CNN segment on Student CCW on Campus

This is a discussion on CNN segment on Student CCW on Campus within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Thoughtt Y'all might be interested. Today on CNN there was a debate/Interview of sorts with two people on the subject of CCW on Campus. On ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36

Thread: CNN segment on Student CCW on Campus

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Saint77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    604

    CNN segment on Student CCW on Campus

    Thoughtt Y'all might be interested. Today on CNN there was a debate/Interview of sorts with two people on the subject of CCW on Campus.

    On one side was W. Scott Lewis of Students for Conceal Carry on Campus. The other side represented by Garret Lewis, a survivor of the Va. Tech shooting.

    I'll summarize as best I can, I don't the greatest memory, unfortunately, so forgive me if I mess something up, but here goes.

    Garret's contention is that Students aren't able to use firearms well enough to be effective, and that there is very little guarantee that it will do any good. He (or the host, I cant recall which) pointed out that Police NY City, when involved in a shooting type situation only hit their targets 27% of the time ) He went on through the course of the interview to point out that Students are under far too much stress, are not emotionally, and hormonally able to handle guns, and the same goes for Professors. That its just a bad idea all around for everyone. He did brign up one decent point, that there should be a focus on prevention of incidents before hand (Well, DUH, ya think?)

    Lewis on the other hand, pointed out that there are already many people of student age carrying everywhere but on campus, and that there have been 0 incidents with those folks. Also, that there are some campuses that allow forms of carry (I wasn't aware of this) and for (I think he said )6 semesters there has been 0 incidents of accidental or purposeful shootings. (Garret countered with "there are thousands of campuses with no guns that haven't had any shootings" Lewis countered with "There was no problem in Va and N. Ill until there was a problem ) Lewis was also asked by the host if he was carrying right now. Hist reply, and it was a good one IMO, was "thats the beauty of Conceal Carry, you'll never know" He also countered the stats on NY City police with "CC permit holders aren't placed under the same circumstances and situations that Police officers are"

    Thats about all I recall at the moment, I thought it was good discussion, and Lewis over all did a good job. I might have brought up the point that many young men and women are taught shooting sports and are ingrained with shooting safety and understanding at a very early eage, and that, some of them are even trained by the military. I know my nephew in law, a reservist, new how to shoot everything used in boot camp before he was 20. Garret, on the other hand IMO did not bring up one good point other then prevention (again, duh, common sense) His arguments were really more emotional based. Sure, you are goign to have some kids not able to handle guns, nor should they, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater is fairly silly.

    My opinion is this, In some way shape or form there should be at least one, hopefully two, students who are trained and proficient with handguns in every class. It should not be general knowledge for all the students of said class, and would work under the premise of Conceal Carry. The school should actively try to place CC students into each class, as best as possible, this way there is at least the chance of protection for all classes. This along with the already in place warning system.

    EDIT: Mods, this may be better in the CCW issues board? Please move if needed, sorry.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Yes I saw it too and recorded it.
    The pro-CCW gentleman did IMHO and excellent job and had pat ansers & facts at hand off the top of his head which typically is not the case in these sorts of discussion/debates. The gent who was his counter he like most was speaking toward a bunch of non-sense.

    I'm sure the clip will hit YouTube by tonight.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  4. #3
    Member Array dang.45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wherever I may wander...
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by Saint77 View Post
    My opinion is this, In some way shape or form there should be at least one, hopefully two, students who are trained and proficient with handguns in every class. It should not be general knowledge for all the students of said class, and would work under the premise of Conceal Carry. The school should actively try to place CC students into each class, as best as possible, this way there is at least the chance of protection for all classes. This along with the already in place warning system.
    What you are basically advocating is the "hiring" of students to act as security for each classroom. That may or may not be a good idea, but it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or concealed carry.

    The absolute most effective argument that can be made to those who are not yet on our side (but are still persuadable), is that each individual has a natural right to protect themselves against those who would do them harm. Just about anyone can tailor an example to the person they are trying to persuade that illustrates this concept.

    I carry to protect myself, and the "things" that are important to me - including other people like my friends & family. If I were a student at VaTech, NIU, or any other college / university, I would carry for no reason other than to protect myself against some crazy person. It is a safe bet that, in my efforts to protect myself, I will save the lives of some/most/all of my classmates as well, but that is NOT why I carry!!! For anyone to argue otherwise, is counter-productive to our goals of seeing rational concealed carry laws spread around the country.

    All we are fighting for is to allow adults who also happen to be students, to carry on campus, just like they can off campus. The more focused we can stay in making the argument, the more effective it will be.
    "It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had a right to choose: his own." - John Galt, from Atlas Shrugged

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array Saint77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by dang.45 View Post
    What you are basically advocating is the "hiring" of students to act as security for each classroom. That may or may not be a good idea, but it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or concealed carry.

    The absolute most effective argument that can be made to those who are not yet on our side (but are still persuadable), is that each individual has a natural right to protect themselves against those who would do them harm. Just about anyone can tailor an example to the person they are trying to persuade that illustrates this concept.

    I carry to protect myself, and the "things" that are important to me - including other people like my friends & family. If I were a student at VaTech, NIU, or any other college / university, I would carry for no reason other than to protect myself against some crazy person. It is a safe bet that, in my efforts to protect myself, I will save the lives of some/most/all of my classmates as well, but that is NOT why I carry!!! For anyone to argue otherwise, is counter-productive to our goals of seeing rational concealed carry laws spread around the country.

    All we are fighting for is to allow adults who also happen to be students, to carry on campus, just like they can off campus. The more focused we can stay in making the argument, the more effective it will be.
    I dont feel that "hiring" is exactly what im looking for, though I see your point.

    I am making a suggestion on an ideal thing. I dont know how it could be arranged or any of that. My thinking is if it were totally random and unknown then you could have 12 CC students in one class, and 20 other classes with no CC, and someone would still come in and take out 5 kids, which would make fuel for the anti fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    Yes I saw it too and recorded it.
    The pro-CCW gentleman did IMHO and excellent job and had pat ansers & facts at hand off the top of his head which typically is not the case in these sorts of discussion/debates. The gent who was his counter he like most was speaking toward a bunch of non-sense.

    I'm sure the clip will hit YouTube by tonight.

    - Janq
    Yup, He really did a good job.

    I hope there is a clip, id like for folks to see what I may have missed.

  6. #5
    Member Array dang.45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wherever I may wander...
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by Saint77 View Post
    I dont feel that "hiring" is exactly what im looking for, though I see your point.

    I am making a suggestion on an ideal thing. I dont know how it could be arranged or any of that. My thinking is if it were totally random and unknown then you could have 12 CC students in one class, and 20 other classes with no CC, and someone would still come in and take out 5 kids, which would make fuel for the anti fire.
    I know that hiring wasn't the word you would have chosen, but the only way for a university to ensure a somewhat-even distribution of permit holders would be for the administration itself to place those permit holders into specific classes, and that just isn't the way class selection works at the college / university level. The way around that would be for a school to "hire" permit holders & for those students to allow the school set their schedules. Again, that is no where near how course selection at the college / university level works, and I can't see how it could be made to work.

    Besides, as a permit holder, would you tell a school administrator that you not only have a permit, but want to / will carry on campus? I know I wouldn't...

    The only reasonable solution is for laws to be changed to allow any permit holder (subject to whatever laws are already in place in any given state) to carry on any school campus. Or even better, wherever they happen to go...

    I like the way you think, but your idea just isn't workable as you presented it.
    "It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had a right to choose: his own." - John Galt, from Atlas Shrugged

  7. #6
    Member Array Tye_Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Saint77 View Post
    My thinking is if it were totally random and unknown then you could have 12 CC students in one class, and 20 other classes with no CC,
    Guns do deter crime directly (even if not fired), but studies show they also deter crimes indirectly. You would certainly have more than one class that did not have a CC student in it, but the deterrent factor is still there. The BG wouldn't know which class had no CC students. He could probably take a guess, upper division English may have less CC students in it then lower division Math but the risk to the BG is still there because they just don't know.

    As a response to dang.45: Different people carry for different reasons. I understand someone deciding to carry to protect themselves or their immediate family. This is one of the reasons I carry, but from a direct POV it is not even the primary reason. In all honesty, if protection of myself was the only reason I had I would not carry as often as I do. Adding in protection of my wife and kids, I might not even carry as often as I do. This is simply because carrying all day / every day (and keeping it legal) is a tremendous hassle for me. There are to many legal gun-free zones that force me to arrange my entire day around my gun.

    In the class to get my permit, I learned about all the gun-free zones and it was an eye-opener. While I was waiting for the permit to come in the mail I spent a couple weeks arranging my life around a gun that I wasn't carrying yet. It became quickly apparent that balancing risk vs hassle, it did not make sense to carry only for self-protection. Statistically speaking, my family and I just don't spend time where crime tends to happen so it is not likely that I will ever need to protect us. I know that this flies in the face of what most people believe on this forum, but this is how the pro/con list went. However, I do carry all day / every day (where legal) so it was not the end of my decision making.

    If carrying to protect myself was not sufficient then why would I do it. Well, add in family and I am quite a bit more risk averse but believe it or not, this was not quite enough. However, add in a third criteria and it became an easy decision. Places that passed shall-issue laws saw a statistically significant decrease in violent crime. This is a fact, even though both sides argue the cause of the decrease. I believe the simplest explanation and that is criminals are less comfortable attacking armed people. (If you were a criminal carjacker, which car would you choose: 1) NRA sticker on back window or 2) Million-Mom-March sticker on back window). If this is true, then the more of us that carry the lower that crime rate will go. Statistics are funny things, they show that the behavior of a group of individuals can be predicted. It is an over-simplification to say that what I decide to do causes other people to decide to do the same thing, but in studying statistics it kinda goes that way. If one person decides to stay home and not vote, while it may not cause, it certainly shows a trend that a group of people will all make that same decision.

    I decided to carry all day / every day (where legal) because, while it will not directly cause, it can (and probably will) influence a trend for others to decide the same thing. If there is an upward trend of people carrying then I believe there will be a further downward trend of violent crime. With a further downward trend of violent crime it will make it even less likely that my family or I will ever be where a crime occurs. I believe that it is this downward trend that keeps my family safe. I have never had to draw my gun to prevent a crime from occuring so it has not deterred crime directly, but indirectly my gun (and all of yours) have, and may have even deterred a crime against me so the indirect effect of me carrying all day / every day (where legal) is what I wanted to occur in the first place.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array Saint77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    604
    I just remembered another point that Garret brought up. "A student with a CCW would not be able to prevent someone with an uzi or ak from take out large numbers of people."

    Lewis responding with "We should all be aware that weapons sold int he US are one trigger pull, one shot, and there fore wouldn't have the effectiveness of full auto weapon" or something to that effect. It was a great response.

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array sniper58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,631
    Well stated Tye! I carry because I choose not to be a victim. Violent crime can happen anywhere, at anytime, in any "zone," for any reason. I put myself (and family) in a position to be a living statistic, rather than a dead one.
    Tim
    BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    ________
    NRA Life Member

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array Saint77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by Tye_Defender View Post
    Guns do deter crime directly (even if not fired), but studies show they also deter crimes indirectly. You would certainly have more than one class that did not have a CC student in it, but the deterrent factor is still there. The BG wouldn't know which class had no CC students. He could probably take a guess, upper division English may have less CC students in it then lower division Math but the risk to the BG is still there because they just don't know.
    Well, this is of course very true, and a good point. I totally agree. The only thing is, someone bent on destruction isnt going to care one way or another about the "possibility" of there being one or more persons armed in a class (or mall for that matter ) They are bent on going out in a "blaze of glory" for lack of a better expression. So thats one reason why i can see a need to have 2-3 seeded in each class. Though, I realize, that isnt always possible/feasable.

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Hummm....I wonder what people will say when the next school attack occurs and there were CCWers on the campus? I also wonder what the liability would be if in returning fire...you hit another student? I also just don't think a person that wants to go down in a blaze of glory is going to really care if the potential exists for CCWers on campus either. The idea of a deterent just doesn't hold water. So, is the problem the system? More control?

    I have also heard the argument for by students that are already CCWers...just and extension to what they already do in carrying concealed. But why are they not concerned about parks, banks, federal lands, bars, stadiums, concerts...the list is long?

    I have kids in college...I've seen first hand some of the antics that go on. Do I have concerns about a CCWer showing up at a party armed...things get out of hand...and etc...you bet. Could this happen with a non-CCWer...you bet. Do I think all CCWers are responsible mature adults...nope. There are a few CCWers that I wouldn't trust to be able to hit the side of the barn, let alone the judgment to make the right call. Soooo, most if not all the arguments for are emotion after a mass shooting. I believe someone needs to look at all the pros and cons. There are those that will say that the cure is allowing CCWers on campus (which would be like acknowledging that the country has a problem), but in doing so, tighter and more stringent controls, more armed guards, more screening. So, they trade...more control to allow CCW on campus. Again...be very careful what you ask for...

    Rick

  12. #11
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    "He went on through the course of the interview to point out that Students are under far too much stress, are not emotionally, and hormonally able to handle guns,"

    Let's see, when I was 18, I was handling a shoulder fired missile to take down a MIG-21 jet fighter, and fully automatic weapons. If that's the case maybe the enlistment age should be raised to 35 or so.

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Tag for youtube vid. I gotta see this!

    A note on the suggestion to distribute CCW'ers in classrooms. I think it's a bad idea simply because it would mean informing the school that I had one. It's simply none of their business, regardless of how they use the information. Further, many students, especially engineers, coordinate their classes so they can work with people they know and have experience with. "Breaking up" CCW'ers like that would restrict class options.

    A better solution would be to encourage more people to take their self-defense seriously, and let them fill classrooms that way.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array cwblanco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Amarillo, Texas
    Posts
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by Saint77 View Post
    Garret's contention is that Students aren't able to use firearms well enough to be effective, and that there is very little guarantee that it will do any good. He (or the host, I cant recall which) pointed out that Police NY City, when involved in a shooting type situation only hit their targets 27% of the time ) He went on through the course of the interview to point out that Students are under far too much stress, are not emotionally, and hormonally able to handle guns, and the same goes for Professors. That its just a bad idea all around for everyone. He did brign up one decent point, that there should be a focus on prevention of incidents before hand (Well, DUH, ya think?)
    My preference is simply to honor CHL licenses on campus the same as off campus. However, that are viable alternatives which are far better than nothing. A compromise solution is for the university to screen those students who have CHL permits and include include those who have prior military or LEO experience, and even further screening as they should choose. To say that the only ones qualified are those who have a badge that says "Police" or "Deputy Sheriff" or "Campus Cop" is absurd. That is like saying that a brand new rookie campus cop is more qualified and stable than a mature LEO student or combat veteran who happens to hold a CHL. Further to say that the pressure of the classroom exceeds that of military and LEO demonstrates the naivity of many people. There is nothing more stressful than combat in military or LEO in many instances. Comparatively speaking, the pressures frequently experienced in those environments make the experiences of the classroom a piece of cake. But how will one explain this to someone who has never fired a handgun or to someone whose life experiences have been limited to academia or Sunday school only.
    Last edited by cwblanco; February 19th, 2008 at 01:04 AM.

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by cwblanco View Post
    My preference is simply to honor CHL licenses on campus the same as off campus. However, that are viable alternatives which are far better than nothing. A compromise solution is for the university to screen those students who have CHL permits and include include those who have prior military or LEO experience, and even further screening as they should choose. To say that the only ones qualified are those who have a badge that says "Police" or "Deputy Sheriff" or "Campus Cop" is absurd. That is like saying that a brand new rookie campus cop is more qualified and stable than a mature LEO student or combat veteran who happens to hold a CHL. Further to say that the pressure of the classroom exceeds that of military and LEO demonstrates the naivity of many people. There is nothing more stressful that combat in military or LEO in many instances. Comparatively speaking, the pressures frequently experienced in those environments make the experiences of the classroom a piece of cake. But how will one explain this to someone who has never fired a handgun or to someone whose life experiences have been limited to academia or Sunday school only.
    I like your thoughts...why I said in another thread trusted agents/prior demonstration such as military etc. But I have to ask...is it to protect/defend the school or just to protect himself/herself? Finally, would the school be liable for NDs or stolen or a shooting that hurt others? I think the real sticking point with schools is the liability issues.

    Rick

  16. #15
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint77 View Post
    Well, this is of course very true, and a good point. I totally agree. The only thing is, someone bent on destruction isnt going to care one way or another about the "possibility" of there being one or more persons armed in a class (or mall for that matter ) They are bent on going out in a "blaze of glory" for lack of a better expression. So thats one reason why i can see a need to have 2-3 seeded in each class. Though, I realize, that isnt always possible/feasable.
    I just don't see how it is reasonable to 'seed' a class.
    It's like you'd be 'deputizing' them or something. To 'seed' a class it would have to be organized. I'm pretty sure that would then bring 'liabilties' into play.
    I believe what we are trying to achieve is simply 'the right to conceal carry for the protection of oneself'. This I think would tend to be a deterrant, albeit a minor one, but could also serve as a catalyst for good if by chance a shooting spree is stopped one day.
    Percentage of Concealed Carriers in the US is I believe between 1-2 %. The percentage among college students is probably lower. We're getting there though, slowly but surely.
    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Texas State University Student Senate Votes to Allow Concealed Carry on Campus
    By LanceORYGUN in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2010, 09:38 AM
  2. Student Vigilante Group Armed With Guns Searching For Bad Guys Near UW Campus
    By Grislic in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 29th, 2009, 06:29 AM
  3. (Utah Valley University student newspaper) Concealed weapons pose a threat to campus
    By cyberdogg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: October 19th, 2009, 11:03 PM
  4. Bad: Wesleyan Student Shot, Killed Near Campus
    By JonInNY in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 11th, 2009, 01:37 AM
  5. Student Robbed on Campus Today. School Issues This:
    By Harold Fastwaker in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2008, 01:49 AM