Collegiate Times

Interesting as always, Gabe. A couple points - first, the nature of 'protection against the government,' which you rightly point out as of, by, and for the people, is a little more complicated than simply parsing phrases. Some people (myself included) interpret the intent behind the 2nd amendment to be primarily a protection afforded to the citizenry should the government ever overstep its bounds and become unresponsive to the will of the people. That isn't to say that every injustice propagated by the government ought to be met with a call to arms (obviously not, otherwise our government would have been overthrown long ago by just such a militia) but it does mean that citizens need to have some way of making their objections to tyranny known if that tyranny begins to strip them of their other rights. OK, I lied, I guess I just have one point right now. . .

Right, my only point is that - so far anyway - there simply hasn't been a need for that kind of action. But also consider that this amendment was written in the wake of a violent overthrow of a legal government when it failed to serve the public good. I guess it could basically be an affirmation of the Declaration's assertion that the people have the right to alter or abolish their government, It just seems really opaque...to me anyway.

"But I also have to grant the anti-gunners the point that this type of "wild west" environment is naturally unsafe, with every drunken brawl potentially swelling into a shootout." Is there any sort of study suggesting that this is the case? In all of the states that currently allow concealed carry, has there been a case of two concealed carriers getting into a drunken brawl and pulling their weapons on each other? I know it's easy to try to connect firearms and alcohol, especially in this town, but one should realize that there are regulations about that sort of thing. Let's not forget that drinking predominantly occurs off campus, where guns are not prohibited. Does anyone remember the last shootout at TOTS...how about one of the apartment complexes...didn't think so. We've already seen several arguments that CHP holders are among the safest in the country. Are there similar (statistically based) arguments that suggest otherwise?

Gabe, perhaps the fact that you're far more likely to be the victim of a gun crime than to use a gun defensively has to do with the fact that violent criminals are more frequently armed than those upon whom they prey.

Noted criminologists estimate that defensive gun uses are as high as 2.7 million a year, with 90% of them just requiring that a potential victim show a weapon. Unfortunately, your bogus statistic just counts murder versus justifiable homicide. If you can't understand why that's a ridiculous study, you're hopeless. Also you might want to check the ridiculousness of those 'risks of gun ownership' studies, which 95% of the time don't even involve the actual gun that was kept in the house (hint: most people who get murdered despite gun ownership are drug dealers who run afoul of their business associates). What justification do you have for conceding to the anti-gunners that CHL's lead to a 'Wild West' environment? You simply don't make a single point on the anti-gun side that's not based on ridiculous studies or lame predictions by the Brady Campaign that simply haven't come true. Check out "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" Also, why would you even write this article without looking up some of the briefs in the DC v Heller Supreme Court case? It's the most important gun control case the past century, I would think it would have informed an article on the subject.

I really enjoy how every article for this paper is written by a liberal college student that hasn't experienced the real world yet.....Go out and live for abit and then come back and right a real article. I'm positive your view will be different.

Funny, I'm a 30 year old veteran who's already put one person through college on my own dime...but hey - way to show that YOU know what you're talking about!

Nice to see the usual level of dialog continues on the talk-back page. You have all missed the point, I'm ON YOUR SIDE!

I understand what you're getting at (with your oiginal response to me), Gabe, but I think that's actually the crux of the matter. The framers set up the government with a pretty specific set of rules that it had to follow. Their presumption had to have been that the government would always follow the rules, and its representatives would always remember themselves as the representatives of the people first and of themselves only secondarily. That having been said, they also seemed to have recognized the penchant for heavily centralized governments to forget their obligations to the people, and so their desire seems to have been to codify a means by which the people could regain control over the government if it somehow stopped working in their best interests collectively. The fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't really an indicator that the provision is unnecessary - although I suppose in some sense it happened with the Confederacy before the civil war. And while the civil war was a tragic part of American history, it was important from the philosophical standpoint that a bunch of people stood up and said 'this government is no longer working in the best interests of its citizens' and they tried to do something about it when all of their diplomatic and political maneuvers had been stalled.

Hmmm... are we ready at this point in time to reduce the rest of the BOR to "qualified privileges?" Jefferson and Madison must be rolling over in their graves. For those actually interested in the historical context of the 2A: http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardhist.html

You want rational, levelheaded dialog, how about this? This is an excerpt from one of the briefs in the D.C. vs. Heller case. "But, here is the argument impossible for anyone to refute: If the purpose of the Second Amendment was to arm the militia, there would be no reason for the amendment at all, because Congress has the power (and the duty) to arm the militia under Article I, Section. 8. 'The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia ...'"

"To the pro-gun argument for collective ownership in defense against tyranny — if this is a government of, for and by the people, who are we defending against, ourselves? "..... I believe the pro- gun argument is for the *private* ownership in defense against tyranny. Your statements reminds me of a quote usually (incorrectly?) attributed to Ben Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" The founding fathers did not create a democracy, but rather a republic. They knew that a democracy is simply the tyranny of the majority. You can not vote pre existing rights away that are guaranteed by our constitution, including one of our most basic rights, the right to self defense. Your next paragraph is a perfect example of society attempting to take away mans god given rights, it is the tyranny of the majority….. “Also, society was fully ready to curb collective ownership when guns ended up in the wrong kind of "well-regulated militia" — i.e., newly freed blacks and left-wing radicals in the 19th century and religious and right-wing militia types more recently.”….

Actually, the rest of the Bill of Rights has been qualified. Free speech doesn't extend to slander and libel. The Fourth Amendment has been heavily qualified in terms of national security. The whole Bill has been qualified to apply in one place (the U.S.) but not another (Gitmo) so yes, these are qualified privileges. Continued...

I agree that the time for "rational, levelheaded dialog" is long overdue. Those of us at SCCC have been waiting and are continuing to wait for it to happen. The common objection to our goal that "his type of "wild west" environment is naturally unsafe, with every drunken brawl potentially swelling into a shootout" is unfounded in reality. People are already allowed to carry concealed weapons off-campus and there are no shootouts and this is coincidentally where you would find these alcohol-fueled parties. Other than this one piece of nitpicking, I'm thankful for your support and I honestly do look forward to a dialog where rhetoric is left at the door and statistics do all the talking.

My point on restrictions to carry was not meant to infer privilege as permission so much as that the right is qualified by necessity. You can't carry your pistol into a presidential speech or a federal office building - that sort of thing. I feel like I'm talking in circles. Elliotte, I never pretended to be against gun ownership for the individual, but the militia clause had to do with funding, not permission. The states still retained the right to field their own militia, as did private parties until the mid-19th century when states began banning them. The Shays' rebellion was by a militia, calling themselves "regulators". Continued...

Kyle, you're right I just think that that kind of action is a last extremity and doesn't require sanction from the same government that effectively no longer serves the peoples' interests anyway...and therefore is no longer really a government by any liberal (in the classical sense) definition. I'll say this ONE more time. I'm FOR individual ownership, I'm for concealed carry, I consider the anti-gun arguments to be about judgment and not about rights and I dismiss them as such. Now, all I'm saying is that there are some - admittedly very limited - cases where it's alright for localities, states and the federal government to say "not here" I just don't pretend to have a legal or philosophical architecture to address that concern, that's where the debate comes in.

In actuality, the right to bear arms has already been reduced to a "qualified privilege". How many hoops do law abiding citizens have to jump through now to prove their innocence? How many hoops do responsible, law abiding citizens have to jump through to get a CHL? For me, it's a matter of practicality, do gun control laws actually disarm the bad guys? Gun control laws may raise the cost of doing business for the criminal element, but in the end, determined bad guys get all the weapons they desire. I'd much rather see our focus on those who actually break the law rather than implement yet more laws that serve only to harass the law abiding. Gun control laws are nothing more than "look good, feel good" legislation IMHO.

Hmmm..First you say that gun ownership is a "qualified privilege", then you go on about a "persons carry rights"...This is a contradiction of terms...Most people do it...A privilege is granted by someone else (eg: driving someone`s car, it`s granted) and can be easily revoked...A right is not granted. It is inherent..It cannot be taken away arbitrarily unless someone initiates force against another.......Everyone has the right to protect themselves against the initiation of force..If you find yourself in a contradiction, check your premises, you will find that one them is wrong...

Gabe, this is one of the most level-headed columns on the subject I’ve ever seen, although I doubt it will generate the same kinds of postings that your last column on the Catholic Church did. One of the problems I have with the gun control issue is that true debate is difficult because extremists on both sides tend to resort rather quickly to name calling and personal attacks. In the CT forums, I have to say that the Tech SCCC folks have largely been restrained and fended off attacks well. The only part of your column with which I disagree is that you legitimize gun foes’ fantasies of Wild West shoot outs and such. The data show otherwise. I was stationed in Arizona, a state with probably the most liberal firearms carry laws in the land, and such occurrences simply don’t play out as many would predict. I even partied on several occasions in Tombstone, including at a festival called Helldorado Days with guns and beer as far as the eye could see, and there was no gunplay. (continued)

My main problem with most anti-gun folks is not that they are opposed to firearms. Rather it is that most of the arguments I see tend to be centered around emotion and baseless "what if" scenarios that have been effectively and decisively refuted by the facts. Being uncomfortable with something isn't a legitimate reason to deny others' rights. Also, your years in the Navy notwithstanding, I think it will be interesting to see what your opinions are after you live in the real world for a while – I certainly hope you right about it. If you do, count on me to reed it.

Roy, can the state not bar one from keeping or bearing arms if one is a convicted criminal, or if one wants access to - say - the White House (or its Ottawa equivalent)? I'd tend to argue that all rights are inherently privileges. People once had the "right" to own other human beings (talk about contradictions!) in this country. As for the "arbitrariness" of suspension of privileges - to use your example - I've never heard of a person having their driving privileges suspended by some whim, only when that person has demonstrated that their poor faculties (judgment, vision, etc.) undermine their interests in that case. I reject the idea that rights are somehow inherent. This is silly, we have a contract, one with another, and we've agreed to try to maximize our freedom in this area, and most others too. But we can change the contract...

My point with the "Wild West" argument was about potential trouble, not actual gunplay. I'll admit it's not a perfect case, but it is an admittedly rare unintended consequence of our firearms policy. I'm willing to live with it. Also, c'mon the real world? I've been a private citizen for the past eight years, with a job, taxes and my very own life. I'm not some fresh-faced kid, nor did I go to college right after discharge either. I worked a real job (and still do) and paid a relative's way through school. I don't know what bar constitutes "enough" real-world experience to qualify, but I contend that I've met any reasonable standard.

That's an interesting point, Gabe. We tend to believe that, as individuals, our rights exist and transcend the authorities of individual governments - Locke's life liberty and property claim, for example - and that we create governments in order to ensure that our basic rights are protected. I think what it boils down to at the core is that what we colloquially refer to as rights are really, as you say, privileges or protections in one way shape or form. A proper reading of the Bill or Rights requires a realization that most (perhaps, I believe, all) of the amendments specifically denote RESTRICTIONS on governmental power, rather than absolute rights guaranteed to the people. It isn't, for instance, the right to bear arms, it's the right to not have the government tell you that you CAN'T bear arms. (continued)

Now, that having been said, the state is also charged (in some rhetorical sense) with the protection of its citizens from internal threats, and so it adjudicates certain types of people to be ineligible to carry weapons. But we do the same thing for felons with their voting privileges (and hence free speech rights) - the point here being that, when you break the rules set forth by our society, you are punished by forfeiting the privileges that you would otherwise be entitled to. I'm with you, though, that rights aren't inherently 'just there.'

I was afraid my sarcasm wouldn't come through. I was actually responding to Chris D's earlier post which was the most recent one when I was online earlier. I wrote my response but then had connectivity issues and couldn’t post it. I was trying to show how much I love it when people show their backsides when they a) assume your or another’s background and b) correct someone or try to make them look stupid but then make a simple mistake like using the wrong member of a homonym pair. I would say that with your background you understand far better than most the sacrifices required to protect your right to write whatever you damn well please (dam misspelled to get by the CT profanity police).

Right, though I think the voting rights suspension is limited to Virginia and one other state (can't remember) as a permanent issue. My home state only suspends on the Ps (prison, probation & parole) and some states (I believe Vermont and Massachusetts) allow people in prison to vote. Anyway, it's just a different deal we make as a society. I tend not to view it as forfeiture so much as censure. Also, lifetime suspension of ANY right makes me cringe. I think people should at least be able to appeal after so many years.

It did seem out of character, Chip, for you. Have you gotten back from Iraq yet? Maybe then you can get back to the "real world" and earn some of that coveted experience.

Nope, still doing my part for the surge. Just kidding - my unit's rotations are on a fixed cycle. Should be back to the States before too long, although ATA's bankruptcy is apparently causing departure delays from theater. The joys of contracting everything out. I agree with you, though. I need to get back to the real world so I can quit eating from the public trough and earn my all-expenses-paid vacations to Historic Mesopotamia.

Gabe: As I said earlier, no one has the "right" to initiate force against another.. Under clearly defined objective laws, of course a person will lose their rights (freedom of movement etc..)....This is not an infringement of their rights, as there is no such thing as a right to injure, ergo, a person convicted of a violent offense can be denied getting a firearm....

A rational level headed debate would be nice on the subject, but the problem is that the issue usually comes up in connection with an extremely emotional event. The vast majority of federal gun control legislation was enacted as a response to a highly public act of violence. Bans on machine guns after the St. Valentine's day massacre, bans on mail order riffles after Oswald used on to shoot Kennedy, a ban on mail order handguns after Jack Ruby, or the Brady Campaign and handgun restrictions that came after Brady was shot in the attempt on Regan's life. Now we have PEG and the Brady campaign using April 16th to push forward their agenda.

To the emotion versus facts guy--The reason I dislike that arguement, that is that anti-gunners just base it off feeling unsafe and not fact, is because I feel it is the same arguement from the pro-gun side. If you want to CC on campus it is because you feel unsafe/less safe/ or uncomfortable WITHOUT your weapon. If that is not the case then I see no good reason why you would need one. Carrying on campus just because it is your right too is not a good reason. Both sides of the arguement are concerned with safety and neither will eer deem the other sides view on which is safer to be correct, therefore this debate will never be over.

While this debate may be over, there is a great chance that there will be a significant step forward in the near future. Some people have discussed the Heller v. D.C. case which will be the first time that the court directly addresses whether or not the second amendment grants an individual or a collective right to bear arms. The court has never directly addressed this issue, and the last time it came close was in U.S. v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) when the court used language which was subsequently appropriated by both sides of the gun debate to prove why they were correct.

may never be over (typo)

"Carrying on campus just because it is your right too is not a good reason." So for what other Amendments' rights do feel a citizen has to justify his exercise? The difference is this. The anti-gun folk want to deny others’ Constitutional rights based on a fear that is generally unfounded. I respect the idea that “someone might have a gun” is frightening to some, which is fair enough. The question I have is twofold: A. Just because the university administration does not allow concealed carry, do you really feel so sure that no one has a gun? We know this not to be true. B. Do you suddenly freak out as soon as you step off of campus? Because I guarantee that some of your fellow citizens are carrying unbeknownst to you. Incidentally, I don’t have a permit and don’t carry a gun except at work, so my arguments are not as self-serving as some would believe. I don’t have to exercise a right to fight for someone else’s. I believe the civil rights movement was fought on this basis.

One could use this piece of BS argument "Carrying on campus just because it is your right too is not a good reason" for one's right to vote. Oh come it is pick and chose arguments when it comes to constitutional rights. It is our responsibility to practice our right to vote yet it is not our responsibility to protect ourselves? Next time someone tells you that this is the case, just tell them to shut up, limit their right to speech and see if they enjoy that.

How come it is pick and choose*

I have never met a person however who just voted because they can, they excercise that right because they want to be a part of their government. If you want to bear arms just because the constitution says you can, it would be the same as voting for the first guy on the list just because you can. So what I was saying is if you want to carry on campus to protect youself thats fine, just don't say it's wrong for anti-gunners to make arguements because they feel unsafe with when you want to carry because you feel unsafe without. If you just want to carry because you can then leave the lethal weapon at home.

Dan, a weapon, on its own, is non-lethal. It only becomes lethal when it is used to kill. Hence, it is the holder/user of the weapon who must be held responsible, not the weapon itself. People are lethal, guns are tools that have the ability to aid in that lethality. But I think a more interesting point to consider here is whether or not fear is unfounded. Some people, for instance, are afraid that hostile alien life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. Should we, as a society, ban space exploration in order to assuage the fears of these people? Some people are afraid of getting hit by cars; ought we to ban vehicular travel in order to preserve the 'right to safety' these people covet? Fear is a very real thing, but not all fears are totally justifiable. The difference between the emotion-laden arguments of both sides of the issue is that people on the 'anti' side tend to bring up a lot of *possible* situations which, in reality, are never realized. The 'pro' side tends to use statistics and news stories of 'gun owners in action' who wind up saving the day. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, facts ought to trump emotion every day and twice on Sundays.

That proves my point Kyle so I thank you. You just stated that, with facts, Pro-CC want to protect themselves from possible situations. It doesn't matter which of these situations is more realistic, the fact is that anti-cc want no guns to avoid possible problems, and pro-cc want guns to avoid possible situations. I can't even begin to address your other points. The weakest arguement I have seen from pro-CC side is the car comparison and now you took it to a whole new level of bad arguement with the aliens thing.

Gotcha, so you don't like my argument and that makes it bogus. The point, if you cared to read my post, is that the whole argument is often framed on the discussion of fears. You correctly point this out. There is no problem with that - but there is a problem with the assessment of all fears as inherently rational. Both sides can (and do) conjure 'what if' scenarios to support their respective causes - but what we need to do is look at each of these supposed 'scary events' and determine which are legitimate causes of fear and which are illegitimate causes of fear. This is why I used the 'alien life' example - clearly, an irrational fear which ought not be given much credibility in a discussion as to whether or not space exploration is valid. It's all about probative value of the venture versus the risk involved - if the absolute chance of finding a hostile alien is low, and the value of the research involved is high, then we discount the fear of alien discovery and explore space. All I contend, then, is that what we ought to look at is a risk-value analysis of the CCC position - and adjudicate its value as such. That's how we make choices in regards to our fear in every other facet of our life. . .

I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters. - Frank Lloyd Wright

I never said it was bogus I said it was weak. It doesn't matter how many fancy words you form a sentance out of to explain it, the alien arguement is weak, but I'll adress the car one. You say if we ban guns why not ban cars, heres the difference. Side note I'm speaking about on campus NOT off because that is the issue at hand. People on campus use cars to get around, having a gun on campus would be solely to harm or kill, in whatever context. No taget shooting, no hunting. So to compare a thing with practical use outside doing harm to something that is built to harm, or since you say its not the gun its the person I'll say, something that is built to be put to harmful use, is just a weak comparison. I don't know if I said this so I'll make it clear now, I am not against guns off campus only on, I am not looking to rid the world of all guns, as such my arguements are directed to the on campus arguement, please direct your's to this sense too.

So far I have seen anti-cc defending their side which is picked apart by pro-cc. Lets flip this around. You say to your roomate, "I'm getting a Rotweiller (Spelling?)" he then tells you he had a bad experience and doesn't want the dog in the apartment because he would be afraid and uncomfortable. would you say, well it is my right to own it and it will protect us and make us safe? It sounds like pro-ccers are kind of just saying get over it to people who may have a legitimate fear of guns. PTSD anyone? Would you say to a girl/guy who breaksdown if he sees your gun, your fear is unwarrented this gun is protecting you? Get over it is all I hear.

To John.....flip it back this way. Anyone that is so fearful of any gun (perhaps due to PTSD or whatever), should very scared everyday on campus. As far as I can tell since we do not have the kind of security you would see at a courthouse here on campus, you these people with PTSD would or should be assuming that there could be guns everywhere they go on campus already.

By ignoring my point and trying to flip it arond you don't have an answer that doesn't prove my point? To your question here is my answer, I said PTSD upon seeing your gun, not paranoia that there may be guns present. I await your honest answer to my questions, avoid them again or flip them back again and I will assume you have no honest answer that dissproves their point.

Well John, to be blunt I guess we telling you to get over it. Really, in this day and age, when concealed carry has been the law of the land for so long in so many states, why are there still some who insist on living in their dire land of ugly predictions? Wrongdoing of any kind by permit holders is truly a rare event. And to your dog/gun analogy. Is every Rottweiler dog prone to harm people? Is every gun owner out to harm people? Some are, yes but are we to judge all by the wrongdoings of the minority? Since when is that a rational, mature, openminded approach to any problem, potential or otherwise? And to address the larger issue here, man's right to self defense predates any form of government. The 2A acknowledges that right. It confers nothing.

Good Tim, if you can honestly say you would say too bad to someone who would break down at the sight of a gun, out of warrented or unwarrented fear, then by all means go carry a gun. If people who want to CC on campus have a conscience willing to upset and possibly indirectly cause damage (seizures if PTSD does that IDK) then thats fine, now I know what kind of people you are and understand why you want to assert your right no matter the consequence. I won't answer your questions because my point had nothing to do with the lethality at all. If the Rottweiler would nurse a baby kitten to health it doesn't matter, if you would get it anyway knowing it would upset your roommate, it says a lot about you. Thank you for being honest Tim.

John, What exactly does "concealed" mean to you? Given the widespread nature of CCW in the US, those who suffer from PTSD have undoubtedly been near a permit holder currently carrying. Have they suffered as a result? Can you cite instances?

Let's suppose, John, that your roommate in question is afraid of something more benign and prevalent, like sickness. Simple head colds scare him to death. If you come down with a cold, then, do you find somewhere else to live until it subsides?

To Tim, Off campus in say a supermarket, they could go elsewhere, in a classroom what can they do? Leave class? Fail? To Kyle, that is easy head colds aren't under your control, it isn't your choice to get a head cold. And before you think up something else I'll adress it. Say it is something more necessary like toilet paper. If I found out my roomate was afraid of toilet paper, I would move because I would not want to upset him at any cost, but I would not live without toilet paper. Or on the same boat as my point to Tim, he could move out if someone refused to give up toilet paper. If you decide to take that arguement further and say something like afraid of pencils and pens or paper, then you would begin making arguements in the same manner as those you shun for such things.

John, I'll try this again. What exactly does "concealed" mean to you?

Sorry I didn't see that question Tim. What is it to you? To me it is under a jacket/outside clothing or in a bag, or I guess with really big pockets in a pocket. But would you always wear a jacket? Would you not ever have to dig in the bag? Would you carry an extra bag? Would having it in a bag be any better in the situation you want it for then not having it? All the talk about saving lies talks about unholstering a CC in mere seconds or less so where would you conceal it for easy access? I firmly believe that if it is easy access it can be seen.

"saving lives" not lies

Well said Tim. John, if I see someone brandishing a gun when it doesn't seem appropriate based on the current state of the immediate environment it might be time to seek cover and stay at a high level of alert and go from there. I am not scared at the mere sight of a holstered handgun. That sounds terrible. I hope that anyone suffering from PTSD or hoplophobia has the ability to speak with a professional. If we banned things based on phobias, we would at the very least have a very strange society. Here is my view. I believe that a handgun is the most appropriate defense in certain situations. I also believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to the people. I treat people like I would like to be treated, and I would never deprive someone of their right to carry the 2nd best self defense tool (brain being #1). Thankfully as a species we don't have to fight for our survival like many other animals, but there are bad people out there and based on their size/strength, and/or numbers, and/or gun possession, and intentions I could not justify disarming someone for no good reason leaving them vulnerable to the evil people in this world, country, commonwealth, county, and town.

So Andy also believes people should just get over their fear of lethal guns. Thats two honest people on this forum.

They should get over their fear of guns. The lethality factor of my guns for people who aren't trying to harm me is so close to zero you can't measure it. Since I won't be trying to hurt anyone the gun won't prove lethal to anyone near me. To sum up, these people would well be served to get over an irrational fear of guns and take common sense steps to help play a role in keeping guns out of hands of people who use them to hurt others.

As I said earlier, no matter the rationality of their fear of guns, your decision to say get over it shows me the quality of your character. Honest and concerned, but only concerned for physical health not mental health. So the percentage chance you'll use your gun is to save someone physically is higher then the percentage it will harm then mentally? I don't think it is.

John, while I am concerned for the safety of others, as you might imagine I am also concerned about my safety. The statements in my last post provide my reasoning. I want to be able to defend myself properly. I am not bothered if others feel the same way as I do and choose to carry. As I said, I am not scared if I see a holstered gun while I am out, and at the range where I shoot I have no reason to be scared unless someone were carelessly handling their gun. I looked up hoplophobia just today John and it seems to be a legitimate phobia. But that is all it is. Phobias are identified and classified and then professionals should begin their work with the phobic individual. If you somehow find it inappropriate that I feel that my life is more valuable than the emotional pain that someone might feel I they saw my concealed gun, then I have no words. I can't even begin to understand that......This may not be the best comparison, but what if a lot of people had a fear of the physical deformities of others? Should we restrict the freedom of movement of a casualty of war because he/she might go somewhere and scare someone else with a phobia?

Explain and show reason all you want, you proved my point already and all you say is adding to proving my point so I won't argue. And to your last question, like Kyle, that sends you in the direction of arguements I have seen shunned repeatedly on here.

Andy--I hope that isn't the stance of all members of SCCC, I would hope the group that claims to want to protect students would be more concerned about others then themselves. That was extremely selfish of you to say. To John, I wish that people could change views based on what they read on internet forums because you raise a very basic yet excellent point. Unfortunately the people who continualy post here probably have not a single notion of an open mind.

I don't know what point of yours I helped you prove John, other than you are insane. Nobody in their right mind would disarm someone over someone else's phobia.

His point was if you are willing to upset others and say get over it than you go ahead and CC. Stooping to personal attacks is a sure sign your losing a debate.

Exactly and before you say I attacked your personality by saying "it shows your character" that statement comes off of a character judgement based on teh answers and posts you made. If you say your statement was the same, well IDK because I seem sane and rational in all my posts.

Tina, I am not sure if you read all my previous posts and the dialogue in between so I want to clarify. Everything I said still applies, and I did not say I don't want to help protect others. I believe the physical safety of myself and others nearby that I might have the ability to protect, should we be confronted with life and death situation, is more important than emotional safety of people with a phobia. Is that what upset you? Emotional stability can always return with time and help of family, friends, counselors, etc. However, I cannot apologize for wanting to protect myself from the bullets of killer. As we know, there is no coming back from death.

Can anyone attacking me please explain since I feel like an outsider. In your life experiences what has brought you to the conclusions that you stand behind? You say my desire to protect myself is selfish, then please explain your thoughts to me, I feel like I must have missed something growing up in my character that you have.

Andy, pro-CC people consistently talk statistics, well heres one for you. You will mentally harm a higher percentage of people then you will a criminal. So if it is about protecting people take the higher statistic. If you walked into a classroom and a person saw you gun and they freaked out and asked you to remove it, what would you say? Could you say what you just said to a person in real life? Would you meet a person face to face and say right out, your emotional trouble over this gun will heal and maybe, but hopefully not, someday you'll thank me if I ever get the chance to use it to save you? If you can then you don't have a good moral fiber IMO. If you wear it to class and no one says anything whatever but if someone confronts you about it I don't think you could straight out tell them to get over it.

Tina.....it is legal to carry a gun in the open in Virginia. If I passed one these deeply troubled, and phobic individuals, like the ones you are referring, in the street what should I say? Would they say something to me simply because I have a gun? Also, what about law enforcement? It seems these people you mention are so phobic that the sight of a gun on a policer officers belt would cause them mental harm. Basically, you are saying these other people feel safer if they don't have to see guns around too often. But when they do show up suddenly and without warning like 4/16 you folks aren't offering any good advise in terms of security and protection from being murdered. So, until you explain this is even all relative (where is this thought coming from that it is better to feel safe and be dead than to be safe and perhaps be scared sometimes), I won't be able to understand you.

Tina.....Finally, let me pose this question. Since we know that bad people can get guns and probably will for a long time to come, and lets assume that someone can foretell events that I or any other citizen will be in a position at some time in our lives that we will surely be killed if we don't take action to stop the attacker. Would you look the would be victim in the face (maybe someone's grandmother, maybe a young couple with newborn child) that you are working as hard as you can to make sure they can't protect themselves with the only tool that could give them a chance of survival because at some time someone could see our gun and experience a flashback or other grief?

Would you look the would be victim in the face and tell them that you are working as hard as you can to make sure they can't protect themselves with the only tool that could give them a chance of survival because at some time someone could see their gun and experience a flashback or other grief?

"I'm sorry I shot your daughter sir but it was an accident and my gun saved 30 other lives so at least she didn't die for nothing."

I'm sorry. I mean no disrepect to anyone. I simply cannot fathom this fear of firearms. It's simply not a fear that I can relate to. A firearm is simply a hunk of iron and wood. No more, no less. It is totally inanimate. It can do nothing on its own. For someone to get hysterical at the sight of one seems incredible to me. To quote Jeff Cooper: "A gun is neither good nor bad. It can only serve to amplify the good or the bad in the person using it." I suppose these people are reassured by seeing a person in uniform with a gun, as if that's a guarantee of good behavior. And history has shown us that people in uniform have ALWAYS behaved in a civil, decent and humane manner. (ahem)

Gabe, even if you are on our side, it is irresponsible for you to endorse unsubsantiated or essentially falsified claims from the Brady Bunch. As I said, a genuine study like "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide" is a slam dunk versus anything the VPC supposedly studies. And, yes, our rights are subject to certain restrictions. But not to restrictions that essentially remove the right. You can tell people that they can't bring a gun to a presidential debate (where you have armed security), but you can't do something like disarm the populace in the vicinity of an outdoor presidential rally. If campuses had metal detectors and security in every gathering location, maybe they'd have cause to restrict guns.

Tim, I think you gave up on your "what does concealed mean to you" questioning prematurely. The stance of SCCC is that concealed carry is best for everyone involved. How can someone honestly say that if CC were allowed for students and faculty/staff on campus, they would be afraid, yet they don't currently feel afraid that any non-student, non-faculty/staff person may CC across campus all day long? How can they say that they are not equally afraid whenever they are elsewhere in public where CC is legal? Since CC is already allowed elsewhere, and has been for some time, most people don't even think about it, and that's the point. The only difference here is that the debate for CC on campus is making people aware that some folks would choose to carry. Prior to this debate, most were probably oblivious to the fact that anyone next to them in line at Kroger could be carrying.