the sprawling grounds of a school yard or college campus.

Law enforcement is better equipped to handle college campus scenarios or even store and movie theater incidents because they have developed several methods of handling most situations where pandemonium is rampant and the stress level is at an all time high.

You mention the University of  Utah.  The officials there are not happy that people are allowed to carry concealed on campus. A lot of folks have simply dismissed those officials as Liberals who are anti-American instead of listening to their reasons for continuing to oppose guns on campus. It just maybe that if you listen to them, their opposition would make some sense.

Let me give you a hypothetical example of what trained people are worried about that is based on the collective experiience gathered from law enforcement personnel around the country.

Most of the time when there is a shooting on campus, 911 is flooded with calls from hysterical people who have just been through the worst experience of their lives. Rick and Joe are two patroling officers who are within several blocks of campus when the dispatcher informs everyone that there is a male on campus with a gun,shots fired, several people have been injured.

As the first responders, Rick and Joe park their ccruisers behind the closest building to the emergency and carefully, using the buidding for cover make their way to the site of the incident with pistols in their hands. Screaming students and faculty continue to run past them trying to get out of the shooters field of fire while the dispatcher continues to warn of a man with a gun shooting at people in front of the building they are using for cover. As they come round the front of the building they see people running every direction, including toward them. They also see something else. They see three males with guns in their hands who are also coming toward them. Rick  yells into his radio, "there are three of them, we have three shooters", Joe screams at the three men,, "drop your weapons, get down on the ground, hands staight out to your sides, palms up".  The three men stop and one raises his gun hand from down at his side to about  the level of his hip. Joe fires his pistol and the man drops. The other two wisely drop their weapons and follow instructions. It is over, or is it? While Rick and Joe are securing the scene the dispatcher again warns that the man with a gun is now confronting people in an adjacent parking lot and is taking a car from one of the drivers.

Rick and Joe later learn that the three men they confronted were students with ccw licenses who were trying to confront the perpetrator. When they saw the officers, they ran over to tell them where they had last seen the man. As we say in the trade, "oops". 

In this scenario Joe would in all probability be cleared of any wrong doing because he was justified under the circumstances in believing he and Rick were confronting three perpetrators and when the one individual raised his gun hand Joe's action was both reasonable and necessary to protect himself, the other officer, and the public, in accordance with his training.

As I said this was a hypothetical incident. To my knowlege nothing like this has ever happened at the University of Utah. Similar incidents have happened at other universities, but, in the couple I'm familiar with, this kind of tragedy was avoided  because the officers involved kept their cool and were able to de-escalate the situation without anyone getting hurt. I think that is a pretty good testimony to the value of constant professional training.

However, I still wouldn't recommend running up to a police officer with a gun in your hand during a high stress incident, or any other time ,come to think about it.

If you guys are ever unfortunate enough to be faced with a potentially  deadly situation, I suggest you stay cool, think about what you can do to ensure your safety and that of others if you are in a position to do so, instead of taking the opportunity to shoot it out with the bad guy. If you do decide you need to have your gun in your hand you really need to be cool and think clearly. When the police arrive, put the gun away, but at your first opportunity tell them you have it. 

Stay well, ride hard, shoot straight, .and always tell the truth

mbogo,

Thanks for your response.  The hypothetical situation you describe is a scary one, but it's still hypothetical.  You're right, if Law Enforcement found a group of three armed individuals in a campus shooting situation, the officer would probably shoot, and he'd probably be justified given the circumstances you describe.  But again, it's a hypothetical situation, and we can throw those back and forth at each other all day long.  There is an infinite number of what-if's, and we can't account for all of them.  And what makes that scenario more likely on campus than in another public setting?

Your arguments, honestly, sound like they are arguments against all concealed carry, but I don't think that's your position.  I again ask why campus is different than any other public setting.  A CWL holder always has to be aware of what is beyond his target before he shoots, regardless of his location.  (For that matter, so does any responsible gun owner.)  If there has not been blood in the movie theaters or in the grocery stores or in the parks or in the shopping malls or in the department stores or in the busy downtown areas, all of which could potentially have lots of innocent bystanders and several of which would give the perpetrator room to move around to evade being caught, why should campus be any different?

As for the University of Utah, I didn't mean and I hope I was not understood to say that the administration is happy about it.  I was simply pointing out that by law all public college students and visitors with valid licenses to carry may do so on public college campuses in Utah, and they have done so without incident for some time.  Why should we expect it to be any different on other campuses?

I think you and I will agree that, at least in Idaho, perhaps tougher licensing laws are in order.  Would that make you more comfortable with the idea of allowing licensed individuals to carry?  To require a qualification shooting match and minimum score?  I don't think it would be a bad idea.

I posed a question at the end of my last post.  Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, of which Jared is a member, has proposed a solution to rampant campus violence.  What is your solution?

 

Is anyone here familiar with the military term Range Gate Stealing (RGS)? I learned this concept from one of my friends who is an Air Force Attache here in Beijing. The concept is kind of hard to describe using only words, but I think it is applicable, so I'll try my best to describe it.

RGS is a form of radar jamming. Lets say you have a radar unit that is tracking an enemy. Radar frequencies are sent out, and the radar can tell where the enemy is by the frequencies that bounce back. The enemy can detect the radar frequencies, and will send the same frequency back to the radar - only stronger. The radar is designed to track the strongest signal it receives, so the radar will start listening to the signal sent back from the enemy. The enemy will then slowly change the frequency of the signal, which starts to pull the radar off of its own signal (because its listening to the stronger signal). Once the frequency has been pulled far enough off of the original frequency, the enemy stops sending the signal; the radar doesn't recognize its own frequency any more, and the enemy vanishes from the radar unit.

I think this applies because opponents of concealed weapons permits (or the 2nd amendment) will range gate steal you by slowly changing your frequency. They'll start by saying cw's aren't allowed on campuses for the very reasons you presented. Once they have you on that frequency, they will start to change to another frequency: cw's shouldn't be allowed at shopping malls, then cw's shouldn't be allowed in any stores... then cw's shouldn't be allowed at all. They'll slowly and carefully pull any proponent of the 2nd amendment away, one step at a time. It is a great form of deception.

So for the sake of concealed weapons permits, and the 2nd amendment in general, I disagree with your post. We mustn't budge if we want to maintain our freedoms. Even though there is some validity to your reasoning, we must stand firm, or else opponents will slowly and carefully pull us away.

I echo Brett and Ike's comments:  what makes campuses so different?  And, what do you suggest?

I will tell you that the holster in the picture was purchased as an accident: I thought it was a vertical holster, and by time I had it out of the bag, I had already lost the receipt.   I have never used it for more than a few minutes for the exact reasons you posted.

 

Furthermore, I am a certified firearm instructor; I am intimately familiar with the first rule of safe gun handling. 

 

I have talked with many police officers that, despite your claims, firmly agree with the stance of the SCCC.  It is not the responsibility of the police to defend the citizens of the United States; they are reactive in nature only.  Look into the Supreme Court’s rulings on the subject.  So, even if the police where capable of defending the students, it is not their responsibility.

 

Why is it that the police are not entirely capable of defending the ISU students?  Because they are not with the students at all times.  As you suggested in your hypothetical situation, the closest police officers would likely never be closer than a few blocks away.  Whereas most shootings last a matter of only a few short minutes, as I am sure you know full well.  If the shooting is only to last a few short minutes, and the police are a few desperately long minutes away, they are incapable of defending the students, no matter their superior training.

 

We need only look at VA Tech, where Cho, knowing that campus was a ‘gun free zone,’ chained the doors shut.  The police, despite their quick response times, were left helpless outside the doors listening to the carnage that they were powerless to stop.

 

Look at NIU where, despite their remarkable response time, the police found the shooting already over when they arrived.

 

Again I post the question, what makes a college campus any different than anywhere else?

 

I see only two reasonable options:  First, the school takes full responsibility for the defense of its students, by closing campus to everyone that is not supposed to be there.  This would require that campus be surrounded by solid barriers with restrictive materials on top, armed guards and metal detectors at every entrance, armed guards in the halls and in every class, the random warrant less search of students and faculty on campus, and the constant vigilance of every faculty, staff and student.  Or, the school leaves the responsibility for defense where it belongs, in the hands of the citizens.

 

Who am I? Jared L Harward- Campus Leader at Idaho State University for the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

The debate of how the 2nd amendment plays into our rights to carry a concealed weapons, is to me, a non-issue.  Scholars debate exactly what the founding fathers meant to no end, and both sides have valid points.

THE issue to me is "effective legislation."  That is, congress manages to pass laws that are effective.  Gun control has been largely proven to be ineffective in achieving any of its intended goals.  Therefore we have government limiting yet another aspect of our lives without really gaining any ground in making things better.  If I'm a bad guy, I would love gun control.  I would want my victims to be unarmed. 

Banning weapons on campus is yet another one of those pieces of ineffective legislation.  It may appeal to some emotional aspect of our being, but lacks any real substinitive, empirical reasoning.  We should never get caught up into the politics of feeling good.

Thankyou for your responses guys. I can never be sure whether folks understand my position until I see or hear the questions.

First, you are quite right Brett. I do support concealed carry by law abiding citizens and I do so myself when I believe it is prudent. I just wish there was a concealed carry course in Idaho so we could define the parameters concerning the laws reguarding the use of deadly force for those who have made the decision to carry concealed. You also asked if such a course that also tested one's shooting ability would make me more supportive of concealed carry. I already support concealed carry by civillians and would like to see Idaho develop a course. As far as the shooting part of the course is concerned, it should not only test shooting ability, but one's ability to handle the firearm during high stress. Clearing the weapon and tap, rack, bang exercises  should be taught as well as reloading during stress fire sessions.

If you think that this sounds too much like the training police have to go through, you should know that it is only the tip of the ice berg of police proficiency standards.

For me it isn't a Second Amendment issue as much as a basic proficiency standard for those who have decided to carry concealed.

Both Brett and Jared asked, "what makes campus any different and what would you suggest"? That is a good question, and it indicates that you are trying to think this thing through. Hopefully I can give you as good an answer as the question you asked. Although the story about Rick and Joe above was developed from the cumulative experiences of police and sheriff's departments around the country, it is very representative of the experience of many law enforcement personnel. Some of those officers actually shot and killed or injured someone who they justifiably believed was threatening potentially lethal behaviour and did not respond to instructions to drop their weapon or get down on the ground. While being cleared of any wrong doing, they still have to live with it and probably re-live the incident at times. Fortunately, in the majority of such situations such as this, that I have studied, the officers involved ultimately de-escalated the incident and got compliance, but, sometimes is was frightningly close.

If a shooter on campus incident occured at ISU, Campus security in all likelyhood would be the first professional responders and would be trying to locate the shooter and relay that info to responding police and sheriff''s personnel. They also would be trying to protect students, faculty and staff by geting them out of the line of fire. Teachers in classrooms would probably try to protect those in their class rooms by locking the doors to the class rooms and waiting for campus security or police officers to reach them. Basically pandemonium would reign and terrified people would be running in all directions while the campus police, Pocatello police and Bannock county Sheriff's deputies tried to find the shooter and restore order and protect the innocent.

When the police arrive they may not have a detailed description of the shooter. Man with a gun, may be the only initial information they have  other than a general idea where the incident has occured. I guarantee you that the first man with a gun, who isn't in uniform or a known officer, that they see, is going to have an memorable experience.

Assuming carrying concealed on campus is legal, what should you as a ccw holder do? My advice is to first clear your head and start thinking rationally. Ensure your safety first, then if you are in a position to do so without endangering yourself, help others to think clearly and stay where they are safe. If you know where the perpetrator is, don't be a hurry to confront him. If he doesn't know you know where he is, he may stay long enough for one of you to safely contact police. Hopefully, at least one of your small group has a cell phone. When the police arrive, point out where you think the perpetrator is and follow the instructions of the responding officers.

If you feel it is reasonable and necessary to have your gun in your hand, remember that you are responsible for any and every bullet you fire. You really need to be thinking clearly now, if you find you have tunnel vision, which will probably occur if this is your first experience in a stress fire incident, force yourself to stop, get your breathing as close to normal as possible and get your periphreal vision back or don't proceed. If you can safely retreat, do so and take the group with you. If you must fire to protect yourself and others you still run the risk of missing because of the stress level and are responsible for where ever that bullet goes. If  you hit the perpetrator and the bullet goes all the way through, you are still responsible for where it goes after that. By the way, are you sure the guy you just shot was actually the perpetrator? If he was another ccw holder trying to be of assistance you have a serious problem. At any rate, when the police arrive, put your gun away, but tell them you have it at your first opportunity.

The police won't want to deal with ccw holders during a stress fire incident, so don't take offense if they are a little short with you. Just smile, call them sir or mam, and follow their instuctions.

So, my solution to any campus violence is to ensure your own safety, don't do anything you lack the training to do. If you can legally carry concealed, don't be in a hurry to get into a gun fight that you don't have to be in. You probably would be more help if you can stay calm and help others to get to safety and stay there until the incident is over or police arrive to escort people out of the area. 

Jared, it was good to hear from you. When I was where you are at now, I felt much the same as you do. We still have more in common than you might think. The biggest difference is that some of my assumptions changed when training and experience proved them wrong. Your personal well being is definitely your responsibility and I don't question your right to defend yourself or others from illegal attack. I commend you on choosing law enforcement for a career. I have always believed that the police officers that I have known were pretty extraordinary people. I'm also relieved to know that if I'm ever standing right behind you that there won't be a pistol pointed at my chest. 

mbogo,

Thanks again for the response.  I appreciate that everyone on this forum, including yourself, has been respectful in presenting their respective points of view.  Often, the case is just the opposite.

To put your mind at ease, neither I nor many SCCC members with whom I have spoken have any desire to run around campus, gun in hand, looking for the perpetrator.  Your advice on trying to keep a clear head and get myself and others to safety is sound.  You're right, campus security and local police are much better trained and equipped to handle the securing of campus.  But that's not what I'm talking about when I say students with valid CWL's should be allowed to carry on campus.

Let's look at VT for just a moment.  The perpetrator knew that campus security would try to stop him, and he planned for it.  To make sure his plans would not be interfered with, he chained all the building doors shut, keeping security and police outside, and all the defenseless victims inside with himself.  I agree, when possible let trained police and security handle it.  But when the police are locked outside and the students are locked inside with the psycho, police can't help them.

Now let's look at NIU.  There the perpetrator didn't bother locking any doors.  He walked on stage, shot the place up, and then shot himself, all before campus security could arrive to do anything about it.  And as a I mentioned in my first post, they got there in record time.

These are the kinds of situations I was asking about when I posed the question as to what else you think can be done to effectively secure campus.  Campus at large can probably be secured by trained professionals.  So we agree to let them handle that.  What they can't do is secure every classroom in every building on every campus in the country.  It's impossible. 

Now it's my turn to be hypothetical, but first, a statistic and some information.  A little less than 1% of the nation is licensed to carry concealed.  In most states, a person must be 21 before he is able to receive a license.  Assuming that most college students begin college right after high school and earn a 4 year degree, then most students would graduate by or around age 22.  (I know there are lots of exceptions to my generalizations, but let's just run with it.)  If that is the case, and allowing for a fairly large number of exceptions, not even half of any given student body is of legal age to obtain a CWL.  Now let's apply our less than 1% statistic to our estimate that less than half of the student body is of legal age.  Now we're down to a little less than half of 1% of any given student body that would have CWL's.  And as you demonstrated in your last post, not everyone with a CWL carries all the time.

Back to the hypothetical situation.  Let's assume that the perpetrator has no imagination and so he decides to do things the way they were done at NIU- walk onto the stage of a crowded lecture hall and start shooting the place up.  Let's assume that this crowded lecture hall has about 300 students in it.  If a little less than 0.5% (see the above paragraph) of the students in that class have CWL's, then no more than 2 students in the classroom would have a CWL.  It's possible there could be more or less.  And it's possible that all or none of them are carrying.  But to make the math easy, let's say just half are carrying.  That means in this lecture hall of 300, 1 student is legally armed.  The perpetrator begins perpetrating.  The CWL holder draws his CCW and puts a stop to the situation.  Body count 1- the perpetrator who, if history is any indicator, was going to kill himself anyway.

So what happens if multiple students are legally armed that day?  Probably about the same thing.  I have never heard of a situation (and maybe you have) where multiple CWL holders responded to the same threat and ended up shooting each other instead of the bad guy.  Since I have never heard of it happening (and I try to keep myself informed about this sort of thing), I have to assume it doesn't happen that often, if at all.

Disarm the students and how does our hypothetical situation turn out?  Just like it did in real life when the law abiding students, including those with valid CWL's, were disarmed.  32 dead, despite the best efforts of campus security.

Again, we agree that the general securing of campus should be left to the professionals.  But they can't protect every individual all the time.  It's impossible.  (It's also the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.)  The principles of self defense that are sound in virtually every other situation don't change when a person crosses that invisible line and steps onto campus.  The only solution, other than appointing each student his own personal bodyguard, is to let the students defend themselves, and to allow them to do so with the best available means- firearms. 

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I saw your comments this afternoon. I was on my way to Salt Lake City and had to wait until I got here and had a few minutes to myself.  

I understand your point Brett, and I would never purposely be disrespect ful on any of these discussions. I simply believe that people who wish to carry concealed should be well trained in both the laws reguarding deadly force and in handling the firearm in stress fire situations. I'm convinced that the future of concealed carry rests on the behaviour of those who do so, whether or not they are required to take a course to qualify or not.

As far as communicating how unprepared most people who have ccws are to handle a stress fire incident, it would be easier if we had access to a stress fire training facility in the area, Like Massad Ayoobs, Leathal force Institute in New Hampshire, Clint Smith's, Thunder Ranch in Oregon, or Gunsite, developed by Jeff Cooper in Arizona. Although civillians with a valid state ccw, can attend these schools, they are extremely expensive. Most of their clientel are military and police training officers with a few gun writers mixed in. Most of these people's angencys or organizations pay the two to four thousand doallars for the week of training they sign up for. Most novices spend the first couple of days overcoming tunnel vision, sweaty palms, loss of fine motor control, hyperventilation, and loss of visual acuity because of the realistic scenarios, which are live fire scenarios.  The good news is that the instuctors are excellent and usually have everyone doing pretty well after the first two or three days. You can expect to have every possible scenario thrown at you and will need at least two firearms for your course and about 5,000 rounds of ammunition for the week. The owners and operators of these schools definitely believe that the best and most effective gun control is being able to think clearly and hit your target under great stress.

At any rate, I will probably be on campus during your group's empty hoster event, just to see how it is going and how people are responding to your views. I will not be campaigning against the event .

You will probably be happy to know that trips out of state are one of the several occasions I legally carry concealed.

If you have further comments or questions, I welcome them, but I may not be able to respond before Sunday evening or Monday morning.  

I have a conceal and carry permit.  I've had one for several years.  I was required to take a 'gun safety' course so I looked for the most comprehensive course I could find, an NRA approved course taught by a police reservist.  My husband is an FFL (gun dealer) who can break down and reassemble any weapon in a matter of minutes.  He is an excellent shot.  He has be teaching me to shoot.   As a shooter, I suck, to put it mildly.  I feel that I am more a danger to myself and the public than I would ever be to any "bad guy."

I live and breathe guns but I rarely take a weapon out in public.  For those of you who are so gung ho about carrying a DEADLY weapon in public I would like to know how much training you have had.  A boy scout course when you were a teen? 

I absolutely agree with MBOGO.  And I think that Idaho should require a shooting skills test for anyone wanting to carry a gun in public.  I know that I would probably flunk that test. 

I don't know if any of you remember the shooting at Lubby's restaurant in Texas but a woman in the restaurant had a gun.  She was pinned down by the shooter who I believe was military trained and she was not able to get one shot off.  She was also too afraid to shoot because she would be his next victim.  She was smart to lie low. 

I feel fairly safe with former military or police personnel carrying guns in public but the rest of you...that scares me.  The use of deadly force is something to take very seriously.  I know that we all get angry when we read about creeps who gun down innocent people.  I know that I fantasize about putting them down but in all reality, I would most likely be shot before I could do anything.  Carrying a gun is NOT a constitutional right--READ the second amendment--it is a privelege and a huge responsibility. 

We desperately need gun training courses in this area.  I will be the first to sign up!!

Jared and Brett,

I am curious to know of campus situations where an armed student successfully stopped a killer on a rampage?   I know about Trolley Square Mall but that was an off-duty police officer and he admitted that he was afraid but managed to keep a clear head.  Have you ever been in a situation where you had to face and shoot or subdue an armed assailant?  How many cw carriers do you think are trained and psychologically prepared to  handle this type of situation?

It is easy to get a permit in Idaho.  According to my brother who works with law enforcement, it is even easier to get a permit in Utah.  Brett, you argued against yourself by pointing out that " a little less than 1% of the nation is licensed to carry concealed."  Extrapolate to college campuses...will that 1% be at the scene of a shooting and will they be able to stop the shooter? 

You two are a possible exception.  I think that you could do it.  You are obviously well-trained and thoughtful.  But what about the yahoo's like me who have a permit but are not trained enough to know what to do?  I scare myself.  So I only carry in the backcountry or when I am travelling alone.

If it becomes legal to carry on campus will we really be any safer?  How many folks just want to be the big hero who brings down the next Cho but lack the skill to do so?  Maybe a trial period would be a good idea and PLEASE somebody offer some extensive training in this town!!!!

Seems that Mbog and Marsey have thought this through very carefully and deserve serious consideration.

Bob

Because of the hour, I don't have much time to respond much, but I can think of three campus shootings wherein the shooter was apprehended by citizens with firearms:

1966 University of Texas, Austin:  Tower sniper was stopped by an officer and an  armed citizen working together.

1997 Pearl High School, Pearl, Mississippi: Luke Woodham was apprehended by the assistant principle wielding a .45 he had obtained from his truck.

2002 Appalachian Law School: two armed students and another student subdued the shooter.

Dettch, while I agree with you that both mbog and marsey have clearly thought out their positions, I wonder why Brett wasn’t included in that topic: it is clear to me that he has also thought this through very carefully… just an incongruity that I see.

also, since this  is a post about campuses, can you name me any places where a campus shooter was trained with a gun?  why do we have this attitude that no matter our training as citizens, we will never be as well trained as a bad guy?

I suggest an article for everyone to read:  A Nation of Cowards by Jeffry R. Snyder (see http://rkba.org/comment/cow... )