Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: National Collegiate Empty Holster Protest - Press Release & T-Shirt Information

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 16, 2007, twenty-seven students and five faculty members at Virginia Tech lost their lives to a madman who possessed one distinct advantage over his victims—He wasn’t concerned with following the rules. Undeterred by Virginia Tech’s status as a “gun free zone,” this mentally unstable individual carried two handguns onto the university campus and indiscriminately opened fire.

    During the week of October 22-26, 2007, college students throughout America will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and campus policies that stack the odds in favor of armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else.

    In thirty-nine U.S. states, thousands of collegiate students and faculty—age twenty-one and above—are licensed to carry concealed handguns throughout their day-to-day lives. And they do so without incident. However, despite the absence of any compelling evidence that these licensed individuals might pose any more threat to college campuses than they do to office buildings, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, banks, etc., they are currently prohibited, either by state law or school policy, from carrying their firearms onto most college campuses. On October 22 these students, through their Empty Holster Protest, will ask for a change.

    In the last twenty years, the vast majority of the mass shootings in America—from the Texas Luby’s massacre to the Columbine High School massacre—have happened in “gun free zones.” Labeling an area “gun free” may make some people feel safer, but as the shootings at Virginia Tech taught us, feeling safe and being safe are not the same thing.

    For over a year, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. This has yet to result in a single act of violence. Numerous studies, including studies by John Lott, David Mustard, William Sturdevant, and state justice departments, show that license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. Clearly, license holders pose little threat to college campuses.

    While some may argue that guns have no place in institutions of higher learning, the students of the Empty Holster Protest contend that it is the threat of uncontested, execution-style massacre that has no place on America’s college campuses, and these students respectfully ask that steps be taken to take the advantage away from those who seek to harm the innocent.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    T-shirts are now availablefor anyone wishing to support the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC)empty holster protest.

    http://www.shirtmagic.com/shop/concealedcampus

    Please note that these shirts are being sold at cost. Nobody but the print shop makes a profitfrom them.

  2. #2
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Link? or is this the OP link? What organization is responsible for the press release?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    Sorry--I had the link in the title, but it wouldn't fit. I forgot to go back and add it to the body of the post, after I shortened the title.

    The organization is Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), and the web page is http://www.concealedcampus.com (the same web site as on the T-shirts).

    The Group: http://www.concealedcampus.com

    The Group's Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2383535699

    The Protest: http://www.douva.com/sccc/press.htm

    The Protest's Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2359003596

    The T-Shirt: http://www.shirtmagic.com/shop/concealedcampus

    FAQ: http://concealedcampus.org/faq.htm

    Answers to Concerns: http://www.douva.com/sccc/arguments.htm

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Is there an organization for open carry on campus? That's the one I want to sign up for.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I'm a little concerned with the strong bias toward concealed carry with this organization. Normally I'd be fine with any initiative to put more guns in the hands of peaceable citizens on college campuses, but the fact that "concealed" modes of carry are used as part of their arguments doesn't sit well with me.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Considering it's an academic environment, I see that the whole premise of changing the school policy from completely banning guns to allowing people who have their CCW (and thus, in several states, the required formal training) as a fair compromise.

    As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.
    I'm curious as to why you make that statement. Are "kids" less resposible than anyone else? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but quite frankly if someone is going to exercise poor judgement in carrying and using a firearm, they'll exercise poor judgement regardless of if they're age 18 or 40, and regardless of how many hours of courses (that the students are required to pay for) they take.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I'm curious as to why you make that statement. Are "kids" less resposible than anyone else? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but quite frankly if someone is going to exercise poor judgement in carrying and using a firearm, they'll exercise poor judgement regardless of if they're age 18 or 40, and regardless of how many hours of courses (that the students are required to pay for) they take.
    Depends on your defintion of kidsbut , in general, I think yes. I look at my four year old and certainly know she's not as responsible as an adult. I look at myself when I was 18 and see that I'm now supremely moreresponsible than Iwas -- life experience tends to have that effect.

    What I am mostly refering to is having that training. When I purchased my first firearm, I knew nothing about it at all. I went into a gun store for the first time, talked to the guy behind the counter and he showed me a weapon which I then proceeded tosweep in his direction and justlooked at it,not really knowing what to do.

    There's a difference between acting responsibly and actually knowing the rules of, and how to handle a firearm. In Delaware, if you have a CCDW permit, I *know* you do because you've been instructed how to carry, store, present and shoot in a safe manner.

    Even with someone who has a CCDW, I'm still very wary when the firearm is out and about because I've never seen them personally handle it and I'm concerned for my safety.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Oley, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Does anyone know if they are protesting at Kutztown University? I read the rules and they seem vague. They use the wording "Authorized weapons." That would lead me to believe that since it is a State School if the State Authrorizes you to own and carry a firearm you may. But I would like some clearification on the matter....

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    Considering it's an academic environment, I see that the whole premise of changing the school policy from completely banning guns to allowing people who have their CCW (and thus, in several states, the required formal training) as a fair compromise.

    As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.
    Okay, but we don't have the right to lord over who gets what rights. It's not YOUR decision how THEY live their lives. Maybe the cost of attending university leaves them unable to afford the course.

    Furthermore, ANTI'S conceive a firearm as only doing anything when you're pulling the trigger. Gun owners recognize the deterence factor. Mass shootings take place in gun free zones only. Make schools gun friendly zones, and suddenly those with shooting on the mind will have to find a softer target. Training doesn't even enter in.

    Furthermore, "I have a gun," can stop many crimes before they're attempted or before they're completed. Open carry is a way of saying "I have a gun" BEFORE dropping a load in your shorts and being put through the trauma of an adrenaline dump.

    Finally, I have been in three self defense situations. Each time, I didn't even have to pull the trigger. No amount of training aided in my merely presenting the firearm and the criminals scattering.

    Training is what anti's use to "support" their fantasy that only police can have guns. It behooves us to join them in such a self-depricating measure.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    Wynder wrote:
    Considering it's an academic environment, I see that the whole premise of changing the school policy from completely banning guns to allowing people who have their CCW (and thus, in several states, the required formal training) as a fair compromise.

    As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.
    Okay, but we don't have the right to lord over who gets what rights. It's not YOUR decision how THEY live their lives. Maybe the cost of attending university leaves them unable to afford the course.

    Furthermore, ANTI'S conceive a firearm as only doing anything when you're pulling the trigger. Gun owners recognize the deterence factor. Mass shootings take place in gun free zones only. Make schools gun friendly zones, and suddenly those with shooting on the mind will have to find a softer target. Training doesn't even enter in.

    Furthermore, "I have a gun," can stop many crimes before they're attempted or before they're completed. Open carry is a way of saying "I have a gun" BEFORE dropping a load in your shorts and being put through the trauma of an adrenaline dump.

    Finally, I have been in three self defense situations. Each time, I didn't even have to pull the trigger. No amount of training aided in my merely presenting the firearm and the criminals scattering.

    Training is what anti's use to "support" their fantasy that only police can have guns. It behooves us to join them in such a self-depricating measure.
    Thank you for stating exactly what I wanted to say so that I didn't have to type it

    I also don't see how an openly carried firearm disrupts and "academic environment".

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    The one thing all these shootings seem to have in common is that they took place in GUN FREE ZONES. To me that shows we need to BAN Gun Free Zones!

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Okay, but we don't have the right to lord over who gets what rights. It's not YOUR decision how THEY live their lives. Maybe the cost of attending university leaves them unable to afford the course.
    It's not my decision; however, once again, it's PRIVATE PROPERTY and the property owners have a right to regulate anyone, anyway they wish under penalty of tresspass or, in this case, expulsion.

    Furthermore, "I have a gun," can stop many crimes before they're attempted or before they're completed. Open carry is a way of saying "I have a gun" BEFORE dropping a load in your shorts and being put through the trauma of an adrenaline dump.
    No crap-- I'm on these forums, I've open carried. Right now it's a debate on property owners rights versus the rights of an individual who's willingly on that property.
    Training is what anti's use to "support" their fantasy that only police can have guns. It behooves us to join them in such a self-depricating measure.
    I'm talking a basicNRA safety course -- if you want to give a loadedpistol to someone who has potentially never used one and DOESN'T know the safety rules and let them walk around your house eight hours a day, feel free. Having been to the range and seeing (and making) many, many stupid mistakes, while I'd LOVE to have guns on campus, I want to ensure that the person who's carrying them knows, understands and puts into practice those four basic rules.

    This is the same compromise that GMU is trying to propose, that only people who are 21 and have their concealed license be permitted to carry on campus. I'd be ecstatic with this because, with our college's situation, 30-40% are continuing education/retraining (ie. in their 30's-60's) so that's more people carrying guns.

    It strikes a fair balance between the rights of the property owner and ensuring fundamental safety of having armed students, staff and faculty on campus with ageneral understanding of how to carry and operate their firearm.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    No, the premise of the stance you took that I was criticizing had nothing to do with property rights. It was your statement that as an academic institution, YOU would feel more comfortable if the allowed carry was concealed only. You took that stance on the basis that those with a license have received basic training in firearm safety. My rebuttal debunked both the fallacies that training at all enhances the effectiveness of the deterrence factor or the stopping power of even an unloaded gun merely being presented to a criminal that was not prepared for prey that would not just cave under their aggression. I then additionally pointed out that because we are victim of such elitism, it really is unbecoming of us to inflict it upon others. Particularly for the comparitively petty reason of personal comfort.

    Firearm safety IS paramount. So if your students open carrying over concealed carry at all spooks you, here's what you do: Take them to the range. This will accomplish the same with the added benefits of

    - your personal view not dictating the lives of others
    - your satisfaction that they have been properly trained in the area of safety
    - added bond between educator and the minds he's been entrusted to mould and would be allied with in the unlikely event of an attack on a newly gun friendly campus
    - an improvement of the grit of this nation and the "sanctity" of its higher education

    We don't have to infringe upon the rights of others to accomplish our goals and we shouldn't have an interest in so doing.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    YOU need to reread, because NOWHERE did I state that I would want them to be required to conceal carry. I said I'd feel more comfortable if they have their state CCDW permit which requires that safety training. After that, they can carry however they like.

    READ and COMPREHEND before you criticize or, if you don't understand, ASK for clarification.


    Evidenced by my first post:

    As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.

    Demarest wrote:
    No, the premise of the stance you took that I was criticizing had nothing to do with property rights. It was your statement that as an academic institution, YOU would feel more comfortable if the allowed carry was concealed only. You took that stance on the basis that those with a license have received basic training in firearm safety. My rebuttal debunked both the fallacies that training at all enhances the effectiveness of the deterrence factor or the stopping power of even an unloaded gun merely being presented to a criminal that was not prepared for prey that would not just cave under their aggression. I then additionally pointed out that because we are victim of such elitism, it really is unbecoming of us to inflict it upon others. Particularly for the comparitively petty reason of personal comfort.

    Firearm safety IS paramount. So if your students open carrying over concealed carry at all spooks you, here's what you do: Take them to the range. This will accomplish the same with the added benefits of

    - your personal view not dictating the lives of others
    - your satisfaction that they have been properly trained in the area of safety
    - added bond between educator and the minds he's been entrusted to mould and would be allied with in the unlikely event of an attack on a newly gun friendly campus
    - an improvement of the grit of this nation and the "sanctity" of its higher education

    We don't have to infringe upon the rights of others to accomplish our goals and we shouldn't have an interest in so doing.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    No, the premise of the stance you took that I was criticizing had nothing to do with property rights. It was your statement that as an academic institution, YOU would feel more comfortable if the allowed carry was concealed only. You took that stance on the basis that those with a license have received basic training in firearm safety. My rebuttal debunked both the fallacies that training at all enhances the effectiveness of the deterrence factor or the stopping power of even an unloaded gun merely being presented to a criminal that was not prepared for prey that would not just cave under their aggression. I then additionally pointed out that because we are victim of such elitism, it really is unbecoming of us to inflict it upon others. Particularly for the comparitively petty reason of personal comfort.

    Firearm safety IS paramount. So if your students open carrying over concealed carry at all spooks you, here's what you do: Take them to the range. This will accomplish the same with the added benefits of

    - your personal view not dictating the lives of others
    - your satisfaction that they have been properly trained in the area of safety
    - added bond between educator and the minds he's been entrusted to mould and would be allied with in the unlikely event of an attack on a newly gun friendly campus
    - an improvement of the grit of this nation and the "sanctity" of its higher education

    We don't have to infringe upon the rights of others to accomplish our goals and we shouldn't have an interest in so doing.
    Agree entirely once again, but I'm still trying to figure out, also, how an "academic environment" requires everyone to not carry openly. Isn't one of the goals of an "academic environment" to promote education through debate and exposure to new ideas?

    And, I'm still trying to get one of our criminal justice instructors to take our class to the local handgun range on a field trip... oddly enough she doesn't want to

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrot
    Agree entirely once again, but I'm still trying to figure out, also, how an "academic environment" requires everyone to not carry openly. Isn't one of the goals of an "academic environment" to promote education through debate and exposure to new ideas?

    And, I'm still trying to get one of our criminal justice instructors to take our class to the local handgun range on a field trip... oddly enough she doesn't want to
    Yes! Which is why I'm in full support of it; however, as a compromise, they must have taken a safety course which is required by the state to receive their carry concealed permit.

    After that, open carry. Concealed carry. Thier choice.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    YOU need to reread, because NOWHERE did I state that I would want them to be required to conceal carry. I said I'd feel more comfortable if they have their state CCDW permit which requires that safety training. After that, they can carry however they like.

    READ and COMPREHEND before you criticize or, if you don't understand, ASK for clarification.
    No, sir, because clearly YOU did not read what I wrote. It appears that you got to where I said concealed only and stopped. Sadly, the very next sentence both demonstrated that I WAS reading what you said and identified that it's not the style of carry that concerns you, but rather the attached training to the unConsitutional process of licensing. I even went on to suggest a way you can get what you want without infringing upon them and while making yourself look better and giving yourself a REAL reason to feel better by taking action instead of supposing for your own personal comfort level.

    For somebody that preaches the seeking of clarification, I seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time repeating myself for the sake of clarification. First tell yourself that we are on the same side. Then open your mind to the possibility that what I'm saying could be right. Then let's work together. Because I'd rather not repeat myself a third time.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    No, sir, because clearly YOU did not read what I wrote. It appears that you got to where I said concealed only and stopped.
    No, I didn't bother responding to them because they're simply not feasible. Mind you, this is after your previous post where you went through all of the benefits of open carry because you didn't comprehend the conversation; however, to amuse myself, I'll go through some of your suggestions.

    Take them to the range.
    I work 8:30-4:30, I teach two evening classes, each class being five hours. I'm taking a law course myself, and I have a wife and two children. Supposing the number of people who are interested is in the twenties or even in the tens, my free and family time is finite and valued.

    -your personal view not dictating the lives of others
    My personal view doesn't dictate the lives as others as it stands. I don't WRITE school policy, I program and I educate. However, it seems odd to me that taking students to a range would be.

    -your satisfaction that they have been properly trained in the area of safety
    I am not a certified instructor, nor do I think I am qualified to make that decision.

    Your other two points are just hyperbole.

    ...the attached training to the unConsitutional process of licensing. I even went on to suggest a way you can get what you want without infringing upon them...
    Constitutional or not, it's currently the law until otherwise changed. It's been challenged and its lost so, until a miracle presents itself and everyone comes to their senses and the state shifts to unlicensed concealed carry, it's not an infringement.

    I'm currently going through the process myself and while, yes, it is a huge inconvenience, I'm doing it nonetheless.

    ...while making yourself look better and giving yourself a REAL reason to feel better by taking action instead of supposing for your own personal comfort level.
    It's about SAFETY. I want to come home to see my two children each and every evening and my comfort around people who haven't had remedial firearms safety training is shared by anyone who's in the immediate proximity of that person -- anyone who says otherwise is stupid or a liar.

    First tell yourself that we are on the same side. Then open your mind to the possibility that what I'm saying could be right. Then let's work together.
    As long as you come off as a self-righteous fanatic who spouts that someones right to bear arms trumps property rights, you hurt the cause and probably give the anti's more fodder to fight with.

    It's a schools right to ban guns on their property; is it stupid? I think so.

    If that was to change, it would be reasonable for the purposes of safety, and even fiscally, to use the state permit as a benchmark as, in the state of Delaware, we'll be assured that person is of age, has undergone a background check, has had five references vouch for them, they've taken a 10-hour safety course, public notification has been made and the DA and the Superior Court sign off on that person.

    Pitching this to a board of directors, who would ultimately make the call, might be swayed because there's no added budget for similar checks and that peace of mind that a person has undergone these measures and would be allowed to carry firearm on school property.

    At one point, I though that my college, as being very much state funded, should be held to the state Constitution and open carry laws; however, after this discussion, you've changed my mind otherwise.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    ...as a college instructor... I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.
    [sarcasm]
    I think we should force people to take a 10-hour training course for each of the following:
    • Voting
    • Free Press
    • Free Speech
    Then and only then will I be comfortable with them exercising these potentially dangerous rights.
    [/sarcasm]

    Your psychological comfort is not more important than your students' rights.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Your psychological comfort is not more important than your students' rights.
    No. Once again, property rights are.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Your psychological comfort is not more important than your students' rights.
    No. Once again, property rights are.
    Well, the words I quoted from your post said nothing of property rights. I was addressing your statement that you were glad for Deleware's training/testing requirements for gun permits.

    If you want to change the subject, I understand why.

    I agree that the owner of private property has the right to decide what they will allow to go on there.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Wynder wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Your psychological comfort is not more important than your students' rights.
    No. Once again, property rights are.
    Well, the words I quoted from your post said nothing of property rights. I was addressing your statement that you were glad for Deleware's training/testing requirements for gun permits.

    If you want to change the subject, I understand why.

    I agree that the owner of private property has the right to decide what they will allow to go on there.
    I'd love to see that quote -- why don't you go and quote it for me? Aww, you can't? That's because I never said it. In fact, I said I found it inconvenience.

    However, in this case, you're wrong.

    Your psychological comfort is not more important than your students' rights.
    In this case, Second Amendment rights and property rights go hand in hand. If the Board of Directors and Administration don't feel comfortable, screw the gun owners, they can't have guns on our property. And this is why I think the folks at GMU have got the right idea -- compromise to get the foot in the door and work the rest of the way in once the mindset has adjusted.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Since you seem to have forgotten, allow me to remind you what you said that sparked this discussion between the two of us:

    Wynder wrote:
    As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.
    This--and only this--has been what I've been discussing with you since the onset of my input.

    I work 8:30-4:30, I teach two evening classes, each class being five hours. I'm taking a law course myself, and I have a wife and two children. Supposing the number of people who are interested is in the twenties or even in the tens, my free and family time is finite and valued.
    We all have the same 24 hours of each day and are faced with decisions on how to spend that time based on our priorities. That you insist they be trained but are unwilling to put your time where your mouth is suggests that you're more interested in maintaining YOUR sole possession of a firearm than the safety of your classroom.

    I have a right to be armed. But this means my neighbor has the right to be armed too. I can't distrust him because he's armed. Nor can I pretend to know how responsible he is with apples based on how responsible he is with oranges. For you to distrust others because they're armed, you're perpetuating the misguided belief that others may mistrust you solely because you're armed. Which begets the "only criminals have guns" hysteria that plagues us all.

    My personal view doesn't dictate the lives as others as it stands. I don't WRITE school policy, I program and I educate. However, it seems odd to me that taking students to a range would be.
    Read the quote again. YOU want others to meet YOUR requirements before YOU will be comfortable with them being armed in YOUR classroom. None of this has anything to do with school policy as I have been addressing YOUR words from square one. Also, say you teach accounting. For you to teach your students about supply and demand isn't you inflicting your will upon them. Just as teaching them firearm safety would not be. Telling them that YOU will not be comfortable with them in YOUR classroom until they meet YOUR guidelines, is.

    I am not a certified instructor, nor do I think I am qualified to make that decision.
    You didn't seem to mind your lack of qualifications when you made your original statement that training is the keystone to campus armament. Here, I'll help:

    - all guns are loaded
    - keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction
    - never put your finger in the trigger guard until you're ready to shoot

    I'm not certified either, but how certified do you have to be to impart "look both ways before entering the street?" You can feel free to pass along my safety points above. The benefit of being at the range is that there you can supervise their sight picture, grip, followthrough, and breathing. Which doesn't begin to address the fact that I've already covered that pulling the trigger represents 1% of how armament provides a safer environment. Points which by the way you've not attempted to rebut because your concern doesn't appear to be a safe environment as much as it appears maintaining your role of lord of the classroom.

    Constitutional or not, it's currently the law until otherwise changed. It's been challenged and its lost so, until a miracle presents itself and everyone comes to their senses and the state shifts to unlicensed concealed carry, it's not an infringement.
    A court refusing to uphold its obligation to our nation's Constitution and its people's rights does not make it NOT an infringement. You don't need a license to buy lettuce. You don't need a license to buy a knife. You don't need a license to cut that lettuce with that knife. You don't need training to make a salad with the same. THAT is not infringement. And you know what? If you use that knife to intimidate or harm one of your countrymen, you will reap the consequences just the same. Which is exactly WHY "...shall not be infringed" is so appropriate. Punish the criminals. Not me. Not your students.

    It's about SAFETY. I want to come home to see my two children each and every evening
    If it REALLY was about safety, you'd make the effort to ensure it over the effort to control others. If it really was about safety, you would address my demonstration that even all your students open carrying because they have a right to life despite not shelling out for formal training makes your classroom safer than advertising to the world that you are a victim disarmament zone. Instead, like most controlists, you tout the word "safety" as if it empowers you to decide how others will live their life.

    and my comfort around people who haven't had remedial firearms safety training is shared by anyone who's in the immediate proximity of that person -- anyone who says otherwise is stupid or a liar.
    Actually, the people who subscribe to training equals safety are the ones who are misinformed on the subject. I've already demonstrated how even no training would make your campus safer whether you like it or not. Maybe address that instead of just repeating yourself and upping the ante by tossing in depricating name-calling.

    As long as you come off as a self-righteous fanatic who spouts that someones right to bear arms trumps property rights, you hurt the cause and probably give the anti's more fodder to fight with.
    I have yet to speak of property rights, sir. Stop hiding and take responsiblity for your words. The two of us talking together presents an opportunity for both of us to grow as individuals. Also, you don't want to get me started on the "image" tangent. That's another tactic the anti's use to divide and conquer us. Not unlike the tactics of theirs I've already pointed out that you have mirrored, since you just claimed that not doing so is important to you.

    If that was to change, it would be reasonable for the purposes of safety, and even fiscally, to use the state permit as a benchmark as, in the state of Delaware, we'll be assured that person is of age, has undergone a background check, has had five references vouch for them, they've taken a 10-hour safety course, public notification has been made and the DA and the Superior Court sign off on that person.
    How about this: Anybody not shooting the place up is cool to be armed. That's what the Constitution says. Drop YOUR self-righteous drive to control others and realize that a classroom full of untraited firearm carrier makes the place safer than advertising your classroom to be a criminal protection zone. If you want there to be more training, feel free to take it upon yourself to pitch for the greater good of your classroom, your school, your community, and your nation. Do NOT feel free to inflict your will upon others as if you belong to some privileged class.

    Pitching this to a board of directors, who would ultimately make the call, might be swayed because there's no added budget for similar checks and that peace of mind that a person has undergone these measures and would be allowed to carry firearm on school property.
    Yes because the money they've spent on checking out whackjobs before allowing them to mow down the ripened herd has been so effective, right? IT'S NOT ABOUT SHOOTING!!! If ONE student was seen lawfully and within the school's regulations walking into a school with an UNLOADED firearm, the would be attacker that witnessed it would pick a different school. The shootings you read about that have left you in fear of your own students didn't take place at military bases or police stations. They took place where the assailants knew they would not be met with any resistance.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Going to try to make this as civil as I can...

    We all have the same 24 hours of each day and are faced with decisions on how to spend that time based on our priorities. That you insist they be trained but are unwilling to put your time where your mouth is suggests that you're more interested in maintaining YOUR sole possession of a firearm than the safety of your classroom.
    You're assuming that responsibility of training people should be left to the people from whom gun owners want permission from. It's my opinion that it's the responsibility of the gun owner to take safety training at his own cost of money and time... Not mine. And if I haven't made it abundantly clear:

    I WANT GUNS IN MY COLLEGE.

    Getting them in there is another issue, and that issue is making the decision makers feel comfortable and safe enough to make that change, as it's their right on their property.

    YOU want others to meet YOUR requirements before YOU will be comfortable with them being armed in YOUR classroom. None of this has anything to do with school policy as I have been addressing YOUR words from square one. Also, say you teach accounting. For you to teach your students about supply and demand isn't you inflicting your will upon them. Just as teaching them firearm safety would not be.
    In all honestly, I think you read too much into that, but let me clarify: "If I were a school administrator and it were up to me to effect a change in the college policy..." in order to put the minds of the Board at ease, I would offer them that as a peace of mind. I've been staff longer than I've been faculty, so when I speak, I'm speaking of the college as a whole.

    Now, looking at it from your end, if the world were reversed and firearms were allowed on campus and I had armed students in my class then, as a matter of recreation and common interests, I'd go out to the range with them as it'd probably only be 2-4 students at most. When I spoke before, (the tens or twenties of students) was in reference to the college as a whole. I think we were both misreading on that part.

    And, for the record, I teach computer science.

    You didn't seem to mind your lack of qualifications when you made your original statement that training is the keystone to campus armament. Here, I'll help:
    - all guns are loaded
    - keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction
    - never put your finger in the trigger guard until you're ready to shoot
    I'm not certified either, but how certified do you have to be to impart "look both ways before entering the street?"
    You missed #4: Know your target and what lies behind it. And there's a difference between telling someone and putting that into practice and making it memory reflex, then there's the legal aspect of the course -- in addition to not being an instructor, I'm also not a lawyer. Taking a class from a certified instructor would be infinitely better than taking a few points from the ol' teach.

    If it REALLY was about safety, you'd make the effort to ensure it over the effort to control others.
    My whole issue with safety is a person who has never owned, nor fired a pistol buying a gun on day one and open carrying it on day two. Is it his right? Damn skippy it is. Do I want to be around him? Hell no.

    Like it or not, the administration has control of people on campus. On their property, I must follow the rules or be fired. The student must follow the rules or be expelled. The visitor must follow the rules under penalty of trespass. If you think that the policy makers would allow guns on campus one day with absolutely no stipulations or requirements, that's just not going to happen. In order to get the ball rolling, an entry point needs to be made.

    Actually, the people who subscribe to training equals safety are the ones who are misinformed on the subject.
    So, then answer this. Bob and Sally go out and buy a handgun on the same day. Neither of them has owned or fired a gun before. Sally goes out and drops a few dollars and takes a ten hour safety course that includes a couple hundred rounds of live fire exercises, learning the local law, holster work, safely handle the weapon and how to maintain their weapon.

    Who is going to use that weapon more safely?

    ...realize that a classroom full of untraited firearm carrier makes the place safer than advertising your classroom to be a criminal protection zone. If you want there to be more training, feel free to take it upon yourself to pitch for the greater good of your classroom, your school, your community, and your nation. Do NOT feel free to inflict your will upon others as if you belong to some privileged class.
    Let's look at statistics here and realize that, while quite prevalent in the news, school shootings aren't anywhere near as common as other gun-related crimes. A school administration (see, I'm trying to clarify myself here ) still needs to be accountable for what happens on campus, as a students' actions directly impacts current and future policy.

    If someone, for some reason, unholstered their weapon improperly and there was a ND, that's the end of guns on campus. Period. I could almost say that with no uncertainty. Let me say that, I enjoy the idea of people having that practical training because, in having students and staff and faculty who properly handle firearms (i.e. less chance of ND's) keeping the guns on campus becomes a stronger reality.

    The shootings you read about that have left you in fear of your own students didn't take place at military bases or police stations.
    I'm very aware of where they took place, considering one happened in early September about 20 miles from our northern campus and one more recently at Delaware state which is about 3 miles from one of our Southern campus.

    I have to stick with looking at the statistics and say that if there's a risk of loosing guns due to unsafe handling on a students or staffs part, I'd rather choose the evil of requiring the training than not.

    Hey, I'll be honest, if I thought that they'd allow a student open carry on campus with no stipulations, I'd be the first one up in the President's Office. However, I know that's not going to happen without insurmountable stipulations being made.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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