Share
The Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights advocacy group, hopes to demonstrate at Virginia Tech next month for the concealed carry of weapons on campus.
The demonstration is one of a series of protests that the VCDL will host at various public universities across the state in November, but the exact dates of the protests have not been announced. The VCDL will be protesting Tech and other Virginia colleges’ response to an opinion issued on July 1 by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
The opinion stated that a university policy against concealed carry in campus buildings is not sufficient to ban it, but that a university must pass a state regulation.
Tech currently has a policy that bans the holding of weapons by students and faculty on campus, but the university is in the process of converting that policy into a state regulation that would ban concealed carry by anyone in buildings or at large gatherings on campus, according to Tech spokesman Larry Hincker.
“The university believes that guns don’t belong on college campuses, in classes or in our dormitories,” Hincker said.
While an attorney general’s legal opinion is not law, Tech and other universities are voluntarily making moves to convert their policies into state regulations.
VCDL is protesting the move to convert their policies into regulations in response to Cucinelli’s opinion, according to VCDL president Philip Van Cleave.
“We think universities are going the wrong way with this,” Van Cleave said. “They’re going in the wrong direction. They missed the message that happened when the massacre at Virginia Tech happened. There was a message there, and they missed it.”
While Van Cleave argued that the right to carry a gun makes people safer by giving them the ability to protect themselves, several students said they thought carrying a gun is unnecessary.
“It’s dangerous for anybody. There’s no reason to have guns on campus. It’s dumb,” said Rosa Collins, a sophomore finance major. “The only time they would be using it for hunting or something like that, and they can just rent them when they need them. If they have a gun, they’re a potential threat to other people.”
Tiffany Farley, a freshman majoring in political science, said she agrees with Tech’s decision to ban concealed carry.
“I think it’s a bad idea. I don’t think it’s really necessary on campus. That’s what we have police for,” Farley said.
If Tech does pass a state regulation, it would not cover concealed carry in open areas on campus — such as the Drillfield or sidewalks — which are considered public spaces.
“One of the things that people don’t realize — that irrespective of any policy or regulation — is that under policy or even regulation, it’s perfectly legal on public property to carry a weapon,” Hincker said. “You can put a shotgun over your shoulder right now, and you can walk down Main Street, you can stand in front of the Capitol building in Richmond, and, as long as it’s not concealed, you can walk across our campus and put it in your car.”
The only college in Virginia that has not banned concealed carry is Blue Ridge Community College in Weyers Cave.
At its protests, VCDL plans to encourage supporters not to donate money to the university until policies regarding concealed carry on campus are changed, Van Cleave said.
“What’s so special about a university — which is nothing more than a bunch of buildings on a hill — that gun owners can’t protect themselves if something goes wrong there?” Van Cleave said. “It’s illogical.”
In order to be able to protest on Techs’ campus, the VCDL must be endorsed by a student organization or a group affiliated with the university.
“The university allows its facilities — and that means the grounds as well as the buildings — to be used only by organizations affiliated with Virginia Tech,” Hincker
said.
VCDL is in the process of making plans to associate with student organizations to get an endorsement.
A version of this article appeared in the Oct 20 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 82 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.
Professors in higher education hate guns, many distrust law enforcement at every turn. Thus they live under the naivete that banning guns on campus will mean thwarting any violent outbreak by a student. April 16th certainly proved that wrong.
Reply to this Top
I would feel more comfortable with this if they banned cops from carrying guns on campus.
Reply to this Top
Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Laws that ban firearms only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens. Who honestly thinks that a person who has decided to commit murder (punishable by death) will change their minds because they are worried about the added sentence for using a gun? How many mass-shootings have occurred in places that ban guns? How many mass-shootings have occurred in places where guns are allowed?
GUNS SAVE LIVES!
Reply to this Top
On April 16 a maniac killed over 30 people using a gun. If "guns don't kill people, people kill people" then surely "guns don't save lives, people save lives." The certain way to minimize death by firearm is to ban them altogether.
Reply to this Top
The point of the statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." is to say that guns are tools, and the morality of a tool is dependent on it's owner. Guns can be used to save lives, just like police tasers and life jackets and seatbelts. Guns can also be used to take lives, just like large rocks, vehicles, rat poison, machetes, a pool of water, steel-toed boots, explosives, etc.
Also: The following regimes banned guns:
1.) Hitler's Nazi Germany
2.) Stalin's Soviet Russia
3.) Benito Mussolini's Fascist Italy
4.) Mao's Communist China
5.) The Taliban in Afghanistan
and many many more
Top
Honestly, how many VT students even keep a gun here? You have to be 21 to be eligible for a concealed carry permit in the first place, it's not like this policy would let freshmen concealed carry on campus. By the way, there certainly are students who would be pro-concealed carry on campus, despite the small sample size in the article who suggest otherwise.
Reply to this Top
I totally agree. This article is so one-sided, it's not even funny. There are those of us who actually went through the rigorous process to obtain our permit to carry a concealed weapon but cannot do so at the place where we spend a majority of our time. The policy is ridiculous. It is a difficult and often expensive process. The university should trust its responsible students who go through the process as well as trust the state law enforcement agencies that approve the permits.
Reply to this Top
Please post your name so we can stay the he'll away from you off-campus. I don't want to be around when you pull some vigilante stunt that kills an innocent bystander.
Top
You probably pass at least one person who is legally carrying a firearm every day.
I really feel bad for people with such an unreasonable fear of inanimate objects.
I bet you don't even think twice about getting in your car and driving down the road, nevermind all the inexperienced drives, impaired drives, and faulty equipment on the road.
Top
I have 5 firearms in my apartment. I have not caused any danger to anyone. I shoot for competition and we have many freshman who own guns and store them in the campus police department. The police department allows students to store up to 2 firearms at any given time I believe, ive only kept 1 at a time though.
Reply to this Top
Hitting them on donations and income is a great way to go. Police are not required to protect you. You must look after yourself, stop relying on the government for protection.
Reply to this Top
Hitting them on donations and income is a great way to go. Police are not required to protect you. You must look after yourself, stop relying on the government for protection.
Reply to this Top
University administrators are free to believe that "guns have no place on campus" all they want. But they cannot actually prevent them, unless they wall off the entire campus and have only a few checkpoints to get in where metal detectors and strip-searches are used. Short of that, anyone intent upon committing some horrendous crime can simply ignore their policy or regulation or law or whatever they want to call it. That is indisputable fact. These regulations do NOTHING to prevent crime, but only ensure that the campus is full of defenseless victims. Just one CHP holder could have stopped Cho and saved numerous lives.
Reply to this Top
- VCDL is "not" a "concealed carry group". VCDL advocates the freedom to legally carry (openly, concealed or not at all). The choice should be up to the citizen.
- You can put all the policy you want in place and it will not stop guys like CHO.
- I plan on PROUDLY attending the protest and have convinced at least 20 of my VA Tech Alum friends to STOP DONATING MONEY until this issue is resolved. No guns?? then NO FUNDS!!!
Reply to this Top
Cool. Let's all walk around with loaded guns on our hips. We'll be really safe then. I can't see any potential problems arising. It all worked out great in the 1800's on the frontier. Disagreement? Shoot. Upset? Shoot. Crime in progress? Shoot. (Oops. That was an undercover cop.)
Reply to this Top
The VCDL holds regular meetings, protests, and community dinners.
Not once have they erupted into gunfire.
Top
Dude, 49 states have laws allowing concealed carry by licensed citizens. 3 states don't require a license to carry concealed. Your straw man has been pulled out every time another state was added to this list, and it has never materialized.
Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society." He was spot on. Folks who carry concealed know better than to get into an argument. Part of the training is in conflict avoidance and resolution. The last thing you want is to have to use the gun - it is a *last resort* for when your life is in danger. We know the consequences of using deadly force, and so we are polite and respectful at all times while carrying.
Top
Funny how this article only finds students that are supporting the position of the University. I know first hand as many students as were quoted here that would have opposing viewpoints, but they are not represented here. Typical of media bias today, showing one side of a story and failing to represent alternate opinions.
As the saying goes, and was proven during the horrendous event, when seconds count, police are only minutes away. People that go through the process of arming themselves legally aren't the enemy here, they are most often your best friend. Gun free zones, which is basically what most VA universities and colleges want to be, create a haven for criminals, with ample supply of defenseless criminals that are instructed by the University to submit to criminals and do what they say, and let the University take care of the problem. Personally, I believe the preservation of my life is of more concern than the University, and I treat it this way by putting myself in the position where I am able to defend myself.
Reply to this Top
You can't have it both ways. You can't disarm students, then claim you are not liable when students get decapitated.
Reply to this Top
isn't it ironic that the several quoted in this article are so fearful of guns. society has repressed gun use and rights to the extent that people associate guns with criminals and not for protection.
also the comment about "you can just rent them to go hunting" ??? seriously? ... wow let's not only take guns away from people but seriously restrict their ability to learn how to use one. "they're a potential threat" - concealed carry by a licensed person is not a potential threat. concealed carry by an unlawful person (which mind you would happen regardless of rule of law) is a potential threat. we saw how fast police responded to the cho incident, 33 dead.
Reply to this Top
That isn't irony. You do not know what happened on-scene 2007.04.16.
Stay in school; you have much to learn.
Reply to this Top
too bad i was there that day. and no, ignorance is allowing criminals to have guns and disallowing those who chose to protect themselves with guns.
Top
as someone who was there I witnessed how "fast" and how unaware the police were on that day. I distinctly remember seeing some kid getting taken and thrown to the ground in what seemed to be an error of judgement as to who the shooter was. secondly, how could anybody possibly argue that had any student in that class had a gun and new how to use it could not have saved lives that day.
Top
More than anything else, the university policy is a sign that they do not understand the nature of their own student body. While they cast their students as being immature children on one hand, they want them treated like adults on the other. In short, they can't have it both ways.
They are also trying to ignore the fact that a substantial number of their students are not 18 years old. They are older returning students with several years of work or military experience.
Reply to this Top
Thumbs Up!! And older students generally commute. Not allowing the guns in cars on the property also takes away my right to defend myself during the commute.
Some city colleges have a crime problem, but are more concerned that I can't defend myself than preventing the crime.
Reply to this Top
I have been a proud gun owner since a young age when my dad gave me my grandfather's rifle and took me hunting. Over the years, I have acquired others and learned the importance of them. I am a full supported of the second amendment, and proud to live in a country where we have this freedom.Having said this, I was appalled at how liberal and one sided this article was on concealed carry. At the age of 18, I was gifted my first handgun and I frequently carry openly. As said before by other commenters, its a safety factor. One person having a concealed carry on campus could have saved many innocent lives. I will be at the demonstration in full support of the VCDL. NO GUNS, NO FUNDS!
Reply to this Top
I am not up to speed 100% on how gov works, but I am pretty sure Tech cannot "pass state legislation."
Current firearms laws in VA prohibit carrying in several specific places (courthouses, k-12 schools, VCU...which was specifically coded in law), however the rest of the state is fair game. Which means that legally a person cannot get in trouble for carrying.
For the people saying that carrying on campus is "stupid", I say open your eyes to the realities of society. Try actually using for firing a gun before you decide to sit back and make those types of statements. Many anti-gunners have zero knowledge of guns or handling them and often find some of their ideas to be flawed when they actually do decide to visit a range. They realize that it is just a tool that can easily be controlled or manipulated by the average individual.
Also, for those doubting their effectiveness, do a google search for armed citizen and you can read thousands of local news articles (gathered by armed citizen) where people have used guns successfully to defend themselves. Obviously your average media organization just runs stories when bad guys use guns in negative way, you almost never see a good gun story making regional or national news.
Reply to this Top
Agreed. Most people are ignorant and think that guns only kill people, but wake up, they also saves thousands of lives.
Reply to this Top
from what I understand, VT can pass regulations which have the effect of law, but cannot be more expressly prohibitive than actual law. the school cannot restrict it outright blanketly over the entire campus but can designate specific buildings as "sensitive areas" and in their regulation prevent people from carrying guns within only those buildings.
... still though, it's a pathetic concept to prevent noncriminals from having guns.
Reply to this Top
"from what I understand, VT can pass regulations which have the effect of law, but cannot be more expressly prohibitive than actual law"
Got a citation from this? Think about this...
The University can have regulations, but the only people that are a party to the regulations will be those in some type of employment or academic contract with the university.
I'm also curious how a regulation prevents someone from doing something. Maybe it functions like a protective order... because those are effective at keeping people away too.
Top
it's called the virginia administrative code. virginia tech is agency 105 under title 8 ('education').
On regulations:
http://lis.virginia.gov/000/reg/TOC.HTM#T0008
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+reg+8VAC105
Top
how one MIGHT interpret the law on concealed carry and hence how an agency MIGHT implement a regulation based on it.
http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions%20and%20Legal%20Resources/Opinions/2011opns/11-078-Hanger.pdf
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1091934.pdf
Top
what you are looking for,
That is all well and good, however Virginia has a preemption law regarding firearms. Unless it is explicitly written into the code it doesn't hold. An agency cannot regulate this area, i.e. firearms. This is the same as when local public libraries in certain countries posted no gun signs, and where then forced to removed them, because of state preemption.
Top
*counties
That last comment should say "when certain local counties..."
Top
Andy,
that is interesting. if you read the supreme court decision it appears they have come to a different conclusion and this "preemption law" you are talking to was never mentioned to my knowledge. where would i find this in the legislative code?
it doesn't appear this preemption law you have mentioned was argued ...
Top
WYLF,
I am not sure if you are referring to US Supreme Court case (Heller) or not. However, I am positive that has no bearing on the VA preemption law. VA preemption law is here http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-915
Now it is clear that agencies or what not can regulate "workplace" rules. In other words VT can ban employees from carrying, unless they want to risk their jobs. However the preemption rule disallows an agency from banning guns for general public.
As a side note; if you ask me VA assembly should never have given any agency the ability to set a "workplace" rule that bans guns. It is wrong for VA state gov, or any locality to restrict their employees from carrying. They cannot protect us, and they are not liable when we get shot by a mad man. All the state had to do was allow state employees to carry by disallowing state gov agencies from setting a firearms related workplace rule.
Top
I was referring to the state supreme court decision i linked to in my post. Also, this preemption law appears to apply only to local agencies (such as the town of blacksburg, montgomery county municipality, etc.) not state agencies such as virginia tech.
Top
If you want to have NON ELECTED public officials creating "regulations" that trample on protected rights then lets continue down the path we are going.
I still wouldn't agree, but I would rather see VA legislators actually pass a law.
Top
If you want to have NON ELECTED public officials creating "regulations" that trample on protected rights then lets continue down the path we are going.
I still wouldn't agree, but I would rather see VA legislators actually pass a law.
Top
Another thing I would like to note is that often anti-gun people will say that it will turn into a bloodbath on campus when students get bad grades and shoot their professors. I would bet anyone that I can prove their nightmares would not come true.
If a significant number of people would be willing to use physical violence in response to a bad grade wouldn't we see this playing out right now? Wouldn't there be several incidences per year where students physically assault professors with their fists, or with a solid object like a $180, 500 page chem book? So we know that students bringing violence against professors doesn't happen frequently (their fists are available 24/7 when they are sitting in class and received their quiz/project scores). Why then would students all of a sudden decide violence is the key simply because of a change in VT gun ban policy?
Reply to this Top
Anti-gunners do not understand the mentality of gun owners/carriers.
I consider myself to be responsible owner/carrier. When I get cut off in traffic I never honk my horn, I don't yell randomly at the person and potentially escalate the situation, thereby backing myself into corner where a fight might ensue. Responsible gun owners turn the other cheek when someone honks or curses at them, because the last thing we want to do is escalate the situation and then use our gun, and then get charged with a crime.
Reply to this Top
I completely agree. I also consider myself a responsible owner/carrier. In cases such as those you described, and many others for that matter, gun owners/carriers mentally have a relaxed poise about them and want to avoid a escalating situation at all costs. People who don't know about guns or have not been exposed to guns simply make generalizations about guns and gun owners, when in reality they are some of the most responsible individuals. My guns are a huge part of my life and ,when permitted, I never leave my house without one by side.
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."
-William S. Burroughs
Reply to this Top
William S. Burroughs killed his wife by shooting her in the head in a "game." Not sure he should be your poster boy for responsible gun ownership.
Top
I attend and work at a Virginia college that allows concealed carry on campus (with permit).
I know half a dozen people that do. I probably know several others that do.
Feels pretty good, actually. I enjoy every day of being here.
Reply to this Top
I am sure a number of students and employees simply ignore the Tech rule. So what if you get expelled or fired. At least it would be for a good reason.
Think back to 4/16. We know Cho hit 4 classrooms. We know that even though they were out gunned, some people in those rooms made it through unharmed, even students in 1st classroom.
I propose to anyone who will listen, open this mind, and think that if a person in one of those rooms (especially 2nd, 3rd, or 4th rooms) had a gun the tragedy would not have been as horrific. Imagine sitting in one of the classrooms other than the 1st one he entered. You hear gunshots in the room next door. Students did their best to barricade the door. If everyone took cover in the corner (same side or room as the door) and someone begins breaking it down or shooting through it you know that is the bad guy. Obviously the cops woulnd't come into the room shooting. I bet that an innocent person with a gun could take cover with everyone else and wait until the door was breached. Then and only then, as perpetrator enters the room, the innocent gun owner would have a clear shot at the perp as he/she stands/crouches in the corner with the rest of the innocent students behind him/her.
Reply to this Top
continued.....That is how a society should protect its members. The bleeding heart liberals or anti-gunners who are filled with fear at the mere sight of a gun put us all at risk. The best way to defend yourself against an attacker with a gun is with your own gun. That cannot be denied. So they fall back on the argument that students are too emotional, they will kill their teachers over bad grades.
Well in my 11 years at Tech, I have never heard of any students attacking their prof over a grade. Students have constant access to their fists, and one would rightly assume that a student would assault their prof with their fists/book/desk if they were that upset. Since students do regularly go around assaulting prof over bad grade, I have a hard time buying the argument that would kill over a bad grade.
Reply to this Top
I have in the past supported schools of which I am not an alumnus - schools that provide something to the community. I cannot support schools that seem to believe I will be a different person when I walk across the street onto campus.
If people are responsible off campus, they will be responsible on campus. It's that simple.
Reply to this Top
Where I am from, there are many irresponsible young gun owners who acquire all the necessary permits to carry a gun, but never actually learn how to shoot the gun properly. I feel that you have no business owning a gun if you are uneducated on how to handle them. However, I know my case is an isolated incident, and the vast majority of gun owners are not like this. Just thought I'd share an experience.
I also agree that this article is rather one sided. I think it would have helped to quote someone who was in favor of the concealed weapons bill, since there are so many on campus.
Reply to this Top
The testing conducted by DMV offices across this state, or from state to state, is a bare minimum knowledge test. It is possible to be an irresponsible driver even after passing the test (i.e driving drunk, etc). The same goes for guns.
There is nothing wrong with a person choosing to own a gun but also choosing to not learn to use it very well. I would not respect such a person as a "gun owner" but I would respect THEIR choice.
Reply to this Top
I find it puzzling as to how they couldn't seem to find anyone pro-liberty to interview for the article, but almost everyone who commented is. Oh, and Tiffany Farley: "...That's what we have police for." The mayhem that went on the morning of April 16th reaffirmed that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away!
We need campus carry rights protected.
Reply to this Top
I actually really pondered this when reading the comments. I have been very anti-guns in the past, but the comments from the article (which, no matter what side you fall on, we can all agree was not well written) were very thought provoking and practical. Especially not having all guns in the hands of police/government and making sure that responsible law-abiders are not punished.
I also agree with those who note that it's a question of attitude -- non-violent people with guns will not use them violently. What still disturbs me, though, is the ease with which someone with mental illness can obtain firearms, and it is THIS kind of gun violence that has touched my family in many ways. Could pro-gunners agree that more thorough psychological testing would be needed to obtain a firearm? Cho, for example, had a highly documented history of instability. Yet he still managed to obtain really powerful weapons. Again and again, this seems to happen. Look at the recent shooting of the Congresswoman and others in Arizona, perpetuated by another individual with mental illness. How do you all stand on this part of the issue? I feel like tighter regulation on this aspect of the gun debate would make me much more comfortable with gun rights and absolutely supporting carrying on campus.
Reply to this Top
I wish there were a more thorough psychological screening process - but the fact is that psychology and culture are so intertwined it can be very hard to separate legitimate mental illness from a legitimate grievance. The State in the past has used the charge of "mental illness" to silence opponents in the past, most notably the Soviet Union. See here:
http://www.jaapl.org/content/30/1/136.full.pdf
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
The classic example of "paranoid gun owner" tossed around by antigunners comes to mind. There are quite a few gun owners who think that any gun law is unconstitutional, and that any gun control law passed is an eventual threat on our rights.
You can't really blame them, considering the antigun side still exists and is attempting to restrict the expression of that right at every turn. Look at the unfortunate successes of the Brady Campaign back in the 90's and you may see why gun control is seen as "a decade-long hate crime."
Reply to this Top
I personally believe you should be allowed to carry any firearm on any public property provided you have bought the firearm through a background check and have received your permit.
What people are more concerned about is training these days. There aren't a lot of ranges where you'd probably need them. The reality of a deadly force encounter also is not fully fleshed out, but soon will be thanks to the advent of airsoft and force-on-force technology, where you can simulate actual gunfights under stress - when to initiate, and how to deal with the unfortunate situation.
For force on force training - please see here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpkldtiq-BA
There should be a way to have economic incentives to train, perhaps every time you train you can extend the permit by another year, or having the state police train you, lowering the cost of ammunition, etc. If only we could reduce the size of our military and stop fighting these useless wars perhaps we'd have a lot more money to spend at home - for other causes as well as ours included.
The issue with Cho was more of a failure of the system to work as it was supposed to - if he was supposed to be hospitalized against his will, or declared incompetent by a judge, someone was supposed to have told the NICS background check system - but someone failed. That individual must be held responsible.
Reply to this Top
But it is also scary that one person in a position of power can call you a "suspicious person" & make your life h*** forever. It doesn't affect just guns. Any job, too. Don an internet search. Several students have had these incidents too.
Or, with the stroke of a pen, you can be declared "incompetent" by someone with different political views & ruin your life forever.
Top
Are you prepared to undergo psychological testing? For your entrance to college, for example? For any job? To join the country club? To become a postal worker? For the bank to grant you a loan?
But it is very scary that one person who hasn't met you, that is in a position of power, can call you a "suspicious person" & make your life h*** forever. It doesn't affect just guns. Any job, too. Do an internet search. Several students have had these incidents too.
Or, with the stroke of a pen, you can be declared "incompetent" by someone with different political views & ruin your life forever.
Where does it end? Aren't these the individual freedom's that my military family members are fighting to uphold?
"Presumed Innocent" is our right. Are you willing to take your own away, not just gun owners. Where does the power of the elite stop?
Reply to this Top
Sorry, but I can't agree with that. Before 1995, when Virginia was made a "shall-issue" state, localities had discretion as to whom they would issue permits. I know one permit holder that was asked to undergo psych testing back in the early 1990s. He refused and has had his permit without incident ever since. Before shall-issue, there were about 13,000 permit holders. Now, there are over 250,000. It has been proven in Virginia that when the government quits subjectively deciding who's life is worth allowing that person to defend, that crime declines. 5% decline in restaurants that serve alcohol since allowing concealed carry there over a year ago. Once we allow the government broad discretion to decide who is mentally fit to own firearms, we will find ourselves slowly being disarmed and ALL of our liberties being eroded. I called my congressman and asked him NOT to vote for HR 822 (National Concealed Carry) for this very reason. It sounds like good intentions (as it sounds like you have), but it will turn into a big furnace to throw our rights into before all is said and done.
Reply to this Top
Actually, to clarify a point, the police are there to investigate and (try) to find and arrest the subject(s) responsible, not to prevent crime (except as a by-product) nor to protect individual citizens. This has been firmly established in case law since at least 1981.
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
Reply to this Top
Where are the facts? "...rent a gun to go hunting?" An obvious lack of information about this topic, but she has an opinion.
Students seem to have opinions not based on fact. Is this how professors are making assignments? By taking away free speech & free exchange of information & ideas in exchange for good grades? http://college.cengage.com/psychology/resources/students/screen/screen_20021016.html
This is her assignment: An anti-gun professor at Lord Fairfax Community College, Alaina Cassel, is giving a writing assignment to her PSY 255 (Psychological Aspects of Criminal Behavior) students:"Write a proposed letter to Attorney General Cuccinelli stating why guns should not be allowed at LFCC and what you would do if everyone on the campus was carrying a loaded gun."
Most incidents are not Cho oriented. The student @ Tech one year later had time to decapitate the other student in the Cafe before the campus cops got there.
The majority of crime is one person is the victim.
If we see a campus as a small, self-governing country, who has the power? Scary, isn't it.
Reply to this Top
Having "gun free" campuses simply tells potential gunmen that this is an area that they can safely go on a killing spree and that no one will be able to defend themselves. I'm sure if more campuses allowed students with CCW permits to concealed carry on campus that more gunmen would think twice before going on a killing spree.
Reply to this Top
I hope Rosa Collins is not an example of the intellect represented by Virginia university students. To paraphrase Sigourney Weaver in "Aliens," "Did IQs drop sharply while I was out?"
1. You don't rent guns to hunt.
2. You don't rent guns to protect yourself.
3. People carry handguns for self protection, not hunting.
4. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
5. Policies and regulations that ban guns don't stop criminals and murderers. They only stop law abiding citizens. Therefore they have the exact opposite effect from what they are designed to do.
6. This policy/proposed regulation also has an added twist: A college student could carry a legal concealed handgun at every college in Virginia EXCEPT the one he attends.
7. The student with a permit already lawfully carries a concealed handgun pretty much everywhere in VA. He may be a 21 year old Junior, a 40 year old businessman, or a 60 year old grandfather. He may be a veteran of Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam.
8. What is it about the geography of Virginia's universities that makes them 'special' or more immune from crime and violence than the surrounding communities?
College students, faculty and visitors deserve to have their right to self defense respected just as much as when they are at the town hall, library, mall or grocery store.
Reply to this Top
I was a sophomore student here and member of the Corps of Cadets at Tech on April 16th, 2007. I was in Pamplin College of Business and I know that while the police did THE BEST THEY COULD, they did not and could not have prevented the deaths of 30 more innocent men & women.
I remember when the news came out of two different heroes. One was Professor Liviu Librescu a Jewish Holocaust survivor who blocked the door to his classroom with his body sacrificing his life to save his students.
The other was Cadet Corporal Matthew Joseph LaPorte member of the Cadet Band (Highty-Tighties) who attempted to assault the shooter and take him down. Later forensic examination of the room where he died would conclude he had the best chance of survival based on where he was sitting yet he choose to charge the shooter receiving multiple wounds in his limbs and chest finally bleeding to death shortly before the shooter returned to the room and committed suicide.
What if either of those brave men had had a weapon? How many lives would have been saved? What if the students who barricaded their classroom's doors with desks had a firearm?
Reply to this Top
I used to be fascinated with the topic of carrying concealed weapons on my person. However, the real issue is the degree to which weapons can escalate a situation. My father, an ex-bouncer, always told me "once you shoot something or stab something, you can't undo it". That is the crucial thing, in the heat of a moment, what if one missed their target or was mistaken as to who the real perpetrator was?
Reply to this Top
This is why you train, train, train, and train. Eventually, there will be no "heat of the moment" and it will look exactly like training to you.
Concealed carry is a huge responsibility and should NOT be taken lightly.
Reply to this Top
Virginia requires no training at all for a CC license. If I was confident that 1. the CC holder was well trained and 2. the police would somehow recognize the CC white knight as not being the bad guy and not blow him/her away before asking questions, I'd be a lot more comfortable with the idea of CC on campus.
Top
I lived through the shooting in 2007. THE POLICE DIDN'T PROTECT US. The police did not protect the girl who was beheaded in GLC building.
QUIT IMPOSING ON OUR RIGHTS. DISARMING INNOCENT PEOPLE DOES NOT PROTECT INNOCENT PEOPLE.
As a VT alumni, I am not donating a penny to the school until this ridiculous policy is changed. Stop listening to the bureaucrats. The only way to keep our rights is to exercise them.
Reply to this Top
Thumbs up!
Reply to this Top
"The university believes that guns don’t belong on college campuses, in classes or in our dormitories," Hincker said.
Mr. Hincker, if that is the case then why do you allow police officers to carry them?
Taken to the extreme, you could sum up what Mr. Hinkcer is saying here and expand up on it to come up with something along the lines of the following:
"If any incidents similar to the Virginia Tech shootings should ever happen in the future, we want to make sure the perpetrators are able to carry out their atrocities with as little resistance as possible... preferably NONE until we decide to say 'enough is enough' and dispatch a law enforcement officer who will command them to stop. No person should be able to prevent unwarranted acts of force or aggression against their property or person on a college campus. We, the decision makers, will decide the value (or lack thereof) of our students' lives. To that end, our current course of action is proceeding under the presumption that our students are too incompetent to act in their own self defense anyways. Thank you and best regards, -- The VT BOV"
Reply to this Top
VT hasn't recognized that Cho was a criminal. What makes anyone think that passing a law would have stopped him? Criminals break laws. They don't abide my them.
It is significant to note,in VA, you must be 21 to obtain a permit to carry concealed. Most of the VT undergrad student body is under that.
I am not comfortable with any university promulgating laws in the Commonwealth. These are not elected officials. They are state employees. They don't represent me. I have no voice in it. Where is my Constitution?
By the way, the VCDL is not a "pro gun" group. They are advocates of 2nd Amendment rights. I've never seen anything from them promoting any specific firearms or ammunition. However, they consistently advocate and promote the rights guaranteed to us by the 2nd Amendment.
I am an alumnus and a VT Dad. I've carried concealed many times on campus. I've never had an incident. I know I'm not alone.
Reply to this Top
Also, we know Cho was stalking at least one student. Police checked in on her.
I am extremely curious to know if the female student decided on her own not to press charges, or if the responding officers had any part in convincing her not to. Obviously if he had been charged and found guilty of stalking in 2005, he would not have been able to buy his guns in 2007.
Reply to this Top
Count me in the camp who wants the 2nd Amendment protected on campus.
Reply to this Top
Personally, I would not feel safe knowing that people around me in my classrooms or wherever on campus could be carrying a gun. Guns make me uneasy. I think a lot of people here are forgetting that, for many students, guns don't make us feel safe because we don't know if that person is really stable enough to be allowed to carry one.
Also, everyone back off the author of this article. Yes it may be a bit one-sided in the student representation, but you need to remember that this isn't the Washington Post. This is a student who is learning how to become a journalist. If you think you could write a better article go ahead and try it out.
Reply to this Top
You are missing the point that nothing is stopping anyone from carrying on campus except the threat of expulsion. If someone intended to use their gun for evil, what kind of a deterrent is that?
Also, the state decides for you who is stable enough to carry a concealed weapon. So of you don't like that idea, fight existing laws allowing permits. I assume you'd be no more comfortable walking through Kroger knowing that anyone could be carrying, so why would you focus on Tech instead of tackling the issue at its roots?
Reply to this Top
Yet you don't feel uneasy when around police officers both uniformed and plainclothed?
Remember...The Only Ones are just as human as everyone else.
Reply to this Top
" I think a lot of people here are forgetting that, for many students, guns don't make us feel safe because we don't know if that person is really stable enough to be allowed to carry one."
It's unfortunate that you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object, I'm sorry to hear that. However, take comfort in the fact that people already carry firearms around you everyday. When you're downtown hanging out or at the bars or if you're walking around your apartment complex, people can and do carry there.
That said, while this article was very one-sided, I have to agree with you on giving the author a break. Like you said, this isn't the Washington Post. Plus, to expect a perfect article here when even the Post can mess up quite a bit sometimes is silly.
Reply to this Top
I would actually set my standard a little higher for a college newspaper. The principles of good writing should be fresh in everyone's minds.
Onto the meat of the subject: "I think a lot of people here are forgetting that, for many students, guns don't make us feel safe because we don't know if that person is really stable enough to be allowed to carry one."
The key word here is <Think> "I think" is just that. Somehow having to depend on police response times makes you feel safe?
Top
Last night at 2047 local time, a young female flagged down an officer near the intersection of Smithfield Dr and Duck Pond Dr. She reported an attempted assault.
VTPD responded with several units looking for the subject in question (white male wearing blue jeans and a dark hoodie).
No VT-ALERT was issued last night. Thankfully this female was able to escape her attacker and make it to the authorities.
Reply to this Top
Naturally the VTPD will avoid issuing as many alerts that they can because it would be admitting that they cannot possibly be everywhere at once when crime happens. Keeping the "documented" numbers of incidents down in the official blotter is their only hope of convincing students, family, and staff that "all is well."
Reply to this Top
"When seconds count, the police are minutes away." I wonder what those students in the article would say when they are staring down the barrel of a gun such as on April 16, 2007. I bet that they would wish that they could defend themselves.
Reply to this Top
I've been talking with the anti-gun rights folks for years and while some of them wise up after a close call, most of them don't have that close call and therefore seem to think that no one else's close call matters. I will never understand how folks that say they're for peace can turn a blind eye to all of the casualties that pile up without limit in "gun free zones." Unfortunately, we all know that all that is necessary for another murderous rampage to happen on campus is one deranged, criminal murderer that wants to do it. Voilence prevention literature, those telephones with blue lights, peace vigils, campus cops, a smorgasbord of new laws, whatever.... these won't stop the event when it happens; only that armed student or teacher could have stopped it then or will be able to stop it when it happens again. Even if the cops respond to the shots (or stabs or clubs or whatever) quickly, one or more lives are needlessly already gone. Yes indeed: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. We need campus carry.
Reply to this Top
Criminals won't obey the regulation banning guns, because they don't care about laws to begin with. Law abiding citizens will obey the law....leaving them defenseless. This seems like a no brainer. By the same logic, Virginia could pass a law (pretending the 2nd amendment doesn't exist) against ALL firearms. Cops would be rendered useless while criminals did what they wanted. The 2nd amendment was passed to prevent tyranny from the government AND to provde citizens with a reasonable means to protect themselves. Duh.
Reply to this Top
Virginia Tech is fighting a losing battle. The hand writing is on the wall. The American people want to be able to keep and bear arms, and legislators from the U.S. House and Senate -- to state legislatures across America seem to agree with them. So-called "gun free zones" like universities actually draw violent predators such as rapists, armed robbers, and mass shooters because those violent criminals know that there will be no chance of an armed counter response from their totally unarmed and helpless victims.
Reply to this Top
Two of our "Unalienable Rights" are to Life and Lberty. Implied in those rights is the right of self-defense against those who would unjustly deprive us of them.
A handgun is a very potent instrument for protection of those rights. We should not lose our rights merely because we enter a college campus.
Reply to this Top