Students for Concealed Carry Empty Holster Protest

submitted by MaximaDrvr on Saturday, April 18 2009 at 9:32 PM

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus will hold its third national collegiate Empty Holster Protest during the week of April 20-24, 2009. Thousands of college students throughout the United States, organized under the banner of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and school policies that stack the odds in favor of dangerous criminals and armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else.

The protest will focus on sharing the facts of concealed carry with students and faculty who may not be aware that concealed carry laws exist or that those laws differ on college campuses from most other locations.
If you have any questions, or would like to share your thoughts, we will be having our normal meeting on Tuesday evening at I Love NY Pizza, starting at 7:30pm. We will also be located on the Brickyard on Friday starting at 10am.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprised of over 38,000 college students, college faculty members, parents of college students, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of concealed handgun permits should enjoy the same rights on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCCC is dedicated to persuading state governments and school administrators to approve laws and
campus policies that will grant all citizens with concealed handgun licenses the right to carry their concealed handguns on college campuses. SCCC is not affiliated with the NRA, a political party, or any other organization.

If you would like to participate, but do not currently have a holster, feel free to contact MaximaDrvr.

www.concealedcampus.com

posted by Eulogist on Sunday, April 19 2009 at 1:16 AM

ibtclusterfuck

4/19/2009 10:16:25 AM

HEY! Maybe Conrad Plyler can make another juvenile and imbecilic cartoon in the Technician that demonstrates absolute ignorance on the subject and perpetuates the same old irrational fears and knee-jerk reactions to the mere mention of the word 'gun'

that would be awesome, yeah

4/19/2009 10:21:46 AM

yes, everyone carry more guns so the criminals have to have more powerful guns and then so do the cops, and then again with the criminals. maybe if everyone didnt have a gun, there would be a whole lot less shootings in this country.

4/19/2009 1:05:52 PM

^ better watch out! people are gonna think you're unAmurrican

4/19/2009 1:36:19 PM

you mean the constitutional right to bear arms.....yeah, why did they write that? so people could form a militia if they wanted to, not so you can own a ak or an ar-15 to go "deer" hunting with. thats where this country is really fuckin backwards.

4/19/2009 1:39:24 PM

i keep a sawed-off under my pillow so I can sleep at night. it's my right as an Amurrican!

4/19/2009 1:42:35 PM

Not unamerican, just uninformed.

If more responsible, law-abiding people had guns, then criminals would have good reason to fear going out and doing what they do. It's a statistically proven fact that higher rates of legal gun ownership follow lower violent crime rates. The criminals do not get a "more powerful gun", (whatever that means) they go somewhere safer (anyplace with less gun ownership) to do their work.

oh, and ibtclusterfuck too. It's materializing. Rather than say "prove to me xxx" and discuss something, they just hop in, spout some logically and statistically unfounded nonsense, and run out.

And please explain to me why an AK-47 or an AR-15 are not appropriate for hunting? Are you under the impression that it fires some special bullet or goes full-auto? Because neither is true.

[Edited on April 19, 2009 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ar/ak question]

4/19/2009 1:48:17 PM

are you actually trying to say the AK-47 is a good hunting rifle? GTFO

4/19/2009 1:52:11 PM

Yeah, I am. Care to explain why it's not Mr. gun expert?



[Edited on April 19, 2009 at 2:00 PM. Reason : Not that this has ANYTHING to do with the real topic, but I'll humor you]

4/19/2009 1:56:26 PM

This is NOT about the 'assault' weapon ban, or their legitimate uses.
To all the trolls, please do not bring them up. To everyone else, please ignore the people who try and bring rifles into the conversation.

This is about students who would like to lawfully be able to protect themselves as they already do elsewhere.

If you would like some very good, research based information, please go to:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1369783
Then download the article and read it.

Again, SCCC is promoting those that are 21 years of age, who posses a valid CONCEALED handgun permit, to be able to carry on campus as they already do when off campus.

The crime statistics for NCSU are as follows: (reported crime, not actual values)
2005- 651 total 15 in residence halls
2006- 542 total 24 in residence halls
2007- 460 total 25 in residence halls
2008- 465 total 24 in residence halls

What does this tell us? The NCSU police are doing a great job. They are one of the few campus securities that are actually an entire police department. For the most part, campus is growing, and the percentage of crime is going down. What else does this tell us? Crime happens on campus.
Out of 33,000 students you have a 1.41% chance of being the victim of crime. As you know, that is slightly greater than 1 in 100 chance of being a victim. The police may be good, but they cannot be everywhere at once.

4/19/2009 3:42:28 PM

Quote :

"2005- 651 total 15 in residence halls 2006- 542 total 24 in residence halls 2007- 460 total 25 in residence halls 2008- 465 total 24 in residence halls "

how many would have been averted if someone had a gun vs how many were simple theft and drinking tickets?

4/19/2009 4:17:22 PM

Lets see if I can try and make a chart:

residence halls:
2005 2006 2007 2008
Sexual Offense 5 3 3 3
Robbery 1 0 0 1
Ag. Assault 2 3 3 2
Burglary 6 9 12 16
Motor Vcl Theft 0 0 0 1

university reported:
Rape 5 1 3 3
Robbery 5 3 8 9
Ag. Assault 4 7 6 7
Burglary 102 103 57 54
Motor Vcl Theft 7 9 10 10
Larceny 527 418 376 382
Arson 1 1 1 0

I can't format to a real chart, but you can easily get the idea.
No Drinking, Drugs, or Weapons charges are included in these charts.

The point is, there is crime on campus, whether people admit it or not. Police can't be everywhere.

[Edited on April 19, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2009 4:29:01 PM

But of those are the UCR or whatnot reported stats. If someone tries to a pry my door room door open as prank but I report it to the police, it gets reported as a burglary. Not very valid. Or if I set off fireworks in my dorm and the police do a report; its reported as an arson.

4/19/2009 4:37:55 PM

So far this year, there have been:
4 robberies
10 burglaries
80 larcenies

All this information can be found here:
http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/public_safety/campus_safety/stats.htm

4/19/2009 4:41:42 PM

Quote :

"you mean the constitutional right to bear arms.....yeah, why did they write that? so people could form a militia if they wanted to, not so you can own a ak or an ar-15 to go "deer" hunting with. thats where this country is really fuckin backwards. "

actually just this year the supreme court ruled that it is in fact a personal right, not a right to a militia

what this all boils down to is that people who are opposed to concealed carry should be the ones defending their position, not the other way around. in my opinion it is the responsibilities of those wanting to limit rights to defend their position (in this case a right that still applies on the other side of a street, just disappears when you walk on campus)

Quote :

"yes, everyone carry more guns so the criminals have to have more powerful guns and then so do the cops, and then again with the criminals. maybe if everyone didnt have a gun, there would be a whole lot less shootings in this country."

limiting where you can carry guns only hurts law abiding people, because criminals are going to break the law

4/19/2009 5:30:32 PM

why not an AK-47? because anyone who has actually shot one know that those things have shit for MOA and the balance is ass. if you're hunting with an AK, you're doing it so you can say you did it...not because its a good hunting rifle

PS - I was an ordnance and anti-terrorism officer in the military - so yeah, I am pretty familiar with firearms

[Edited on April 19, 2009 at 9:50 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2009 9:50:02 PM

this again?

4/20/2009 3:02:51 AM

so the Saiga, a semi auto only AK based redesign, is not a hunting rifle? the gun comes in most major rifle calibers, as well as shotgun versions, works well, balances fine for a military arm, and works fine as a sporting firearm. It sells well, and in most cases, if you have a well made stock, not a meal side folder, and a 5-10 round magazine not a 20-40 round monster, balance is great. The ak series and the AR series of guns both have plenty of sporting variants, the ak based ones just happen to be affordable for the average hunter, unlike the ar based ones.

4/20/2009 5:49:17 AM

Tell you what - rather than crapping up this thread with unrelated discussion, take the AK thing over here -

message_topic.aspx?topic=503107&page=46
I'm actually quite interested to hear your logic behind this one.

As for the topic at hand, any and all rational discussion is welcome.

4/20/2009 9:01:13 AM

OH NO's

BY LEGALIZING CONCEALLED CARRY ON CAMPUS EVERY 18 YR OLD FRESHMAN IN THE DORM WILL BE PACKING HEAT AND SHOOTING THEIR ROOMMATE AFTER THEY GET INTO AN ARGUMENT!!!

Its funny; I actually made my sister cry easter weekend b.c she tried to sound cool in front of my parents with her liberal "guns are bad" rant about concealed carry or guns in general. I blew away every point she had and made her look dumb; cause maybe she'll learn a lesson.

My sister or my mom can't seem to get it into their heads that the "bad guys" are not going to put their gun back into their house before conducting criminal activity at NCSU since they are "banned". Also, even without a permit i could carry a gun, illegally, to class EVERY day and the dumbass liberal hippy next to me would never know the difference. I do not understand why this is so complicated to understand or the idea that those going through so much time, money, and effort to get a CC permit are not going to do something stupid like randomly shoot Johnny FratMcDouche in the middle of the brickyard after finding out this is the guy his girlfriend cheated on him with.

4/20/2009 9:19:30 AM

Quote :

" It's a statistically proven fact that higher rates of legal gun ownership follow lower violent crime rates. "

Suppose we grant that this is true. What follows? Certainly not that allowing concealed weapons will cause violent crime rates to drop. It may well be that states with stricter gun control laws have introduced them as a response to high crime rates, and that states with looser gun control laws have let them stay loose because their crime rates are already low. In that case, there is no reason to think that allowing more guns would reduce crime.

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 9:47 AM. Reason : corr]

4/20/2009 9:47:25 AM

The states that introduced concealed carry legislation have had a decrease in crime and have averages below the national average in crime for the most part.

States with strict gun control laws have only had increases in crime, and are the highest average rates in the nation.

So no, allowing CC does not CAUSE crime rates to fall, but they do. Criminals being afraid of armed resistance is what causes the crime rate to fall.

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 10:17:56 AM

Quote :

"It's a statistically proven fact that higher rates of legal gun ownership follow lower violent crime rates."

My statement wasn't worded quite correctly, so I think it may have been confusing. I meant to say that "lower violent crime rates follow higher rates of legal gun ownership". Like MaximaDrvr said, in places that restrictions against legal ownership have increased, the crime rate has gone up. The inverse also holds true - in places that have increased legal ownership, crime rate drop.

Criminals are not all completely stupid. Most inmates will tell you that their single greatest fear is running into someone with a gun, and when it gets tough to do their line of work they go where it's safer.

4/20/2009 10:59:55 AM

I think we should be allowed guns so we can shoot people who keep bringing back these threads

4/20/2009 12:51:21 PM

Quote :

"Like MaximaDrvr said, in places that restrictions against legal ownership have increased, the crime rate has gone up. The inverse also holds true - in places that have increased legal ownership, crime rate drop."

What is the evidence for this? Can you point to any study which backs this up?

So far, the only studies I've seen establish only a correlation between strict gun control and high violent crime rates, and a correlation between loose gun control and low violent crime rates. They do not establish a correlation between increase in legal ownership and decrease in violent crime, or between decrease in legal ownership and increase in violent crime. I'm not denying that such studies exist, but I haven't seen any evidence of them. So do they really exist?

4/20/2009 2:47:09 PM

FBI crime statistics vs CC laws shows the trend clearly.

4/20/2009 7:59:23 PM

it's always fun to watch people beat this dead horse on tww

4/20/2009 8:05:57 PM

For the sake of the argument; correlation =/= causation

4/20/2009 10:16:58 PM

There's plenty of research on the subject of correlation between violent crime rates and legal gun ownership. With CC-related research in particular, John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime is considered to be one of the most authoritative and comprehensive reports. If you're seriously interested, it is worth checking out.

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 11:39 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 11:38:37 PM

there'll be a lot more "self-defense" shooting death cases.

4/21/2009 12:31:31 AM

i dont see why everyone doesnt follow the silent motto that most people follow

i'd rather be caught with it than without it, but i'm not gonna talk about it so i don't get caught with it.

4/21/2009 9:00:41 AM

Quote :

"There's plenty of research on the subject of correlation between violent crime rates and legal gun ownership."

Yes, but I'm asking about evidence of correlation between increase in gun control and decrease in violent crime, or between decrease in gun control and increase in violent crime. That is different from evidence of a correlation between strict gun control and high crime rates, or vice versa.

4/21/2009 11:35:23 AM

Quote :

"FBI crime statistics vs CC laws shows the trend clearly."

Collecting this information for myself would be no easy task, especially changes in concealed carry laws. (Remember, I am interested in knowing whether there's a correlation between increase in gun control and decrease in violent crime, or vice versa.) Is there anyone who has done this already?

4/21/2009 11:43:37 AM

yes, there has been. It has been done multiple times in fact.

UK: very strict gun laws.


As US gun laws became stricter, the violent crime rate went up. Anyone see the AWB in there?


Here is something relating gun ownership/brady score w/ homicides.


[Edited on April 21, 2009 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2009 12:07:11 PM

I don't get that last one

4/21/2009 1:25:22 PM

Quote :

"As US gun laws became stricter, the violent crime rate went up. "

How do you explain the drastic drop in the crime rate in the 1990's and the enactment of the Brady Bill and AWB?

4/21/2009 1:31:33 PM

MaximaDrvr, you seem to be missing my point. The first graph shows that homocides have been on the rise in the UK over recent decades, and you are right that they have strict gun control. But what the graph doesn't show is whether their gun control laws have become increasingly stricter over that same time.

As for the second graph, it is hard to assign any significance to it given that the axes aren't labeled.

The third graph is the most informative, but even it doesn't show any correlation between changes in gun control and changes in violent crimes. (Actually, what it shows is that of the states with strict gun control, more are below the line than above, meaning more have fewer than the average number of gun deaths than more.) And of course, even if did, there's the further question of whether the higher crime rates are driving the gun control, or vice versa.

4/21/2009 2:04:24 PM

Here's an explanation of the last graph. The blue dots represent the fifty states. If a blue dot is above the black line, that means it has more than the average number of gun deaths. If below, then less. The farther to the right a blue dot is, the stricter its gun control laws. So the dot the farthest to the right represents CA, which has 4.82 gun deaths for every 100k people. But notice that of those states that Brady-scored higher than a forty (meaning stricter gun control), only two are above average in gun deaths (CA, MD), and six are below average (NJ, MA, CT, NY, RI, HI). At the same time, of the 21 states with above average gun deaths, only two (CA, MD) have strict gun control, meaning that 19 of the 21 states with above average gun deaths do not have strict gun control. Finally, notice that the state with the highest rate of gun deaths (LA) also has very loose gun control.

4/21/2009 2:16:11 PM

which option would make you feel safer

1) a classroom full of college students, each armed with a loaded gun under their jacket

or

2) a classroom full of college students, each armed with a loaded mechanical pencil under their jacket

4/21/2009 2:53:11 PM

Loaded guns, but that would rarely happen for multiple reasons.
The number of people over 21 in college classes is only 20%ish overall.
Only 1.5% of NC residents have CC permits, of which only a portion are of the college age or in college.
Assuming everyone has a valid CHP (which would be the law), there would be no problems.

4/21/2009 5:35:45 PM

I'm all for concealed carry.

I'm very liberal.

but I'm also tired of hearing about unarmed, innocent people being mugged by hordes of black teenagers.

4/21/2009 6:53:34 PM

I thought the idea behind allowing concealed weapons on campus was to deter "dangerous criminals and armed killers" from attacking us on campus. But MaximaDrvr has convinced me that concealed weapons wouldn't be much of a deterrent. If we use his numbers, only about 1 out of every 333 students would be carrying a concealed weapon (and most of them would probably be herded together in agriculture classes). That gives the criminal bent on killing us pretty good odds, and probably wouldn't serve as much of a deterrent.

I'm beginning to suspect that the movement to allow concealed weapons is more about compensating for small penises than making our campus safer.

4/21/2009 8:46:08 PM

So 1/333 is worse than 0/333? When someone starts shooting at you, we'll see how much penis size has anything to do with your survival. I'm willing to wager that my gun and training will be more effective in increasing my odds of survival.

The entire point can be summed up as follows -

Licensees carry their weapons plenty of other places. Gas stations, grocery stores, churches, Wal-mart - you name it, as long as it's not specifically prohibited by the state, there is a fairly good chance someone in there is carrying a concealed weapon. It simply begs the question, "Why is a college any different?" The answer is "nothing".

There is absolutely nothing physically or socially different about a college campus than any other place that people legally carry concealed weapons, except that it is currently a safe zone for any would-be killer.

That is why we advocate carry on college campus - it provides increased odds of survival in a life-or-death situation, however slight it may be, for no statistically provable risk. It's all about leveling the playing field between you and a someone who wants you dead.

4/21/2009 9:31:56 PM

Quote :

"So 1/333 is worse than 0/333?"

No, it's not worse, but it's only negligibly better. So why bother?

4/21/2009 10:48:42 PM

Why not. It won't hurt anything, and can only help.

Also, it isn't about the general population.

I want to be able to protect MYSELF. I can't effectively do that with the current laws. I don't really care about you, or anyone else. If your life is in immediate danger, and I'm near you, then my life is in immediate danger as well. I'm going to protect myself, and by extension, you as well.

4/21/2009 11:03:14 PM

Quote :

"1) a classroom full of college students, each armed with a loaded gun under their jacket "

You could be sitting in a classroom with students armed with loaded guns hidden even if campus continues to prohibit CC.

This situation of a classroom full of college students carrying legally via CC is only even remotely plausible if you are sitting in
a grad class anyway. Oh NO 4 out of 4 students in Dr. Alexander's doctoral Electromagnetics Interference ECE class are all carrying their guns
today! What if one shoots the good professor after getting a 48 on research thesis :o

Quote :

"I'm also tired of hearing about unarmed, innocent people being mugged by hordes of black teenagers"

ya no fucking shit. The next time a student is robbed at gun point walking back from Doak field he should be like "hey man, put that 9mm
down. NCSU prohibits concealed carry!"

Quote :

"There is absolutely nothing physically or socially different about a college campus than any other place that people legally carry concealed weapons, except that it is currently a safe zone for any would-be killer. "

you would think given the high intelligence on avg of someone admitted into an accredited university that it would make more sense that
John Smith would be a more responsible concealed carry holder (after reaching 21 years of age of course) than billy rae 21 yr old high school
drop out walking around Walmart.

4/22/2009 8:34:50 AM

Quote :

"I don't really care about you, or anyone else."

If this is true--and I hope it's not--then you are a despicable person. A good person does care about the others around them, at least insofar as they are themselves good.

And by the way, anyone who is operating under the illusion that they could defend themselves with a concealed weapon in the case of something like a classroom shooting should watch the segment from last week's 20/20 in which they put a number of students to the test in a simulated classroom shooting. None of the students, even the ones with extensive handgun training and experience, were able to defend themselves like they thought they would be. According to the law enforcement experts who were interviewed, one has to train specifically for those types of situations in order to be able to handle them with any success.

So on the one hand, if we allowed concealed weapons on campus, few of us would really be any safer, despite what the gun enthusiasts among us naively think. On the other hand, we would run the risk that some bad people on campus would get permits and start carrying guns around, and at some point would use them (in a fight, etc.). When I weigh the benefits against the risks, it seems to me that we would be better off without concealed carry laws.

[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 9:35 AM. Reason : add comment]

4/22/2009 9:26:24 AM

^Are you actually being serious???

EVERYONE thinks of themselves first. If there is a active shooter, my responsibility is to protecting myself. That is why the arguement that CCW holders are cowboys or wannabe police is a falsity. I am not going to go hunt down the BG. I am going to take care of myself. Hence my comment.

The 20/20 abonination was so terribly innaccurate I'm surprised they aired it. Actually, I'm not. They are only going to give one sided, extremely biased, viewpoints. Here is a quick recap of why it was so poorly done that it can't count for anything but convincing people that don't know any better that guns are bad.
1. They are in a relatively anti gun state.
2. None of them have CCed before.
3. Most of them had never fired a gun before, and the ones that had were target shooters.
4. They gave them rediculously long shirts, gave them nive padded gloves, nice masks that block vision, and holsters in aquard places that they aren't used.
5. The firearms instructor was the pretend BG and knew exactly where they were sitting, front and center.
6. When one person did shoot the BG, it was a failure because they were shot themselves.

If we allowed CC on campus, true, on a small percentage would be safer. What is wrong with that. It only helps a little so we shouldn't do it? Bad people don't get permits. It costs too much. This is a fact that has been shown repeatedly. You keep saying there are all these risks, but there is no evidence. It is all based on emotion and irrational fear perpetuated by crappy biased media such as the ABC special. If there are none of these problems on Hillsborough street, why would there be on campus?

4/22/2009 10:38:33 AM

Quote :

"If this is true--and I hope it's not--then you are a despicable person. A good person does care about the others around them, at least insofar as they are themselves good."

It's not like any of us would use you for a human shield, but my first reaction would not be "oh man I better go save those people in there and be a hero". It's "if that loon comes in here, at least I'm a lot more prepared than if I were unarmed".

None of us wants to get shot OR shoot someone else, but if it's that or nothing, we'd rather be given the option to fight back rather than face near certain injury or death.

Quote :

"According to the law enforcement experts who were interviewed, one has to train specifically for those types of situations in order to be able to handle them with any success."

MaximaDrvr addressed the gross flaws in 20/20's documentary, so I don't need to expand further on why that was completely unrealistic. The issue of training is one that I identify with because I do defensive pistol competition so that I know how to use and retrieve my weapon in ways that a target shooters like those subjects would likely never think about.

Most of us who take self-defense seriously enough to spend time and money on permit classes and training are also willing to go above and beyond the minimum requirements and do additional training and practice. We realize that a gun isn't useful in a high stress situation unless you've drilled those skill into memory and it becomes reflex. Average Joe doing an ABC documentary neither knows nor cares about learning the ins and outs of real-world self defense, so their 10 minute safety briefing before the camera stunt all goes to crap the moment they have to deal with an unexpected threat. Nevermind that the entire event was staged with all the cards stacked against them on top of that fact.

4/22/2009 2:08:58 PM

Quote :

"EVERYONE thinks of themselves first."

That's not true (e.g., there are many mothers who think of their small children first, and themselves second), but even if it were, thinking of oneself first is not at all the same as not really caring for other people, which is how you described yourself.

4/22/2009 9:01:14 PM

Quote :

"If we allowed CC on campus, true, on a small percentage would be safer. What is wrong with that. It only helps a little so we shouldn't do it?"

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but if it only helps a little, that tends to undercut the argument that we should allow CC on campus because it will make us safer.

4/22/2009 9:06:55 PM

Ok, so the mother with her baby will probably want to protect her child as well.
My point is this, if a bad situation breaks out, I'm looking out for myself. If you benefit, then good for you.

Everywhere that CC has been allowed, it has been followed by a decrease in crime. Hmm, lets think about that. It could possibly only directly help a few people, but the effects have been shown through multiple studies that it would benefit the entire poplulation. Also a few people safer is still safer.

4/22/2009 9:24:55 PM

I both OC and CC. unless I am in very light summer clothes, my gun rides in the same 2 spots for both OC and CC. Thanks to an outdoor range with lots of room and plenty of time, I have gotten to spend time practicing drawing both from open or concealed carry positions, while seated, laying down, etc. Most target ranges restrict holster use if they allow it at all.

Do I want to shoot another human being? not really. Do I think I could do so, to save my life or another's?
I think I could, and at this point 20,000 rounds of handgun ammo says that I could at least connect with every shot.
Shooting dot/bullseye targets is fun, but center of mass drills from holster, or form gun on a table/floor, not in hand and ready, and drills using a timer, build confidence.

I have seen people who had issues hitting center of mass at 10 yards, form to much gun and flinching, and those for whom 100 yards with iron sights on a pistol is a routine shot on a torso target. For me, I will keep shooting every week, keep carrying both open and hidden everywhere I legally can do so, and keep myself alert.

I would rather be the guy who gets hassled for open carry, or has to deal with a false arrest over CC, or gets detained after defending myself, than be the guy who is in a hospital bed or one of the names on a list in a newspaper memorial.

There are already colleges, in the US who allow firearms on campus. Some allow CC, others allow them on campus only for class related functions. Wilson Tech used to offer a nice gunsmithing class. I do not, at this point, advocate OPEN carry legalization on college campuses, do tot he kneejerk reaction of folks who panic at the sight of a gun, though most I have met simply assume you are a cop, or security. If I am CC'ing, in a tucked in, lightweight teeshirt, and shorts, flip flops no socks, only a turn out of my pockets or a strip search will let anyone know i have a gun. if its cold out? I can have a full size pistol on your belt, mags on the other side, and never have anyone see them.

IF we remove this bar from CC holders, who are all 21 or older, with clean backgrounds, who have passed both background checks and gun proficiency testing, and allow them to walk onto campus, instead of having to go home to lock up a gun, or park on the street off campus any time they want to visit a friend, the public will never notice a change.

I have family who are LEO's, and have had a running bet with at least 1 that if he can tell if I am carrying, and where, I buy him lunch. so far, I have not had to pay out once. A gun you carry every day becomes like a wallet, or a pocketknife, keys, or a cellphone. It goes on with your clothes in the morning, stays with you till you get home or go to bed. The result is, since you are NOT nervous about it, and are used to it, you don't show signs of it. A guy planning to commit a crime is uneasy, or may shy away if he sees a uniformed officer, or try to hide any illegal item he has. A legal CC permit holder is just one more face in the crowd. I admit, I often OC around my parking lot, and I transition from CC to OC when I exit my vehicle at home each evening. Nobody ever notices. if I got for a walk or a run, I will be carrying a pistol if my chosen route makes it legal to do so.

4/22/2009 10:29:56 PM

http://bit.ly/OpenHolsterProtest

4/23/2009 10:27:33 AM

there are a lot of points on this subject to address but the conversation has gotten too lengthy to address them all.

A few points to highlight. The graphs in no way actually support that liberalizing guns laws and increasing gun ownership acts as a catalyst for lower crime. In some cases they insinuate correlation, but in some cases it also insinuates that it causes more harm than good.

Quote :

" You could be sitting in a classroom with students armed with loaded guns hidden even if campus continues to prohibit CC"

I know you're smarter than this. I've read many things you've posted. This is utterly pedantic. The chance of getting expelled deters many people from doing this already. By liberalizing the act of carrying a concealed weapon more people would be inclined to do it. Sure people could still have weapons in classes now but the odds anyone does are dramatically lower than would be if CC on campus was allowed.

I'm all for gun ownership, but on a college campus, no way. Those campus statistics that were cited demonstrate crime has gone down significantly per capita over the past 4 years without the use of gun ownership, which begs the question why should we add that variable. Most of the crimes that have taken place (i.e. car theft and larceny) occur when an individual is away from that which is being burglarized, as such a weapon would not reduce the act of those crimes.

4/23/2009 12:21:41 PM

Quote :

"On the other hand, we would run the risk that some bad people on campus would get permits and start carrying guns around, and at some point would use them (in a fight, etc.)."

These 'bad people' are gonna be carrying their guns around places other than campus, so are you against cc altogether or are these 'bad people' only gonna do bad things when they get on a college campus?

4/23/2009 4:32:51 PM

man this is like the 49875948759874 discussion and still no logical, supported anti-CCoC argument (though I'll give CP's argument from Tuesday night some respect - but definitely not a self-sustaining, worthwhile argument).

4/23/2009 11:25:00 PM

Quote :

"These 'bad people' are gonna be carrying their guns around places other than campus, so are you against cc altogether or are these 'bad people' only gonna do bad things when they get on a college campus?"

My position isn't entrenched, but at this point I'm against CC altogether.

4/24/2009 11:42:30 AM

Quote :

"Everywhere that CC has been allowed, it has been followed by a decrease in crime."

I seriously doubt this is true, and I'd like to see you produce some evidence of this. None of the evidence you have adduced so far supports this contention at all.

Could you give an example of, say, a state where cc became legal and where at about that same time violent crime began to decrease?

4/24/2009 11:47:18 AM

Quote :

"Everywhere that CC has been allowed, it has been followed by a decrease in crime."

This is a gross distortion of the truth, which is described in this way by a pair of legal scholars who are experts on this issue:

Quote :

"In a remarkable paper published in 1997, John Lott and David Mustard managed to set the agenda for much subsequent dataset work on the impact of guns on crime in America by creating a massive dataset of crime across all U.S. counties from 1977 through 1992 and by amassing a powerful statistical argument that state laws enabling citizens to carry concealed handguns had reduced crime. The initial paper was followed a year later by an even more comprehensive and sustained argument to the same effect in a book solely authored by John Lott entitled More Guns, Less Crime (now in its second edition). The work by Lott and Mustard has triggered an unusually large set of academic responses, with talented scholars lining up on both sides of the debate. Indeed, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences has been convened to sort through the now large body of conflicting studies."

Contrary to what your comment suggests, the studies on this topic are conflicting, and there are many experts who have come down on both sides of this issue. So it's far from cut and dried. Ayres and Donohue themselves draw this conclusion:

Quote :

"We find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile. Minor changes of specifications can generate wide shifts in the estimated effects of these laws, and some of the most persistent findings such as the association of shall-issue laws with increases in (or no effect on) robbery and with substantial increases in various types of property crime are not consistent with any plausible theory of deterrence. Indeed, the probabilistic underpinnings of statistical analysis suggest that running regressions for nine different crime categories to see if there is any measurable impact on crime will, by chance alone, frequently generate estimates that on their face are statistically significant. Therefore, it may well be the case that the scattered negative coefficients for various violent crime categories, which on their face suggest that crime decreases with passage of shall-issue laws, should be thought of as statistical artifacts. While we do not want to overstate the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the extremely variable results emerging from the statistical analysis, if anything, there is stronger evidence for the conclusion that these laws increase crime than there is for the conclusion that they decrease it."

In light of the complexity of this issue, it is highly misleading simply to state in a matter-of-fact fashion that "Everywhere that CC has been allowed, it has been followed by a decrease in crime."

Source for quotations: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf (online archive of Ayres and Donohue, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis," 55 Stanford Law Review 1193 (2003).)

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 12:38 PM. Reason : add link]

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM. Reason : :]

4/24/2009 12:29:46 PM

you haven't figured out how to edit your comment, have you?

4/24/2009 1:51:16 PM

Perhaps not. What am I missing?

4/24/2009 2:25:44 PM

Quote :

"Do not consecutively reply to a topic - If you are within the alloted timespan for editing a message that no one has replied to and you think of something to add, EDIT the message. DO NOT REPLY AGAIN. Constant abuse of this will not be tolerated. "

you see that link on the left, under your username? yeh, try it sometime.

4/25/2009 6:50:31 AM

Quote :

"you see that link on the left, under your username? yeh, try it sometime."

That link under my username is exactly what I used to edit my post at 12:38 (and again at 12:39 when I thought of another change I wanted to make). I couldn't edit the previous post, though, because my thirty minutes had elapsed.

4/25/2009 12:38:13 PM

and your other double posts..... good try

4/25/2009 5:20:12 PM

I've never had a double post here.

4/26/2009 7:53:00 PM

lol, you just proved your stupidity and I will not longer consider your posts to be worth my time to read, much less factually valid.

Quote :

"anson89 New Recruit 1 Posts user info edit comment Quote : "These 'bad people' are gonna be carrying their guns around places other than campus, so are you against cc altogether or are these 'bad people' only gonna do bad things when they get on a college campus?" My position isn't entrenched, but at this point I'm against CC altogether. 4/24/2009 11:42:30 AM anson89 New Recruit 1 Posts user info edit comment Quote : "Everywhere that CC has been allowed, it has been followed by a decrease in crime." I seriously doubt this is true, and I'd like to see you produce some evidence of this. None of the evidence you have adduced so far supports this contention at all. Could you give an example of, say, a state where cc became legal and where at about that same time violent crime began to decrease? 4/24/2009 11:47:18 AM"

4/26/2009 9:51:50 PM

When people speak of double posts, what they usually mean is posting the exact same comment twice, which I haven't done. I now see that you are using the expression idiosyncratically, and I admit that I did once make two comments within a thirty minute period. I find it telling that instead of focusing on my arguments, you want to be pedantic and focus on this insignificant detail. At least MaximaDrvr has the wisdom not to call attention to his failure to grasp the complexity of this issue by throwing up a smokescreen.

4/27/2009 9:57:35 AM

lol.... gg. you know what I meant from the very beginning. good try though.

I'm just pointing out how you can't manage something so simple.

Also, tje use of flawed and obviously slanted studies to argue your point is yet another failure on your part. And sure, I could get deep into this discussion, but I don't have the time right now; maybe I'll join in a week or so. Until then, I'll continue with my pedantic ways and focus on insignificant details, all in an effort to troll and further entertain myself.

4/27/2009 8:53:11 PM

who cares if concealed carry does or does not reduce crime, why should that be the litmus test? it is all about having the option to protect yourself should you choose to carry. and who cares if its even an effective method of protecting yourself, it may be and thats all that matters.

anti-gun people will always try to pull you into these red herring arguments because they know that they can't explain why a right i have on one side of hillsborough street should suddenly be removed on the other.

5/3/2009 2:48:31 PM