This is a discussion on How many at Tech would carry? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy As far as the 18 year old law I think that should be changed. Then again you have to understand ...
“Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today.” James Dean
Phil (NRA Member and Vietnam Vet)
------------- My CCW ----------------
No Guns Here Boss
I gave them to the naked Pigmy's in New Guinea
I read somewhere - and I wish I remeber where - that 30 students and faculty came forward to say they had a gun but were forced to leave it in the car.
OPFOR, while I cannot condone breaking the law, you are entitled to a jury of your peers - and you'd get my vote and a handshake.
I have seen some really good evidence lately which would demonstrate why 18 y.o. should not have handguns...
it was physiologic study on the human brain...
(now with that said - I remember drinking 3.2 beer at 18...I also remember being carded and refused service while in uniform...
The 2nd amendment of our constitution recognizes that 'the people' have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and that this RIGHT is not to be infringed. Rights are not subject to denial simply because some scientist believes he sees a trend in a certain segment of the population. An 18 year old citizen of this nation is an adult. They have the right to vote, work, pay taxes, join our military... they deserve the right to defend themselves.
Is it possible that there is a slightly higher percentage of people between 18 and 21 that might misuse a firearm? Sure! You want to deny someone their rights based on the fact that a he or she may have a few percentage points higher risk factor than another demographic? This is a nation of free citizens, not an insurance company. We shouldn't scale back our freedoms based on risk factors and probability worksheets.
Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. It's worth it.
Some good points are brought up here. I am a real believer in research, but STRONGLY suggest that most research presented is useless. Too often the methodology of the studies are poor (most often sample size is unrepresentative--too demographically limited or too small, or the statistical analysis is debatable, etc...). Even in the case of quality studies, by the time the "results" make it to the media, it has been skewed, taken out of context, etc... One of the most important thing I learned in college was that if you want to really know what the research presents, you have to go to the original studies and read them in full.
My son just turned 18. I would not hestitate to trust the life of his siblings, his mother, or myself, into his hands. Far more so than I trust him driving my truck alone...lol Most 18 year olds act irresponsibly in many situations, but most also know when seriousness is called for. I would 100% endorse my son carrying.
I hate going through all those steps, but if somebody does break into my vehicle, there's no way I'm giving them ammunition or a working gun. I carry the slide, barrel, and recoil spring with me and both loaded mags.
May be against school policy (ammunition isn't allowed, but then again, neither is the storage of guns and I'm allowed to do that), but it's definitely the lesser of two evils if somebody breaks into my vehicle and into the car safe.
The alternative is to give a criminal a loaded weapon and spare magazine, which to me is drastically worse than a student carrying a few pieces that keep the gun from working.
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
as long is it's only against "policy", then I think Smart Carry would have been smart carry. Many carry against company policy or store/mall policy all of the time. What's the diff between that and school "policy". Note: I would never suggest a violation of law.....................
Speaking as a college professor, and a very conservative and pro-gun one at that, I have thought about this at some length. Realistically, it cannot be expected that very many college students would end up carrying, even if it were legal. However, I think this is the best way (to have at least SOME carrying). For, suppose in our pro-gun dream of how it should be, that every 5th person has a gun and knife and warrior mindset. Then a would-be psycho would just use bombs, right? I mean that is how it is in Israel.
Better if some carry, even if only very few. Then at least the psychos still think they are attacking sheep and can get away with it -- perhaps. I think the scenario posted by OPFOR is optimal here.
I could not imagine the guilt that I would have felt had I been one of the survivors at VT without my pistol. What a terrible world we live in.
My thoughts (which I think reflect most of the pro-firearm community):
If, for example, I was going to class at a university that did not ban guns, a shooter may not have taken so many lives. Also, if I were a student that returned to VT after this incident I would compelled to break the law and carry on campus just to feel safe. That would make me (a responsible citezen with personal and public safety in mind) a criminal.
Even though the shooter at VT bought the guns legally, he did not posses a permit to carry and, of course, VT bans guns anyway. Criminals will always find ways to aquire guns, legally or illegally, and the only way to prevent tragedies such as this is to arm responsible citezens and lift restrictions on when and where you can be armed.
This whole incident makes me sick beyond words...
I'm married to my Kahr.
I am fortunate because I was able to attend college in a state and at a college that did not prohibit carry on campus. I'd say it's fairly likely i was the ONLY person carrying. Legal carry doesn't prevent the nut from starting a rampage, but it would damn sure end it a lot faster.
Gun Control means never having to say "I missed you."
- Glock 27 (.40)
- Kel-Tec p3at (.380)
- Beretta 96FS (.40)
- Smith & Wesson 5906 (9mm)
There is a fine line between a Hero and a Criminal. Who judges that line is two differn't groups of people. I would Praise you as a Hero. The media would say you were a vigilante. They may have even said well with all your training you should have used the RANGER Beady eye stare which would have made him cower in fear; therefore, deadly force is not authorized. On the hand, if you saw him come into the classroom and instantanously pulled a Mozambique, I would say Good "Threat Neutrallized" others would say OMG he did a double tap with one cum de graw (not sure if thats spelled right) style shot.
You would be a hero in my book, but your professional life could go either way.
You do not fight like you train nor will you rise to the occasion, but rather default to the highest level you have mastered....Officer B. Harnish.
I am not responsible for any mispelngs or gramcraker mistakes caused by auto correct!
Its not about guns..........Its about Freedom!
One of the most powerful weapons of concealed carry is that the BGs never know who it is safe to victimize. Had the campus of VT not been a 'unarmed victim' zone, this evil would not have happened there. His whole plan was based on the knowledge that no one could stop him.
"If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan