Letter: Concealed carry unnecessary
Tuesday, February 12, 2008; 12:00 AM
A recent letter to the editor said that "Taking away someone's gun because they might shoot someone is like cutting out their tongue because they might yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater."

This is a fairly apt analogy, but for one thing, a tongue can be used for many other things besides yelling "fire" -- eating, for instance, or reciting poetry or yelling to stop a car from striking a pedestrian.

However, to borrow a phrase from author Gary Paulson, the sole use of a gun is to punch holes in other human beings. There is no need for anybody to secretly carry around campus devices designed expressly to maim and kill. If handguns are allowed on campus, then we may as well allow people to bring in bombs, nerve gas and rabid attack dogs. No matter how "safe" that vial of drug-resistant anthrax makes me feel, it still has no place in the classroom. The same is true for firearms.

Rachel Taylor
sophomore, mathematics

You might be interested in... Related Topics:
Posted by: John Galt at 3/05/08 A gun is not a bomb, it is an equalizer. A bomb is an indiscriminate destruction machine. A gun is a precise tool permits the weaker person to defend themselves against the stronger. Fists and feet can kill just as much as a gun can, the difference is that an old lady can protect herself from thugs with a gun, she has no chance against them in a fist-fight. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike B at 2/19/08 Rachel- you would be surprised at the amount of crime that occurs on college campuses. Often campus police forces attempt to talk individuals out of reporting crimes in order to make their stats look better. I carried concealed for all 4 years at my school (I was a non-trad and entered college at 23) after a friend who was a campus cop informed me of the incidents that occurred but went officially unreported. I did have a permit from my state and could legally carry- except on my campus which viewed it as an expellable offense. I made the decision I would not be a sheep and to take responsibility for my own safety. As stated I sat next to hundreds of fellow students and faculty for 4 years with a concealed weapon with none the wiser. And no- it never even occurred to me to pull it during heated debates. I am very aware of the power that carrying entails- due to this I went out of my way to avoid conflicts, often backing down in order to defuse potentially volatile situations. I would ask this question- if having a legal CCW is not conducive to learning and would lead to blood in the streets how is it that Utah universities seem to graduate students who are not traumatized by CCW's on campus as well as having no incidents involving CCW holders? Flag Abuse
Posted by: John Flanagan at 2/19/08 Dear Rachel: Here's a great article written by policemen on a police blog site, it's a good read, written by professionals; http://tinyurl.com/2ukb7l Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 2/18/08 Brian, the increase in frequency of school shootings is noteworthy, but I must admit that it still seems a fairly remote possibility that a given student will fall victim to a school shooting. For this reason I can understand why many students do not feel the need to carry a firearm to protect themselves. Instead of arguing about the likelihood of being victimized in a school shooting, those in favor of concealed carry should make the point that it is unlikely that allowing firearms to those with concealed carry permits will make anyone less safe. To that end, it seems like a free insurance policy for those who don't want to carry guns. They don't have to invest the time, money, and training necessary to carry a weapon legally and responsibly, and in return they allow others to mitigate what relatively little risk exists in the first place. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brian at 2/14/08 It is unfortunate that we live in a time were violent crime rates are higher than ever. Before 1990 there were only 8 school shootings. Since 1990 there have been more than 30. People who think it can’t happen to them or it can’t happen twice are living in a state of denial. There are 3 kinds of people in the world 98% are sheep, 1% are sheep dogs and 1% are wolves. The sheep don’t like the sheep dog being around because it makes them feel uncomfortable and uneasy. However, when the wolves come, all of a sudden the sheep run behind the sheep dog for protection. Places where there are no carry laws effectively put a leash on the sheep dog, making it much easier on the wolves to prey on the sheep. A gun is nothing more than a tool, which can take lives as well as save them. I carry my weapon every where I can legally do so, the only person who knows its there is my self. People say that guns on campus make them feel uncomfortable, well there are guns on campus, and who would you rather have them the wolves or the sheep dogs? Consider if you are sitting in class and someone comes into that class and points a gun at you, then ask yourself what you want? I know what I would want and that is someone there who is carrying to take that crazy SOB out. You say that having people carry in class makes you fell unsafe; I would argue that you should feel more safe knowing that there is someone there to protect you if the worst should happen. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken Miller at 2/14/08 Rachel, you are exactly right. A handgun has no purpose, other than to shoot people. However, that does not mean that it is not a legitimate, and sometimes vital purpose. They are tools, like any other. The purpose of this tool is to project force. It can be used to harm or to protect. But the fact is, when you need a handgun, nothing else will do. As safe as Blacksburg is, it still has crime. And, yes, some of that crime is of the violent variety. Each of those crimes has a victim - someone who thought Blacksburg was safe, and that they needed no protection. And when they needed that protection, it wasn't close at hand. These aren't statistics. They're individuals - fellow students and human beings, and their lives were put in jeopardy because they could not protect themselves. We talk about what-if situations. But when it comes to those of us who have been vetted by the state to carry concealed handguns, these scenarios never are more than what-ifs, and vague flights of fantasy. They're hypothetical situations that haven't happened in real life. Crimes, however, are a reality. They happen every day throughout the U.S. - and, on occasion, Blacksburg. Which would you rather protect against - the mythical CHP killer, or the real crimes that happen to real individuals every day? To me, it seems to be a great injustice that we should strip people of their ability to defend themselves, simply because someone might misuse that ability. Are you willing to compensate the next mugging victim, the next rape victim, or the families of the next murder victim, because you denied them the right to BE secure, so that you could FEEL safe? These aren't hypothetical crimes. There will be more murders. There will be more muggings. Are you going to tell the potential victims that they should go ahead and roll the dice with their lives because the risks fall within your own personal level of acceptability? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Me Too at 2/14/08 Rachel, you're right. Blacksburg is a very safe town. But you're ignoring the thing right in front of you. Blacksburg was a very safe town on the morning of April 16 too. Unpredictable things happen and some people just don't want it to happen to them. You have your comfort zone and they have theirs. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Rachel Taylor at 2/14/08 Actually, Bob, I must take issue with the conclusions drawn from your Suburban analogy. I use a bicycle as my primary mode of transportation. The reason I wear a helmet when I'm riding on the roads isn't because I'm afraid someone's going intentionally run me over. I wear a helmet because I'm afraid that a LICENSED driver (meaning someone certified by the state as being competent to operate a motor vehicle) might accidentally sideswipe me or otherwise unintentionally cause a wreck. So far, I haven't had a serious smash-up, but fatal car wrecks happen all the time, both involving and not involving bicycles. From my point of view as a cyclist, I would much rather there not be any cars on the roads around campus--it would make my getting around much safer and less stressful. I don't complain because cars can be used for so many other things besides running people over--there is a need for them in the community at large. However, a handgun (not necessarily a target gun or hunting gun) is a weapon, whether it is fired or not. That is what they are designed for. Show me a handgun designed NOT to fire bits of hot lead at high speed in a straight line. Now, like I say, if there were a lot of crime around here, I might be more receptive to the idea, but I still think y'all are wrong. One sure way, Scion, to not make me think you're right is to tell me I'm uneducated about the issue and only acting on emotion. That's simply incorrect. Get your facts straight. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Bob Clydesdale at 2/13/08 Rachel... Guns aren't curently allowed on campus at VT. That didn't stop Cho from doing so much harm. Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris broke 18 state and Federal gun laws during the Columbine massacre... a 19th law would have made no difference. Those who choose to do us harm will not be stopped by a fear of violating the law. What would you say if instead of using a gun Cho rented a Chevy Suburban and ran down dozens of innocent students between classes? No more Chevy Suburbans on campus? Try to see the perspective of good law-abiding people who view a gun as a sporting implement, no different than a baseball bat (ie; those who shoot purely for sport and competition). It is not a weapon unless the person who holds it chooses it to be. A Chevy Suburban is not a weapon until those who drive it choose it to be. At 19 years of age you've got a lot of life to yet experience. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Scion at 2/13/08 Quote: "There is no need for anybody to secretly carry around campus devices designed expressly to maim and kill." If only the criminals would agree to this, you might have a point. They don't; and you don't. Quote: "If handguns are allowed on campus, then we may as well allow people to bring in bombs, nerve gas and rabid attack dogs. No matter how "safe" that vial of drug-resistant anthrax makes me feel, it still has no place in the classroom. The same is true for firearms." Wrong. Not only are firearms controllable, they are also legal, and the right to own and bear them is constitutionally guaranteed. Not so for bombs, nerve gas and rabid attack dogs. Please...PLEASE learn to do your research and express your views based on logical interpretation of actual facts rather than reasoning purely from uninformed emotion. Flag Abuse
Posted by: John Havranek at 2/13/08 Rachel you make a valid argument but you miss three key aspects. A number of students, including myself, carry a regulation sized knife on them where it be a multi tool, swiss army, or just folding, somewhere in there is a blade. Your idea of waving it around like a sword over everyones head leads me to believe that me or another student has walked up to the professor, taking out or knife, stuck it in a stack of papers and say give me an A cause I have a knife. Let me know when that happens because that is just wrong. I don't carry it around to intimidate, I carry it because its a tool, and if getting mugged by 4 guys it gives me a bit of an edge. Second, its not like I walk into class room with that snarling dog, its kept in my backpack or pocket, its concealed as to restrain from the feeling of others being uncomfortable or to have that intimidating presence. Third there is not a feeling of mutually assured destructing as much as its a mutual respect and admiration. Let me take you to the range and see if you opinion will change. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ty at 2/13/08 I think the most important thing to consider is that if someone is planning on pulling off a mass murder they probably will disobey the rules and bring two or three handguns. If you make rules preventing people from carrying guns all you do is take them away from the people who abide the law, and may even give you a small chance of a deterrent. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Truth at 2/12/08 To Rachel. You said, "Carrying a gun is an inherently aggressive act, no matter how you slice it." That is one heck of a blanket statement. Do you feel that carrying of guns by police officers is aggressive? I believe that you made that statement due to fear and mistrust of the individual that is carrying that gun. As we have stated, you have very little to fear from a law abiding concealed carry permit holder. Now, take all those ccw permit holders away, leaving only criminals and Chos and your feelings would be justified. As for guns being unnecessary for self defense or otherwise, just go ask the families of the victims of 4/16 if they wish that somehow by a stroke of luck that someone could have been there to shoot Cho the minute he started his killing spree. Next, you bring up mutually assured destruction. What this tells me is that you understand deterrents, and therefore causes all of my confusion regarding your position. You know that good guys with guns (or nukes) serve as a deterrent to others that would do good guys (or innocent people) harm, but yet you would deny individuals the ability to protect themselves. Sometimes guns are the only equalizer against a criminal with a gun. Is it a crying shame that we have to worry about this at anytime in our lives, let alone while at college? Yes it is sad that some people will do harm to others. The difference between you and I is that my fear of bad people hurting me or another innocent person drives me to fight to protect an inherent right to self defense. Meanwhile your fear of guns (instead of simply having a fear of criminals with guns) drives you to try to stop all carrying of guns on campus. However, without everyone being searched as they come to campus and then another search as they enter buildings, I cannot trust your plan and frankly I don't see how you can trust your plan of blindly hoping that nothing bad will happen. You also state that there is no need to carry guns since there is little crime. We are fortunate to have a fairly low level of crime, especially violent crime. I, however, would ask to you to review data that shows concealed carry prevents crime, perhaps even millions of crimes annually in this nation. Everyone in this country (including individuals with anti-gun stance) benefits from possession of guns in the hands of our citizenry. The fact that burglars don't usually break into homes at night in this country is due to the fact that they are rational and do not want to encounter a homeowner with a gun. Burglars generally do their work during the day, after they have made attempts to ensure that the homeowners are out. I guess it is just my caring nature, but having even one victim on 4/16 (or any other time) warrants the carrying of guns. Life is too precious to let some animal take that away. I would also like to point out that the General Assembly sees fit to allow concealed carry at Capital Square, the GA building and virtually all other gov offices. So even though our delegates often discuss very controversial laws (perhaps even laws that enrage someone enough to kill), they haven't banned guns where they work. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken S. at 2/12/08 I would like to also point out that we (students) and our professors (faculty) are forbidden to carry on campus, yet visitors are not. Many visitors are carrying on our campus every day, and are in their full right to. Contrast this to us, who are here every day. Have you ever heard that most accidents happen within a few miles of home? This is for two reasons: 1 - you spend the most time there, and 2 - you are most 'trusting' of this environment. Same thing with campus. Honestly, Rachel, I was at the VT Police window in War today looking at crime stats for VT. They are a lot higher than you may think, and if you recall all that happened last semester, you may understand why someone would not feel secure leaving their night class (9pm-ish) to walk to their car all alone, especially a young female or wheelchair-bound individual. Can you tell them that they must be left defenseless from the rare but real crimes that occur here? I can't, which is why I'm working for these rights. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 2/12/08 Rachel, I, like Kyle, must agree that you have reasonable arguments; our differences are based in ideology, rather than in some logical fallacy. That is a breath of fresh air considering some of the outrageous justifications used by others on this issue. That said, the only thing left to do is to discuss our differences of opinion on the subjective parts of the equation. These are things like: is it sensible to carry on campus, is it dangerous to allow carry on campus, etc. Campus is still a relatively safe place, but then again, so are the streets of Blacksburg. Yet nobody seems to have a problem allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons with permits down public streets. So this begs the question: why does campus get different treatment? As for the issue of risk vs. reward, it is not often that you hear of a concealed permit holder injuring or killing anyone, either accidentally or intentionally, unless it is in self-defense. This suggests that the risk of allowing these folks to carry is minimal. The reward may also be minimal, but it is non-zero. For that one-in-a-million circumstance when a firearm could save one's life, it is invaluable. So I would say overall that risk and reward are about equal. This begs the question: what's the harm, then, in allowing concealed carry on campus? Single people in their 20s buy life insurance, good drivers sometimes still buy expensive car insurance policies, and healthy people often buy low-deductible, expensive health insurance. Why then, should we restrict law-abiding people from weighing the decision on their own, much as we do with these other types of insurance? After all, it seems that their decision will not negatively impact the rights or safety of others, even if they choose to carry. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at 2/12/08 I was busy typing my other response, so I didn't see yours at 4:01, Rachel. Are you suggesting then, perhaps, that if there were more crime on campus that CCW permit holders ought to be allowed to carry? If so, at what point do we have 'enough crime' to warrant firearms on campus? I would contend that ANY crime on campus warrants a careful study of how students, faculty, and staff are permitted to defend themselves. Remember, the police are a REACTIONARY force, not an ACTIONARY one. They cannot be everywhere, and as a result they can only influence situations when they are called to do so. If someone robs me at knifepoint on campus, I can call the police LATER and report it - but I don't have any recourse to take against my aggressor immediately. I am not a CCW permit holder, and it has been many years since I have even held a firearm - I, like you, feel that there isn't enough crime on campus to justify purchasing, maintaining, and training to use a gun. But that doesn't mean that EVERYONE ought to feel so safe - and for those who do not feel safe, they ought to be able to prepare for their own defense if they should ever be in the position to have to defend themselves. Maybe you are content to simply reason with your assailants and hope that they will leave you alone, but most people (myself included) are not so content. Incidentally, nobody is challenging your intellectual fortitude. You have made a reasonable argument and supported it with logical thoughts - the fact that people disagree with you is not an affront to your intellegence, but is rather an indication that you have introduced a topic which is important and needs to be discussed. Resorting to biting sarcasm only weakens your point. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at 2/12/08 Rachel, I'd like to point out a couple things. First, while there are ample safety measures on campus (and you highlight a few), they are not universal and they are not all preventative measures. The Safe Ride program, for instance, didn't have any effect on April 16. And ultimately, there is no program whatsoever that can be put in place to simply stop a crime WHILE it is happeneing - that requires an active civilian resistance. That isn't to say that a gun in the classroom would have necessarily prevented the carnage in April, but it wouldn't have done any MORE damage - plus, it would have given the captive students even the slightest hope of being able to free themselves from their hell. But more importantly, each of the analogies you provide require some sort of 'open carry' policy. You can't simply conceal a rabid dog, or a sword, or anything of that nature - the whole point behind CCW is that you NEVER see the weapon unless it needs to be used. Do you generally feel unsafe walking around the streets of Blacksburg? Because I guarantee you that a fairly healthy number of the population here carries concealed without you even knowing it. I'm not advocating that every student ought to concealed carry - but for those who have gone through the appropriate training, who understand the responsibility, I don't really understand the opposition. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Rachel Taylor at 2/12/08 Maybe I'm still not being clear enough, so let me try again: Real life is not like "Mad Max". Here, at Virginia Tech, there is NOT enough crime to justify allowing firearms on campus, so the legislature should butt out on this one. But why should you listen to me? As Mike M. so nicely pointed out, I'm completely incapable of making up my own mind. I'm just a hysterical shill who believes whatever the TV tells me. OBVIOUSLY if I could form my own opinions, I'd agree with you. I'm sorry you have to plead with me to understand, but you must excuse my pitiful, febrile mind. I guess I should go back to breeding my anthrax to spare you my unreasoned ravings. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 2/12/08 Rachel, I think we all understand hyperbole, and nobody yet has disagreed that IDEALLY, no guns would be necessary on campus. I would go so far as to say, to a fellow mathematician, that having a gun on campus is generally a sufficient, albeit usually not a necessary, condition to ensure one's individual safety. As for the argument about aggression, as others have pointed out, you are off base. If anyone were to reveal their concealed gun to you, they would be in major trouble in most states (although in VA, open carry is less regulated than concealed carry, so I'm not sure how revealing a weapon that was intended to be concealed is treated under VA law). In any case, please understand that if you are going to judge the analogies of others, prepare to have yours judged as well, whether they are made in jest or not, and please understand that nobody here seems to WANT guns in the classroom, but for some, the potential danger of our nation's classrooms means that we're not in Kansas anymore, so throw the ideals out the window. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Sam Stephens at 2/12/08 Rachel, I would like to try and level with you here. We've all heard all the arguments that are pro-CCW. Yes we know that CCW holders are responsible, 5.7 times less likely to commit a crime, and have passed an extensive background check that certifies that they have no felony or drug convictions, and no recorded history of mental illness. And we can dismiss the concern that those who carry concealed are just going to "snap" one day, because as someone else said, time has proven otherwise. It just doesn't happen. As someone else below said, no responsible citizen is going to endanger their right to carry by brandishing their weapon in an obscene and illegal fashion. What I would like to contend is that concealed weapons are in a way like smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. How many times in your life have you had to rely on your smoke detector to let you know there was a fire? Not many, if at all I hope. But for those people that have, I'm sure they were glad it was there, because inevitably, it may have saved their lives. We all remember the incident in Collegiate Suites where the girls were poisoned due to carbon monoxide leak. Had they had carbon monoxide detectors prior to that incident, chances are they wouldn't have been hospitalized. However, they didn't. And what did Collegiate Suites do immediately afterwards? They installed CO detectors. Not because they thought that it was going to happen again, but because they deemed it necessary to the safety of their occupants. Now personally, I don't have a carbon monoxide detector where I live, nor do I have one at my home away from Blacksburg. But, some people choose to install them, and possibly more people immediately chose to install them following the incident in Collegiate Suites. My point is this, guns are not necessary to every single person on campus, just as carbon monoxide detectors are not necessary to every home. Some people may install them when there is very little risk of a carbon monoxide leak, while others install them because there is a very real danger of one. Here on campus some people may not feel that there is a need for guns, and others such as my self feel that if I want to carry a concealed weapon on campus, I should be allowed to. What a lot of people seem to forget about concealed weapons is that they are concealed. If I were to illegally walk into a classroom with a properly concealed weapon, no one would ever know unless I told them or showed them. Granted I would never do that, but hopefully you understand my point. Another point I would like to make is that all the anti-gun advocates seem to blow allowing concealed weapons on campus way out of proportion. They seem to think that if it was allowed, that every single student would go out and buy a handgun, and get their CCW permit. In reality, do you think this would ever happen? There are plenty of anti-gun advocates, plenty of underage students, and plenty who just don't feel the need to carry, who would never go out and get a gun and their CCW permit. Allowing concealed guns on campus would no more heighten anxiety than the number of rough looking construction workers on campus does. The simple saying, "Out of sight, out of mind" seems to sum up what I'm trying to say about law abiding CCW holders carrying on campus. I will be sending a slightly edited version to the paper as soon as I figure out how. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chip at 2/12/08 I cannot speak for everyone who has posted here and elsewhere on this subject, but neither I nor (I don't believe) Kyle Minor hold CCW permits. I don't have to exercise a right to believe in someone else's. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike M. at 2/12/08 Rachel, I disagree that carrying concealed is an aggressive act. Carrying openly could be easily so construed, but I fail to see how an object, of which others are unaware, can communicate aggression. When I carry, even my wife is unaware unless she puts her arm around me and feels the gun under my clothes. I don't act differently, I don't look any different, and I don't walk with a swagger or give people challenging glares. You'd never know if someone in your class were carrying. In fact, they could be now, albeit at the risk of remaining a student. Of all the people I know who carry, they invariably are people who avoid confrontation. They're the guy who let you merge into the line of traffic, the woman who let you through the door first, the one who walked away when someone got in their face. Believe me, we are very aware of the deadly responsibility we carry with us. We never want to use it. Ever. I hope on my deathbed and wonder why I carried that heavy thing for 80 years. I understand that you have anxiety about guns. It's understandable, we live in a world where we're constantly told that guns are bad. The media swarm on shootings like vultures, and they know that nothing pumps up ratings better than a sensational murder story. Hollywood directors outdo each other with every new film, upping the gratuitous violence, increasing the size and number of guns used. The bad guys always have machine guns. The good guys are always running for cover, and only the police can fight back. On the rare occasion they show a civilian with a concealed handgun, they are sure to show them either brandishing it irresponsibly (can you say Homer Simpson?) or pulling it out and getting themselves shot by the bad guy. Our society has drilled it into us all that guns are bad, only bad guys and idiots carry them, and we should rely on the government to come to our rescue. The masses are easier to control if they are docile, so we are trained to be docile. Wait for help to come, you aren't trained to take care of yourself. Wait for the police to save you. Build your house in a flood zone, FEMA will come to your aid. You need national healthcare to afford a doctor. --Where does it end? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? You can abdicate yours and choose to let the government take care of you, but I choose to take care of my own well being. I ask nothing of you, I will not impose my will on you, and you will never know who I am or if I am carrying today. Look at the guy next to you in class today. Do you fear he will beat you up if you're on different sides of a debate? Do you fear he will try to push you around? I assume this never crossed your mind. So why would you think he would pull a gun on you? I'll tell you this - if he's the kind who would, he doesn't give a rat's behind about violating school policy. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Rachel Taylor at 2/12/08 My, my, my, Kyle Minor, you really can’t understand hyperbole, can you? Perhaps I should have made my point clearer in my letter. I felt that a little humor would both lighten the tone and make my point in relatively few words. Evidently, I was wrong. I’m sorry. So why am I against concealed carry, you ask? Well, without addressing such issues as accidents (which do happen), my answer is this: it is simply inappropriate and unnecessary for this environment and would cause damage to our community as a whole. Whenever anyone brings a gun into a room, they are effectively dangling a sword over the heads of everyone else there. Yes, I understand that you licensees are responsible, law-abiding citizens who are incapable of making mistakes, but that sort of power imbalance is totally out of place for a university. Carrying a gun is an inherently aggressive act, no matter how you slice it. It is just the same as carrying around any other form of deadly force, and around here, it is just as unnecessary as carrying around nerve agents. This is what I was trying to get across with the bomb/dog/anthrax analogy. I highly doubt you, as a CCW licensee, would just shrug it off if someone walked into your Differential Equations class with a snarling Cerberus at his side, his only explanation being “someone might try to get me.” I’m willing to bet that you would feel unnecessarily threatened (key word = unnecessary), and you probably wouldn’t want him to do it again. [Of course, maybe you would just bring in your own dog, and then we’d have a lovely little Cold War going on right there in the classroom! Who’s up for some mutually assured destruction?] Now, in the end, this is not a 2nd Amendment issue, nor is it an issue of national crime statistics. This is about what is right for this SPECIFIC community. There is little crime here, and a lot of existing safeguards against it (the Safe Ride program, for instance). Therefore, there is no need for the State Legislature to force the Board of Visitors to change its existing policies. Without some outstanding need for them (such as rampant crime), firearms as personal protection have no place on a college campus. One last note: pro-CCW advocates often accuse anti-gun nuts like me of scaremongering and only imagining the worst case scenario. Well, by claiming that anyone setting foot on this campus is in significant danger of life and limb, and the only way to protect oneself is with a deadly weapon, you are doing exactly that. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 2/12/08 Anonymous Coward, thank you for the compliment. I appreciate that you can respect logical thinking, even if it leads us to diverging conclusions. I am not a student, nor do I live in Blacksburg. I am just a VT alumnus who enjoys keeping a finger on the pulse of my favorite town. Chris S, thanks for clarifying, but that law (The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990) was deemed unconstitutional in 1995. Is there a newer law that took its place that I'm missing? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chris S at 2/12/08 Jason - it is not that the federal government doesn't regulate it. Permit holders along with law enforcement were exempted in the gun free school zone laws Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at 2/12/08 Jason, Kyle, et al, why don't you guys write for the CT or send in letters? I tend to disagree with 75 percent of what you guys say, but you make clear and logical arguments and probably write more in the comments than we see in the entire paper. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken S. at 2/12/08 Ah, the typical knee-jerk reaction to gun-rights advocacy - "there is no need for a gun!" YOU have YOUR right to choose your method of self-defense -- rely on 911, learn martial arts, carry mace, carry a firearm, or even do nothing at all. We're not forcing you to do any of these, we just want to choose one that you don't like. If you personally don't want to carry a firearm, then don't. But don't be surprised if something happens and you suddenly wish you had someone around who was. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 2/12/08 Well, Chris, to be fair, in general just because the federal government doesn't regulate something doesn't mean that they feel it should happen. It may be that it is beyond the bounds of the federal government to make this call. You don't get a federal driver's license, not because the federal government doesn't want you to drive, but because it is a state issue. It's a bit trickier with firearms because of the second amendment. How far can states regulate where and how they can be carried before that "shall not be infringed" comes into play? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chris S at 2/12/08 Quoting Minor Kyle "Nothing controversial with her argument, as you'd be hard pressed to find any elementary school, high school, or any place of learning where a person can legally carry a gun." Actually only the state bans makes it illegal. Federal law allows concealed handgun permit holders to carry in schools - the state law is more strict. Utah, for example, allows permit holders to carry in class. If the federal government trusts permit holders, why doesn't Virginia? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Truth at 2/12/08 Yes well, when someone with a gun is trying to punch holes in another human being with his gun, hopefully someone nearby will have a gun to punch holes in him first. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chip at 2/12/08 What kills me is that the people making the argument that not allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms guarantees an absence of them altogether. The original editorial that started all of this (this time, anyway) stated “the fact that anyone could have a firearm in a bag will inevitably create anxiety on campus.” Anxiety is no reason to deny someone’s Constitutional rights. I assure you, a great deal of what is written in the CT causes me a great deal of anxiety (among other things) but it would never occur to me to ban free speech. I’ll leave that impulse to the PC crowd who seem to think that there is an amendment in the Bill of Rights that says, “Congress shall allow no behavior that causes any Citizen a moment of anxiety, discomfort or insult.” And does anyone honestly believe that because CCW holders are denied their right to carry that it precludes the possibility that “anyone could have a firearm in a bag”? Heads up – every bag you see on campus could potentially have a gun in it. Or a hand grenade. Or a bomb. Or that defensive nerve gas I’ve read so much about. Granted, it’d have to be a pretty big damned bag to hold a rabid attack dog unless it were a particularly ill-tempered Chihuahua. Now, the only people this rule affects are people who follow the rules, which criminals, by definition, do not. I agree, in a perfect world we wouldn’t need guns, armies, intelligence services, police or fire departments. In the world we do inhabit, unfortunately, these are all necessary. Guns are out there. Because of this rule only criminals (or those with criminal intent) have them. As for the argument that the police are there to protect you? One, they cannot be everywhere or there would be no such thing as rape, murder or robbery. Two, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that police officers do not have a Constitutional duty to protect a person from harm (Castle Rock v. Gonzales). You’re pretty much on your own. BTW, Minor Kyle, no CCW holder would ever refer to a firearm as a "toy." Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 2/12/08 As a side note, I'd like to point out that those opposed to allowing guns in the classroom tend to use the argument that accessibility will lead to people "snapping" and shooting up the classroom. Historically, school shootings have been premeditated. In general, I think we can agree that it takes a bit more than a whim to make one decide to kill classmates en masse. So why, then, are we to assume that with greater accessibility of guns comes greater likelihood that people will instantly make a decision as weighty as taking human lives? School shooters don't just "snap"; they undergo a process during which their disillusionment eventually becomes severe enough to cause them to kill others. I refuse to believe that people would just instantly and temporarily snap over a heated discussion or verbal disagreement. So what does it matter if a person has a gun already? If they're that unhappy, they'll go get one anyway and then use it later. Think: have you ever been so mad that, had you been carrying a weapon, you would have drawn it and turned it on another human being? That's quite a leap. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at 2/12/08 I've said before, and I'll say again, that we're past the point of asking whether guns "belong" in the classroom. Perhaps they don't, ideally speaking. The issue at hand is what to do about the fact that they DO exist in the classroom every time there is a school shooting. The way I see it, there are three options: (1) continue banning guns from campus without actively enforcing the ban, (2) continue banning guns from campus but add metal detectors and frisk students at random, or (3) lift the ban on weapons at VT, thus allowing the extension of legal open carry and concealed carry regulations (as stated in VA law) to the VT campus. Metal detectors and frisking are impractical, so let's compare the other options. Thankfully, being victimized by a campus shooting is still a relatively rare way to die, but being victimized by a shooter with a concealed carry permit is unlikely as well, so I don't think allowing guns presents any additional danger and it provides some risk mitigation. Of course, Kyle makes a strong case to debunk the analogy between guns and bombs, nerve gas, etc. The purpose of a handgun in the possession of a CCW permit holder is self-defense and only self-defense when presented with life-threatening force. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Minor Kyle at 2/12/08 Although Gun owners like to use their toys at a shooting range, I do not believe such shooting ranges exist within the classroom. The author (Rachel Taylor) is not arguing for a ban on guns, she's simply arguing that guns have no place in a classroom. Nothing controversial with her argument, as you'd be hard pressed to find any elementary school, high school, or any place of learning where a person can legally carry a gun. The failure of Kyle to understand this argument explains his long meaningless rant. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at 2/12/08 Please demonstrate to me a case where a bomb might be effectively used as a defensive measure. Or nerve gas. Or rabid attack dogs. The fact of the matter is, a gun is nothing more than a tool, and for those who possess CCW permits, that tool is one to be used explicitly for self-defense. I don't carry myself, and I don't own a gun, but to assert that the fact that guns are sometimes used for bad purposes negates any good they might do as well is to deny the purpose behind concealed carry to begin with. If it would make you feel better to have an open carry policy, so you always knew who had a gun, that's fine - but if that's the case, I don't see why you'd be upset with CCW permits. Guns are designed to perform a specific task: they are designed to fire a bullet at a certain velocity from the barrel in as straight a line as possible. Guns ARE used as devices to maim and to kill, but that is not their DESIGN. Many gun owners use their weapons at the shooting range - they point the muzzle at a target and fire. It's relaxing, it requires great skill, and it's actually pretty fun - but such recreation doesn't involve maiming or killing at all. You have to remember here that guns don't kill people - people kill people. I don't see how you can ethically deny the rights of some simply because others choose to act immorally. Flag Abuse






Add your opinion
Copyright 2009 Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech Inc. All rights reserved.
about | advertising | archive | contact | full edition pdfs | headline emails | join us | subscribe
All stories, photos etc. produced by the Collegiate Times are property of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech. No information may be republished without the expressed written consent of the editor of the Collegiate Times.
» Virginia Tech
» Custom Promotional Products
 » VT People Search
» Used Cars
 » Campus Blvd.
»