Guns on university campuses: The Colorado experience

SOURCE

tl;dr: In 2003 Colorado passed a bill that, among other things, allowed permitted people to carry concealed firearms on college campuses. In the 12 years since there has only been a single incident: An employee who was showing the weapon off and it accidentally went off. That person was fired.

This speaks for itself: The irrational fear of firearms on college campuses is unfounded.

Does this change anybody's mind? What do you guys think?

I think its a good idea actually being less restrictive on guns. Unless certain states (including the one I live in sadly) all of a sudden miraculously see the light and make gun ownership less strict, someday I most likely will move to a state that has far less strict gun ownership laws.

While I wouldn't say Guns isn't necessary but carrying a Baton or a Taser Gun would be more appropriate to have around.

My alma mater, Purdue University, doesn't allow concealed weapons on campus and there have been fewer than a single incident. So I guess that debunks your point.

It actually reinforces my point. There's absolutely no reason why guns shouldn't be allowed on campuses, especially if a campus doesn't have a history of incidents.

What makes one more appropriate than the other?

Guns are far more effective for self defense than batons or tasers.

But what's the benefit though?

People being able to effectively defend themselves with a handgun if something happens.

It's easier to kill accidentally kill someone with a gun.

@airshocker: Because that's definitely going to end well. I'm never going to be convinced by the "guns to protect against guns" argument. Wouldn't it be better to be more thorough and ensure nobody brings a gun to class rather than letting everybody bring one? These incidents occur because people are messed up in the head but not everybody has a gun to go on a spree with...how do you know that a punch in the face wouldn't have been a shot to the head if the student was armed? Teenagers and young adults aren't the more emotionally stable bunch.

It easy to tase someone and kill them. It's also easy to hit someone in the head with a baton and cause irreparable damage.

If you can't escape and you need to defend yourself, the most effective way to do that is with a firearm.

You could argue the same thing when trying to contain a crowd, but I don't think I need to explain why it's not appropriate to use guns for that.

You don't know if it will end well or not. Who says a gun should only be used to protect someone from another gun? Every person has the inherent right to self-defense. It's not feasible to check every person to ensure they don't have a firearm. Especially not in colleges or community colleges with many points of entry. How do you know someone who owns a car isn't going to use it to run down motorists? You're never going to be able to stop somebody who is intent on causing harm. That's not the point of allowing those who are permitted to carry concealed. Teenagers aren't allowed to own firearms, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning this. As for young adults being unstable, that's a pretty massive generalization.

If you aren't convinced by this article that those who carry concealed aren't extremely responsible, I don't know what to tell you.

Or you could just strive for a society where you don't need a gun at university, like sweden.

You're not really explaining anything. Actually, I'm not even sure what your point is in all of this.

Why? Guns aren't the problem.

Colleges might as well allow people to carry concealed weapons, since if people aren't allowed to they can still easily sneak one in if they really wanted to. Basically if colleges aren't going to allow concealed weapons then they should take steps to prevent people from bringing concealed weapons in but doing so would create a whole host of issues such as privacy and how to enforce it. My University has about 20,000 students and I don't think we are allowed to concealed carry on school grounds, but if someone really wanted to it would be fairly easy to do so without the school being able to do much to stop it. Campus Police is heavily armed though, but it would take them time to mobilize.

@airshocker: I wasn't expecting you to convince me, I was just answering your question. In that study guns didn't cause any incidents and didn't prevent any. In others schools it might prevent some and may cause some. All in all you're promoting the "more people with guns" solution, and to me, with all due respect for your culture, is something only an American would say.

You asked why one is more appropriate than the other. I tried to explain using an example, but I guess I explained it poorly.

Actually, you don't know if they prevented any or not. Who's to say someone wasn't dissuaded from committing a violent crime because they knew people on the campus were carrying concealed? That's the point here.

What exactly is wrong with more people having guns? And to be honest, that is an extremely rude thing to say. And it's something we Americans are getting tired of hearing on this forum. Just because I'm an American doesn't mean a fucking thing here.

@airshocker: I was not intending to be rude but every time I hear the "you know what we need? More guns" it's coming from an American...it's a personal observation and something you yourself are promoting in this very thread, so why exactly would it be an insult?

If we're talking about self-defense, which is the main reason why people own guns, then a firearm is more effective. That is what I'm thinking of when I think of what's appropriate.

Because "Oh he's an American" is often thrown around on this forum as an insult. What exactly does me being an American have to do with this discussion at hand? Other than the fact that I'm talking about an American issue. I see it merely as an attempt to belittle my opinion as opposed to looking at the merits of my argument and judging me based on that.

@airshocker: Those are your assumptions and since I never prevented you from asking me to clarify my point I don't see a reason for you to assume instead of asking...as one of the few non-Americans here who often speaks in defense of the American police (and I know you are aware of that) I find it strange that you'd consider me an "America basher" of some sort.
The truth is that this thread wouldn't work in most other countries...put this proposal forth in most European countries and they'd put you in the loony bin...you guys have the largest number of guns per capita with a whooping 90 per 100 inhabitants if wikipedia is to be trusted. Now I know a lot of people collect guns like they're going out of style (and claim say they need 20 guns in order to defend themselves) so it doesn't mean 90 out of 100 people have guns but that's still a lot of guns.

With that in mind there's a lot of gun problems that other countries don't have so your idea, in my mind, is one that only an American would have.

If I'm missing the point of why my message is insulting please let me know and I'll remove my comment.

@korvus: I don't normally consider you an American basher, but it's kind of hard to take last sentence of the post we're talking about as anything other than trying to belittle my argument.

I know this wouldn't fly in any other country, which is why I'm not suggesting other countries adopt it. However, as shown by Colorado, this is certainly a model that could be adopted by other states in the US and probably to great success.

@xdude85 said:

What does this picture have to do with anything?

@airshocker: Maybe I should have explained my point better...you said "if this won't convince you I don't know what to tell you" so I said only an American would propose that, meaning that non-Americans will have a hard time understanding and approving of such methods. I know you probably made this thread for your fellow citizens but I was just giving you my opinion as an "outsider". No offense was intended; I don't roll like that. Hell, I nominated you, an American police officer, as my OT IRL hero, remember? =P

Yeah I don't see the problem with allowing concealed carry in Universities since it's allowed in any other public place in the state. It is kind of weird that Universities can't "opt-out" though - private homeowners have the option to ban guns on their property so IMO it makes no sense to not allow private Universities at least that same option. Ideally you wouldn't even need to carry a gun to school but alas not every where is super safe.

@korvus: Ah okay. I guess I should have figured that.

@xdude85 said:

What a dumb post. That was a high school and Colorado doesn't allow concealed carry on high schools. You can't even get a permit until you're 21 so the vast majority of University students still can't get a gun legally.

What did you do with Aljosa?

I don't like guns and will never have the need to own one but the article makes a good case for allowing them in Colorado Universities. My own personal feelings on them are pretty irrelevant to the situation in Colorado.

i guess if it is a private institution it would have the right to ban carrying firearms on it's property. just as a private business would have that right. i don't think that right would extend to public run universities however.

@airshocker: I don't blame you; it was a combination of me not making my case clearly and your probable weariness of being bashed all the time based on your nationality and profession.

@Aljosa23: That's very level-headed of you =)

The common denominator in all none-existant university massacres has been that guns are not readily available in sweden. Oh, and the health care system for the mentally ill is is pretty much none-existant aswell. Can't "blame" that either.

Countries without guns readily available, like sweden and japan has very low murder rates. I don't really understand why and how you could try to circumvent that fact.

That doesn't change that fact that people still kill each other in those countries. People will always find a way to kill somebody if they really want to.

I'm not seeing how guns are the problem.

Good point. I'm not sure the state's justification for requiring private Universities to allow concealed carry.

I'm guessing that libertarians, conservatives and Republicans are the big supporters of gun rights and allowing concealed carry in public places and public universities, but they are also supposed to be supporters of private property rights.

So, you see no correlation between the two? Swedes and the japanese are just plain better people in general?

The Swedes and the Japanese kill each other as well. They're human, just like us.

Just because you have access to a gun doesn't mean you are going to kill.

Guns exacerbate the problem.

That is a good point...if you're seeing red and you have decided that bastard is going to die then it's decided...you're going to try and kill him whether you have a plastic fork or a gun.

But how about before you make the decision? Do you think that having a gun instead of, let's say, a kitchen knife has a bearing in whether I make an attempt or not (via the assessment of whether I can "safely" kill you)? I think if I hated someone to the point of wanting him dead I would be much more willing to commit violence against him if I felt relatively safe that I could just shoot him in the face from a safe distance rather than having to stab him...if he grabs me and that knife was all the defense I had I'm screwed...that might make me think twice.

What's your opinion?

Feeling the need to bring a gun to school strikes me as paranoid.

Wonder how long it'll take before a professor has to be in a mexican stand-off with students that highly disagree with the grade they got.

Cars exacerbate things when somebody drives with them. So do cell phones.

Just because something CAN be used to do bad things doesn't mean all the good things they can achieve are suddenly thrown out the window.

Pretty much what I just told bforrester: Just because something can be used in the bad way doesn't mean we can't use it to do good. Not when there's so much proof out there that SHOWS how responsible those with permits are.

I'm not suggesting we do away with a permitting system. We definitely need a more robust mental health system to identify those who are troubled. But denying somebody from carrying a firearm to protect themselves in the face of so much proof as to the responsibility of permit owners is a travesty of justice. It is simply unjust and arbitrary to hold the actions of a few against the many who have done nothing wrong and continue to do nothing wrong.

No where near at the rate Americans kill each other.

If nobody has offed themselves or others then everybody must be taking paper classes that demand nothing of them mentally or emotionally and why the **** are we going to college and wasting money on an education anyways?

Which can be attributed to other factors as well.

None of this changes the fact that the vast majority are responsible with their firearms. I see no reason to strip freedoms from those who haven't done anything wrong.