Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Bill Bennett Says Student Carry OK

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Happened to be listening to the Bill Bennett's Morning In America radio show this morning and the issue of armed students at Virginia Tech came up, He talked about it for a couple ofminutes.

    Bennett's view was that concealed carry was good. Specifically that "I believe in concealed carry laws." He opined that it would be acceptable for VT students to legally carry concealed. But Bennett said that students should get only one chance to goof up with brandishing or some other gun nonsense, in which case "they would be gone."

    Bennett also told a caller on the armed students issue, "I'll say the answer is not simply to arm the kids. the answer is lawand order."

    So, overall, a big vote forconcealedcarry onuniversity campuses, on a big show with big reach.

    Bennett's a very smart guy. Very incisive most of the time.




  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    KC,MO, ,
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    Missed that, I usually listen to him on the way in to work.

    I think mostfolks fear guns at the schools due to a certain type of behavior presented by some students at any school. Drunk students goofing off etc. I would expect zero tolerance for any bad behavior of anyone carrying on a school campus.

    If you prove to be a dangerous fool with a gun such as brandishing it at a party and or shooting beer cans off the railing, leaving it lay out in the open unsecured for any fool to get ahold of,by all means that individual should be banned.

    Having said that I am all for concealed carry anyplace,anytime.

    With that comes increased responsibility. For those who are not responsible, penalties.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Salem, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    Guys, guys, guys,

    You are diving into the same rhetorical trap again. Forget about students, most are under age for CC anyway. Think of the ADULTS, all the thousands of staff and faculty who are of age to CC. This sidesteps the 'animal house' image of students which the antis are using (no, it isn't an accurate image either but why let them use it anyway?).

    Get a restoration of rights for adults with CHPs and we will be in much better shape.

    FWIW, I had a cop tell me that he carried his service weapon to class while wearing civvies (he was in grad school part time), and the nervous ninnies at VT didn't even like that. I hope he wore his uniform the next day.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    CPerdue wrote:
    Guys, guys, guys,

    You are diving into the same rhetorical trap again. Forget about students, most are under age for CC anyway. Think of the ADULTS, all the thousands of staff and faculty who are of age to CC. This sidesteps the 'animal house' image of students which the antis are using (no, it isn't an accurate image either but why let them use it anyway?).

    Get a restoration of rights for adults with CHPs and we will be in much better shape.

    FWIW, I had a cop tell me that he carried his service weapon to class while wearing civvies (he was in grad school part time), and the nervous ninnies at VT didn't even like that. I hope he wore his uniform the next day.
    Very true. 8 out of 10 of my friends in college are under 21. I think the number of school shootings might drop a little bit if half the faculty had a .45 strapped to there hip. Might even keep some of the kids in line too. Think people would rob banks if they knew every person that worked there was carrying a gun? F*CK NO!

    And good for that cop!! I salute him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    KC,MO, ,
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    Yes most are below 21 and would not or could not carry anyway. That is true.

    However,the potential to stop a real threat would berealizedif the few sheepdogs in the herd of sheep were allowed to be sheepdogs (carry guns) to put down the wolf when he comes sniffing for a meal. Most folksare sheep and don't care about the wolf until he comes around trying to eat them.Sheep also don't like the sheepdogs because they, like the wolf, have large teeth. They don't really understand the sheepdogcan and will kill the wolf.


    Eveyone on here should understand what I am talking about above. If not try reading this article. Been around for quite some time.

    http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/onsheepw...sheepdogs.html

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    CPerdue wrote:
    Guys, guys, guys,

    You are diving into the same rhetorical trap again. Forget about students, most are under age for CC anyway. Think of the ADULTS, all the thousands of staff and faculty who are of age to CC. This sidesteps the 'animal house' image of students which the antis are using (no, it isn't an accurate image either but why let them use it anyway?).

    Get a restoration of rights for adults with CHPs and we will be in much better shape.
    I think the context for people who support CC on campus by students includes CC for certain staff and faculty too. Wouldn't make much sense to limit it to students.

    It's hardly a trap, it's just that people tend to talk about the students CCing way more than staff and faculty. So, in a way, it's probablyeven more of a complicated ball of hair to support CC on campus--since there are 3, maybe even 4, groups that folks willpropose to be armed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Salem, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    HankT,

    I think adults, especially those with CHPs, should be allowed to carry weapons on campus. Some of them might also choose to attend a class while they are there.

    I refuse to discuss this in terms of just students - that is the trap.

    I hesitate to respond to you Hank because you seem want to twist words and foment argument just for the pleasure of it. By the same token I'll go a couple of rounds with you on this discussion because you are pretty sure to bring up the kind of thick-headed misrepresentations the antis will use in this case. I will abide by the principles ofgood debate that Mr. Bennett espouses, "candor, intelligence, good will," so far as I am able. Please do the same and have some respect for this issue - I was there at VT on 4/16/07.

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    CPerdue wrote:
    HankT,

    I think adults, especially those with CHPs, should be allowed to carry weapons on campus. Some of them might also choose to attend a class while they are there.

    I refuse to discuss this in terms of just students - that is the trap.

    I hesitate to respond to you Hank because you seem want to twist words and foment argument just for the pleasure of it. By the same token I'll go a couple of rounds with you on this discussion because you are pretty sure to bring up the kind of thick-headed misrepresentations the antis will use in this case. I will abide by the principles ofgood debate that Mr. Bennett espouses, "candor, intelligence, good will," so far as I am able. Please do the same and have some respect for this issue - I was there at VT on 4/16/07.
    All I'm saying is that the in discussions involving allowing CC (or OC) by non-LEOs on campuses, what gets mentioned mostly is the student CC potential and related issues. And the other parties that could be armed, staff, faculty and guards, just is kind of stipulated informally.

    I would agree that the position of discussants regarding the staff, faculty, and gurads should be stated. But Ican see why people don't do it.And it's not fatal to discussing the salient issuesinvolved.

    It's not a trap to focus on the students. It's just what comes to mind first for most, virtually all, people. Peoplle just take it for granted that the most controversial aspect of allowing CC on campus will be with regard to the students. That's probabnbly correct, I'd say.

    I also like the priniciples that BB espouses for discussions/debates/arguments, intelligence, candor and good will. But most people seem to reject at least two of them in gun-related discussions. Usually, all three. A pity, since the issues involved are almost always very important.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Salem, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    My point is that in a discussion of arms on campus, students should be mentioned last, if at all, for two reasons:
    A) Per capita, they are the least likely to even be eligible to be legally armed. As such, they are a distraction.
    B) To advance a discussion you need to inject new ideas. Everyone knows there are students on campus, they may not have stopped to consider the other people there.

    People who don't want me armed on campus raise the specter of drunken jocks run amok with flamethrowers. I deny them this rhetorical advantage by controlling the argument. If you let other people bring up negatively connotated images of students before you make your point then you probably lose the argument. Hence (for the third time) I identify this as a rhetorical trap.

    Do you eventually have to mention students? Sure, but not until you have firmly established the broader issue in peoples' minds.

Posting Permissions

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