Coastal Carolina University was put on lockdown this week after an as-yet-unapprehended suspect shot and killed 19-year-old student Anthony Darnell Liddell of Bennettsville, S.C. at a student apartment complex.
This attack at CCU marks the latest in a trend of gun violence on campus. It is time to ask our lawmakers – and ask ourselves: How many more?
This attack at Coastal Carolina has angered me much more than crippling student debts, out-of-control spending and a hopeless job market. Today, tomorrow and until something changes – my best friends are dying. At gunpoint, future presidents, CEOs, innovators and agents of change are perishing on our campuses.
We shouldn’t have to make this sort of argument. Our leaders shouldn’t have to be begged to put the lives of future generations above their own agendas and petty arguments. But here I am begging for their help because it is desperately needed. We can either wait for Washington to take action or we can do something here, now.
I will not stand by watching the clock tick away on the lives of students. I will not allow one more life to be lost. The debate over student gun rights must be echoed down the halls – along with the debate over gun control and refocused campus security.
Currently in Five Points – Columbia, S.C.’s popular college district – police officers are still more concerned with arresting drunk students than tackling escalating gang violence. Why? Because arrested drunks pays better than targeting gangs.
Our priorities are not focused. For the sake of my generation we need to adjust, clear our vision and take some action.
Katie Thompson is a member of the University of South Carolina College Republicans. Follow her on Twitter @KatieTThompson.
***
40 comments
CCU looks like a drive by a la Chicago that suits the Obama depression so well. No psycho shooting hundreds of co-eds in nighties for an Obama photo-op, maybe teh hitter is one of those “non-violent” illegals turned out by the DHS gauleiter to keep a supply of fuel for Obama to go to the golf course with Tiger to talk which fifty shades of Lindsey ghey get handcuffed…
CCU looks like a drive by a la Chicago that suits the Obama depression so well. No psycho shooting hundreds of co-eds in nighties for an Obama photo-op, maybe teh hitter is one of those “non-violent” illegals turned out by the DHS gauleiter to keep a supply of fuel for Obama to go to the golf course with Tiger to talk which fifty shades of Lindsey ghey get handcuffed…
Caution: Do not for any reason add her on Facebook. It is a troll.
Caution: Do not for any reason add her on Facebook. It is a troll.
Just another GOP wannabe trying to make a name for herself. Instead of writing maybe she should actually DO something about it, just like the “changes” she so eloquently describes.
Just another GOP wannabe trying to make a name for herself. Instead of writing maybe she should actually DO something about it, just like the “changes” she so eloquently describes.
Excellent article, Katie and Fits!!!!! You speak the truth and common sense. What a shame that common sense flies over the heads of those who make our decisions for us. Keep up the good fight!!!!
Excellent article, Katie and Fits!!!!! You speak the truth and common sense. What a shame that common sense flies over the heads of those who make our decisions for us. Keep up the good fight!!!!
Really, her “best friends?” You think Katie Thompson actually knew Anthony Darnell Liddell? Good argument, Katie – but it’s two obvious where your intentions lie…
^ too, genius.
Really, her “best friends?” You think Katie Thompson actually knew Anthony Darnell Liddell? Good argument, Katie – but it’s two obvious where your intentions lie…
^ too, genius.
As I mentioned in the other post, campus carry is only a small step. That 19 year old would not have been able to legally carry a concealed weapon at all. If you want people like this victim to have the ability to defend themselves, you would also need to lower the age to obtain a CWP to 18.
Five Points also brings up a number of issues. It is a misdemeanor to carry a weapon into a business that sells alcohol:
>SECTION 16-23-465. Additional penalty for unlawfully carrying pistol or firearm onto premises of business selling alcoholic liquors, beers or wines for on premises consumption.
>In addition to the penalties provided for by Sections 16 11 330 and 16 23 460 and by Article 1 of Chapter 23 of Title 16, a person convicted of carrying a pistol or firearm into a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
>In addition to the penalties described above, a person who violates this section while carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23, must have his concealed weapon permit revoked.
http://www.sled.sc.gov/SCStateGunLaws1.aspx
This means that most people who would carry a concealed weapon wouldn’t be able to legally carry a weapon into a vast majority of the places in Five Points open after dark. Unfortunately that makes this area a little bit more reliant of police officers to protect, and with officers focusing more on drunk minors and other easy arrests than what they need to be focusing on, it really isn’t going to be a safe place anytime soon. I also think that Carter Strange’s beating proves that thugs can easily outnumber and overwhelm victims if it comes down to it, and if one is jumped rather quickly, a gun may not help them get out of the impending beating to come.
I do think there needs to be a dialog regarding this stuff and laws do need to be changed, as well as police forces better honed to stop crime in areas like Five Points.
As I mentioned in the other post, campus carry is only a small step. That 19 year old would not have been able to legally carry a concealed weapon at all. If you want people like this victim to have the ability to defend themselves, you would also need to lower the age to obtain a CWP to 18.
Five Points also brings up a number of issues. It is a misdemeanor to carry a weapon into a business that sells alcohol:
>SECTION 16-23-465. Additional penalty for unlawfully carrying pistol or firearm onto premises of business selling alcoholic liquors, beers or wines for on premises consumption.
>In addition to the penalties provided for by Sections 16 11 330 and 16 23 460 and by Article 1 of Chapter 23 of Title 16, a person convicted of carrying a pistol or firearm into a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
>In addition to the penalties described above, a person who violates this section while carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23, must have his concealed weapon permit revoked.
http://www.sled.sc.gov/SCStateGunLaws1.aspx
This means that most people who would carry a concealed weapon wouldn’t be able to legally carry a weapon into a vast majority of the places in Five Points open after dark. Unfortunately that makes this area a little bit more reliant of police officers to protect, and with officers focusing more on drunk minors and other easy arrests than what they need to be focusing on, it really isn’t going to be a safe place anytime soon. I also think that Carter Strange’s beating proves that thugs can easily outnumber and overwhelm victims if it comes down to it, and if one is jumped rather quickly, a gun may not help them get out of the impending beating to come.
I do think there needs to be a dialog regarding this stuff and laws do need to be changed, as well as police forces better honed to stop crime in areas like Five Points.
It’s just lovely to see people use the shooting of someone they couldn’t care less about to further their agenda. Your “best friends” are dying? Which ones? Hyperbole doesn’t really work here.
Also, look up some actual statistics on how the possession of guns in the home (in this case, that would be dorms) leads to increased gun deaths, and check the age necessary to get a CWP in SC before you write an article that considers neither. Arguments are more effective when they have facts to back them up. This one doesn’t, and just being angry doesn’t count.
On the contrary, such a death should result in sparking ideas that would go to prevent such deaths. Perhaps she was overly dramatic in her post, that much I’ll concede, but it is a valid proposal to help prevent this kind of thing from happening.
No one here is saying that campus carry would definitively saved this person’s life. Even if he were able to get a CWP and carry on campus doesn’t mean he would, nor does it completely strip away the notion that a campus should be relatively safe anyways (especially in the case of Five Points). What that option DOES accomplish is to allow anyone who DOES want to carry their weapon, and defend themselves with it if necessary, to do so without fear of being prosecuted.
Also, guns in homes result in increased gun deaths often because the guns aren’t hidden and/or secured sufficiently. Something as simple as a cable lock can prevent a child from accidentally discharging the weapon even if they did find it. They are extremely inexpensive, first result on Google was one being sold on Amazon for $7. There is absolutely no excuse for such extreme negligence. There is also no reason to punish lawful gun owners for the actions of negligent, incompetent, apathetic, or criminal gun owners.
Do you really think that college students with guns will not engage in such “extreme negligence?” Do you really believe that college students will hide and/or secure their weapons sufficiently? Here are some more reasons to keep guns off of college campuses:
The Case Against Guns On Campus (from the Brady Campaign)
There are many reasons why it would be dangerous to introduce guns into colleges and
universities. The college age years – 18-24 – are among the most
volatile periods in a person’s life. As such, these are the peak years
for abusing alcohol and drugs, attempting suicide, having other mental
health problems, and committing gun crimes. Students who engage in binge
drinking and drug abuse put themselves and others at risk. If guns are
involved, it is more likely that these situations will result in serious
injury or death.
Reason #1. Arming Students Would Make Campuses More Dangerous Every Hour of Every Day
Binge drinking and drug abuse. College
students engage in a great many high-risk behaviors – including binge
drinking and drug abuse – at alarming rates. Nearly half of America’s
full-time college students abuse drugs or binge drink at least once a
month . For college gun owners, the rate of binge-drinking is even
higher – two-thirds .
Suicide and mental health issues. College
students are also at elevated risks for suicide, with about 1,100
successful suicides and an additional 24,000 attempts every year. If a
gun is used in a suicide attempt, more than 90% of the time it is fatal,
compared to a 3% fatality rate for suicide attempts by drug overdose.
This is why guns in the home increase the risks of suicide fivefold. How
many more suicide fatalities will we see on college campuses if guns
become widely available?
Accidental shootings and gun thefts. Studies
show that guns in the home are far more likely to be used in an
unintentional shooting than in self-defense. In addition, even trained
gun owners often do not realize that a gun is loaded. This often happens
with pistols where the ammunition magazine is removed, but a hidden
bullet remains in the chamber, ready to kill. Guns stolen from homes and
cars fuel crime. College dorm rooms, by comparison, would be even
easier targets for gun thieves. Guns are also often taken and used in
suicides.
Reason #2. Armed Students Would Be Accountable to No One
Colleges have duty to protect safety of students. College
administrators and campus law enforcement have a duty to protect the
safety of students, faculty, and visitors on college campuses. Indeed,
schools can be held liable for failing to take adequate security
measures or otherwise failing to maintain a sufficiently safe
environment. According, armed campus law enforcement officers are
thoroughly trained to handle crisis situations, when and when not to
fire their guns, and how to best secure the campus environment.
Gun owners do not. College gun owners operate under none of these constraints. They are accountable only for the safety of themselves. If, in a shootout they miss the shooter and hit other students – an extremely likely scenario given that even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended
targets less than 20% of the time – they will claim self-defense and
claim no responsibility, even if they have directly caused the death of a
fellow student. For this reason, security professionals believe that
arming students to shoot back would actually make matters worse in the
extremely rare instances where mass shootings occur on campus.
College gun owners have been proven to be dangerous. Harvard researchers have shown college gun owners to be highly irresponsible. They are more likely than the average student to:
Engage in binge drinking,
Need an alcoholic drink first thing in the morning,
Use cocaine or crack,
Be arrested for a DUI,
Vandalize property, and
Get in trouble with police.
Reason #3. Arming Students Would Not Deter the Rare Campus Shooting
Suicidal attackers cannot be deterred. The perpetrators of mass shootings are nearly always suicidal, and end up taking their own lives at the end of their rampages. Armed students would likely become the first targets of any suicidal attackers, who can prepare for such an attack by maximizing their firepower. For example, a crazed gunman who attacked a city council outside St. Louis, Missouri, in March 2008, first shot and killed two armed police officers before continuing his rampage. He even used one of the officer’s guns in furthering his attack.
Reason #4. Academic Debate Cannot Flourish In a Room Full of Guns
Freedom of expression. Protecting
free expression of teachers and students is the most obvious way in
which academic freedom must be secured. Teachers must be able to address
even the most controversial subjects, in their research and writing
endeavors as well as in the classroom, without fear that they will be
punished for challenging conventional thought or espousing provocative
ideas. Students must have the same ability to pursue knowledge without
risk of being penalized or restrained by those who might disagree with
the students’ views. All of these cherished values of our educational
process would be greatly diminished if college classrooms were filled
with armed students and teachers.
Self-governance.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the importance of respecting schools’
rights to self-governance and independent decision-making. This
principle of institutional autonomy has been enshrined in the
constitutions of many states. Thus, college administrations must be free
to set their own policies with respect to firearms.
Reason #5. There Are Better Ways to Make College Campuses Safer
Campuses are safer than surrounding communities. Despite
the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois, college
campuses are far safer than the communities that surround them. Ninety
three percent of the violence against college students occurs off
campus, where guns are widely available. To prevent future mass
shootings, we must strengthen our gun laws to make it as hard as
possible for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons.
Strengthen background checks, don’t arm everyone. The
shooter at Virginia Tech was a prohibited purchaser whose disqualifying
records were not in the Brady background check system when he bought
the guns he used. Since then, Congress has enacted legislation to
encourage states to put more records of those too dangerous to buy a gun
for mental health reasons into that system. Congress should go farther,
however, and extend the Brady background checks to private sales at gun
shows to make it harder for dangerous people to arm themselves. Such
actions will complement and support other safety strategies that
colleges and universities have adopted in the wake of Virginia Tech.
>Do you really think that college students with guns will not engage in such “extreme negligence?”
You cannot restrict a person’s rights because you -think- they may be negligent. Owning a gun is a great responsibility and you are fully liable for it. Carrying a concealed weapon is an even greater responsibility and you are unquestionably liable for it, especially considering the requirement to get one is to take an 8 hour class where the laws are drilled repetitively into your skull.
That is honestly how I am able to recall these laws so easily, I have a CWP, I got it when I was college aged, and I am extremely responsible with it. Just the slightest infraction of the law could result in a fine, jail time, and most likely complete revoking of my permit, as demonstrated by the above law I posted regarding bringing a gun into a place of business that sells alcohol. The state is eager to revoke your license at the slightest offense, possibly rightfully so, so there is already sufficient stances against negligent or irresponsible owners.
>Reason #1. Arming Students Would Make Campuses More Dangerous Every Hour of Every Day
There are laws that make it unlawful to carry or use a weapon while you are drunk/intoxicated, as well as laws that make it illegal to carry into a business that sells alcohol. That means that more than likely if they have their gun and are drunk, they are drinking in their dorm room or apartment, or in public.
College kids may be at elevated risk of suicide, but I hate to tell you this, there’s plenty of ways to commit suicide. Perhaps swallowing a bottle of pills isn’t as effective, but someone who is suicidal will find a way to kill themselves, and if they have no gun, they often find one somehow, through a friend or family member.
Regarding mental health, all that can be done is to step up identification of mental illness in people and ensure that it is properly relayed to authorities to prevent them from easily getting a gun. It isn’t foolproof though, but it is something we should do. If you want, make it where only CWP holders can have a weapon on campus, as CWP background checks are far more thorough, even taking your fingerprints. Just bear in mind that psychos don’t follow gun laws or apply for permits to go on shooting sprees.
>Reason #2. Armed Students Would Be Accountable to No One
Horseshit. Every gun owner is subject to the laws of the land, and if caught breaking said laws, would surely be staring down a prison sentence or hefty fine. If they have their CWP, it would be revoked. Even one fuck up would likely strip one of the right to carry on campus if the law required a CWP to have a gun on campus.
>Reason #3. Arming Students Would Not Deter the Rare Campus Shooting
Irrelevant. This is about having the ability to defend oneself and those around them. It may not scare people from committing such attacks, nor will it necessarily stop the attack itself, but it gives a person who has actively sought the right to carry their gun and displayed an appropriate amount of knowledge and responsibility to obtain said right to defend themselves.
I didn’t get my CWP to be a hero. I got mine because a family member had an encounter with an armed thug. Columbia is not safe, not by any means I assure you, and that isn’t just Five Points. I don’t think CWP is for everyone, but I do think that anyone who would willingly accept the responsibilities of it and is fully legally capable of obtaining it should be allowed to get it.
>Reason #4. Academic Debate Cannot Flourish In a Room Full of Guns
Please. If the student is concealing their weapon properly, you won’t even know it is there. If a student is not concealing their weapon properly, they could easily be charged for it and lose their CWP. Besides that, I highly doubt there’d be a lot of students carrying a CWP, let alone carrying their gun with them everywhere.
>Reason #5. There Are Better Ways to Make College Campuses Safer
Again, irrelevant. Yes, there are better ways to make the campus generally safer. That does not change the fact that a person should be allowed to defend themselves. We should strive to make changes that improve safety around the campus, but the fact is that you are never 100% safe, especially not anywhere in downtown Columbia. You can’t hire enough police to stop crime in Five Points, let alone the rest of the city. That is why someone who is willing to obtain their concealed weapons permit should be allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves with if necessary.
We carry guns with us because they are lighter than cops.
“Also, look up some actual statistics on how the possession of guns in the home (in this case, that would be dorms) leads to increased gun deaths….”
Perhaps you can supply the statistics you looked up that support your claim? You may be referring to some old studies that have been pretty solidly refuted, and I am sure you would prefer to “have facts to back (you) up.”
See above.
Ah, a cut-&-paste from the largest, most biased anti-gun organization there is. If you’d like a response, just go to the NRA’s website.
But I asked for your stats on the claim you made about guns in your earlier post. Your post does not support your claim with statistical information. I’d appreciate if you try again.
Um, yeah, I named my source, which included “statistics on how the possession of guns in the home (in this case, that would be dorms) leads to increased gun deaths.” from security professionals and Harvard researchers, neither of which are paid by a lobbying group that is paid by gun manufacturers to sell their product. I’ll take bias on the side of security and research vs. gun manufacturers any day – I think we know which one has the safety of actual people in mind. Please refer back if you missed the numbers.
If you’d like more, however, here’s a link instead of a cut and paste, if you prefer, since whether I copy the stats from the source or include a link in my response doesn’t really matter, does it?
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
Now, “Sid,” since I assume you are not a paid gun lobbyist, why don’t you refute the numbers without looking at the NRA’s website.
Be aware that the stats cited in the link above come from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center – in case you want to know the inherent “bias.” Again, I’ll go with the doctors, researchers, and criminologists on this one. Feel free to tell me what their political agenda is in this fight. We already know that of the NRA.
NRA’s website has a great deal of research material that does not originate with NRA. If you were actually interested in true research, you would know that. Researchers like Lott, Kleck, Kates and others are referenced there.
If you’d like me to offer you links to research that does not originate from NRA, and that contradicts the anti-gun view that law-abiding citizens with firearms represent a danger to anyone other than criminals, just let me know.
BTW, I know you named your source. It was a biased, anti-gun organization, as I explained. But you didn’t actually supply what I asked for. Your anti-gun lobbying group didn’t actually mention any security professionals, and the research it mentioned didn’t address your previous claim. I doubt the link you provided will do that, either, but perhaps I’ll take a look.
It’s just lovely to see people use the shooting of someone they couldn’t care less about to further their agenda. Your “best friends” are dying? Which ones? Hyperbole doesn’t really work here.
Also, look up some actual statistics on how the possession of guns in the home (in this case, that would be dorms) leads to increased gun deaths, and check the age necessary to get a CWP in SC before you write an article that considers neither. Arguments are more effective when they have facts to back them up. This one doesn’t, and just being angry doesn’t count.
On the contrary, such a death should result in sparking ideas that would go to prevent such deaths. Perhaps she was overly dramatic in her post, that much I’ll concede, but it is a valid proposal to help prevent this kind of thing from happening.
No one here is saying that campus carry would definitively saved this person’s life. Even if he were able to get a CWP and carry on campus doesn’t mean he would, nor does it completely strip away the notion that a campus should be relatively safe anyways (especially in the case of Five Points). What that option DOES accomplish is to allow anyone who DOES want to carry their weapon, and defend themselves with it if necessary, to do so without fear of being prosecuted.
Also, guns in homes result in increased gun deaths often because the guns aren’t hidden and/or secured sufficiently. Something as simple as a cable lock can prevent a child from accidentally discharging the weapon even if they did find it. They are extremely inexpensive, first result on Google was one being sold on Amazon for $7. There is absolutely no excuse for such extreme negligence. There is also no reason to punish lawful gun owners for the actions of negligent, incompetent, apathetic, or criminal gun owners.
Do you really think that college students with guns will not engage in such “extreme negligence?” Do you really believe that college students will hide and/or secure their weapons sufficiently? Here are some more reasons to keep guns off of college campuses:
The Case Against Guns On Campus (from the Brady Campaign)
There are many reasons why it would be dangerous to introduce guns into colleges and
universities. The college age years – 18-24 – are among the most
volatile periods in a person’s life. As such, these are the peak years
for abusing alcohol and drugs, attempting suicide, having other mental
health problems, and committing gun crimes. Students who engage in binge
drinking and drug abuse put themselves and others at risk. If guns are
involved, it is more likely that these situations will result in serious
injury or death.
Reason #1. Arming Students Would Make Campuses More Dangerous Every Hour of Every Day
Binge drinking and drug abuse. College
students engage in a great many high-risk behaviors – including binge
drinking and drug abuse – at alarming rates. Nearly half of America’s
full-time college students abuse drugs or binge drink at least once a
month . For college gun owners, the rate of binge-drinking is even
higher – two-thirds .
Suicide and mental health issues. College
students are also at elevated risks for suicide, with about 1,100
successful suicides and an additional 24,000 attempts every year. If a
gun is used in a suicide attempt, more than 90% of the time it is fatal,
compared to a 3% fatality rate for suicide attempts by drug overdose.
This is why guns in the home increase the risks of suicide fivefold. How
many more suicide fatalities will we see on college campuses if guns
become widely available?
Accidental shootings and gun thefts. Studies
show that guns in the home are far more likely to be used in an
unintentional shooting than in self-defense. In addition, even trained
gun owners often do not realize that a gun is loaded. This often happens
with pistols where the ammunition magazine is removed, but a hidden
bullet remains in the chamber, ready to kill. Guns stolen from homes and
cars fuel crime. College dorm rooms, by comparison, would be even
easier targets for gun thieves. Guns are also often taken and used in
suicides.
Reason #2. Armed Students Would Be Accountable to No One
Colleges have duty to protect safety of students. College
administrators and campus law enforcement have a duty to protect the
safety of students, faculty, and visitors on college campuses. Indeed,
schools can be held liable for failing to take adequate security
measures or otherwise failing to maintain a sufficiently safe
environment. According, armed campus law enforcement officers are
thoroughly trained to handle crisis situations, when and when not to
fire their guns, and how to best secure the campus environment.
Gun owners do not. College gun owners operate under none of these constraints. They are accountable only for the safety of themselves. If, in a shootout they miss the shooter and hit other students – an extremely likely scenario given that even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended
targets less than 20% of the time – they will claim self-defense and
claim no responsibility, even if they have directly caused the death of a
fellow student. For this reason, security professionals believe that
arming students to shoot back would actually make matters worse in the
extremely rare instances where mass shootings occur on campus.
College gun owners have been proven to be dangerous. Harvard researchers have shown college gun owners to be highly irresponsible. They are more likely than the average student to:
Engage in binge drinking,
Need an alcoholic drink first thing in the morning,
Use cocaine or crack,
Be arrested for a DUI,
Vandalize property, and
Get in trouble with police.
Reason #3. Arming Students Would Not Deter the Rare Campus Shooting
Suicidal attackers cannot be deterred. The perpetrators of mass shootings are nearly always suicidal, and end up taking their own lives at the end of their rampages. Armed students would likely become the first targets of any suicidal attackers, who can prepare for such an attack by maximizing their firepower. For example, a crazed gunman who attacked a city council outside St. Louis, Missouri, in March 2008, first shot and killed two armed police officers before continuing his rampage. He even used one of the officer’s guns in furthering his attack.
Reason #4. Academic Debate Cannot Flourish In a Room Full of Guns
Freedom of expression. Protecting
free expression of teachers and students is the most obvious way in
which academic freedom must be secured. Teachers must be able to address
even the most controversial subjects, in their research and writing
endeavors as well as in the classroom, without fear that they will be
punished for challenging conventional thought or espousing provocative
ideas. Students must have the same ability to pursue knowledge without
risk of being penalized or restrained by those who might disagree with
the students’ views. All of these cherished values of our educational
process would be greatly diminished if college classrooms were filled
with armed students and teachers.
Self-governance.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the importance of respecting schools’
rights to self-governance and independent decision-making. This
principle of institutional autonomy has been enshrined in the
constitutions of many states. Thus, college administrations must be free
to set their own policies with respect to firearms.
Reason #5. There Are Better Ways to Make College Campuses Safer
Campuses are safer than surrounding communities. Despite
the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois, college
campuses are far safer than the communities that surround them. Ninety
three percent of the violence against college students occurs off
campus, where guns are widely available. To prevent future mass
shootings, we must strengthen our gun laws to make it as hard as
possible for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons.
Strengthen background checks, don’t arm everyone. The
shooter at Virginia Tech was a prohibited purchaser whose disqualifying
records were not in the Brady background check system when he bought
the guns he used. Since then, Congress has enacted legislation to
encourage states to put more records of those too dangerous to buy a gun
for mental health reasons into that system. Congress should go farther,
however, and extend the Brady background checks to private sales at gun
shows to make it harder for dangerous people to arm themselves. Such
actions will complement and support other safety strategies that
colleges and universities have adopted in the wake of Virginia Tech.
>Do you really think that college students with guns will not engage in such “extreme negligence?”
You cannot restrict a person’s rights because you -think- they may be negligent. Owning a gun is a great responsibility and you are fully liable for it. Carrying a concealed weapon is an even greater responsibility and you are unquestionably liable for it, especially considering the requirement to get one is to take an 8 hour class where the laws are drilled repetitively into your skull.
That is honestly how I am able to recall these laws so easily, I have a CWP, I got it when I was college aged, and I am extremely responsible with it. Just the slightest infraction of the law could result in a fine, jail time, and most likely complete revoking of my permit, as demonstrated by the above law I posted regarding bringing a gun into a place of business that sells alcohol. The state is eager to revoke your license at the slightest offense, possibly rightfully so, so there is already sufficient stances against negligent or irresponsible owners.
>Reason #1. Arming Students Would Make Campuses More Dangerous Every Hour of Every Day
There are laws that make it unlawful to carry or use a weapon while you are drunk/intoxicated, as well as laws that make it illegal to carry into a business that sells alcohol. That means that more than likely if they have their gun and are drunk, they are drinking in their dorm room or apartment, or in public.
College kids may be at elevated risk of suicide, but I hate to tell you this, there’s plenty of ways to commit suicide. Perhaps swallowing a bottle of pills isn’t as effective, but someone who is suicidal will find a way to kill themselves, and if they have no gun, they often find one somehow, through a friend or family member.
Regarding mental health, all that can be done is to step up identification of mental illness in people and ensure that it is properly relayed to authorities to prevent them from easily getting a gun. It isn’t foolproof though, but it is something we should do. If you want, make it where only CWP holders can have a weapon on campus, as CWP background checks are far more thorough, even taking your fingerprints. Just bear in mind that psychos don’t follow gun laws or apply for permits to go on shooting sprees.
>Reason #2. Armed Students Would Be Accountable to No One
Horseshit. Every gun owner is subject to the laws of the land, and if caught breaking said laws, would surely be staring down a prison sentence or hefty fine. If they have their CWP, it would be revoked. Even one fuck up would likely strip one of the right to carry on campus if the law required a CWP to have a gun on campus.
>Reason #3. Arming Students Would Not Deter the Rare Campus Shooting
Irrelevant. This is about having the ability to defend oneself and those around them. It may not scare people from committing such attacks, nor will it necessarily stop the attack itself, but it gives a person who has actively sought the right to carry their gun and displayed an appropriate amount of knowledge and responsibility to obtain said right to defend themselves.
I didn’t get my CWP to be a hero. I got mine because a family member had an encounter with an armed thug. Columbia is not safe, not by any means I assure you, and that isn’t just Five Points. I don’t think CWP is for everyone, but I do think that anyone who would willingly accept the responsibilities of it and is fully legally capable of obtaining it should be allowed to get it.
>Reason #4. Academic Debate Cannot Flourish In a Room Full of Guns
Please. If the student is concealing their weapon properly, you won’t even know it is there. If a student is not concealing their weapon properly, they could easily be charged for it and lose their CWP. Besides that, I highly doubt there’d be a lot of students carrying a CWP, let alone carrying their gun with them everywhere.
>Reason #5. There Are Better Ways to Make College Campuses Safer
Again, irrelevant. Yes, there are better ways to make the campus generally safer. That does not change the fact that a person should be allowed to defend themselves. We should strive to make changes that improve safety around the campus, but the fact is that you are never 100% safe, especially not anywhere in downtown Columbia. You can’t hire enough police to stop crime in Five Points, let alone the rest of the city. That is why someone who is willing to obtain their concealed weapons permit should be allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves with if necessary.
We carry guns with us because they are lighter than cops.
“Also, look up some actual statistics on how the possession of guns in the home (in this case, that would be dorms) leads to increased gun deaths….”
Perhaps you can supply the statistics you looked up that support your claim? You may be referring to some old studies that have been pretty solidly refuted, and I am sure you would prefer to “have facts to back (you) up.”
See above.
Ah, a cut-&-paste from the largest, most biased anti-gun organization there is. If you’d like a response, just go to the NRA’s website.
But I asked for your stats on the claim you made about guns in your earlier post. Your post does not support your claim with statistical information. I’d appreciate if you try again.
Um, yeah, I named my source, which included “statistics on how the possession of guns in the home (in this case, that would be dorms) leads to increased gun deaths.” from security professionals and Harvard researchers, neither of which are paid by a lobbying group that is paid by gun manufacturers to sell their product. I’ll take bias on the side of security and research vs. gun manufacturers any day – I think we know which one has the safety of actual people in mind. Please refer back if you missed the numbers.
If you’d like more, however, here’s a link instead of a cut and paste, if you prefer, since whether I copy the stats from the source or include a link in my response doesn’t really matter, does it?
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
Now, “Sid,” since I assume you are not a paid gun lobbyist, why don’t you refute the numbers without looking at the NRA’s website.
Be aware that the stats cited in the link above come from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center – in case you want to know the inherent “bias.” Again, I’ll go with the doctors, researchers, and criminologists on this one. Feel free to tell me what their political agenda is in this fight. We already know that of the NRA.
NRA’s website has a great deal of research material that does not originate with NRA. If you were actually interested in true research, you would know that. Researchers like Lott, Kleck, Kates and others are referenced there.
If you’d like me to offer you links to research that does not originate from NRA, and that contradicts the anti-gun view that law-abiding citizens with firearms represent a danger to anyone other than criminals, just let me know.
BTW, I know you named your source. It was a biased, anti-gun organization, as I explained. But you didn’t actually supply what I asked for. Your anti-gun lobbying group didn’t actually mention any security professionals, and the research it mentioned didn’t address your previous claim. I doubt the link you provided will do that, either, but perhaps I’ll take a look.
Katie, your credibility was “shot” – no pun intended – a while back: http://www.dailygamecock.com/index.php/multimedia-11/item/1782-breaking-katie-thompson-resigns-as-student-body-vice-president
FITS, please employ actual writers, not kids who make up committees in student government at colleges. This is embarrassing.
PREACH.
Katie, your credibility was “shot” – no pun intended – a while back: http://www.dailygamecock.com/index.php/multimedia-11/item/1782-breaking-katie-thompson-resigns-as-student-body-vice-president
FITS, please employ actual writers, not kids who make up committees in student government at colleges. This is embarrassing.
PREACH.
A Gun-Free Zone Doesn’t Make Me Feel Any Safer, Tom Fernandez, Graduating Senior at CCU.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxtDqwL1WQJEd2VxbUUyaWhoN2c/edit?usp=sharing
A Gun-Free Zone Doesn’t Make Me Feel Any Safer, Tom Fernandez, Graduating Senior at CCU.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxtDqwL1WQJEd2VxbUUyaWhoN2c/edit?usp=sharing