As a student at one of the most unfortunately infamous universities in the nation, I am well aware of the hot button issue of gun control and concealed carry. It seems absurd to many people that anyone should want to allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus. They speak out against it for the sake of their own safety, and not long ago I was one of them. I grew up in a peaceful household with an ex-cop father and a mother who felt no need for weapons in the house. My feelings on the matter were mostly uneducated perceptions that guns were bad and should be left to the professionals.
Since coming into the real world, I understand that the professionals are not the only ones that are going to have them and use them by any means. I sat in class one day with a friend of about six months and noticed an empty leather holster about his waist. Curious, I inquired as to the reasoning. He told me all about a club on campus known as SCCC — Students for Concealed Carry on Campus — and had a small debate with me on the subject matter. I was amazed by his knowledge and viewpoint, so agreed to join in on one of these meetings. The information I received was eye opening and encouraged me to learn more about gun control and safety, as well as the matter of concealed carry on campus. Immediately following the meeting, I walked home and jotted down some thoughts on the matter from what I had come to understand:
We fear that which we do not know or do not understand and judge perceived protection by its face. But how can we condemn the rights of those who take, at hand, protection of their own without a trace? Those who do not wave about or flaunt it as a power, those who follow trust, training and law, when we cannot prevent another murder every hour by the one’s who take advantage of this flaw?
Choose to put your faith in those who wear badges and praise them for the peace of mind instilled, but do not turn and scorn the time it takes to get them there while all the while innocent are killed. If we prevent the rights of those to carry at their side, we do not halt the danger to be grieved. Only persecute the few, who by good sense and law abide, and condemn ourselves to the safety we perceived. I encourage others to participate in the activities this week and reflect on what they see, too.
Sara Reilly
sophomore
biology & wildlife science
Leave a comment 22 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Good letter. Too bad you'll never persuade the emotional, irrational anti-gun folk with logic and facts.
Reply to this Top
Neither will you with that attitude. Fear of inanimate objects may be irrational, but so is treating people like crap for having such a fear. We can do better than that.
Reply to this Top
Not treating them like crap at all. Merely pointing out that folks opposed to gun rights always resort to emotional appeals and "what if" scenarios. I draw your attention to "AlwaysRight"'s posting on 9 NOV: "Can't wait for 1 or 2 gun carrying students get drunk, get mad and go on a shooting spree!" This despite the fact that this has NEVER happened anywhere gun rights have been affirmed. None of the "Wild West" scenarios envisioned by anti-gun rights folks has EVER come to pass, but they always whip them out during any discussion of gun rights. The FBI's statistics always validate gun rights advocates positions. Always. Again, facts appear to be unpersuasive to anti-gun people.
Top
Its the famous "youanti-gunnersareall idiotsbecauseyouwanttocurlupinaballand DIEsoletmeprotectMYSELFforgodsakes" argument. Yeah, I trust them with my life...NOT!
Reply to this Top
It's difficult to convert people to your point of view by first calling them names. Has it ever actually worked for you?
Top
First of all I like to see people with opposing viewpoints all expressing their ideas, as I beilieving in all ten amendments in the bill of rights. I think that the first thing you need to realize is that you are trusting your life to everyone else any time you step out of the door. Any time you see another person you are trusting your life to them, as they could and might cause harm or even death to you in any number of ways where or not they are carrying a firearm. And if I wanted to cause harm to someone it would be much easier to illegally carry a firearm, than go through the process of aquiring a concealled carry permit. I personally feel safer just to know that there are people how realize there are consequences for their actions and that they are going to jail for a long time as the police have their finger prints on file. And would only draw their firearms in a life threating situation.
Top
Its funny because there actually doesn't need to be any good reason for anything. See if the majority wants no CCW on campus then the majority gets what it wants, that is called Democracy.
If the Minority asks why they won't allow it and the majority says, "Because we just dont want it, too bad for you." Then well too bad for you.
Your job is to sway the minds of the majority to turn yourselves into the minority and honestly the insults and continuing to tell them they have no reason to believe in what they do will never do that. Good luck to the minority here!
For the record I don't care either way I just like debate and politics :-D
Reply to this Top
"turn yourselves into the majority" **
Reply to this Top
Well, you should do some debating on the American form of government. It's called a Republic, not a Democracy, formed specifically to avoid the tyranny of the majority. See also: Prop 8, Question 1.
You were close to correct, though, when you said "there doesn't need to be any good reason" - but you ended it wrong. The ending is "to exercise a right."
Reply to this Top
Yes we are a republic with democracy, generally the people of the country can get what they want by speaking out and then the government can choose to listen or not. Generally they will because if they dont they may lose voters.
It really is a mixed government that is more republican, but there is no point in trying to discredit my post because it was merely stating that telling people they are against guns for merely emotional reasons (which is mostly true as I see it) will not sway them to think on your side of the argument. And until they do that the majority (Anti-CCW) will sway the votes of our leaders (Sounds kinda lke Democracy hmm...).
Top
@Chris - what make you believe the majority are against CCW? I have yet to hear a valid stat or survey that implies that.
Top
I just tend to hear more anti-gun sentiment then pro-gun. I could be wrong in my assumptions.
I am in the middle on this, as in I don't care either way. If they pass a law to allow it so be it, if they don't its whatever.
Top
well said, ken. there are certain rights that the majority can never take from the minority by vote; the Constitution is the basis for this (speech can't be silenced, even if EVERYONE else in the nation wants to).
Reply to this Top
The right to bear arms is there, BUT the kicker is that it doesnt say anywhere you want. It is meant for home self-defense, if the constitution said, "Right to bear arms everywhere" then I would be more inclined to say you're right.
Top
Chris, you need to learn how to read the law. Unless something is restricted, it is unrestricted. So for you to be right, it would have to say "keep and bear arms at home". Besides, should one only be able to defend themselves when in their home? And when they go out, suddenly be vulnerable?
Top
Forgot the S. in my name above but its the same me!
The thing of that is, if the constitution is read word for word then technically the government can't regulate guns at all for any citizen. Everyone has the right to bear any kind of firearm they wish, no matter their past or mental health state.
See reading the constitution word for word is a double edged sword for any side of the argument.
Top
Chris S., you finally got it right. The ultimate law of the land, the Constitution, says exactly that. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore, any laws prohibiting the carrying of arms for any legitimate purpose is unconstitutional.
Reply to this Top
It actually states that the right to bear arms wont be infringed because a well regulated militia is needed to protect the security of the state.
So wouldn't the gun regulations and laws actually be perfectly constitutional?
And you are wrong anyway because if you want to go the route you say that means you can't sneak that legitimate word in there. It would be any and all that wanted them, even if they were convicted felons who are now out of jail.
Reply to this Top
I don't think white collar felons should be subject to that "convicted felon" bit. I believe it should be ONLY violent criminals or criminals who have committed crimes with guns. Someone who is convicted of say... tax evasion and did their time in jail should not then be required to go about defenseless from danger.
Top
The entire second amendment is
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Because I do not want to us my personal oppinion on whether this is an individuals right or a group, militia, right I will give the oppinion of the United States Supreme Court. In the recent 2008 hearding of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the highest court in the land overuled the DC handgun ban, as they ruled that the second amendment to be an indivuals right and not a group right.
Top
Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan has now become the 5th concealed handgun permit holder to commit mass murder in the U.S. in 2009. Here's a detailed accounting of these five confirmed cases:
www.csgv.org/ccwmassshooters
Reply to this Top
That's like saying the most recent person to be driving drunk was the x person to kill someone while driving drunk in the year. Maybe we should outlaw cars?
Reply to this Top