Posts Tagged ‘concealed carry on campus’

University discloses students’ grades, disciplinary history when they apply for gun permits

February 26, 2013 Leave a comment

Robby Soave

Reporter, The Daily Caller News Foundation

The University of may have broken federal guidelines by sharing with the local sheriff’s department private information about students who apply for campus gun permits.

Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, public universities are required to keep secret personal information on students, such as their grades and addresses. But Iowa has been sending personal information regarding students who apply for campus gun permits to the sheriff’s office.

The Anti-Choice Left’s Disarming of the American Woman

February 20, 2013 Leave a comment


By Michelle Malkin

If radical gun-grabbers have their way, your daughters, mothers and grandmothers will have nothing but whistles, pens and bodily fluids to defend themselves against violent attackers and sexual predators. Women of all ages, races and political backgrounds should be up in arms over the coordinated attack on their right to bear arms.

In Colorado this week, male Democratic legislators assailed concealed-carry supporters and disparaged female students who refuse to depend on the government for protection. The Democrat-controlled House passed a statewide ban on concealed-carry weapons on college campuses, along with several other extreme gun-control measures that will undermine citizen safety and drive dozens of businesses out of the state.

Condescending Democratic Rep. Joe Salazar of Colorado asserted that young women can’t be trusted to assess threatening situations at their colleges or universities: “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles,” Salazar said during floor debate…….(Con’t)




Today’s Crock-O-Crap…. From BOSTON – “Journalist” Claims Guns Dangerous On College Campus’!

January 15, 2012 4 comments

[TWG Note:  And now, folks, I present today’s gun grabbing, spittle-spewing  babble from another COMPLETE IDIOT…. This time, in Boston.   Apparently, this mouth-breathing moron would rather see your children sitting in a target rich environment with no ability to defend themselves.    Hard to believe these dumbasses actually believe they have the right to force our children to become victims while they attend the indoctrination camps… er…ah… public “schools”.   These so called “Gun Free Zones” are nothing more than a welcome mat to mass murderers who know they’ll have a target-rich environment in which to commit their crimes, and they won’t be shot back at while they murder your children and, possibly the teachers.  HOW DARE THEY THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MY CHILDREN VICTIMS.  If their own kids can’t handle a gun, that’s THEIR problem.  NOT MINE, and NOT YOURS.  Law-Abiding gun owners DO attend safety training, and if their own parents are the one’s who approve of them carrying said guns, I will bet they’ve been trained on the proper time to use them RESPONSIBLY.  

You can find a plethora of information on this subject, INCLUDING FACTS THAT SUPPORT Concealed Carry on College Campus at  STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS  ( ) 


Guns and colleges make formula for tragedy
By Yvonne Abraham |  Globe Columnist     January 15, 2012

Maybe they were trying to impress the presidential candidates.

How else to explain the barmy gun bills advanced by New Hampshire legislators just before the primary? Their state is already heaven for Second Amendment absolutists, but Granite State legislators seem determined to turn it into Gun Nut Paradise.

The House approved bills allowing people to drive around with loaded rifles and shotguns, and to carry concealed guns without permits. But the killer bill, and I do mean killer, is HB 334: That one would prohibit college, state, and local officials from banning guns on state and community college campuses, and on other state property, including sports and concert arenas where alcohol is served and fights happen. That bit of lunacy passed by a 180-to-144 vote in the House.

The gun bills are headed to the Senate next. Democratic Governor John Lynch, who would qualify as a firearm fanatic in Massachusetts, has said they go way too far, and vows to veto them.

The bill is part of a National Rifle Association push to allow guns on campuses in the wake of the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings. Gun advocates argue that if students there had been armed, Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32, wouldn’t have gotten very far.

Their opponents make the very sensible point that the young, mentally ill gunman went into the massacre intending to end his own life, and that the thought of a firefight would hardly have deterred him. Besides, we’re not talking about US Marshals in classrooms here: These would be college students, with no weapons training, drawing guns in a moment of confusion and crisis.

“What happens if that person misses?’’ asks Enfield Police Chief Richard Crate, a member of the New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association, which opposes the legislation. “Even police officers who are excellent shots miss. It sounds good, like the Lone Ranger, but that’s not real life.’’

Almost anybody can get a gun in New Hampshire – even if they have a criminal background, or mental illness. The state scores a lousy 6 points out of a possible 100 with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. There, people leap through the gun-show loophole, which allows them to buy firearms – including assault weapons – from private dealers without background checks.

Bring that sort of firepower onto a college campus, and you’ve got an incredibly dangerous mix. There are keg parties, drunk and belligerent kids, drugs, emotional episodes, confrontations over broken romances and dorm room cleanliness. Community and state college officials are understandably freaked out about this. The NRA has tried the gambit in other states, and failed most of the time (with notable exceptions in Utah and Mississippi). Even in Virginia, a December Quinnipiac University poll found 75 percent of respondents believed guns should be banned on college campuses.

But gun advocates knew they had a chance in New Hampshire. This is because lots of legislators there are loopy – especially since the Tea Party takeover of 2010.

Take a look at some of the other legislation on their agenda this year: Two bills would require that evolution be presented as only one theory – alongside intelligent design – in schools. And then there’s the bill that would require anyone proposing a law concerning individual rights and liberties to include a direct quote from the Magna Carta – yep, the one from 1215 – showing the article from which the right is derived. I’m guessing gay marriage, which legislators also want to repeal this year, isn’t in there.

For this, the people of New Hampshire pay their 400 citizen-legislators – wait a minute, um. . .$100 a year. You get what you pay for, I guess. Actually, you get more – you get the possibility of gun laws that would make tragedy almost inevitable.

SOURCE: The Boston Globe  (Surprised?  Not me.)





Common Arguments

(Click on Argument to View Answer)

Argument: Guns on campus would lead to an escalation in violent crime.

Answer: Since the fall semester of 2006, state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of the nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses) in Utah. Concealed carry has been allowed at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. After allowing concealed carry on campus for a combined total of one hundred semesters, none of these twelve schools has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft. Likewise, none of the forty ‘right-to-carry’ states has seen a resulting increase in gun violence since legalizing concealed carry, despite the fact that licensed citizens in those states regularly carry concealed handguns in places like office buildings, movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, churches, banks, etc. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.

“Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” John Lott and David Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997);
“An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population,” William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000; Florida Department of Justice statistics, 1998; Florida Department of State,

“Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report,” 1998; Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September 2000; Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association

Argument: Guns on campus would lead to an increased number of suicides by college students.

Answer: Studies* show that 90% of suicides are committed in the home.  Because most college students over the age of  twenty-one (the minimum age to obtain a concealed handgun license in most  states) live off campus, allowing concealed carry on college campuses would  have very little impact on the ability of college students to possess firearms  in their homes and, therefore, little to no impact on the overall number of  suicides by college students.

*“Youth and Adolescent Suicide: A Guide for Educators,” Oregon Resiliency Project, University of Oregon, 2003; After Suicide: A Ray of Hope for Those Left Behind, Eleanora Betsy Ross, 2001

NOTE: At the University of Texas—a major university with over 50,000 students—a quick comparison of campus housing statistics and concealed handgun licensing statistics reveals that there would likely be no more than ten to twenty concealed handgun license holders living in on-campus housing

Argument: Guns on campus would distract from the learning environment.

Answer: Ask anyone in a ‘right to carry’ state when he or she last noticed  another person carrying a concealed handgun.   The word ‘concealed’ is there for a reason.  Concealed handguns would no more distract  college students from learning than they currently distract moviegoers from  enjoying movies or office workers from doing their jobs.

“In most states with ‘shall-issue’ concealed carry laws, the rate of concealed carry is about 1%.  That means that one person out of 100 is licensed to carry a concealed handgun.  Therefore, statistically speaking, a packed 300-seat movie theater contains three individuals legally carrying concealed handguns, and a shopping mall crowded with 1,000 shoppers contains ten individuals legally carrying concealed handguns.  Students who aren’t too afraid to attend movies or go shopping and who aren’t distracted from learning by the knowledge that a classmate might be illegally carrying a firearm shouldn’t be distracted from learning by the knowledge that a classmate might be legally carrying a firearm.”

Argument: Colleges are too crowded to safely allow the carry of concealed weapons.

Answer: Colleges are no more crowded than movie theaters, office buildings,  shopping malls, and numerous other locations where concealed handgun license  holders are already allowed to carry concealed handguns.  The widespread passage of shall-issue  concealed carry laws has not led to spates of shootings or gun thefts at those  locations.

Argument: A person with a gun could ‘snap’ and go on a killing spree.

Answer: Contrary to popular myth, most psychiatric professionals agree that the  notion of a previously sane, well-adjusted person simply ‘snapping’ and  becoming violent is not supported by case evidence.  A Secret Service study* into school shootings  concluded that school shooters do not simply snap and that a person’s downward  spiral toward violence is typically accompanied by numerous warning  signs.

*“Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools,” U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education with support from the National Institute of Justice, Co-Directors Bryan Vossekuil, Marissa Reddy PhD, Robert Fein PhD, October 2000

Argument: A dangerous person might jump someone who is carrying a gun, take the gun, and use it to do harm.

Answer: Even assuming that this hypothetical dangerous person knew that an  individual was carrying a concealed handgun, which is unlikely, there are much  easier ways for a criminal to acquire a firearm than by assaulting an armed  individual.

Argument: Dorms are notoriously vulnerable to theft. It would be too easy for someone to steal an unattended firearm from a dorm.

Answer: The vulnerability of dorms to theft does not necessitate a campus-wide  ban on concealed carry by licensed individuals.   There are numerous other options, from community gun lockups to small,  private gun safes that can be secured to walls, floors, bed frames, etc.

NOTE:  On most college campuses very few students of legal age to obtain a concealed handgun license still live in dorms.  Even at the University of Texas—a major university with over 50,000 students—a quick comparison of campus housing statistics and concealed handgun licensing statistics reveals that there would likely be no more than ten to twenty concealed handgun license holders living in on-campus housing.

Argument: It’s possible that a gun might go off by accident.

Answer: Accidental discharges are very rare—particularly because modern firearms  feature multiple safety features and because a handgun’s trigger is typically  not exposed when it is concealed—and only a small fraction of accidental  discharges result in injury.  SCCC feels  that it is wrong to deny citizens a right simply because that right is  accompanied by a negligible risk.

NOTE:  Only about 2% of all firearm-related deaths in the U.S. are accidental, and most of those are hunting accidents and accidents involving firearms being openly handled in an unsafe manner.  A person is five times more likely to accidentally drown, five times more likely to accidentally die in a fire, 29 times more likely to die in an accidental fall, and 32 times more likely to die from accidental poisoning than to die from an accidental gunshot wound.

ADDITIONAL NOTE:  The accidental discharge that occurred in the cockpit of a U.S. Airways jet, on March 22, 2008, occurred during the application of a poorly designed trigger lock, which FAA regulations require be in place during landing. 

Argument: It’s unlikely that allowing concealed carry on college campuses could help prevent a Virginia Tech-style massacre because most college students are too young to obtain a concealed handgun license.

Answer: Nineteen of the thirty-two victims of the Virginia Tech massacre were  over the age of twenty-one (the minimum age to obtain a concealed handgun  license in Virginia and most other states).

Argument: Colleges are emotionally volatile environments. Allowing guns on campus will turn classroom debates into crime scenes.

Answer: Before shall-issue concealed carry laws were passed throughout the United  States, opponents claimed that such laws would turn disputes over parking  spaces and traffic accidents into shootouts.   This did not prove to be the case.   The same responsible adults—age twenty-one and above—now asking to be  allowed to carry their concealed handguns on college campuses are already  allowed to do so virtually everywhere else.   They clearly do not let their emotions get the better of them in other  environments; therefore, no less should be expected of them on college  campuses.

Argument: The college lifestyle is defined by alcohol and drug abuse. Why would any sane person want to add guns to that mix?

Answer: This is NOT a debate about keeping guns out of the  hands of college students.  Allowing  concealed carry on college campuses would not change the rules about who can  buy a gun or who can obtain a concealed handgun license.  Every state that provides for legalized  concealed carry has statutes prohibiting license holders from carrying while  under the influence of drugs or alcohol.   Legalizing concealed carry on college campuses would neither make it  easier for college students to obtain firearms nor make it legal for a person  to carry a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  Allowing concealed carry on college campuses  would have no impact on the laws regulating concealed carry at bars and  off-campus parties, the places where students (particularly students of legal  age to obtain a concealed handgun license) are most likely to consume  alcohol.

Argument: In an active shooter scenario like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech, a student or faculty member with a gun would only make things worse.

Answer: What is worse than allowing an execution-style massacre to continue  uncontested?  How could any action with  the potential to stop or slow a deranged killer intent on slaughtering victim  after victim be considered ‘worse’ than allowing that killer to continue  undeterred?  Contrary to what the movies  might have us believe, most real-world shootouts last less than ten  seconds*.  Even the real Gunfight at the  O.K. Corral, a shootout involving nine armed participants and a number of  bystanders, lasted only about thirty seconds and resulted in only three  fatalities.  It is unlikely that an  exchange of gunfire between an armed assailant and an armed citizen would last  more than a couple of seconds before one or both parties were disabled.  How could a couple of seconds of exchanged  gunfire possibly be worse than a ten-minute, execution-style massacre?

*In The Line of Fire: Violence Against Law Enforcement, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Institute of Justice, 1997

Argument: The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals.

Answer: Nobody is suggesting that concealed handgun license holders be charged with  the duty of protecting campuses.  What is  being suggested is that adults with concealed handgun licenses be allowed to  protect themselves on college campuses, the same way they’re currently allowed  to protect themselves in most other unsecured locations.  According to a U.S. Secret Service study*  into thirty-seven school shootings, ‘Over half of the attacks were  resolved/ended before law enforcement responded to the scene.  In these cases the attacker was stopped by  faculty or fellow students, decided to stop shooting on his own, or killed  himself.’  The study found that only  three of the thirty-seven school shootings researched involved shots being  fired by law enforcement officers.

*“Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools,” U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education with support from the National Institute of Justice, Co-Directors Bryan Vossekuil, Marissa Reddy PhD, Robert Fein PhD, October 2000

Argument: Police officers typically spend four to five months in training; whereas, concealed handgun license holders usually spend one day or less.

Answer: Police officers do not spend four to five  months learning to carry concealed handguns for self-defense; they spend four  to five months learning to be police officers.  Concealed handgun license  holders are not police officers; therefore, they have no need of most of the  training received by police officers.  Concealed handgun license holders  don’t need to know how to drive police cars at high speeds or how to  kick down doors or how to conduct traffic stops or how to make arrests or how  to use handcuffs.  And concealed handgun license holders definitely don’t  need to spend weeks memorizing radio codes and traffic laws.

“Contrary to what some opponents of concealed carry might claim, concealed handgun license holders don’t need extensive tactical training because they are not charged with protecting the public—It’s not their job to act like amateur, one-man SWAT teams.  All a concealed handgun license holder needs to know is how to use his or her concealed handgun to stop an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that type of training CAN be accomplished in a few hours.”

NOTE:  In some states, such as Texas, the shooting test for a concealed handgun license differs very little from the annual re-qualification test for police officers.

Argument: How are first responders supposed to tell the difference between armed civilians and armed assailants?

Answer: This hasn’t been an issue with concealed handgun license holders in other  walks of life for several reasons.  First  and foremost, real-world shootouts are typically localized and over very  quickly.  It’s not realistic to expect  police to encounter an ongoing shootout between assailants and armed  civilians.  Second, police are trained to  expect both armed bad guys AND armed good guys—from off-duty/undercover police  officers to armed civilians—in tactical scenarios.  Third, concealed handgun license holders are  trained to use their firearms for self-defense.   They are not trained to run through buildings looking for bad guys.  Therefore, the biggest distinction between  the armed assailants and the armed civilians is that the armed civilians would  be hiding with the crowd, and the armed assailants would be shooting at the  crowd.

Argument: A Taser is as effective as a handgun against an armed assailant.

Answer: If you’re going to attempt to use a Taser to defend yourself against an  armed assailant, you’d better hope the assailant isn’t wearing thick clothing  or standing more than fifteen feet away.   You’d also better hope that you don’t miss with your first shot and that  you aren’t facing more than one assailant.   And you’d better hope that you can escape to safety before the Taser’s  effects wear off.  Like handguns, Tasers  are banned on most college campuses.

Argument: Defense spray is as effective as a handgun against an armed assailant.

Answer: If you’re going to attempt to use a defense spray to defend yourself against  an armed assailant, you’d better hope you bought one of the concentrated  formulas that doesn’t take ten to fifteen seconds to begin working.  You’d also better hope that the assailant is  standing in close proximity to you and that you are in a well-ventilated  location where you won’t find yourself overcome by the effects of the spray  before you can escape to safety.  Like  handguns, defense sprays are banned on most college campuses.

Argument: Self-defense training is as effective as a handgun against an armed assailant.

Answer: If you’re going to try to manually disarm an assailant, you’d better be  within an arm’s length of the assailant, be standing on firm ground, have no  obstacles between you and the assailant, and be in relatively good physical  condition.  If the assailant is standing  four feet away, you’re probably out of luck.   If you’re sitting in a chair or lying on the floor, you’re probably out  of luck.  If there is a desk between you  and the assailant, you’re probably out of luck.   And if you’re elderly or disabled, you’re probably out of luck.  Even a well-trained martial arts expert is no  match for a bullet fired from eight feet away.   Why should honest, law abiding citizens be asked to undergo years of  training in order to master an inferior method of self-defense?

Argument: Some states allow citizens to be issued concealed handgun licenses at the age of eighteen.

Answer: Among  the thirty-six shall-issue’ states*—states where local authorities cannot require qualified applicants to “show a need” before the applicant is issued a concealed handgun license/concealed carry weapons permit—six states allow, without special provision, for any qualified person eighteen years or older to be issued a concealed handgun license.  These states are Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

“Based on the FBI/Department of Justice violent crime statistics for the year 2006, the crime rates for these seven states, when ranked with all fifty states and the District of Columbia, rank as follows:

  • Indiana – 30
  • Montana – 42
  • South Dakota – 47
  • New Hampshire – 48
  • North Dakota – 50
  • Maine – 51

“Not only are Maine, North Dakota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota four of the five** U.S. states with the lowest crime rates, Montana has the tenth lowest crime rate, and Indiana isn’t even in the top 50%. Clearly, these states’ lenient concealed handgun laws are not breeding generations of young violent offenders. “The extraordinarily low crime rates in these six states, coupled with the fact that these states have a combined population of only about 10,900,000 (approximately 1.6 million less than the combined population of America’s two largest cities—New York, NY, and Los Angeles, CA—and at approximately 1/3 the combined violent crime rate of those two cities) has led Students for Concealed Carry on Campus to focus on the majority of ‘shall-issue’ states where the minimum age to receive a concealed handgun license is twenty-one.”

*Alaska (licenses are offered but not required to carry a concealed handgun), Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

**Vermont is ranked at 49—the third least violent state.  Vermont neither requires nor offers a license to carry a concealed handgun.  

Argument: It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe that the answer to violence is more guns.

Answer: One  might have just as easily told Edward Jenner, the man who discovered in the  late eighteenth century that the cowpox virus could be used to inoculate people  against smallpox, ‘It is inconceivable that any logical person would believe  that the answer to disease is more viruses.

Argument: The answer to bullets flying is not more bullets flying.

Answer: Actually,  the answer to bullets flying is almost always more bullets flying.  That’s why the police bring so many guns with  them when they respond to a report of ‘shots fired.

Argument: The answer to school violence is prevention, not guns on campus.

Answer: Prevention  and preparedness are not mutually exclusive.   In a perfect system, the two approaches to safety compliment each  other.  Preventive measures, such as  teaching students and faculty to watch for the warning signs of mental illness  and providing counseling to disturbed students, can work hand in hand with  preparative measures, such as developing campus alert systems, providing  additional training to campus police, and allowing the same trained, licensed  adults who legally carry concealed handguns when not on college campuses to do  so on college campuses.

Argument: School shootings are very rare, and college campuses are statistically very safe. There is no need to allow concealed carry on campus.

Answer: Though  statistically safer than other comparable locations, college campuses play host  to every type of violence found in the rest of society, from murder to assault  to rape.  The statistics suggest that  allowing concealed carry on campus won’t hurt and might help; therefore, there  is no legitimate reason not to allow it.   A free society does not deny the people a right unless there is  empirical evidence that granting that right will do more harm than good.

Argument: Some professors might be afraid to issue bad grades if they know that students could be carrying guns

Answer: Why should professors be more afraid of issuing bad grades to students who want to carry guns LEGALLY than of issuing bad grades to students who might already be carrying guns ILLEGALLY? College campuses are open environments—they don’t have controlled points of entry, metal detectors, or X-ray machines. In light of the fact that a person unconcerned with violating the rules can walk onto a college campus carrying pretty much anything he or she chooses, some professors might feel more comfortable about issuing bad grades if they
knew they were allowed the means to defend themselves.

Argument: The last thing we need is a bunch of vigilantes getting into a shootout with a madman, particularly since it’s been proven that trained police officers have an accuracy rate of only about 15-25% in the field

Answer: Citizens with concealed handgun licenses are not vigilantes. They carry their concealed handguns as a means of getting themselves out of harm’s way, not as an excuse to go chasing after bad guys. Whereas police shooting statistics involve scenarios such as pursuits down dark alleys and armed standoffs with assailants barricaded inside buildings, most civilian shootings happen at pointblank range. In the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre, the Columbine High School massacre, and the Virginia Tech massacre, the assailants moved slowly and methodically, shooting their victims from very close range. A person doesn’t have to be a deadeye shot to defend himself or herself against an assailant standing only a few feet away.

Related Documents


%d bloggers like this: