Collegiate Times

Note to Larry Hincker: The right to bear arms is the hallmark of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution. I find it terribly offensive that you and the administration deprive law abiding students and faculty of this right.

I hope that Larry Hincker really means, "I'm obligated to say that this is offensive because my hands are tied by Steger and the BOV and my job is just to spout the party line."

To Jessica Schmale: So, I'm assuming you and most of the people you refer to also wouldn't go to Wal-Mart, Kroger, walk down the street, or go anywhere else I may go cause I always conceal carry off of campus. I can name atleast 15 other people that do too (some students, some not). Conceal Carry permit holders are just average, ordinary people and you probably have passed by a few and not even known it. What makes sitting in a class any different? Its the same thing! Its the same thing as sitting at the laundry mat, sitting in a doctors office, or anywhere else sitting may be involved. Your arguement is pointless

One would think Larry Hincker is referring to someone who made an illegal gun sale to Cho. He is offended! Being offended that "the gun-seller....set foot on this campus" is immature. This licensed gun dealer followed the law of the land and the system failed all of us, if you will. The system first failed us when crazy Cho was able to buy a gun legally. Then Tech's incredible safety measure banning guns on campus failed us since there is no active screening for guns thus leaving us all at the mercy of a killer like Cho. As we continue on this same path we will pony up (excuse my language) a number of dead classmates from time to time. While the administration of VT ponders their unfounded contempt, we remain unsafe. And by the way, this whole mentality (and Attorney General opion) that VT is responsible for facutly/staff/student safety and therefore can regulate firearms on campus is very dangerous. There is no difference between giving up our right to proper self defense on this campus to university, and giving up our right to self defense to the state, should they ever decide to try to convince us that we don't need our guns to provide for our defense.

Not that it would have anything to do with anything but Jessi Schmale is President of the College Democrats.....pushin the liberal agenda

Liberals are the most clueless drama queens in the entire world.

"Tech currently has a policy against any presence of guns on campus." Absolutely incorrect! Every cop carries one. And when the badness happens, who are you going to call? The cops, with their guns. The day that we deem campus safe enough for the cops to be disarmed, then I'll have an ounce of respect for the administration who so arrogantly thinks that all non-law enforcement officers are incapable of self-defense.

When I read the comments of Larry Hincker, I initially laughed because I thought it was a joke. Sadly, I way mistaken. I still firmly beleive that if VT had allowed students with the legal right to carry their weapons on campus, that this could have either been prevented, or ended a whole lot sooner with a lower casualty toll. What I do know is that I always feel safer in settings where I know people are legally armed, and that in most cases, those people have as much or more training that our police forces. Case in point are gun shows...there is likely no safer place in the U.S. to be than at a gun show. WHen was there ever a shooting at one? I've never heard of one. But a "Gun-Free" school? How many people have lost their lives in places that have this supposed wall of security around them?

Jonathan McGlumpy, it's not just police officers, though. The policy only extends to faculty, staff, and students. Any citizen not affiliated with the university can openly carry without a permit or concealed carry with a permit on the campus.

To those throwing comments towards Ms. Schmale - what this article doesn't show is that after the speech, she stayed for 30-40 minutes to engage with SCCC members. She was 100% respectful and willing to listen, and is quite open-minded, really. Please don't disrespect her, the simple quotes from the article don't show her true character. On that note, I believe 3 or 4 others who were against guns or neutral stayed after to chat with us, and they were very nice people. As I've said time and again, many of us were anti-gun at one point - be patient and share your views, and give people time to consider and make their own decisions -- for one to hear both sides of an argument and make a truly educated decision is the best we can ask for in this world, no matter which side they choose.

Pretty good business plan to sell guns to the crazies and then advocate the rest of us buy guns to protect ourselves from the crazies.

Hincker needs to get a clue...Cho killed 32 people, not Eric Thompson. He is trying to PREVENT that from happening again.

What are you neo-cons going to do when your future employer denies you the right to bring your handgun into meetings with clients? Who are you going to protest to then? This is a university and should be maintained as one of the last vestiges of peace.

All I want to know is how many people out there advocating carrying handguns are fantasizing about being the hero? About taking a human life inside the framework of the law? How does the scenario play out in your head... a gunman walks in, you stand up, draw your gun and take him out. Behind you another responder does the same, you pause, is he a conspirator, he's got his gun drawn, you fire first and ask questions later. Since everybody in the classroom now has guns who is the moral authority? The professor with the sawed off?

Comments like some of the more recent are why I'm glad to be out of the mushy-minded realm of Academia and into the real world. If my employer prohibits my legal right to carry a weapon, then I'll likely look for a different employer or perhaps start my own business. That’s called finding an acceptable solution to an issue I disagree with. Speaking of real-world situations, how many people heard about the Pizza Hut delivery driver who had to use his own weapon to defend himself in a robbery? He was on a delivery when a gun was put to his head at the delivery address. He pulled his gun out and got 3 shots off to save his life. Pizza Hut said they disapproved of his protecting himself and fired him, since they prohibit drivers from carrying, even if they are legally permitted to do so. Considering how many delivery drivers get shot, that’s a ridiculous policy, and I will vote with my wallet and not buy from Pizza Hut to show my disapproval with them.

Lets sell lots of discounted guns to students leaving a high possibility of someone slipping through the correct procedures and end up with another wacko getting a gun. Great idea Mr. Thompson, way to come to campus out of respect and then use it as a business ploy to sell weapons and possibly bring danger to this campus again.

To Rob L. Concealed carry is not about being Rambo, or being the hero. Concealed carry is about self preservation and if need be, preserving the life of others. This is about allowing those with CCWs the right to carry on campus because it is their given right almost anywhere else. A public campus is a public place. It is barely under anymore supervision than the rest of society by the security installed on a campus (LEOs, cameras, door locks etc). This is not about a bunch of Rambos with itchy trigger fingers. It is about honest, law abiding citizens and their legal rights as legal CCWers to protect THEIR lives, and if need be, the rights of others.

What has Thompson done to prevent the next Cho from getting a gun through his company? Nothing. In fact, he prides himself on NOT screening his customers, no matter how irrational they sound on the phone. Contrast this to the positive voluntary steps recently taken by Walmart (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/partnership/partnership.shtml). Thompson is well aware that the federal background check database is missing millions of disqualifying records, but he has done nothing to call attention to that fact or to lobby the states to submit those records to NICS. One thing you can be sure of with Thompson - he will continue to arm both the insane and the law-abiding and only the quickest draws on campus (or just those who get lucky) will remain standing when the smoke clears.

I found Ken Stanton's comments about patience and respect below very interesting. Just a week ago, he and other SCCC members were on the Facebook page for the Lie-In that was organized at VT attacking the friends and family members of the victims in vicious, and sometimes vulgar, language (the event was organized by the best friend of Nicole White). Check out The Wall on this page. The attacks began on March 22nd and continued right up until April 16: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=11796925587

I would like to point out to my newly minted gun carriers that the situation you prepare for will likely never occur, and if it does you have a better than even chance of freezing in horror - just like many of our angels. You simply can't be prepared for what you will experience. And in that moment you will need to shoot, or be shot, because a gun makes you the prime target. This is the voice of experience. You are taking a path that a good chance of slicing part of your soul. I suggest we all regroup and find ways to make the University community a place where sane people contribute, and people that don't want to be here - leave. I'm hoping that these can be the best days for you all - care for one another. Yours in peace, Robert

It isn't Thompson's job to screen his customers - it's the responsibility of the place where the buyer actually picks up the gun.

To 'On Respect' let me remind you that the reason the Lie-in was frowned upon was because of the time and location of which they chose to hold their protest. SCCC respectfully chose a different week to hold our events.

If someone gets killed by a car, do we blame the driver or the car maker?

If someone gets killed by a car, do we blame the driver or the car maker?

To the person named On Respect, maybe if you took time to read the ARTICLE and then Ken Stanton's comments you might see that he is asking for people to show respect to an anti-CC persons opinion. Ms Schmale was there to protest concealed carry yet he is asking that people respect her opinion. But I guess you were just all to eager to attack Ken Stanton and couldn't be bothered with actually reading the post he made could you?

Does anyone know if non-lethal weapons are permitted on campus? Can a taser legally be carried? In some respects a taser is dangerous...I think you only get one shot.

No, we wouldn't blame the automaker. Unless, of course, the automaker made a car that was intended to kill people, then it killed 32 people, and the owner of the company came on campus to let us know that he was going to sell as many more cars like that one at a discount to protect ourselves from the other people he had also sold that car to. I don't blame Thompson, but it was very disrespectful for him to turn this into a publicity opportunity. While not his fault that any of this happened, the respectful thing for him to do would have been to stay home and not visit the site that one of his guns was used to destroy.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the 22 was even used in any of the shootings. It was my understanding that the other weapon was used exclusively. If I am correct then no he did not sell the gun that was used to "destroy" this campus as you put it. Even if he did I don't see how it is a smack in the face to anyone. If he had come here on April 16th then you would have a point. *cough* Brady *cough*

Lethalweapon, I don't know the schools policy on such items. However I do know that tasers and mace are generally considered to be less lethal weapons. In some instances they can still cause death. For instance if someone with asthma gets maced it can (in rare cases) kill them.

to "On Respect" how much respect have we pro-carry people received from the anti gun groups. we have been heckled, talked over and been ignored more than once. we always have tried to show respect for the opposing opinions. almost all us in the SCCC lost someone on april 16. by the lie in being held on the anniversery struck strong nerves with us. we didnt feel that was the proper time for a demonstration like that. that's why some us us may have been very upset with that. you have to remember most of us in the SCCC are doing this becuase of friends we lost. point is simply that was very poor timing on Protest easy guns part. and by the way TGSCOM follows all laws concerning buying guns. the way his site works is kind of like a factory direct supplier that is available to the public. the guns are then shipped to LICSENSED dealers to perform the proper background checks.

To On Respect, Chris, and Rob L: Does it bother you that your only way of arguing is by distorting the facts, throwing mud, setting up straw men, and inventing scenarios that haven't been shown to mirror real life? Frankly, if that's all my arguments could amount to, I'd be a bit embarrassed to articulate them. You should take a cue from Miss Schmale, who was able to be reasoned, respectful, and respectable, despite being on what I consider to be the wrong side of the issue.

"The CDC found the top three causes of death among college-age young adults are accidents, homicides and suicides." (Pittsburgh Tribune Review) Add in guns, with the all too common practice on college campuses of alcohol abuse, along with the fact that the brain's frontal cortex area—which governs judgment, decision-making and impulse control—doesn't fully mature until around age 25 - and what do we think is going to happen? As a society, do we really want to encourage college kids to carry guns? How many of you college students have been at a party where things escalated to fighting - do you truly think having guns handy would help? And for the car metaphors - no we don't blame the automaker, but there's a reason we put limits on teenage driving, including driver's training with hours of practice and restricted driving times. Don't think that's currently part of the gun purchase process....

To Kenneth Miller--Please point out where in my post I made an arguement against CC. I can't find one. I stated, please don't assume this time or I'll be wasting my time, that I was mad that he started respectful and then turned to selling discounted firearms. I was upset that the visit turned into a business ploy, thats all don't read into it. Please never make baseless assumptions from my posts again thank you.

JS so you just proved the concealed carry point. There are already plenty of people with guns in and around Blacksburg. Yet there are no shootings at these parties with fights you are talking about are there? You are the one that says they are occurring. So I guess that means those with concealed carry permits are more responsible than you give them credit for. They keep there guns in a safe place and if they drink, they don't have a weapon on them. Surprise surprise, they follow the law, isn't it crazy how that works. Law abiding citizens who just want to have the ability to defend themselves following the law. There is a lot of responsibility involved in carrying a weapon and it is not a thing that a person takes lightly therefore people with concealed carry permits take a lot of precautions to ensure they do so safely.

I agree with the guy on mental health. But it's REALLY disrespectful that he would come to Tech. He sold the gun that killed Max, the gun that killed Reema, the gun that shot people who are still alive, still on campus. Not to mention that it's a conflict of interest--he's trying to sell guns arguably so that people will be safer from the guns he sold.

Nvp, my point was not to say no guns ever - just to consider the maturity of the group being solicited for gun sales. Yes, there are many mature college students, but there are more grappling with the whole concept of being an adult - and based on science, may not be developmentally ready to carry a gun. Probably not so many shootings currrently at college parties because most students don't have guns. Is Eric Thompson's motivation to allow guns on campus because he is so concerned with the welfare of the average college student or because, maybe - just maybe, he might make more money???

JS I respect your opinion but I disagree. It is a huge responsibility and financial investment to obtain a weapon and a concealed carry permit. I agree that there are some students who are irresponsible and probably shouldn't carry a weapon. That is exactly why no one is advocating that everyone carry a weapon around campus. I find it highly unlikely that these particular students would make the investment monetarily to carry a weapon. I also submit that if they have a history of alcohol abuse, underage drinking or public intox, they will not be getting a concealed carry permit from the state. Basically it comes down to this in my opinion. You either trust law abiding citizens who have proven to be trustworthy (no criminal record or history of mental instability) to carry responsibly. Or you put your trust in the criminals who have proven not to follow laws to see the no guns signs to turn around and stay off the campus. I would submit that they in fact would do the opposite because unarmed victims are a magnet for criminals. Police can't protect you 24/7 and law abiding citizens should have the ability to protect themselves.

If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words. Explain this and then you can tell me how its a guns fault and not the trigger pulling it. Concealed carry is a DEFENSIVE stance, not on the offense. We'll see how well words will help in a situation where there is a gun. Use your words to stop bullets, I dare you. If I conceal and I'm in a situation where myself or others are at risk because of somebody else... I'll reach for my hip...

John, I'm not sure the disrespect is so present. This man is a facilitator, technically - his responsibilities here are few. His job is to sell guns. The pawn shop that gave Cho his guns had the responsibility to run the appropriate background checks. The fact that the gun came from his shop isn't really relevant at all - and was not particularly relevant to the reason why he came here to give a talk.

I think we should sue General Motors because cars kill people and the background checks for the drunks who drive them should not have gotten a license. Sound stupid? So does the arguement to stop people from legally having guns.

To the individuals making the arguement that Thompson is either partly responsible, or should feel guilty, or should do whatever because a gun he sold LEGALLY was used in a crime, you need to grow up. If you have a problem with the legal age to purchase a rifle/shotgun (18) or the legal age to purchase a handgun (21) then take it up with your elected officials. Thompson was following the law, so if you have a problem it isn't with this man. As for the drunken fights that could end in gun violence, you have a point. I am sure gang members and other criminals kill each other while under the influence of all sorts of drugs. However, the law abiding concealed carry permit holding folks will likely follow the letter of the law as we know they already do. Carrying your concealed weapon legally (with a permit) and under the influence of alcohol or other drugs will get you arrested and your permit revoked. So there you have it, good law abiding people are not getting into a fight over a game of beer pong and killing their opponents. If this happened you can be sure it would be leading the news for a few days, anyone recall hearing any such stories? Didn't think so.

Found an interesting article on Thompson. An excerpt: "Sometimes you get calls that make you get kind of leery," [TGSCOM employee Alex Wallin] says. "You feel like, 'I don't know if they should have a gun or not.'" Wallin says that he's canceled a few transactions because of this unease - the customer doesn't speak English, or something else doesn't seem right. Thompson cuts him off with a rebuke. "We don't screen customers," he says. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns5mar05,0,938551.story Again, contrast Thompson's "I'll sell anybody a gun" approach with the voluntary steps that Walmart just took to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous individuals, as they know the background check system is not foolproof (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/partnership/partnership.shtml). Thompson's approach is about profit. Walmart is actually willing to spend money to help protect public safety and save lives.

I don't disagree with the right to bear arms if they are purchased legally, with the proper background checks, but I seriously have a problem with introducing guns on to college campuses. Most students at VT are smart and responsible, and were the cream of the crop at their high schools, but are still "works in progress" when it comes to making social decisions. My opinion is that guns in their hands will not make campus a safer place.

The argument that guns are solutions to conflict and problems just blows my mind. Guns are very efficient at what they are designed to do ==kill or wound. Hunting animals is one thing and having guns for this purpose is understandable. Guns bought for target practice or "protection" are often misused. The suicide rate by guns is astounding = they are efficient. Accidents by children in homes with guns are tragic. Family or friendly arguments when guns are available too often end in irretrievable damage. Lets lose the vigilante mentality and become a law respecting society depending on our law enforcement personnel. I would add, that those of you who proudly own guns - keep them locked, the shells separate from the weapon. Protect yourself, your family and your friends.

"Lets' . . become a law respecting society depending on our law enforcement personnel." Here's the issue with that - law enforcement is a REACTIONARY force. Something happens, you call them, and they do their thing. We talk about police being 'first responders,' and in the sense that they are the first people external to the situation to respond, I suppose that's true. The problem is that the TRUE first responders can, and ought to be, the people involved in conflict. I can't depend on the police to show up when I'm mugged, in time to prevent the mugging. I can't depend on the fire department to be at my house before the fire starts. And I shouldn't have to . . .

A question then... If you decide to open fire in a classroom, and end up shooting and either injuring or killing a person(s) who is an innocent bystander, are you willing to take full criminal and civil responsibility for your actions? I hear a lot of talk here about YOUR rights (meaning the rights of people that want to be armed 24/7). What about the rights of people that believe, legitimately, that more guns will lead to more violence? What about people that believe they have a better chance of getting out of a classroom in which one gun is being fired than one in which four or five guns are being fired simultaneously (all by people with no actual training in law enforcement)? Do your unarmed fellow students have any rights whatsoever, or are gun owners supercitizens of some sort as you see it?

Jennete, you would probably be surprised to hear that the survival rate of gunshot victims is actually fairly high (around 80% iirc). The suicide rate by tall buildings is astounding. I guess tall buildings are efficient as well? Accidents by children in homes with pools are tragic as well, and much more frequent then accidents with guns. Could you please cite some examples of law abiding citizens having a friendly argument that then turned into a shootout? I have guns in my home, as well as my roommate. We argue. Some how we’ve managed not to shoot each other. Lets loose the mentality that people that merely want to protect themselves are vigilantes and become a law respecting society who believe in responsibility. People that don’t rely on someone else to protect them, because the protectors are inevitably late. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I would add, that those of you who proudly own guns-keep them loaded and ready, otherwise you may as well just by a paperweight. Protect yourself, your family and your friends.

That is exactly what you will have to do. If you take the responsibility of carrying a weapon you are responsible for your actions with that weapon. If you shoot someone even accidentally and you are not justified in doing so you will go to jail. As far as your example of 4 or 5 guns firing simultaneously it just shows how little you know about defensive gun use. The likelihood of 4 or 5 concealed carry holders being in one class is extremely slim. Furthermore we aren't talking about a barricaded shootout. A defensive use of a gun would be over in a matter of a few seconds. I ask you which is better, a person entering a room and having multiple minutes to aim and fire at as many people as possible with no return fire. Or, a person enters a room and starts firing and an armed citizen in that room stands up and returns fire disabling/killing the perpetrator within a matter of seconds and lets say 4 or 5 shots. The extremely remote chance that a stray bullet travels through a wall and hits someone is outweighed by the fact that the criminal is prevented from spraying 180+ rounds of lead, each round intentionally aimed at a victim with the intent of killing them.

RE: Question... Yes, although theres not many situations where you will find that many CHP holders in one place.

You ask those questions as though the implicit answer to all of them was "of course not, nobody would ever think they ought to be held responsible in that situation." I'd say that the answer, though, is NOT implicit. First, criminal and civil charges carry different weights and different standards of proof. For both, though, you'd probably have to prove (if such a situation existed) that the risk to the other students by an armed citizen firing a gun is not outweighed by the risk posed to the other bystanders by allowing the perpetrator of the crime to continue firing. That's not a particularly easy thing to prove - it isn't quite so cut and dry as "I know this dude was shooting at us, but if Bobby hadn't pulled his gun out nobody would have died." I'd like to know also what, exactly, qualifies law enforcement officers as necessarily superior weapons-wielders - their training, as far as I know, isn't all that much more rigorous (if at all) than the average gun safety course. So then, I have a question for you - if you are sitting in a classroom with a police officer, and a gunman enters, what makes you think that the police officer will necessarily have superior accuracy to any other armed student in the room? And why should the police be exempt from civil and criminal suits in this instance?

Furthermore you bring up the point of the rights of other students. If you have a problem with concealed carry by private citizens you better take it up with someone else. Do you feel unsafe at a grocery store or anywhere else in public. I assure you that you have been around private citizens carrying legally and not even known it. All that is being asked for is that the same rights extended everywhere else in the state be extended to college campuses. It is naive to pretend that crime doesn't occur on college campuses and depriving legally armed citizens the right to carry on campus only ensures that the only person who will be armed is the criminal, ensuring they have plenty of time to shoot as many people as possible in peace until the police arrive.

Police training in handling a handgun and in showing discretion in using lethal force is far more intense than for someone getting a concealed carry permit in Virginia. Furthermore, police training is mandatory and repetitive - it does not end the day they join the force. Someone in Virginia can get a CCW permit with a background check and a 3-4 hour sitdown class where you never fire a gun. So you guys want to allow these people into classrooms, let them play Dirty Harry, and then have no civil or criminal responsibility if they shoot and kill/injure innocent bystanders? Good luck with that...

It's a moot point anyway . . . .any common citizen, so long as he is a non-student, non-staff, non-faculty, can carry on campus. So if you invite your dad to sit with you in class, and he has a gun with him, it's a non-issue. So why, exactly, do we hold students to a different standard?

As far as I know all concealed carry classes require you to fire a gun. Mine was 4 or so hours of classroom time and about 40 minutes of shooting. Police are only required to qualify what 1 or 2 times a year. Many will settle for that and never shoot again until they have to qualify. I guarantee you most people with concealed carry permits are serious about training and shoot way more often than this. Furthermore no one has asked that people be able to carry weapons with no civil/criminal responsibility for their actions. Any action they take will be subjected to the same laws that govern gun use anywhere else in the state. In fact that is exactly what is being sought.

Actually, studies have demonstrated that suicide by firearm leads to fatalities 90% or more of the time. Methods including medication, self-mutilation, and hanging have been found to lead to death 5% of the time or less (Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. The epidemiology of case fatality rates for suicide in the northeast. Ann Emerg Med 2004;43(6):723-30).

What in the world do suicide rates have to do with Concealed Carry?

I hate Ken Stanton. He needs to shut up and stop trying to be in the spotlight.

You're wrong Nvp, not all training classes in Virginia require you to fire a handgun. A 3-4 hour sitdown class is enough to get the permit. And how will you "guarantee" us that these permit holders will be serious about getting law enforcement training? You're going to guarantee the preparedness of thousands of people you will never even meet, huh? The police we know are guaranteed - they train, re-train, and it is all MANDATORY. This is why we entrust them with public safety, because the standards are vigorous, and because they are accountable. Cho would have qualified for a concealed carry permit in Virginia. Given the number of missing records in the federal NICS database, passing a background check is no guarantee that someone is "law-abiding" or sane (and in fact even someone who passes a background check legitimately could have a long string of misdemeanor offenses on their record).

To JS....you say that students here may have been the cream of the crop but they are still works in progress. To you I say, thats crazy talk. If these students aren't mentally prepared to get a bad grade and refrain from killing their teacher then they shouldn't be here. As for people citing 30,000 dead from gun violence each year they are outright liars. 17,000 of those 30,000 in 2005 died as a result of suicide. They don't count. A self inflicted gunshot wound does not count as being a victim of gun violence. They wanted to die. So when folks start shouting statistics that include these suicide deaths as innocent victims of gun violence they aren't exactly being honest.

Police and government agents train sometimes. They even prepare contingency plans. Now go talk to the people in New Orleans and ask them how they feel about the preparedness and actions taken by their governments in the wake of Katrina.

Oops I left out my thoughts regarding statements made by "more on training." If you have a problem with NICS you should start lobbying states and feds to keep the system updated with critical info. Fact is the people you want to rely on for protection don't really care. There are holes in the system and you can be sure our elected officials know that, but they aren't going to bring it up.

I submit to you that anyone who is inclined to commit a crime doesn't give a rats ass about a concealed carry permit or a rule saying they can't have a gun on campus. It doesn't matter if Cho would have qualified for a concealed carry permit(that loophole has now been fixed as i understand it anyway), he obviously didn't need the permit to come kill everyone did he? I will also reiterate this point, you seem to think that noone will be ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. They most certainly will be accountable for their actions, probably even more so legally than police would be if they were ever to be involved in a shooting. As for the preparedness of CC holders. They meet the standards for the state to receive the concealed carry permit. If you have a problem with those standards you better not go out in public. There are legally armed citizens roaming around out there everyday, yet we don't hear about accidental shootings everyday do we?

Kyle, you're wrong about VT's policy. How about reading it? You're pops CANNOT come sit with you in class with his gun in tow. VT policy states that even visitors must refrain from carrying weapons to any event or building on campus. Pops can come walk around with you if that makes you feel better, but if he walks into a building with a gun he can be arrested by VT police. The current gun policy was approved by a 100% Republican appointed BOV, and under consultation, approved by a Republican Attorney General. Get over the BS about liberals. It ain't our policy.

Step out of your law-abiding minds for a minute, people. Think about Joe Criminal about to murder someone on campus. He is about to commit the most heinous crime known to mankind, and you think that he is going to give one sh!t about some campus policy? "Yeah, I got life in prison, plus I got expelled from Random College. Man, I wish I didn't get expelled...." You need to reason that the stupid rule does NOTHING to stop an attacker. Now, look at groups like SCCC that advocate CHANGING the rules - wait, they don't want to break the rules? So, is there ANY chance that these might be good people? I mean he11, what's to stop a student from carrying concealed on the VT campus, it's not illegal. Yet this group, SCCC, won't do it anyway. Step out of your "goodie" mind for a minute and think like the bad guy. "Know thy enemy" is the only way we're going to get off these repetitive comments, people.

Andy, you are incorrect. First of all, there is nothing illegal about it. It's school policy. Further, the VT police will not arrest non students for it. If the VTPD did arrest people, how did the VCDL members get away with open carrying firearms last semester on campus, and inside cmapus buildings?

SD-you say you hate Ken Stanton because he's "in the spotlight." Who are you? Why can't you use your name on here? Do people know you? Do you stand up for what you believe in?

Hey SD, thanks for your comment. I will gladly step out of the spotlight, if someone else wants to fight this fight. I only do this because I believe in it, and lives hang in the balance. And I hardly think that advocating what is often considered to be a "controversial" topic such as gun-rights is the kind of way someone wants to become famous. (I say "controversial" because 73% of Americans believe in the right to own a gun, but this issue still seems to get a lot of resistance.) But its ok, keep attacking the people and not the issues and hide behind a screen name on the CT page, and your voice will be heard.

Well, Andy, I mean, technically I also could walk into my class with gun in tow. The reason? A no-gun-policy on campus is, out of necessity, PASSIVELY enforced. The only way someone would know that I have a gun with me would be if I told them I had one. That's the whole point of concealed carry - nobody but you knows that you have the thing! And for the record, I never said anything at all about 'liberals.' Some 'liberals' are in favor of changing the current policy, and some are not. Nobody is 'wrong,' per se, on this issue - just two sides to the same important coin. In the grand scheme of things, I tend to side with the pro-CCC group, if for no other reason than that the privileges of these students and faculty memebers, already granted by the Commonwealth, are being abridged for no reason better than an 'ivory tower' philosophy that holds that college simply 'shouldn't have to deal' with such things. The sad truth is, we DO have to deal with crime and destruction.

Chris, your comments weren't against CC in this thread, but rather directly against SCCC@VT in a previous thread - specifically concerning PEG and our opposition to their lie-in. Andy, VT's policy doesn't permit it, but the Commonwealth's AG has set forth his opinion that VT can't prevent non-students from being armed on campus, which basically means "VT can whine if they want, but we're not going to prosecute." Effectively AG-nullification.

Please note that the Andy that posted at 5:16pm whose comment read "Kyle, you're wrong about VT's policy. How about reading it?..." is not the same Andy that made all earlier posts on this article.

Andy, crazy talk? really? A student whose intent is to harm others is hard to stop, (yes, I know, unless you have a gun) but did you read what my original point was - is it wise as a society to allow guns on campus to a population (students) who may lack impulse control and whose brains biologically have not fully matured yet?

If Mr.Thompson truly does sell 5,400 guns at a "significant discount," he is not going to lose any money on his "promotion." At those kinds of numbers, he's going to do quite well--not to mention the publicity he is receiving and will receive. But then, he is a businessman and he has correctly identified an opportunity to improve his business. Always look for the money, folks. It always comes down to the money. I would ask how such a man manages to sleep at night, but I imagine his type never allows guilt or shame to bother him much.

Let me clarify the policy/legality deal and how it is enforced, from an official source: The policy governs the grounds of campus, and is deemed an "allowable" policy in AG opinion 05-078. While campus is public property, the VTPD are able to enforce the school policies AS WELL AS the laws. If someone is open carrying on campus, they may be asked to leave. If they fail to comply, they may be arrested for trespassing. If someone is carrying concealed properly, no one should ever see the firearm. While in violation of the policy, the only way they could be confronted is if an officer found out or if they were committing some other offense. NOW, if both a student and a visitor were carrying, and the officer identified them (for whatever reason), the visitor would be asked to leave and the student would get a judicial referral and possibly be expelled.

Sorrows, Mr. Thompson said that it wasn't about promoting his business AS MUCH AS it's about doing what he thinks is right. I mean, the man has over 100 businesses as it is, how much promotion does he need to do? Anyway, let's suppose for a minute that he gave out guns for free. Everyone still has to pass a background check, so all the "promotion" would do for him is lose money, yet self-defense would be accessible to those who otherwise are too poor yet are good enough people to pass the check. Ya know, maybe guns should be free; perhaps those in the lower socio-economic brackets could defend themselves, too...

i have but one thing to say to all those anti gun people out there. what you all fail to realize, is that guns are inanamite objects nothing more. so why blame guns? do you blame computers for sending viruses. do you blame cars for traffic accidents? do you blame smoking for killing millions a year? the truth is all of those objects are inanamite. cabable of doing absolutely nothing without human interaction. simply put: GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE; PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! think about it. murder did not follow after the gun was invented. murder was committed well before knives were even dreamt up. this arguement is so stupid it makes me wonder if you can ever get any solid evidence against concealed carry. criminals will get guns and commit crimes. it is what they do by definition. how can you even justify that more laws will stop criminals. do you really think they care if they break one or two more laws on top of murder? please think logically about this arguement. those of us that want to carry only want to for the sole purpose of self defense.

As a parent, I can tell you that if a school had a policy allowing students to carry guns to class, my student would not be applying there. How many of your parents would put their children in that situation?

Cheryl, I can't speak for my parents, since I'm an independent student. However, the fact that I choose to call for the right to carry on campus, even though I'm a student, and will personally be affected by the decision, should carry at least as much weight. As a parent, you should prefer that your student attend a school that doesn't put up a "free victims here (inquire within)" sign on their front door. As a parent, do you want your child to attend a school with a safety policy that has been proven, time and time again, to fail? Don't our students deserve better?

Ladies & gents - the survey & quiz are up - 90 entries at current! https://survey.vt.edu/survey/entry.jsp?id=1208998040655 Sorry to make you copy and paste, links don't work on the CT page.

Cheryl, I believe your concern is shared by many other parents. That is the burden that SCCC carries. It is necessary to educate everyone: students, parents, university administrators, etc. All share many misconceptions about the levels of risk involved with allowing CC on campus.

Cheryl, If you knew what I know about tech and the lack of support they provide for their campus watch security team and their police department, I suspect that your children wouldnt attend Tech either! Or if you knew how many issues such as the alcohol related violence, fights, etc that occur on campus that they just sweep uunder the rug. There's no way Id want my children staying in Tech dorm rooms without at least a very large dog the bounty hunter size can of pepper spray... and based on how they run things, I wouldnt want my children going to tech at all! Go Hokies indeed....

Brandon, yes guns dont kill people, and yes it is the people that kill other people. But guns are the ones that make killing so easy, even with only a single shot. Think about the drillfield, perhaps. One student start to open rounds at others, OH LOOK all the others ARE CARRYING ONE TOO! Panicking, they take out their own gun, and start shooting in the direction of the shooter. A gunfight breaks out. Let's be real too, how many of these people are actually trained in shooting, and have a good aim. When it ends, how many people do you think would be lying down dead?

Jessica@6:35pm, you're a thinking of a nightmare that will never happen, because people with CHPs and the like are almost always required to have sufficient training.

Jessica, assuming that your scenario is possible, you must realize that the effective range of a handgun is not that great. Anyone with a CHP would know that they have no chance of hitting an assailant from a large distance, and I doubt that any would even try to do so. Many seem to think that if someone is carrying a gun, they will always choose to use it. In reality, there are some deadly situations that carrying won't solve, and I believe that most permit holders recognize this.

And what is to say that your beloved police officers have any better aim than the next person? I admire the police as much as the next guy, and I appreciate everything they do to protect my safety, but they aren't supermen. They aren't all-powerful. They aren't infallible. And they certainly are not universally accurate - not anymore so than your average citizen.

Let me start with this, in order to legally obtain a CHP, you have to have gone through training in firearms and passed that training. In fact, a significant number of permit holders are ex-military, who have undergone far more extensive training than most police officers. But to say that a legal CHP holder has no training is simply false. ALl of this talk about ridiculous scenarios and shoot-outs takes away from what should be the real discussion. THere needs to be better enforcement of existing laws against illegal weapons ownership, greater links between mental health and the ability to purchase firearms, and that legal gun owners should not have their rights to carry and defend themselves stripped simply because they are affiliated with the university.

John, to be fair, I have a Florida concealed weapons permit, and the "training" I had to undergo was a 2 hour survey of gun safety course given at a gun show. It involved the instructor holding up a revolver and showing how to handle it safely and talking about the letter of the law in FL. The grand finale was to fire a couple of .17 caliber duds from his revolver into a target 5 feet away. The class was over 100 people, many of whom were talking to their neighbors, milling around the fingerprint line, and filling out their applications rather than listening. Not that the course was all that enlightening for those who did listen...Of course, I have seen many of these people from the class at the range and know that they take personal initiative to practice handling guns properly.

It's interesting to note, at this point - any clown with the desire can take his gun and hide it under his coat and walk around with it. There is a segment of society, however, which deems it necessary to ensure that they do so LEGALLY. The training and authorization process is different in each state - but the fact that people 'go through' this process implies a respect for the law and simultaneously at least some modicum of respect for the rest of society - ie, they volunteer to 'play by the rules' even though it would be just as easy not to do so.

I have seen Ken Stanton on TV and in the paper a lot recently - it is becoming quite annoying. I agree with the unknown "SD."

What is annoying? His mere presence? Or is it that you don't like his message? He is trying to overcome a huge hurtle of an administration unwilling to consider reasoned arguments. Publicizing the concealed carry cause through the media is one of many efforts to compel the VT adminstration to analyze the available information about concealed carry. If you're sick of seeing Ken Stanton, the best antidote is to convince Steger and the BOV to sit down with SCCC reps and talk turkey.

Hey Robbie, thanks for commenting. If you truly are annoyed by my work and my message, I suppose I should recede into the darkness and stop my advocacy. What we need more here at VT are quiet students who just go about their days and blend into the mass of society. Why should we speak out and try to make a difference in the world, when we'll only end up being criticized for "taking the spotlight" on an issue as unimportant as self-defense. I mean really, what would you rather hear about? The media has been eating up every tragedy it can for way too long. And also, you would probably have forgotten by now that I led the campaign against Cho's videos being aired back in April of '07 - I'm sure I was just looking for the spotlight there too, when I watched my fallen friend's father lose his mind as the killer made more headlines than his son. Listen, if you believe in something, take it as far as you can; but don't disrespect others who are simply standing up for what they believe in.

Alyson Boyce, i wonder if you had any part in getting the Lie-In's Location and Time changed?...probably, considering your SGA position. Sad that you would use your position to try to stop the Freedom of Speech. The fact of the matter is, the Lie-In was set up by the family's of the victims and wounded, OUT OF RESPECT FOR THEM...so anything on the contrary to that would be, um, DISRESPECTFUL...(just a hint, the school had a pretty big say in ALLOWING the LIE-In, so I guess you know who's side they're on. AND LETS GIVE IT UP FOR BRANDON WILSON for dishing out the "People Kill People Line" Brandon, you're right man, people do kill people...but have you ever heard about anyone Stabbing 32 people to death in under 9 minutes?...yeah, i didn't think so