Osler's Razor

I think it's a fine idea. Allowing licensed concealed carry permit holders to be able to carry in schools provides an extra measure of protection against incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech, and places like Appalachian School of Law, Colorado State University, and the 9 other college campuses that currently allow concealed carry have shown that the fears regarding guns on campus leading to problems have been unfounded. Concealed means concealed, meaning that if appropriate measures were taken to avoid detection (as a license holder is required to take anywhere else), it would be no different than the movie theaters, restaurants, shopping centers, or any other place where license holders carry concealed weapons every day with no incident and no knowledge to the rest of the patrons.
 

So you're afraid of being in another Virginia Tech situation, right? It's fear that is driving the desire to carry a gun on you all day?

I can understand that fear, but it seems to me a gun is too risky a tool to use to combat this fear. Let's say you are well trained in using a gun and are a totally reasonable, sane person who would never use it unless someone tried to shoot you.

There are still things that can go wrong in that kind of situation, and there you are (and the shooter, of course) with deadly weapons which could kill others unintentionally as well as yourselves. It just ups the ante that you could also die, it seems to me.

By that logic, we'd be back to the Wild Wild West where most people were armed. And that's actually the only way I see that mass carrying of guns could work: it's absurd, but as I've said here before, either everybody should have them, and know how to use them, or nobody should have them. Guns should not be sold in stores; it should be impossible to get them.

Why should the norm be that we'll use the deadliest force we can--that we will kill people? We can agree that we all want to feel safe, and not to die at the hands of a mentally ill person who has a gun. I don't see how it's possible to say, with any kind of hard evidence, that we are all safer if people are allowed to carry a concealed weapon into a school or anywhere else. Too many things can go wrong, and then there are a bunch of people with guns. And also a bunch of people who really don't want to carry them. It just seems like it has the potential for nonsensical mayhem to me. And it also seems a very sad and cynical response to a problem.

And I work in a school . . . in the US, now. In DC, where it's now easier for people to have guns. It still doesn't make me want to own one, or carry one to school. If you're not comfortable with a gun, you're not comfortable with a gun . . . is that fair? Why should I have to be at the mercy of even more people who carry one?

I am interested in y'all's views about this, but I just don't see how it makes us any safer, or addresses the problems of potential school violence.

For that matter, there are all kinds of threats out there . . . I live in DC, where there was a major terrorist attack. Does that mean I should protect myself against possible attack again by not living here? I mean, I daresay we are a lot more in danger of being hit by a car as we drive down the road than we are of being shot by a crazy kid in school. Just because there were some school shootings, is that enough reason to carry a gun?

Enough from me . . .I'm late for school (really.)
 

Well, I think the idea is that once one student starts shooting, a bunch of other students will whip out their guns and start shooting, too, just trying to hit the first guy.
 

I think it is a bad idea. Like the anonymous comment just said, the idea seems to be that a group of others will take down the shooter. In itself, not a bad idea; however, what about when bullets go through classroom walls and hit students and then they start firing back because they don't realize they weren't meant to be attacked?
There are some people that could responsibly carry guns in school (Carson); however, them having guns in school would make me feel no safer. I'm guessing the likelihood of being shot in school is probably similar to that of being in a plane crash.
If you are so afraid of the people on campus, maybe you should switch schools.
It isn't that people couldn't be responsible, it just isn't necessary.
 

I think the fact that the school has the discretion says a lot. If the school chooses to not allow the guns, that school knows better than the legislature because it actually knows the student body. Taking away the discretion takes away a serious chunk of power from the people in a position to make the judgment call.
 

Justin T.--

If you want licensed concealed carry permit holders to be able to bring a gun to school, you don't need to change the law in Texas-- you just need to change the school policy.

So why change the law?
 

Osler, I can't believe you would not want the Fed to bail out AIG. If they hadn't, it could have led to a total market collapse. So what if it is socialism, maybe we need some more of that around here. I never thought it would be Republicans doing it, though!

I'll bet Lane likes it-- the workers controlling the means of production.
 

First off, all of my faux expressions of offense are very real.

Second, is this idea something that many people take very seriously? Kids roaming the halls with firearms? Does this really sound like a good idea?

I'm not even that big a fan of concealed carry licenses for adults. I think the goal should be to keep guns out of classrooms instead of allowing (or encouraging) people to bring them in.

Those two cents are mine, and I'm putting 'em in!!!
 

Watch out RRL, those people are armed.

If it makes a high school safer to have the students toting guns, why not courtrooms? And airplanes? We could all bring guns on planes, and then it would be safe there.
 

I LOVE the updo. I heard that she did so she wouldn't be too sexy. People don't realize how much work goes into an updo-- it's not like it does that by itself, and it is almost impossible to give yourself an updo, so you have to have a professional do it. I think it is exactly the right look for a lady her age, and it shows excellent judgement to have made that change. Just to use one example, Hillary Clinton never showed good judgement in that way.

That's why I'm voting Republican-- because it is the party of good judgement and traditional values, like not being too sexy.
 

Since the age limit to legally carry is 21, we're just talking about colleges and graduate schools, right?

Side note:
"First off, all of my faux expressions of offense are very real."

Hahahahaha! I love RRL's posts.
 

I'm not sure RRL is real. He is more like a cartoon character, and a really interesting one! And then we have his cartoon arch-nemesis, Lane. Can we have a live debate between those two? If we have it in a school, the audience could all have guns, which would raise the stakes.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I'm willing to engage in the live debate with Lane sponsored by the Razor.

It can take place in the backyard at Scruffy Murphy's Bar & Grill (no grill since 1997).

We can call it: "The Tenets of National Socialism: At Least it's an Ethos!!"

However, we will have to have metal detectors at the door. If all his hippie revolution buddies show up and all my NASCAR redneck buddies show up, we could have a real problem if gunplay is involved.

Lets just say, the headline "Socialist Workers Revolution and Whitetrash have Firefight at Scruffys, one Baylor Law Professor Injured while Trying to Remain Impartial" does not have a good ring to it.
 

The point about not changing the law and merely changing school point is a valid point. However, I still am not allowed to carry in campus buildings and a change in school policy is doubtful, so I am not adverse to a change in the law.

That said, there is a large difference between a CHL carrier and someone in the "Wild West" toting a gun - both state and federal agencies do extensive background checks before granting a CHL, and continuing education and further background checks are required to keep your license. Furthermore, instructors at the required CHL classes have discretion regarding whether or not to pass you, and the vast majority of instructors are police officers who teach the courses because they believe that carrying a weapon is very large responsibility and yet the duty of law abiding citizens. They are not teaching the course simply to make a buck, and will deny a license to a candidate they find to be of unworthy character. Cops tend to be able to make accurate judgments regarding character pretty quickly. Further the people who acquire concealed carry licenses in my experience are not the hothead thug sorts, but rather are citizens concerned with civic responsibility. Fear may be a large part of the motivation to carry, but I also buckle my seat belt every day out of fear. My main point here is that those who carry CHL's tend to be very responsible citizens.

Another point revolves around the deterrent effect of concealed carry licenses. A criminal is going to be far less likely to aggressively initiate a confrontation if he knows there is a possibility of immediate returned gunfire. Carjackings provide a relevant example.

Finally, a classmate and I were discussing this issue earlier today. He brought up the point that allowing CHL carriers to carry on campus would encourage non-CHL carriers to carry weapons on campus. Maybe so. However, as the situation now stands, every person I know that has a CHL will not bring his/her weapon onto campus. Those that would ignore weapons restrictions laws if they were to change likely do not have any respect for them now. This is the age old argument - if you outlaw weapons, only the outlaws will have weapons. I'd personally prefer to have some responsible and lawful citizens carrying weapons if the "outlaws" ever come round my campus.
 

Now that I think about it, I'm all for guns in schools. However, we need to lower the legal age.

I can't even begin to count the amount of times that preschool nazi of a teacher made me take naps when I didn't want to simply because it was a time period she deemed nap time so she could go out and have a cigarette or do a line of blow. Ugh! If only I had a gun, I'd show her that Mr D Eagle says nap time is now code for pistol whipping time.

Hmm, I still don't get why everyone opposes the idea of me having a gun... Eminem wrecked it for me and everyone from our area that happens to like rap! I bet all my friends would stop being friends real quick if I was carrying around a gun, especially if I was with a girl named Kim.
Cody: So I hear Detroit and Kim broke up again, you know what that means!
Jess: Oh thank God I stocked the bomb shelter last night! Hurry, there is no time to grab any belongings, no one is safe!
That is a stereotype and I'm very offended!
 

In light of campus shootings, I think it is worth considering for those 21 years of age or older.

Regarding high school students, however, I think we'd be hard pressed to convince decent candidates to be teachers. Especially in the higher risk schools. My husband was a teacher in Marlin for a year and if those kids had guns I wouldn't even risk driving through the city, much less letting him continue to teach there.
 

For those of you interested in the root causes of this whole financial mess (the mortgage crisis) and whether regulation/deregulation is the root cause, and the unintended consequences of social policy, here is an interesting read written in 2000 (so, it is not some conservative hack trying to excuse Bush):

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

Please excuse me for this brief break in a discussion about whether we should encourage more gun ownership.
 

Chris--

You argued, "Another point revolves around the deterrent effect of concealed carry licenses. A criminal is going to be far less likely to aggressively initiate a confrontation if he knows there is a possibility of immediate returned gunfire. Carjackings provide a relevant example."

In the school shootings we have had, the gunman killed themselves in the end, and apparently went in intending to do so. That person is not going to be deterred, and may even be encouraged, by the prospect of a firefight breaking out.
 

Prof. Osler -

Your point regarding the undeterrability (is that even a word?) of the gunmen in past school shootings is well taken. My only response in such case is that I would rather not have to wait on someone to run out to their vehicle to get their weapon to grant the gunman's suicide wish. Most of the point of having a CHL is to be able to respond quickly in the exceedingly rare cases when you have such a need. Stirring up a gun fight may be seen as a desirable result on the part of the gunman. However, the risk of CHL carriers accidentally shooting others in such a situation is far less than the risk of letting a gunman intent on killing as many people as he can run unrestricted throughout a school.
 

I don't understand why anyone would want to make children into their own, untrained police force. We have enough problems with cops freezing in a firefight or accidentally shooting a bystander/partner/victim. Highly trained SWAT teams in full gear are called in when there's a school shooting, but children are good enough to do the same thing?

I'm not trying to be flippant, but as far as I understand, the rationale is - "if we allow kids to carry guns in school, Columbine won't happen again."

No. Sorry, just... no. School shootings are not perpetrated by people who have had a hard day or two - these kids are completely unhinged. They see death as an acceptable way to deal with their troubles. Does anyone really think that those shooters were doing a cost-benefit analysis as they packed up their rifles on the way to school? They're not rational - there is no deterrence.

I can't know how it would feel to be in a school shooting. But I can imagine that it's not the most rational of times for the victims either. So what this idea is proposing is adding *more* guns? To put them into the hands of people who are running largely on hormones on their best days, and then ask them to make rational decisions of who, when, where to shoot?

Letting guns into schools makes them into a tool. People will use the tools that are given to them - not just for situations like Columbine, but for anything where they think it's alright to use that tool. Right now, it's easy to say that no one would dream of using a gun unless the situation called for it. What a subjective standard that can be bent so easily...
 

Wow, such great discussion on an interesting topic. Let me address a few things point by point.

1. I don't see how it's possible to say, with any kind of hard evidence, that we are all safer if people are allowed to carry a concealed weapon into a school or anywhere else.

This is a common argument, and a fair one. However, the fact is that should an incident occur, and the incidents, though rare, do occur, I would rather be allowed to use the means to protect myself that I am allowed to use almost everywhere else. Why should I or anyone else have no options other than to cower at the mercy of a maniac for no other reason than "something might go wrong" (in the 11 schools that allow concealed carry, by the way, there haven't been any incidents reported of any problems that increase the danger of others getting injured, such as accidental discharges, etc.)

2. Guns should not be sold in stores; it should be impossible to get them.

Considering the basic design of a gun, it's not possible to keep them out of the hands of the population, period. Would you prefer that only the people who would take the time and effort to obtain them through illegal means have access to them? I certainly wouldn't.

3. Why should the norm be that we'll use the deadliest force we can--that we will kill people?

This statement implies that the deadliest force available is the appropriate response to all problems. This is of course not true. There are many other options for various situations, but in the situation where a gun would be required (immediate threat of imminent severe bodily injury or death), I would rather be allowed to use the most effective tool for stopping that threat. There is a reason police officers use guns to diffuse a threat whenever there are other guns involved-- no other tool works as effectively against a gun as another gun. Again, I don't anticipate ever having to use one or even draw it, but should it become necessary, I'd rather be allowed than not.

4. Why should I have to be at the mercy of even more people who carry one?

This argument can be extended to just about any level. Why should I have to be at the mercy of people who carry guns? Heck, why should I have to be at the mercy of people who even own them? I don't want that in my neighborhood! The fact is that without giving citizens the power to arm and defend themselves if necessary, you are completely at the mercy of people who would choose to use them against you to get what they want. I do not want to be in that situation.

5. the idea seems to be that a group of others will take down the shooter.

Without allowing citizens to arm and defend themselves, this becomes your only option aside from waiting for the threat to either subside on its own or for the police to show up. It's a cliche statement, but when seconds count, I'd rather not have to wait minutes for the police or other outside help.

6. I'm guessing the likelihood of being shot in school is probably similar to that of being in a plane crash.

By that logic, why bother putting flotation devices, emergency exits, seat belts, or any other devices on planes to allow people to help keep themselves safe? The odds are so low that it probably won't happen, but if it does, I'm pretty sure anyone would rather have that extra level of protection than be at the mercy of however safe the plane is from the outside.

7. Taking away the discretion takes away a serious chunk of power from the people in a position to make the judgment call.

Why change the law?

This is probably the most contestable point, and frankly it's an issue of personal preference. You say that taking discretion away from the schools takes a serious chunk of power from the people in a position to make the judgment call. I would argue that taking the discretion of how to personally protect one's self in a life-threatening situation takes even more power away from the individual. While I'm not per se opposed to this approach, I think that the lawmakers taking that power away better have a well-reasoned, logically sound reason for denying a citizen the basic right of self-protection, and I have yet to hear an argument against it that is convincing. Again, the campuses that already allow concealed carry and the way things have changed since concealed carry laws were first passed have shown us that the fears emanating from the laws are unfounded. I think that the legislature should remove a school board's power (often as few as 5 people) to deny me the basic right to arm and defend myself, and grant that right back to the individual to decide for himself.

8. If it makes a high school safer to have the students toting guns, why not courtrooms? And airplanes?

This argument is flawed for several reasons. First, no one is advocating that high school students carry guns. The legal age in Texas is 21, so it's a moot point. Second, I've already stated that in order to divest citizens of the basic right to self-defense, the government must have a compelling interest. In the case of courtrooms, you are dealing with an adversarial atmosphere where there is a real threat of violence against those making life-altering decisions about people who may be heavily involved in criminal networks. The presences of unchecked guns poses a significant enough threat to be disruptive at best and catastrophic at worst. (I'm sure Professor Osler can attest that he may not have felt as safe if he knew that the families and friends of the people he was prosecuting were allowed to bring a gun into the courtroom during his prosecution). In the case of airplanes, there is a real threat of the safety and security of the airplane being jeopardized if guns are allowed unchecked. Even still, air marshals carry guns to be able to dispel potential incidents should the need arise. The argument against allowing concealed carry on a university campus, however, simply isn't as persuasive. There isn't enough of a real, perceptible threat to justify the denial of citizens' basic right of self-defense.

9. In the school shootings we have had, the gunman killed themselves in the end, and apparently went in intending to do so. That person is not going to be deterred, and may even be encouraged, by the prospect of a firefight breaking out

This is a fair point, but I have to ask, in the event of a school shooting, is it a better idea to allow the rampant violence to continue unabated, as in Columbine and Virginia Tech, or is it better to allow those license-holding citizens the right to defend themselves and others against such an attacker? Again, the point I've tried to stress is that while the odds are extremely low that a need will ever arise for a concealed weapon, the fact is that they do arise, and I would rather be allowed to defend myself if necessary than be at the mercy of someone else who probably doesn't care about my right to self-preservation as much as I do.

I realize that this point of view is pretty polar opposite from the extreme left-wing liberalness I normally espouse, but it's the most logical position in my opinion.
 

I don't understand why anyone would want to make children into their own, untrained police force.

No one is asking concealed carry license holders to become a police force. What is at stake is the right to defend one's own life in a situation where it is imminently threatened. Do I think concealed carry in schools, particularly universities, will stop school shootings from happening? No. People make bad decisions and do irrational, horrible things. But I do think that if that situation ever occurred, I would prefer to be allowed to means to defend myself as opposed to being forced to cower under a desk at the mercy of a person hell-bent on destruction and incapable of rational thought. Maybe others don't feel their lives are worth of protection, but I do.

People will use the tools that are given to them - not just for situations like Columbine, but for anything where they think it's alright to use that tool. Right now, it's easy to say that no one would dream of using a gun unless the situation called for it.

It is easy to say that. That's why there are very strict requirements about who is able to carry a concealed weapon, under which circumstances a person may use deadly force, and thorough training to ensure the most responsible use of that tool. And under the right situation, where my life is in immediate danger of imminent peril, you're absolutely right I'm going to use the tools given to me to protect it. People made the argument in the mid-90s when Texas was considering concealed carry that it would turn disputes over parkins spaces and minor traffic accidents into gun battles and blood baths. That, of course, has not happened.
 

Justin T.--

First you said you weren't talking about high schools, then you cite Columbine. Which is it?
 

I may have misstated a bit. I am not talking about high schools in the sense of the student body being able to concealed carry-- the students are not of legal age. I am talking about high schools in the sense that the same logic used to argue that of-age students on college campuses should be able to carry guns also applies to of-age concealed carry holders (teachers, faculty, administrators, etc.) in a high school. School shootings do not limit themselves to one type of school, and licensed citizens should not be denied the right to protect themselves simply because they are in a high school or on a college.
 

Last year the legislature exempted prosecutors from any "can't go here" requirements with regard to CHLs. Meaning, I can go where I want with my gun+CHL. I can go to churches, liquor stores, and yes, courthouses with my concealed gun.

In fact the Harris Co DA is asking for an AG opinion on whether or not she can even legally bar her prosecutors from bringing them to work.

I do disagree with some of the posts that say these unhinged killers did not do a cost benefit analysis. In most of these cases these attacks WERE planned. Also, seeing how their plan is to make a statement by killing lots of people, they will undoubtedly plan to attack a place where the chances of killing lots before being stopped is better. If teachers or other college students have the guns to stop them, their chances of "success" will be much less and they will probably pick a different target.
 

Dallas, you forgot to mention that elected DA's are exempt from the CHL licensing fee!

Ebc4, there were some 21 year old students at my high school in College Station! They are all at A&M now, though. :D

It is a sad day today when I disagree with SwissGirl. Still, I respect her opinion, especially as a teacher. It is a very personal choice whether to use deadly force to defend your life, or the lives of others, and one which I doubt will sit well with you, no matter the outcome. Still, if shots are fired, I would rather they be answered by the police, or a CHL holder, in that order, rather than by the death of the innocent.
 

dallas_ada,

I meant that they weren't doing a rational cost-benefit analysis. Besides, planning maximum death before your own suicide isn't a cost-benefit analysis. That's a war tactic.

My point was, planned or not, school shooters are not rational people and they will certainly still go to school and open fire there, despite the guns that might be used against them there. The failures they experience are often centered in their main social outlet - school. This is why no one goes to the opera and opens up fire on the patrons, unless they're a disgruntled employee. Guns in schools will not change the focus of these shooters' rage. There is always a reason - an irrational reason - that they go after schools.



Justin,

You make good points. I *do* see the other side of this issue. I don't even have a problem with concealed handgun licenses.

I still think you're making the student body into its own de facto police force. The ones with the guns also carry the power. I oppose the idea of telling anyone, especially kids, that they have an obligation to take down a shooter - to take a life. Yes, it's in defense of themselves and others, but these kids didn't sign up for that. If they did, they shouldn't have those guns (and let me say that even if you give them psychological tests, I still don't believe you can catch all the unstable ones). It's a huge burden that I wouldn't wish on *anyone*, much less a kid. Perhaps I do place too much faith in the police force, but I do see them as the solution, not me with a firearm.

I also find your argument that "why don't we just take out flotation devices from airplanes" to be a bit wrong-footed. Flotation devices and seatbelts and emergency exits are non-violent means to get out a dangerous situation. You're not required to wrestle your neighbor for an oxygen mask. It's equally terrifying and rare, of course, but giving guns to kids to prevent school shootings is the equivalent of saying to a plane that's going down, "alright, kill the pilot and you're saved!" No one is grabbing for their oxygen masks at that point.
 

Thanks for your compassion, Ginger, even though we don't agree. At least I am working in probably the least likely school (I hope) to be affected by people around me bringing guns: a French school. Sometimes working for the cheese-eating surrender monkeys is a really good thing.
 

GH,
Yea, I forgot about the "super seniors" that just couldn't get enough of talking shit in the hall way.

But for real, is anybody saying that guns should be allowed in high schools (meaning the age limit should be lowered)? That's the only extension of this argument that my little bleeding liberal heart just cannot take.
 

Ebc4-

To my knowledge, no one is saying that. The legal age to obtain a concealed license is 21, and no one is suggesting that it be lowered. I (and others) are merely suggesting that concealed license holders such as teachers, faculty members, administrator, and others be allowed to carry in the high schools in which they are employed. Not students, but licensed holders over 21 years of age.
 

Awesome. Now that I'm an arch-nemesis, I'm getting a cool all-black outfit and some bumbling, clueless lieutenants that I can blame for my every ill. I'm accepting applications.

While an RRL/Lane debate at Scruff's would be the highlight of my year, I don't know if much would get done, because you see, my ancestry is German and Irish, and getting me around alcohol turns me into a lovable, fun drunk. I'd end up being agreeable and non-confrontational just to have a good time.

As for concealed carry, for most people, not a problem. Does it make us safer? Not really; guns are terrible weapons for self-defense unless you have them (1) out and (2) are ready to use them. If someone else has the draw on your, your concealed weapon is just a nice decoration.

Then again, most concealed carry people are generally competent and safe gun users, and I really don't have a problem with them or their bringing it to most places (I'd leave schools off the list, along with other public buildings like courthouses). I just don't think that's going to make anyone any safer.
 

Absolutely not. None of the rationales put forward to support this idea stand up in the real world. I recommend the excellent discussion at http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008867.html

Suppose we've got a campus on which several students are legally carrying concealed guns, and they are sober, sensible, well-trained individuals. Now set up the scenario with the violent gun-wielding intruder. In the fond fantasies of those who support armed students, the scenario goes like this: once the intruder takes out his gun and threatens/engages in violence, all bystanders, security personnel, and officers who respond to the incident are able to easily and rapidly recognize the intruder and distinguish him from the students who have heard the commotion and decide to pull *their* guns to help; they know that he's alone, not in cahoots with any of these other armed folks, and so all of them focus in a calm and coordinated manner upon bringing him down.

Not. Gonna. Happen. You're in a classroom, have heard shots, and have drawn your weapon, but have wisely decided not to go wandering about. After a few minutes, you hear footsteps and a hand on the doorknob. When the door opens, you'll have a fraction of a second to decide whether to shoot (to kill!) the person coming through the door. If it's the intruder, and you hesitate, you're dead. Unless you are certain that you have the emotional and psychological ability to shoot another human being dead, don’t carry a gun. There is no way to prepare for the first time you point a loaded weapon at an identifiable human being and have to pull the trigger. The reason the military does repetitive, mind-numbing training is to try and ingrain the muscle memory and develop the reflexes so that brain does NOT interfere, because if you give it a vote it will pause and then it is too late. The intruder has presumably spent the last little while shooting at people, and will not hesitate.

Of course, it might not be the intruder: it might be an unarmed student looking for shelter, or an armed student looking to be a hero, or an armed police officer who doesn't know who you are and why you're aiming a gun at him.

Perhaps instead of waiting, you decided to be a hero yourself and go out in search of the intruder. Or is it intruders? Don't know, do you? Anyway, you spot him, and yell "Freeze!", thereby volunteering for serious personal injury or death. Do not count on “brandishing” a weapon. A handgun is not a magic wand. Displaying it will not cast a spell of caution or calmness on the various parties. A loaded weapon makes people crazy - the person at which it is aimed, the persons who are witnesses, and often the person who is holding it.

So you don't; You shoot for the center of mass to take the guy down. But you're an amateur, so you miss, perhaps hitting a bystander. Unless you have invested the time and money to be well trained in the defensive use of a handgun, don’t carry one. Unless you are willing to spend the money and time to go to the range and fire your weapon at least monthly and at least a box of ammo at that time, don’t carry one. Unless you are willing to purchase and practice with a handgun that is large enough and packs a sufficient punch to put an attacker down and down now, don’t carry one.

OK. So, you're a capable, cool, calm, and cautious concealed-carry cat. You come around a corner and see him - a guy with a gun. Your lightning-fast perception and reasoning allow you to notice that the cowering bystanders aren't cowering from *him*, and to conclude that he's a fellow would-be hero. So you don't shoot him. Sadly, he just shot you, because he wasn't as good a judge of the situation as you were when he saw you in his peripheral vision and spun around.

Of course, none of the foregoing takes into account the likely circumstances of the armed hero. We're talking about the denizens of a college campus, here: young, hormonal, often sleep-deprived or heavily caffeinated people, probably under stress before the shooting started.
 

Evan

Well, that kind of sums it up in a true and horrible way.
 

Dallas, does this go anywhere policy apply to interns?
 

Liberal,

It does apply to interns, but not ones that use "liberal" in their handles....so I guess you are SOL.

I'm really shocked that so many people on Razor are against the idea...maybe I should have guessed otherwise based on previous posts.

One thing I am truly amazed by however, is how all of the posts here predict what will happen and what these psychos will do.

I will admit that my other post leans that way since I said "undoubtedly", but heck, I atleast used the word "probably."

Osler said: "that person is not deterred." Oh really Osler, how do you know? Have you talked to someone about to go on a rampage?

Yee said: "No. Sorry, just... no. School shootings are not perpetrated by people who have had a hard day or two - these kids are completely unhinged. They see death as an acceptable way to deal with their troubles. Does anyone really think that those shooters were doing a cost-benefit analysis as they packed up their rifles on the way to school? They're not rational - there is no deterrence."

Do tell where you get your information please.

Evan writes: "Not. Gonna. Happen." again, is there some sort of simulator that tells us what will and will not happen?

I, not suprisingly, agree with Justin. I will defend myself and my wife if I have to. There is the small but real possibility that someone I put away for life might be upset, or his family may want to exact revenge on me or my family. Until I can guarantee that they can't get access to guns, I should be allowed to carry my legally obtained firearm where I please. And since I have that right, I won't deny it for a college student, teacher, or lawyer, who may have someone equally as pissed of chasing after them or runs into an "unhinged lunatic" hell bent on death.
 

ADA--

I said that in the school shootings described above, the killers shot themselves. They did didn't seem to care about their own survival. In two of the cases they left notes saying they would shoot themselves, as well, so it seemed like that was their intent going into it.

So it's not necessary to talk to them. Like you, sometimes I draw conclusions based on confessions even when I didn't witness the criminal act. I'm surprised you have a problem with that.
 

So ADA, if I were to get a new name, I could get a gun and a CHL?

I honestly see no need for myself to have one now but that is awesome.

By the way, did you receive the application? Did the .jpg attachment work fine?
 

I've said it before (in reference to this story: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5945430.html), and I'll say it again:

I'm not going to say that there should never be a situation in which teachers or administrators are permitted to carry concealed weapons, but allowing them to do so should be approached with the utmost caution and probably reserved for extraordinary situations--say schools that are acutely dangerous or at-risk. That being said, I would hardly consider a school district with only 110 students in to be the appropriate candidate for a such a dramatic measure.

I am just really concerned about the fact that where this has already been accomplished in Texas is a school that, according to one person who lives near Harrold, doesn't even have enough students to put together more than a six-man football team. Talk about cultivating a culture of fear! If my community is that small and I'm a high school student or younger, something is wrong, wrong, wrong if that's what I'm worrying about throughout my day--something stopping a shooting once it starts can't fix.

What research has been done indicates some seriously disturbing common ground among young school shooters. If the thing to do is arm those who might make a difference once a shooting occurs, I'm open to it, but we should put at least as much focus on preventing such serious social problems from arising in the first place.
 

I'm sorry, that link got cut off. It's http://www.chron.com/disp/
story.mpl/metropolitan/
5945430.html
 

Yes, Stephanie, that's my point, too. Allowing people to "protect" themselves by carrying a gun to school does NOTHING to address the root problem: why the 15-year-old is upset enough to shoot everybody in sight; or why the mentally ill college student wants to do the same thing.

In this country, we are usually obsessed with preserving life. In virtually every other area, we protect people from life-threatening, or even health-threatening, influences. We don't allow smoking in public places because someone else MIGHT get cancer from second-hand smoke. We don't even allow people to do things which harm only themselves, like buying heroin or cocaine.

So why we should allow people to buy GUNS, whose only purpose is to kill, is absolutely beyond me. Even to kill in self-defense, because, as many people have said so well here, things will probably go wrong in a shoot-out situation.
 

swissgirl, you just put me in mind of something my more admirable half said tonight: "The logic is that you would have two dead bodies instead of eight."

Whether the goal is a Christian society or just one that respects, protects, and otherwise values life, it is sad indeed if the body count is where our efforts are directed without also attempting to attend to the people that inhabit those bodies.