Collegiate Times

How did my title become "take advantage of firearms"? Could it get more unrelated? For those following the link to our website, I'm in the process of updating it!

This is something everyone should look into. I find that most people are afraid of firearms till they actually become familiar with them. I know some people will never like firearms, but everyone should be educated on them at the very minimum.

I wonder what proportion of those who oppose SCCC's mission have handled guns. This should be an interesting event, and I'm very intrigued to find out the results of the surveys.

To members of SCCC here at VT. FYI, you don't have to attend this university. If you want to carry a gun with you constantly for whatever paranoid reason, go somewhere else. We don't need a bunch of Wild West wannabe's wandering around campus wondering when they might plan on pulling out their shootin' irons and start blazing away. What on God's green earth scares you so much that you feel the need to have a lethal weapon on your person at all times? I am a former and future gun owner. I sold my guns shortly after my son was born because I had little or no time to use them and did not want to see them wasted. I plan of purchasing guns in the future for recreational purposes. I have never, ever owned a gun because I feared for my safety and that of my family.

(Tongue in cheek) Jonathan; You don't have to attend this University. If you're afraid of guns for some paranoid reason go somewhere else (I suggest UVA). We don't want a bunch of paranoid and prejudiced hoplophobes wandering around campus thinking anyone with a gun is going to start blazing away at the drop of a hat. What on God's green earth scares you so much about a responsible law-abiding adult choosing to carry an inanimate object around so he/she can protect themselves and those around them?

I conceal carry and open carry everyday. I am NOT afraid of crime, nor is that the reason I carry. I carry because there IS crime and no matter how unlikely it is that I will happen upon it I want to do my duty to do what I can to stop it! That requires force, and what better force than a gun. Why do you think the police carry them? One point that we should all strenuously work towards and that is the "individual" is foremost responsible for his own safety and protection. It is the height of arrogance and immorality IMO, to require someone else, for a mere wage, to risk his life to protect your sorry ass when you could and should do so yourself !!! And as we all know the cop/security guard is only going to protect you if he chooses to do so at that moment. He has no legal requirement to do so, and rightfully so. Is his life worth less than yours? What an elitist you are if you think so !!! If you ever hear someone talking about police or security in this manner - remind them what elitists they are.

Mr. Flanagan, I don't attend VT, I work here. I am not afraid of guns. If you had actually read my statement you would have understood that. What I am concerned about is people carrying guns in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. Here is a list of questions I hope you can answer in a calm and rational manner. 1) If people are going to carry guns for legitimate purposes, why conceal them? 2)Why would you not want other people to know that you are carrying a gun? 3)What exactly are you protecting yourself from? 4)How exactly do you plan on protecting yourself if you have to first remove the gun from a place of concealment? I have never felt the need to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, for any reason other than sport. The only place that I think anyone would need to carry a gun for any other reason would be in a war zone. I don't recall any wars breaking out here in Blacksburg in the past 100 years and really don't foresee any in the near future.

John F., Is it your opinion that the police only protect the public if and when they wish to? That seems to me to be a very disrespectful attitude. Ask the average police officer how many times they have actually had to pull their gun, let alone fire it. If we extend your logic then we should all carry radar guns and pull speeders over when we see them on the highway. After all, they are a danger to the safety of law abiding drivers. It's really all about control. For some reason, you feel the need to carry a gun to allow you to have more control over everyday life. I, on the other hand, have never felt that need. What is the difference? Do we walk in two different worlds? We both drive the same roads and walk the same sidewalks every day. I guess it all comes down to a matter of perception. You perceive this world as a possible threat. I perceive this world as a place to exist. If you really feel the need to carry a gun every where you go, have the guts to carry it openly.

To Jonathan Reid. The law allows for concealed carry for the legitimate purpose of self defense or simply if the carrier so chooses. We don't need to explain ourselves to you. Most people would choose to carry concealed because of people like you who would be frightened when you see people open carrying. Your second question isn't even worth addressing. What are you protecting yourself from? Killers like Cho. Is that a good enough reason? How exactly do you plan on protecting yourself if you have to first remove the gun from a place of concealment? Maybe I will reach to my holster on my hip and drawn my gun in about 1/2 a second. If that answers your questions then we can move on. Where else could someone put a gun to good defensive use besides a war zone? Oh I don't know, maybe in a situation like 4/16/07, if you see someone being robbed, if you see an armed robbery occuring, if someone is being raped, if someone is being jumped and robbed by a group punks (see recent incidents in bburg).

Mr. Reid, the point Mr. Flanagan is making is that you are afraid of people having guns, not of guns themselves. I will address your questions in a calm and rational manner. 1) Concealment is done for the sake of those who would rather not be confronted with the fact that many people carry weapons around on a daily basis. As I'm sure you're aware, there is also a debate about the possible deterrent effect of knowing that a potential victim may be armed. A correlation has often been shown between the introduction of concealed carry allowance and drops in violent crime rates. 2) This is really the same question as 1. I have no major problem with someone knowing that I'm carrying a gun. Realistically, however, there are many who view the mere carrying of a gun by a private citizen as a questionable and potentially aggressive act done only by those up to no good.

To Jonathan Reid. Regarding your earlier post where you state that these pro-carry students need not attend Tech, I say you are the one that should leave. You are an elitist I guess, and probably a communist :) This is our country, and when non elected officials at VT start passing regs restricting rights that are Constitutionally protected we have a problem. I am sure if VT started stomping all over the first amendment you would have a problem.

(continued) 3) The protection is from the very real, albeit fairly unlikely, potential that a situation arises where deadly force will save you from being the victim of a forcible felony. 4) You are right to point out that concealed carry is not a universal solution. Certainly, if you are jumped from behind or otherwise caught off guard, reaction time is a hindrance, and you may even have your weapon used against you. But I believe it is more likely that your gun and wallet will be stolen instead. There are on the order of 0.5 million successful usages of concealed weapons for self defense in this country each year. In most cases, merely brandishing a weapon is enough of a deterrent.

To Andy, I am now offically ignoring you on the grounds that you cannot rationally debate this issue.

Jason T., Why does everyone assume that I am afraid of people carrying guns? The VT Police carry guns every day. We have armed guards reloading the ATM's on campus every day. I'm not afraid of them and I would not be afraid of anyone else carrying a gun on campus for a specific reason. What I am concerned about is those people that feel the need to carry a gun just because they can. There has to be a reason for it other than that. You don't just get in a car and drive. You have a destination that you are planning to drive too. Carrying a gun without having a plan of use is dangerous. Why do you think police train extensively in the use of guns in every possible situation. The average citizen does not have the reaction time or the discretion to use a gun safely in most cases.

Everything about my posts are rational, except maybe the communist comment. You know it is rational. I guess you don't like hearing the truth or examining critical issues such as VT's patently illegal ban.

You are right Mr. Reid. I should have said "afraid of ordinary people with guns" :^). I will answer your questions although I may have to split them across a few posts. 1) I prefer open carry which is what I do everyday. Both carry methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Whether I open carry or conceal carry would be determined by where I plan to be. I was at the memorial Wednesday and I conceal carried because I did not want to distract from the purpose of the event, which was to remember the lives of the ones who died last year. Open carry lets everyone, including criminals; know that people around them have guns. Conceal carry makes it so you don’t know who has them (maybe no one, but the criminal doesn’t know that.). IIRC Cho shot himself as soon as he knew the police were in the building. He did not want a confrontation with armed people. This makes me seriously wonder if he would have still chosen to do what he did if there was the possibility that someone on the second floor was armed… But no, he knew everyone would be unarmed and used chains on the doors to make sure it stayed that way. The chains were not to keep the unarmed people in, but to keep the armed people out. I really do tend to believe that just knowing that someone “might” have a gun would have been enough to stop him.

My brother is a police officer Jonathan. I and many of my friends spend much more time at the range than any police office needs to spend to qualify. If you are referring to SWAT officers then yes, they would have more training than most of us regarding guns use.

Jonathan Reid, do you walk around with your wallet open showing everybody how much money you are carrying? I bet you don't, so what are you trying to hide? Perhaps you have sinister plans for that money you carry? Are you afraid that everyone around you might try to steal it from you... Or, maybe you're just trying not to draw attention to the fact you have cash on hand that could make you the target of a robbery? Your questions are absolutely absurd considering the stated reasons given by SCCC. Carrying a self-defense gun concealed gives the victim a huge advantage over the criminal, the victim gains the element of surprise and can easily catch the unsuspecting criminal off guard. There are hundreds of stories about CCW holders defending themselves from violence that they never expected, but were prepared for nevertheless.

JR: What would you do if it was the first or maybe the third amendment that was being stomped on as opposed to the second. Actually the I don't want to talk to you anymore statement, more points the unable to rationally talk about an issue finger at you.

Ok Andy, I'll give you a second chance. Let's say, for arguements sake, that you are in the very first classroom that Cho starts shooting in. How would you, as a concealed gun owner, have stop him? Please remember that you have only 1/2 of a second (your timing) to make this happen. Also realize that there are at least a dozen other people in the room that could be in your line of fire. There is also the great chance that if you miss with your first shot, Cho will specifically target you next. Your answer please.

The key principle to remember here, Mr. Reid, is that the police (and others you mention) are REACTIONARY forces. If you are being robbed, the police don't simply pop up to save you - they have to be informed first that a crime is being committed. Just like the fire department isn't stationed at your door in the event that a fire might break out, the police aren't escorting most people around on the off-chance that something bad might happen. The first responder in ANY emergency situation is always the individual involved in the situation; it seems to me that in a society where dangerous people live and work, it is silly to assert that the police will simply be able to protect us from all evils. People who utilize concealed carry due so, by and large, because they don't want to HAVE to use their guns, but want to have the ability to use them if the need should arise. It isn't about wild-west vigilante justice - it's about self defense and security, pure and simple.

Mr. Flanagan, Cho did what he did because he was a very disturbed individual. I doubt that the possibility of a student, teacher, or staff member having a gun ever crossed his mind. Now, can you tell me why you felt the need to conceal carry at the Memorial? Did you fear for your personal safety?

random hokie, if that is your real name, I do have a problem with the first amendment being stomped upon. Why, just a few posts ago I was accused of being a communist because I was using my first amendment rights.

First, I didn't say I only have 1/2 of a second. I said that is all the time it would take to draw my gun should I need to use it. As for your scenario, my goal upon understanding Cho's intentions would be to stop him so that he could not continue his killing spree. Maybe there are innocents in my line of fire, so perhaps I use my head and move a few inches to the left or right and shoot. After 12 years of using handguns and long guns, I am experienced enough to know that I should only pull it out in a life and death situation and since I am still blessed with my eyesight, I can still be sure of my target and what is between us and what is behind the target.

BK, by your logic, if I did not carry a wallet, I would never be robbed. Merely the fact that I might possibly be carrying money makes me a possible mugging target. Do I worry about this possibility? No. Just like I don't worry about being the victim a a random shooting or possible lightning strike.

Jonathan, the point is that, although there are areas and situations that are more dangerous than others, crimes can occur at unexpected times in unexpected places. Some simply choose to carry all the time, while others choose to only carry under certain circumstances. It's no different than choosing to have an insurance policy that simply protects you in the event of catastrophic occurrences, or one that provides blanket protection for every possible occurrence. Also, to the issue of having a choice of whether to attend VT, the problem is that the choice is between getting an education or having a lethal means for personal defense. It is simply not practical to move to Utah, for instance, and it shouldn't be necessary, either. Remember, non-students and non-faculty can carry on VT's campus all they want.

(1 of 2) Jonathon Reid, I understand that you say you are not afraid of carrying guns,as long as that person has 'a specific reason'. Concealed Carry Permit holders do not carry a gun just because they can (although it is an essential right, see US Constitution, Amendment 2), but rather they carry because for one reason or another that person feels that it is necessary. Perhaps the person has been a victim of a robbery, rape, or any other sort of crime, and that person has chosen to be a victim no more. Perhaps the person has been witness to a crime and could not do anything to stop it because they were unarmed (ex. recent mall shootings). The essential reason is protection. Concealed carriers realize that there is no guarantee from the local police department to show up with their guns if you need protection. CHP holders have taken responsibility for their own lives, and possibly that of their loved ones. Secondly, you address the fact that law enforcement officers train extensively, and that "average citizen does not have the reaction time or the discretion to use a gun safely in most cases." I'll go ahead and agree with you on this. And that is why the 'average' citizen is not allowed to conceal a firearm. (continued)

Jonathan as someone mentioned it seems that you think that because someone is carrying a gun they must be up to no good. This is confusing to me. Rather than label the criminals and psychopaths you would label us all. Rather than realize there are tens of millions of law abiding gun owners and say perhaps 1/2 to 1 million criminals with guns, you still have this ridiculous notion that good people will suddenly use their guns for bad deeds. Instead of lumping us all in together, lets identify and punish the criminals, try to keep guns out of the hands of people who have shown themselves to be either crazy or a criminal and leave the rest of us alone. We are innocent until proven guilty in this country. Anyone should be able to acquire and carry guns until they prove otherwise.

Andy, I'm so glad that you are that sure of yourself. Given the reported chaos of the classrooms during the shooting, I am sure that you would have been able to save the day. Then again, who knows. Maybe you would not. Be advised that shooting at paper targets and shooting a living, moving, gun wielding target is not the same. Imagine how much more challenging deer season would be if the deer were armed.

(2 of 2) To obtain a Concealed Carry Permit, one must undergo extensive background checks, training, and education. They are trained in shoot/no shoot situations. Furthermore, I don't know a single person who just decided one day, "Hey, I'm going to start carrying a firearm." It is a decision that one ponders deeply before they start to carry. CHP holders fully understand the implications of carrying and using firearms. Likewise, CHP holders DO train for all sorts of scenarios, both physically and mentally. They analyze everyday situations, and have a plan of action mentally laid out so that if needed, they are prepared to act.

Jonathon says "Imagine how much more challenging deer season would be if the deer were armed." I think you just justified concealed carry. Or should we continue to live our lives as the unarmed deer?

Andy, I agree with you that the "crazies" and the "criminals" should not be allowed to have guns. Why then is there always an outcry when laws are proposed to do just that?

Jonathan, at least I will do my best to try to defend myself and other innocents. But, I won't die begging for my life as someone shoots me point blank in the face. As for your assumptions to my shooting paper targets at the range, you should check out the International Defense Pistol Association shooting competitions. There are moving targets, hostage situations, etc.

Mr. Bulloss, my brother was shot and killed on the campus of Concord College 22 years ago. At that time, I could have started carrying a gun for fear of my own safety. I chose instead to conquer that fear rather than let it define my life.

Andy, those are targets, not armed people.

Jonathan, we want to address those issues as well and we do so all the while waiting for you and others like you to understand that concealed carry permit holders are not a threat to you. This could be a give and take, but to many anti-gun folks it is take, take, take until we are all helpless. That is what we will not allow.

Mr Reid. If your opinion is that the only people who can effectively shoot back at an armed attacker are people who have been in a shootout with an armed attacker previously, then you have just ruled out 99% of all police officers from consideration. They shoot at paper targets and do force on force training - as do most CHP holders.

To Jonathan. Do police officers train against armed people, or do they train much the same way as the rest of us at a target range? Your argument is ridiculous. I realize that I won't have any experience with an armed attacker until I am confronted with that situation but I don't just say "oh jeez I guess I should just leave it up to the police."

Mr. Bullous, The comment about armed deer does not even come close to justifying concealed carry. I don't have a problem with concealed carry, just the reasons given so far. Why do you feel the need? That may be the crux of the problem. I just don't feel the need. I look around and I don't see the need. Where is the need? If you feel like an unarmed deer, that is a problem. Just remember how many unarmed deer don't get shot because they remain concealed and know the territory better than the guy with the gun.

It's not fear, Jonathon. It's just responsibility. Carrying a firearm has been proven to increase your odds of survival in the event of a violent crime. Similarly, wearing a seatbelt has been proven to increase your odds of surviving a traffic accident. Do you see where I'm going with this...? Is it time for personal experiences? My brother was robbed at gunpoint in my driveway a few months ago. I respect your decision to not carry a firearm. Why can you not do the same to me?

You also mentioned armed guards for making ATM deliveries. When was the last time there was a bank robbery or armored truck robbery on campus. Why would you be ok with guards protecting money (who most likely only qualify with their guns once per year as required), but would not be ok with students with CHPs (most of which train often) to protect themselves. The possibility of a bank robbery on campus is very small. The possibility of another mass shooting is also very small. That doesn't mean we should take away the guards method of defense or restrict students from defending themselves either. I have insurance even though it is unlikely that I will need it for another 50 years.

Life insurance that is.

To all, here's the thing. I don't see the need to be constantly armed. The rest of you do. What is it that triggers that difference? Is there something I am missing? I consider myself well informed on local, national, and world events. My family was the victim of a gun wielding murderer. Even after the events of 4/16/07, I did not feel the need. I still do not feel the need to carry a gun even after reading all of the reasons given here. Please explain to me why you feel differently. What am I missing?

Jonathan; IRT 2:55 pm. Now you're the one not reading my post correctly. I do not carry because I am afraid. I carry because I believe it is a DUTY to do so. What's VT's motto? Ut Prosim, that I may serve. I see carrying as a means to serve society, to make it safer and to protect those around me and yes maybe even me. The likelihood that I will need my gun is very, very slim. But that's not the point. Somewhere there is a crime going on and if there are enough people carrying then there will be a good chance that someone will be nearby and be able to do something to stop it. Despite this I have already used my gun twice, all within the first year of owning it. I first confronted four young men one night who were repeatedly breaking into a self-storage complex (the one on Jennelle Road). They saw my openly carried .45 auto. We had some pleasant words. It was all yes sir, not sir and there were no more break-ins after that. The second time was when I hit a deer out in the middle of nowhere late one night. It's back was broken but it was still very much alive. I couldn't leave it to suffer and die so I shot it. I was glad I had my gun with me, there was no other humane way to put it out of its misery.

Again with the reasons? Everyone has explained why they feel differently even when there was no need in the first place. If you can't understand then that is who you are, unless someone on here is your underage son or daughter nobody needs to give you a reason for anything. By the way, you said are afraid when people are carrying guns without a purpose but seem to be ok if someone does have a purpose. I guess you aren't scared of criminals who carry with the purpose of killing, raping, robbing, etc.

Mr. Bulloss, from your statement may I assume that anyone not carrying a firearm is irresponsible? I guess it comes down to "Show me, don't tell me." Many people have driver's permits. A number of them should not be on the road. How many people that have carry and conceal permits shouldn't be allowed to have them?

Jonathan IRT 3:34 pm I don't “feel” the need to carry either. It's not an emotional decision that I made, it was completely rational. I don't carry for power or to be noticed, or for the feeling of control or to feel like a big man (in fact I need to loose weight :^)). I do it because of a sense of duty, I hate crime, it is so uncivil. But the decision to carry was rational, in fact it is so unemotional that I often forget my gun and have to turn back around and get it.

The difference is perceived risk. I feel that is prudent to wear my seatbelt, have insurance, look both ways before I cross the street, don't smoke, don't to bad areas late at night, and carry a concealed firearm for protection. I don't floss, don't usually wear sunscreen, don't worry about getting cancer from standing in front of the microwave. We all have different levels of risk we are willing to tolerate. I lower my risk of lung cancer by not smoking but probably raise my risk of skin cancer by being out in the sun. I have insurance in case I do get cancer though. I don't plan on ever needing to defend myself with my firearm but I have one in case I ever do. I have no problem with the fact that you choose not to carry a firearm. If you feel that you don't need it - that is your choice. I have no problem with you trying to convince me that I don't need it. I have a problem when someone tells me I can't have it because THEY don't feel like they need it - therefore I don't need it either.

Once again, I have never used the word afraid when people carry, I used the word concerned. They are not one and the same. And I'm sorry, there has to be a reason for everything else all is chaos. Some of you have used the words duty and responsibility. Where is written that all of us have the duty and responsibility to carry a gun? The Constitution gives us the right but not the duty as citizens to own and use guns. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about concealed weapons? Did the Founding Fathers carry concealed guns?

Jonathon, no, that is not what I am saying. If I have the choice to do nothing, or do something that could protect my life, I will do the latter. That is an exercise in personal responsibility. I will not say that you are irresponsible for not carrying a gun. I'm sure that you have a plan of action to protect yourself in the event of an eminent attack (911's probably on speed dial), and I respect your decision to not carry. Carrying is an option for personal protection, just as carrying pepper spray, martial arts, tasers, or knives. I absolutely do NOT advocate everybody carrying a weapon. Everyone should simply have the right to do so if they choose (and meet the necessary requirements). If you have a problem with DMV's permitting process, then that's a separate issue. I am not debating the permitting requirements, but rather, the exercise of the rights of the permit.

Fine, concerned. Understood. The reason is because there is a nonzero risk for being a victim of a crime. That risk is weighed, by the individual, against the risks of owning and carrying a gun. Each person's individual risk tolerance will lead to a different answer. Carrying is not an admittance of constant fear; it is an indicator of constant preparedness.

Chris and John, correct me if I'm wrong. The basic problem as I see it comes down to duty and risk. You carry out of a sense of duty or just in case. The administration, on the other hand, has banned concealed guns out of a sense of duty and just in case. That seems to me to be the crux of the problem. How do you convince the administration that your sense of duty or just in case out weighs theirs?

JR, why don't you tell us what we should do if confronted by an armed attacker? What would you do? How many victims of crime do you think expected it or saw it coming, and in that moment what do you think they wish they could do about it? If I could see the future, I wouldn't bother with any of the daily precautions I take to preserve my safety. Carrying concealed is just that, a precaution for a situation that happens daily to thousands of people. Why is that justification unacceptable to you? Do I worry about being attacked? NO. But, do I think about that situation, about all the people that have been in that position, what they have done, what I would do, what I'd like to do? You bet I think about it, and do whatever I can to prevent or prepare for the possibility. Providing myself a means of self-defense is my personal method of preparation for a chance circumstance.

Jonathan said at 3:07 pm, "Imagine how much more challenging deer season would be if the deer were armed." I said, I would imagine that I would NOT go deer hunting in that case, who would?..... Hmmmm.... It sounds like that principle might be applicable to other situations where people go hunting for other things… people perhaps.... :^). Like I said earlier about Cho and unarmed verses armed people. I think he planned the whole thing out very well and meticulously. I am quite certain that he considered that everyone would be unarmed and planned for keeping it that way by chaining the police out.

BK, I tend to think in probabilities. The more probable an event, the more I think about it. Being the victim of an armed attacker on campus just isn't all that high on my list.

Convincing the other side (whether you are for or against concealed carry) is hard to do because both sides have "statistics" to back them up. All I can say is to look to other examples. First being the state of VA where there are over 150,000 active concealed carry permit holders. These are the same people that want to be able to carry on campus (they legally can already - they will just be fired or expelled). They carry their firearms safely every day and (when it was absolutely necessary) some have used them to defend themselves and others. As to why, look no further than the church shooting in Colorado last year. A man with multiple weapons and lots of ammo planned on killing as many people as he could in the sanctuary. An armed citizen with a concealed carry permit (not a "security guard as the press reported it - she just volunteered with several other church members to provide extra protection that morning) stopped the attack with her sidearm and saved dozens of lives.

Jonathan said at 3:46 pm: “Some of you have used the words duty and responsibility. Where is written that all of us have the duty and responsibility to carry a gun?” I say, I’m not sure it’s written anywhere but say you come across two really big ugly rednecks who are beating the crap out of some black guy, it looks like they’re going to beat him to death in the next few minutes. Don’t you have an innate moral sense, a duty, to do “something” to stop it? Legally I guess you don’t but morally, spiritually wouldn’t you just feel horrible if you didn’t help. But how are you going to help him? These are seriously huge rednecks and surely the guy will be dead shortly if you don’t stop them. What are you going to do? When God asked Cain where Abel was Cain replied, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The answer is yes.

If it is not high on your list then do not carry. That doesn't explain why you would want to prevent others from doing so. Do you think that students with CHPs would shoot each other over petty arguments? Or that they would be binge drinking then have a negligent discharge? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

Chris, I'm glad you brought the Colorado church shooting up. My first thought after hearing that the gunman was shot and killed by a church member with a conceal and carry permit was "Wow, there's someone with a whole lot of faith in God and life after death." How does one arrive at the mind set that they need to carry a gun in church? That would be the one place where you would really want to be if it was your time to go. Let's talk about another shooting in Colorado. Columbine. Should we now allow public school teachers to carry and conceal handguns. It would be a pretty good idea at some of the inner city schools. ;)

Jonathan Reid, restricting legal concealed carry is a solution in search of a problem. I challenge to you define the problem, using statistics instead of your personal bias. I could care less what you do in any aspect of your life unless it infringes on my own rights. Concealed carry does not at all infringe on your rights, so I say leave me alone! This is America. By the way, the Constitution does not "give" rights, it protects them. Wise up!

John, I don't need to carry a gun to stop two big ugly rednecks from beating up anyone. Most rednecks that do that kind of crap are stupid to begin with. Take one out first with a well placed kick to the knee joint or hip and then wait for the other one to charge. Side step and take him down with a double fist to the back of the neck and call the cops. Problem solved.

Jonathan, would you feel better if that church member was not carrying? If they did not 'feel the need', how many would have lost their lives? Clearly, carrying was the right decision. Also, note that those 'inner city schools' have metal detectors and security officers to ensure that no weapons can enter the building. Will Tech cough up the money to do the same in each of our buildings?

Frank, where does the Constitution protect the right to carry and conceal?

We are expanding the issue with public school teachers being allowed to carry. I personally feel that if they have received training and granted a CHP, then yes they should be allowed to carry. For an example of that - look to Israel where school children were sitting ducks to terrorists entering the schools and killing at will. Their teachers are now armed - and those types of attacks have decreased dramatically (yes they still happen, but they end much quicker now with a much lower death toll). If you want to get into that there has been significant evidence pointing to the fact that Al Queda is planning to carry out those types of attacks on elementary schools in the US.

Jonathan said at 3:54 pm, "How do you convince the administration that your sense of duty or just in case out weighs theirs?" I say, Simple, their policy is an abject failure. It's time to give our policy a try. If they had allowed Conceal Carry on campus it may not have prevented what happened. But, it sure as hell guaranteed Cho's incomprehensible success. If the administration's policy is for the campus' safety – where is the evidence that it has provided safety!!! If their policy forbidding conceal carry is for safety – where is the evidence that it is dangerous!!! The answer to both questions is that "there is none".

Just google: the perfect day

The constitution protects the right to carry. It also protects your rights "until my nose begins." Since the fact that your weapon is concealed means that my inherent human and constitutional rights are not being violated, the right to carry your weapon in whatever manner you see fit is constitutionally protected.

Chris, I'm not worried about students with CHP's doing anything of the sort. Let's talk about a probable event if CHP's are allowed on campus. A gunman walks to the top of the steps at Buruss and starts shooting. CHP student #1 pulls out his gun and shoots the gunman. Meanwhile CHP student #2 hears the gun fire from around the side of Buruss and pulls his gun. Upon turning the corner, he see's student #1 with a gun and shoots him. THAT is my concern. THAT is a probable event.

For the love of God yes. Teachers and others in authority at K-12 schools should carry. As we can see, mega schools of today with one or two police officers patrolling leaves many vulnerable to killers and crazies. We are trusting these teachers with our son's or daughters innocence. We trust that they will not se_ually abuse them, physically abuse them, etc. Basically, when bad guys start killing innocent people you want to have as little resistance to them as possible. Makes sense. As Jason T and others have pointed out numerous times on posts for other articles, a gun ban without active enforcement/screening doesn't do anyone any good. Jonathan, maybe you can convince upper admin to fork up the millions it would take to install and operate metal detectors in all of our campus buildings in order to provide a much higher degree of assurance against guns entering campus buildings. Without metal detectors and armed security enforcing VT gun ban we are just hanging out there on a wing and a prayer.

Kyle, if your bullet passes beyond your nose, then it is no longer covered by your rights. The opposite is also true.

That is a possibility. A plain clothes police officer was killed in Norfolk last year under similar circumstances. I would conclude that if a shooting on campus is unlikely, that event is even more unlikely. But it is a risk that permit holders and officers take EVERY DAY - not just on campus. Also remember that only about 2% of Virginians have a permit. That number would be even lower at Tech since most people do not turn 21 until they are juniors or seniors. So that eliminates probably 10,000 people right off the top. So 2% of the remaining 15,000 is 300. It is entirely possible that the hypothetical gunman would meet no resistance as possibly none of the students nearby would be armed. That fact shouldn't preclude allowing the 300 to be armed.

Yes, Jonathan, the citizen defender getting shot by another CHP or by the police is a very real possibility. One that I as a CHP holder am aware of and more than willing to accept! So what is your solution, just let the gunman continue shooting people until the police arrive 10 minutes later. Seems we already tried that solution once and it didn't go too well for 30 people, more if you count the wounded.

Jonathan, are these people mute or can they talk? Again, you think bullets are going to be flying every which way without anyone putting any thought into it. Maybe the individual yells "stop, put down the gun." Maybe the assailant doesn't comply and he gets shot. Then good citizen number 2 comes around the corner and yells, "stop, put down your gun." Good citizen number one complies and then he and good citizen number two chat and wait for the police to arrive.

Andy, Wing and a prayer has worked pretty well for me so far. How about we raise tuition to pay for all the metal detectors and armed guards? No? How about we raise state taxes to pay for the metal detectors and armed guards? No? How about we drop a few degree programs to pay for the detectors and armed guards? No? How about we trust the majority of the students, faculty, and staff to not bring their guns on campus? Sounds good to me.

Well the state just paid $11 million to the victims families and 48 more lawsuits have been filed. Maybe we should be preemptive and install metal detectors at taxpayer expense so that we won't have to pay for another multi million dollar settlement if another shooting happens. Or we could allow students with permits to carry (at no cost to the taxpayer) and see if that might save some lives.

Jonathan, you are doing a good job thinking of all these possibilities. Now all you have to do is think of some possible common sense solutions like the one I expressed below and then start educating others. Perhaps Tech should play a larger role in public safety. Maybe they should partner with the NRA, or any number of other groups that are expert in gun safety. Those are the people we should be talking to and working with, not the folks that flately dismiss concealed carry as a viable solution based on ignorance.

Andy, Yep, your turn of events is possible too. So is John's. So which possibility are we willing to ignore? What is the acceptable body count?

Jonathan Reid: you asked in a previous post "What am I missing?" and I think that it's the perspective of a woman. I weigh 120lbs. I am 5'5". I have never taken any karate classes or anything like that. What am I supposed to do if approached by a rapist? When faced with a criminal who is high on drugs or just crazy, my measly can of pepper spray won't save my life. When attacked by someone, attaching myself to them with a Taser won't save my life. What do YOU suggest I do, Jonathan? Maybe you don't fear for your life enough to protect it with a firearm, but I'm probably half your size. I agree with you that I don't want people carrying firearms for the wrong reasons. But in the hands of a licensed individual who has gone through the training and probably taken a defensive firearm course, I think it could benefit our campus greatly.

Notice that Jonathan Reid conveniently ignored my challenge to provide statistical evidence that concealed carry is a problem. Keep on coming with the "What if's", they never get old. BTW, the Constitution says "keep and bear". Bear means carry.

Jonathan, the problem with your plan is that every now and then many innocents will die in a horrific tragedy and although it is acceptable to you, I cannot agree. John Flanagan, haha. I am not sure what they would talk about. Probably would be in shock. I would probably talk about how glad I was that the killer/crazy was stopped prematurely and innocent lives were saved. Jonathan Reid would probably stand around cursing the concealed carriers while crying for the death or wounding of a killer. That is all I know.

Everyone, avoid the "what-if" scenarios because it is impossible to address and only a trap. It's like saying "how do you avoid a car accident?" On that note, Jonathan, do you wear your seatbelt? Own a fire extinguisher? Why? I think that should answer most of your questions. As for the "active shooter" incidents, one activity not listed for next week is to talk to Chief Flinchum about just that. So, stay tuned. Everyone, remember that those who want to carry on campus already carry everywhere else - so many points here are about carrying altogether and this debate is about WHERE not WHY. CCW has reduced crime and saves 1-2 million lives every year, and hence the WHY does not need to be addressed in this debate.

I posted this comment on another article recently, but just to reiterate. I am at the range most every weekend. If anyone would like to go to the range together sometime let me know. I am not sure how we can get in touch with each other. Perhaps through the SCCC?

I've got to admire Jonathan. He brings up plausible points for the most part, answerable points but good argument. Goes single handed against how many? Maybe he doesn't need a gun :^). Sorry Jonathan. We should go to the range sometime, you ever shoot skeet, my favorite.

This entire thread highlights the need for a public debate on this issue involving the entire community. an open forum for people on both sides of the issue to have their concerns addressed. How do we make that happen?

Jonathan Reid, are you a likely target for rape? Do you need a buddy to go for an evening jog. Do you have considerably less physical strength than the average criminal? Would a mugger think of you as an "easy target"? Without concealed carry, I as a woman must live in greater fear and danger than a man. I don't appreciate you feeling that your opinions are a valid reason to take away my freedom.

Alyson, you, I would allow to carry a concealed firearm on campus. As I would every other woman on campus. Why? Because women think with their brains and not their gonads. I can see many of the guys I have conversed with today as being a little to gung ho. And Andy, any death is tragic. I just want to know if your life is more valuable than mine or anyone elses. I'll take my chances with one crazed gunman over one crazed gunman and 300 wanna-be heros. Gentlemen and lady, I am going home. We can pick this back up Monday or just call it a draw. Your choice. I'll check in Monday morning.

One last thing. Will, I love a good debate. Set it up and I'll be there.

Posted by: Will Bulloss at 4:52 pm This entire thread highlights the need for a public debate on this issue involving the entire community. an open forum for people on both sides of the issue to have their concerns addressed. How do we make that happen? John says, I don't know but I can tell you I really hate this non-threaded format. It makes following a line of argument really difficult.

Hehe, I guess my 'respect for your decision' was a little to gung ho. I'll try to keep my gonads in check next time.

I just don't get the need for swimming pools. Plus, you never know, a young child might wander onto someones property with a pool and drown. Unlike concealed carry, pools actually result in many deaths in America. Lets restrict pool ownership. Where in the Constitution does it protect pool usage?

Ken raises a good point. The issue of concealed carry for students and faculty/staff at VT always gets clouded by the larger issue of concealed carry in general. As long as concealed carry is allowed in the state of VA by licensed permit holders, it makes absolutely no sense to disallow those permit holders who are part of the VT community from carrying on campus.

Mr. Reid, 'my bullet' never had rights in the first place. It's an object, and objects don't have rights. Guns, to that extent, don't have rights. But gun owners (and I suppose by extension, bullet owners too) do have rights, and those rights exist everywhere else in Virginia except on the campuses of its public Universities. I'm at a loss, personally, as to why this is. On an unrelated note, why exactly should the vehemence with which one makes his argument be a factor in determining whether or not he is capable of intelligently and carefully wielding a firearm? It's like saying that people who vehemently defend their right to vote ought not be able to vote, because they can't control their thoughts. . .

For the record, the full title of the article as printed is "Take advantage of firearms education and inform yourself"

Kyle, the right to carry guns also does not exist at public high schools, public court houses, the public capitol. Not to muddy the debate, but should an 18-year-old high school student be allowed to carry at a public high school? I tend to think CCW should be allowed on campuses, but I want to dispel the notion that custodians of public locations don't have tremendous flexibility (too much?) in limiting your rights - gun carry, speech, search/seizure - on taxpayer property.

You raise a good point - and it's a difficult point to tackle, because of the complexities involved. It seems to me, though, that the issue of concealed carry is one fundamentally of protection. The police can't be everywhere at once, so people who want to carry concealed weapons do so in order to protect themselves when the police simply can't be present. To that end, it makes sense in a way to say that guns are 'unnecessary' in public places like legislative chambers, court houses, and things of that nature because there is a hefty police presence there by default (stationed explicitly for the protection of the people working in those places). Public high schools are a little more challenging, because some of them have high levels of police involvement and others do not (my high school had, I believe, two security officers - for nearly 3000 children!). So I'm inclined to say yeah, in neighborhoods where the crime rate is high, let an individual (be it student, teacher, or anyone else) who has undergone the appropriate level of training and has demonstrated therein the appropriate level of respect for and control of firearms the ability to grant himself that extra degree of protection. The point is necessity - there are police everywhere in a courthouse, and there aren't in your high school.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, an 18-year-old would not be allowed to carry. You must be at least 21 years old to possess a handgun, and you must be at least 21 to apply for a Concealed Carry Permit. Also, these public places such as state and federal buildings, courthouses, and nowadays most high schools have active enforcement of their gun restrictions (i.e. metal detectors and security officers at every door).

The issue of active vs. passive enforcement is an interesting one, Will. What we have at VT is 'passive enforcement' of the no-gun policy - since we don't have metal detectors and the police don't shake down individuals as they cross the drillfield or enter their classrooms, the rule can only be enforced when people willingly display their guns for all to see. It's simply assumed that students and faculty here don't carry. This is one of the reasons why there is such a push to allow concealed carry on campus in the first place - because you can't simply assume that people will always play by the rules. Either you need to have active enforcement - metal detectors, police shakedowns, etc. - or you need to realize that rules aren't always followed, and allow individuals to take precautions as necessary to defend themselves against potential violations.

Actually, Will, you have to be 21 to PURCHASE but can openly carry at 18. It is so incredibly rare, though, that it might as well not be allowed.

First off, let me appoligze for my statement on Friday concerning the differences between the thought processes of men and women. The statement tends to lump all men into one catagory and that was wrong. You have to admit though that a person who carries and goes looking for trouble when it is unnecessary (ie confronting teens at a storage building). Why not simply call the police in this situation? If you want to carry a gun as your duty to protect others, then join the police dept. Blacksburg Police are hiring right now.

The fact that some people are already carrying concealed weapons on campus is no reason to get the rule changed. Breaking one rule to keep others from breaking another rule is not right.

The solution to illegal guns on campus is not the addition of legal CCH guns on campus. That's like saying the solution to a house on fire is add more fire.

I think your analogy is flawed, Jonathan. CCH guns are a preventative measure - not an outright source of trouble. More precisely, you can't really connect gun violence to the presence of CCH guns in a particular vicinity because the statistics seem to indicate no correlation - gun violence doesn't increase with CCW permits, but it doesn't decrease much either. Your analogy requires an active problem - ie, if there were a large gunfight going on, throwing more people with guns into the mix likely would not help the situation much. But the difference here is that guns are used, by CCW permit holders, in order to provide for their own individual defense. It isn't really a gunfight, per se, if only one man is doing the shooting (as in the case of campus shootings). What I don't really understand is how you reconcile your position, which seems to be that you don't mind concealed carry in general, but you really don't want it on campus - how is it that the campus environment seems, to you, to be infinitely more safe than society in general?

The solution to fire sometimes IS adding more fire. When fighting forest fires, a firebreak is often created by doing a control burn. An area is purposefully set on fire to save hopefully stop the oncoming inferno. So you can fight fire with fire. But enough of these cliches and metaphors. The bottom line is that President Steiger admitted that even after all the security changes there is no way to stop a crazy person from carrying out another attack. Quoting: "the bottom line is, and you hate to come to this conclusion, but if you have a student who is willing to take their own life, I don't know what defense you can have." The only defense we currently have is relying on the police response. Why should students be forced to wait minutes when they need help RIGHT NOW. It took Tech police 8 minutes to breach the doors to Norris – Cho was able to fire 170 shots during that time. Finally, the supreme court has ruled that the police have not duty to protect the individual (Castle Rock vs. Gonzales). "To protect and serve" is a nice motto but that's all it is - a motto. The individual is responsible for their own safety. Students should be allowed to provide for their own protection by legally carrying firearms. This will be my last post in this debate. We have different viewpoints on this issue, and I don't see either of us coming to an agreement.

Kyle, Mark Twain said "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Statistics do not impress me and never have. Show me the raw data that these statistics are been calculated from and I can make them support any arguement.

Chris, in the case of a firebreak, the firefighters are not fighting fire with fire. Instead they are denying the main fire fuel to continue spreading. Using your analogy, we should take guns away from everybody to prevent the spread of violence.

Believe me, I know that statistics can be used to illustrate any point you want them to illustrate. But that having been said, "I have a gut feeling that more guns won't help" isn't exactly intellectually compelling as an argument either. . . my point is that your argument seems to be predicated on a fear of potential abuses, when those abuses tend to be carried out by people who flagrantly violate the law anyway. It is inane to think that the fact that our campus has a no-carry policy simply means that no danger exists - VT isn't an isle of paradise, where everyone treats everyone else with profound respect and nobody would think of breaking the rules. It's part of the real world - and in the real world, there are real dangers.

Chris - the point of discussion isn't to convince the other person that you are right (you rarely, if ever, will be successful in that end). The point is to encourage your opponent, and everyone else party to the discussion, to THINK about their individual positions and come to a more rational, supported conclusion.

Kyle, I realize that there is danger where one goes but you have to admit that there is a greater chance of gunplay when more guns are added to the mix, legal or otherwise. The question is not the reality of the danger but the probablity of the danger. How probable is it that we have another Cho on campus? As the number of guns on campus rises, so does the potential for abuse. Not fear, logic.

And as the number of people on campus rises, so does the potential for violence, gun-led or otherwise. But even so, we're still dealing with hypothetical - yes, the potential increases because there are more tools available. . . but it remains to be proven that such potential will ever be realized. Keep in mind, here, the discussion isn't about giving everyone a gun and telling them to carry it around - it's about allowing people who have undergone the appropriate training to do exactly what they do everywhere else. I mean, there is fundamentally no difference whatsoever in the safety level on campus and the safety level just off campus - and yet you don't seem to have a problem with CCH carrying off campus. It's just a little tough for me to understand where you are coming from, because your opinions seem to conflict a little bit - it seems like your attitude is that guns ought to be allowed in other places, but simply not on campus . . .but you fail to make the distinction as to why campus is an invalid place to carry while the rest of the world in general is OK.

Yes, the potential for violence increases but who does that effect more? People like me that acknowledge the possibility of violence or people that carry handguns waiting for the violence to occur. I don't feel the need to arm myself against the small possibility. It's more stress than I need to deal with. Maybe you like the added stress of having to be responsible for the lives of those around you. Or are you just carrying that gun for the gotcha value. It's all a matter of mindset. I choose to acknowledge the possibility of violence but not let it rule my day to day decisions. You choose to acknowledge that possible violence and decide to take an active part of it.

Jonathan, you are putting words into Kyle's mouth. He never says whether he plans to carry, just that he believes that it should be an individual decision. Please answer this question. Do you believe that VT, a public university on public land, in a state where concealed and open carry are not prohibited by law on public university campuses, should be allowed to take disciplinary action against students and faculty/staff with CCW permits who are found to be carrying concealed weapons on campus? If so, I implore you, why?

People that carry handguns aren't 'waiting for violence to occur.' If you ask a CHP holder, they will say that they hope they never have to use their firearm away from the range. Back to the seatbelt, there's a small chance that I'll get into a car accident. I choose to use a seatbelt and airbags to protect myself against that small possibility. Once again, we're coming back to your need. You don't feel the need, I do. Why should your needs control mine? I may never carry a firearm in my life, but why shouldn't I have the ability to do so at VT, especially when it's a state and federally recognized and permitted activity? How is VT different from the grocery store?

Everyone: It doesn't seem to me that Jonathan R. is only against CC on campus, but in general. (correct me if im wrong Jonathan) Jonathan: This increase in the number of civilians allowed to carry a firearm concealed all over the US has correlated to a decrease in crime. No shootouts in the streets, etc, etc. CHP holders are one of the most law abiding sects of society (more law abiding than the police, who it appears you trust not to hastily use their weapons), so I would say there are very, very few who shouldn't have a permit and do anyway. I have a friend who doesn't feel that it is necessary to drive to work everyday. Most of the time he rides his bicycle. The kicker, he lives in Blacksburg and works in Salem (the ride takes between 1.25 and 1.5 hours). He doesn't push for legislation that would stop you or anyone else from driving to work even though you driving to work does hurt him (pollution, road congestion, higher gas cost).

Thanks, Jason - I prefer to respond quickly, but I was in algebra class learning about field theory and algebraic closures. Jonathan, I actually don't own a gun. I don't plan on owning a gun. The world is a dangerous place, but I like you find that there are other ways for me to protect myself. However, not everyone is so trusting in the rest of society as I am - and I don't want to hamstring other people by saying, effectively, that they don't have a right to protect themselves from the dangers that do exist. The whole point of the concealed handgun permit is so that you don't actually know who does and does not have a gun - and that fact generally stays hidden unless the situation warrants some sort of intervention. It's great that you don't feel the need to carry - I'm right there with you! But what is not so great is that you seem to think that other people are, for lack of a better term, just plain silly if they want to carry. It's not so cut-and-dry an issue as that.

And I wouldnt say its so unlikely that you will never be in the vicinity of a violent crime. It is estimated that 1 in 4 Americans will be victim of or witness to a violent crime during their lifetime.

Kyle, just imagine how much harder your class would be if Galois hadn't been a victim of gun violence...

For the sake of clarification, my last comment is a joke. Had Galois, one of the most brilliant mathematicians of all time, not been gunned down in a duel at such a young age, who knows what additional rigors math students today would be subjected to while learning a full career's worth of his work, rather than just a few years' worth.

True enough! However, Galois was more a victim of his own outspoken manner - had he not pissed so many people off, he never would have been challenged to the duel which eventually cost him his life!

It really doesn't matter why the administration at VT does not allow guns on campus. The fact is that they do. This was not hidden from anyone applying to study or work here at Tech. This was not suddenly decided. It has been the rule for as long as I can remember. Given that fact, how can you now say that VT should allow guns on campus? The rules are clear and should apply to all, not just those who do and do not have a CC permit. I know a number of people that are responsible enough to carry a gun in public but do not own a CC permit. Why not allow them also to carry on campus. Once we used to be able to buy and consume alcohol on campus at campus run pubs. Those days are long gone.

So now your argument is that we shouldn't be discussing this in the first place because 'policy is policy?' That's a bit bogus - the reason we are discussing this is because many people believe that the policy NEEDS to be changed. The debate isn't about giving people a pass when they violate the rules; it is about CHANGING the rules to make more sense and abridge fewer freedoms. I'm not sure I understand your point about open carry - I'm not an expert of VA's gun laws, but it seems to me that open carry ought to be allowed as well so long as it is done within the context of the laws governing our state. The point regarding alcohol consumption is a straw man . . .

And by straw man, I meant red herring. I always get those silly names for fallacies confused. . .

Open carry is legally allowed basically everywhere in Va, even on the public universities such as VT and in business with an ABC license. Localities cannot make laws or rules in contradiction or more strict with the state law (not true in all circumstances, it is specifically written in the va law that localities can only govern the discharge of firearms). What has been going on in Boons Mill recently is a good example. They've tried banning guns in their town hall. Why is the VT administration any different than other bodies governing localities? (aside from the fact that they are not elected which IMO means they should have less legislative power than a local govt)

And Jonathan those people who are responsible enough can get a permit to carry concealed and do so if they so desire.

The VT policy is legal, I believe, because it is not, in fact, a law. Think about the VT policy as a 'management has the right to refuse service to people carrying guns' sort of thing. It doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense, and it VT were a private institution I'd say they are entitled to that sort of policy. But it is a public school, payed for with public monies, and so it is effectively public land. . .

I wasn't saying that the VT policy is not legal. I was stating the law of VA as your previous post said you weren't an expert. I was then asking why should the VT administration be treated differently than a local government in what they are legally allowed to do. Sorry for the confusion. And I agree, a private university may do as they wish.

The arguments here are mainly circular. Jonathan, can you make a solid argument as to why concealed carry should NOT be allowed on campus? Seeing as the people who would carry on campus already carry off campus with no problems, and those who seek higher education are MORE responsible and safer than those who don't (evidenced by insurance companies giving discounts to students with good grades and who earn a degree - and you know they aren't loosing money to "bad stats"), how can you argue that upperclassmen, grad students, faculty, and staff should be denied their right to self-defense? Guys and gals, enough on the defense, make Jonathan defend his point.

Ok, lets try this. CCH should not be allowed on campus simply because there is no REAL reason for it. Most of the people wishing to carry on campus seem to be going on a "just-in-case" attitude. I argue that "just-in-case" is not a good enough reason if my arguement of "what if" is not seen as a valid reason to not have guns on campus. The points that I have made for accidental shootings are just as possible as an armed attack on individuals. If you add the increased possibility of accidental shootings to the possibility of attacks on individuals together you have increased the possibility of gun violence on campus. The population on Tech campus is not being denied the right to self defense. There are plenty of other proactive ways to defend yourself besides carrying a gun. Carrying a gun does not make you safer, it just makes you feel safer.

But why, exactly, is campus so much safer than the 'real world?' There is as much police presence on campus, generally, as there is generally in Blacksburg - and yet concealed carry is allowed off campus. And Jonathan, you seem to not be opposed to those who carry off campus. It seems to me that your contention is more along the lines of "when it comes to safety, my desire to feel safe trumps other people's desire to feel safe, and since guns make me feel unsafe generally, they ought not be allowed on campus." Which is fine - until you are starring down the barrel of a gun yourself, and your only recourse is to pray that the gunman doesn't pull the trigger.

I think, Jonathan, your contention is reasonable IF you feel that it extends to society as a whole - ie, since people who carry concealed in general do so as a 'just in case' precaution, why make the distinction between campus and the world in general?

I make the distinction because as a University, one would hope that we can solve our problems without having to resort to the lowest common denominator of fighting violence with more violence. More guns on campus to address the issue of guns on campus is an easy, non-thinking solution that does not solve the problem. Someone has to stand up and say "Enough is enough". I choose to be that person. If I am killed by a gunman because I choose not to perpetuate the "Way of the Gun", then so be it. Less people with guns on campus means less chances to face that possibility. Why not have one community in the world that says guns are not the answer? There is a time and place for carrying guns. Now is not the time and VT is not the place.

ONE person took 32 lives last April. Can you really say that ALL of the ~28,000 students, 1,000 or so faculty, staff, and admins, and everyone else who can freely wander onto campus would be reached by "enough is enough" or another message of peace? If ONE person doesn't get that message... Not to mention that there are other serious crimes going on, on and around campus. Jonathan, again, no one is telling YOU that you have to carry, so don't. But I still don't see in your argument where you effectively show that others shouldn't be able to. If accidents were really prevalent, I would agree with you, but a holstered firearm can NOT "go off" and that's where a firearm stays when carrying - holstered. And if you don't believe in "just in case" then don't wear your seatbelt and throw out your fire extinguisher.

Jonathan....you haven't made any compelling arguement. All you do is say VT is not the place to allow guns blah blah blah. Why do you just say what you really think? Where is the correct time and place to carry a gun? Why shouldn't it be now and why shouldn't it be at VT or any other gun free zone for that matter where innocent people are casually slaughtered by psychopaths?

I'm getting back to this point a little late but the topic seems to be wandering back to the duty of the police anyway. Posted by: Jonathan Reid at Apr 18 "John F., Is it your opinion that the police only protect the public if and when they wish to? That seems to me to be a very disrespectful attitude." It is not a matter of disrespect, it is a matter of law. Please see Warren v. District of Columbia. The police are NOT responsible for protecting the individual citizen. Providing such protection is up to the individual who is threatened; it is not the function of the police.

It is clear to me that if Jonathan Reid or others of his mindset were in charge of this country, with no opposition, we all would have been killed or enslaved by now. People like Jonathan don't have the guts to stand up for their own safety or for what is right, but instead of being American and letting others do as they please so long as they don't hurt him, he would like to force all of us to comply with his wishes.

Jonathan, you have stated a belief that we, as a university community, should hold ourselves to a higher standard and find an alternate solution. Yet the VT administration does exactly the opposite. They treat VT employees and students like irresponsible children who shouldn't be trusted with weapons. They are holding everyone to a lower standard by mandating a penalty for carrying that extends beyond the VA law.

Andy, I am forcing no one to comply with anything. I am asking that cooler heads prevail. You, on the other hand, seem to be more than willing to force your opinion on me. I am more than willing to stand up for my own safety and you can rest assured that when the "bad guys" come to enslave us, I'll be more than willing to take an honor guard with me to the afterlife. As for what is right, why not form an armed militia to patrol the campus. After all, that's basically what is says in the Constitution. Stop living in fear and just start living.

Jason, when you go into the work force after graduation, how many companies do you think are out there that will allow you to carry a weapon while on company property? One of the goals of a higher education is to get the individual ready to face life in the "real" world. College is not the "real" world. None of the companies I have worked for in the past allowed their employees to carry weapons while at work. Where they being treated like "irresponsible children"?

You would make a great politician Jonathan......just spin everything without saying much. You have stated that you fully support VT ban. This does not mean that you are forcing anyone to comply, but VT is attempting to force compliance. I am assuming that if you were in charge we would be subject to similar regulations. Please correct this assumption if I am wrong. I on the other hand simply wish to have an individual ability to carry. I would not force anyone to carry a gun if they don't want to, where do you get that idea?

I know Jason T can speak for himself, but I had chime in. Private companies are usually built on private property. Your arguement here is completely irrelevant. Just because many private companies have policies banning their employees from carrying guns to work doesn't make them right. Here is one for you, federal postal employees can carry on the job. Wonder why that is Jonathan?

Andy, thank you. Another big difference, Jonathan, is that Joe Permitholder who doesn't study or work at VT can carry all over campus - open without a permit, or concealed with a permit - yet VT folks can't. THAT casts the VT community as less responsible than the general public. In contrast, gun bans on private property are universal; they apply to EVERYONE on that property, employee or guest. All are held to the same standard. Big difference.

Andy, it's fairly clear to me that this elitist communist will never be able to convince you of anything. Federal postal employees are allowed to carry on the job so that they do not have to retrieve their firearm from their car when their supervisor ticks them off. I guess you'll be applying for a position with USPS soon. Just so you know, I've already won this arguement, you just realized it yet.

Jason, the solution is simple. If you want to carry a gun on campus, drop out of VT or quit your job here. You can then walk around campus to your hearts content, carrying your gun, feeling as safe as kittens. As I have said to Andy, I've already won this arguement, you just don't realize it yet.

No sir, I will be right here until Tech's illegal ban no longer exists. Jonathan since the beginning of this thread I haven't seen any additional posts supporting your way of thinking, it seems everyone is in support of concealed carry on campus. What have you won?

Jonathan seems to think that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only to militias, as evidenced by his militia statement. The whole point of concealed carry is INDIVIDUAL protection, because nobody else is responsible for your safety- not a militia, and not the police (Warren vs. District of Columbia). The "enough is enough" and "just stop the violence" arguments are a moot point- it sounds pretty and shows your commitment to nonviolence, but it does nothing to stop the fact that crimes DO happen. I carry daily, and I abhor violence- I just recognize that crime is a reality of life, and I want to be prepared for that reality. We have spare tires and airbags in our cars because we want to be prepared for the reality that car accidents can happen. Simply saying that you want accidents to stop, does nothing to change that.

Andy, I have won the freedom to live my life without expecting someone to jump out and attack me if I let my guard down while I'm on campus. I have won the freedom to interact with the majority of humanity without fearing they mean to do me harm. I have won freedom from having a small piece of metal and plastic dictate if I am safe or not. In other words, I have freed myself from the enslavement of fear that perpetuates American society today. I think the reason you see no one else here on this page is because others are afraid to speak out for fear they may be targeted for attack. That seems to be the modus oprendi of the vocal minority. Me, I'm not afraid of any of you guy's, packing or not.

James, I am far from nonviolent. I'm just more realistic about it than most of the people here. Yeah, violent crimes do happen every day. I just don't seem to dwell on it like some do. I cannot imagine the mind numbing, paralyzing fear that a CCH permit holder feels every time they set foot on campus without their gun.

Concealed carry permit holders fill out forms, submit finger prints, have id issued, etc. Yeah this sounds to me like the group to thugs you make them out to be. And concealed carriers must be the dumbest of criminals since they already have finger prints on record with law enforcement. Your ascertion that you or others that "speak out" may be in danger of attack from CCW permit holders is ridiculous. Maybe you also think Mother Theresa created HIV to kill millions. Jonathan, say what you will but I don't fear much either. I don't fear individuals carrying guns unless that individual has committed violent acts in the past. So basically I walk around all day much like you do. Easy going. I guess the fear will kick in when I am confronted by a Cho or other criminal. Then comes flight or fight response. Then I either get out or fight the best I can. You know what, if I die at least I won't have died as a helpless victim. I know life is short enough as it is, way too short for the slain victims and I will work to help others understand that they don't have to be helpless while some attacker lops 50 years off their lifespan.

Jonathan, ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't make you right. This is not a situation where every day you are not harmed you can say "I told you so" to everyone who takes an active role to assure their protection. Everyone's circumstance is different, and the way that each person reacts to their circumstances is different. Those who carry are not paranoid slaves to their guns and society, as you choose to portray them. I am glad that you are content with your decision, and that is the point: to allow individuals to make their own decisions concerning their own safety. You have done this, and I applaud you; but for you to say that you have won the argument is false.

Andy, I must commend you for making my point for me. Nice attack. You may not fear much but you obviously fear more than I.

Where is the alleged attack Jonathan?

to retort to all everything Jonathan Reid has been saying: if you don't feel that your life is worth protecting, tell me what is? CHP holders have come to a realization that the only person on this god given earth who is responsible to protect you is yourself. why does my choice to carry scare you? i have never harmed anyone with my gun as i am sure you haven't with yours. that goes for all CHP holders. can you say that about Cho? why aren't you scared about those who dont have a CHP and want to do harm to you? im not telling you that you should start carrying a gun right away, just please respect our choice to. i feel that my life is worth protecting with a gun.

Jason, You and I both interact with this campus every day. There must be something here that scares you so much you feel the need to arm yourself against it. When you allow your fear to control your actions, you are a slave to that fear. It might be wise to remove yourself from having to live with that fear every day. The gun does not make you safe, it just give you as false sense of security. The cause of the fear is still there, waiting.

So calling me a helpless victim was a term of endearment?

Ok, as I suspected you continue with your antics. Everyone else will note the context in which that language was used.

Brandon, your choice to carry doesn't scare me but it should scare you. What are you so afraid of that you feel the need to carry a gun?

have you picked up a paper lately? was April 16th a wake up call? ever watch the news recently. the world is a scary place. the reason i carry a gun with me is the same reason i wear a seatbelt. never really want it until you need it!

have you picked up a paper lately? was April 16th a wake up call? ever watch the news recently. the world is a scary place. the reason i carry a gun with me is the same reason i wear a seatbelt. never really want it until you need it!

Correct me if I'm wrong, Jonathan, but your stance seems to be that there is no reason to be afraid on campus, and consequently individuals don't need to take any real precautions to defend themselves. Further, you seem to believe that people who DO take an active role in protecting themselves (and that is not limited to carrying a gun) only serve to increase the level of unjustified paranoia. You conclude by implying that the only rational course of action is to continue preventing guns from being carried on campus, since there is no reason to be afraid and gun carriers must by definition be afraid of something which does not exist.

But you don't seem to allow for the possibility that gun carriers in general are NOT fearful people, and instead prefer to provide for their own defense in the event that it should be needed. The assumption that people who carry NECESSARILY want to experience a situation where they NEED to use their weapon is unfounded, in my opinion - carriers do so as a matter of ability rather than expectation. Just like you don't wear your seatbelt in your car ONLY when you expect to get into an accident, gun carriers don't carry out of an explicit desire to utilize their precautionary measure. The fact that you feel safe here is wonderful - unfortunately, not everyone feels quite so safe. Since we don't have the ability to simply prevent people from coming on to campus, it cannot be isolated from the 'real world' and consequently people need to be capable of defending themselves by whatever legal means they see fit. Guns are legal, concealed carry is legal - and an asinine policy prevents individuals from making their own decisions regarding their own safety.

It isn't a question of fear - it's a question of preparedness. Gun holders are no more fearful of society than anyone else, as a whole group. The principle behind carrying a gun is no different than the self-defense principle which leads people to study martial arts. They constitute different means to the same end.

I don't want to detract from Kyle's post, but I just want to clarify that "being afraid" and "being aware that a possibility exists" are two different things. Jonathan, clearly the possibility of being a victim of a violent crime exists on campus. We learned a hard lesson about what happens when there is no contingency plan. To live in fear of this happening is not the same as to prepare oneself in case it happens. As an aside, you still have yet to give a reason why it makes rational sense that everyone except VT students, faculty, and staff can legally carry openly and/or concealed at VT with a permit.

This argument has been reduced to one of paranoia and fear. Jonathan, if you feel you're invincible and do not fear anything, then do as I said - don't wear your seat belt and throw out your fire extinguishers. Your insults are really reducing your argument to nothing.

Johnathan Reid really went off the deep end here. I have yet to see him make one single convincing argument that others who legally can carry elsewhere should not be able to carry on campus. Instead he spouts his bunnies and lollipops rhetoric like the VT campus is some safe haven untouchable by any crime (4-16 ring a bell einstein). If you don't find it necessary to carry fine, no one is saying you have to. It is quite clear to everyone here that your argument is bogus, yet you claim victory? LOL Keep covering your eyes and ears and ignoring the violence around you, great, I am happy for you. You are more than welcome to try negotiate with the psychopath who wants to blow your brains out and see if you can get him to stop. But don't make me rely on talking a madman, who is set on killing as many people as possible, out of doing so. People don't carry out of fear, they carry out of personal responsibility and in acknowledgment of the fact that we live in a violent world.

& bass alongside some gorgeous dubstep excursions. The four tracks stormed all of the major download charts. In particular Phetsta’s
moncler outlet store http://www.moncleroutletstore.eu/

This is one awesome blog.Really thank you! Great.
nike shox nz http://www.2013nikeshoxnz.com/

Please let me know if you’re looking for a article author for your blog. You have some really good articles and I think I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d really like to write some material for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please shoot me an e-mail if interested. Thank you!