Governor Kasich Legalizes Campus Carry. What Do You Think?

[Fantine]

I would rather have people armed than have more security messures that make things feel more like a prison. You know the VAST majority of correctal officers do not carry ( on the job, anyway.

I don't see how getting a text message alerting you to a clear and present danger would make a campus feel like "a prison." If I were a student, I would feel much more concerned if, on the campus green, shots rang out and immediately 20 students took out guns, saw people with guns all around them, had no idea who the "bad guy" was, and perhaps hurt one another or people caught in the cross fire.

I was in college during Kent State--when National Guardsmen, trained by the military, shot four students. There was tear gas. There was confusion. In the chaos innocents were killed.

At the time people said the guardsmen weren't trained "enough." But heck, they are much more of a "well-regulated militia" than random, disconnected people with guns and varying amounts of training and experience---and yet in the chaos they killed innocent students.

Personal Remembrances of the Kent State Shootings, 43 Years Later

If I got both a text and had the (in)security of knowing I was surrounded by armed students--I would hide and flee. I wouldn't take the chance of their being successfully able to deal with an unfamiliar and chaotic situation.

As a matter of fact, if I got a warning text I would be MORE likely to flee or hide if there were armed students, because I honestly believe they would create more danger.

 

[Hank77]

I write longggg posts when I can't sleep, hahaha. Apologies.

No apologies necessary.
What I was asking was are there 'Many' that she felt were unstable. We are all aware that there are people who do not show signs that they can erupt in anger and be violent. I have been involved with people who are like this, but they are not the majority. I also know that these people do not need a gun to be violent and kill. If they are intent on harming someone with a gun they will always be able to buy one illegally.
We haven't been able to stop the illegal drug trade or any other illegal trades such as human trafficking in this country. Why in the world would we think that we will be able to stop illegal gun trading?
Lives are saved every year by private gun owners. People who are stable and responsible.
We talk about toddlers killing themselves and others with guns. One of their parents should face jail time when this happens and never be able to own a gun again. Drunk drivers who kill toddlers, drivers who are blatantly reckless who kill toddlers should serve jail time and never be allowed to get a driver's license again.
Responsible gun owners' children grow up and learn gun safety. Responsible drivers' children grow up and learn driving safety.

We had a teen, barely 19, come to our home, leave angry, call us and say he was coming back with his gun. Unfortunately we had to get the police involved at the point. They intercepted him as he was getting into his vehicle. We never dreamed that he would be capable of that type of violence, he just wasn't like that. He did and still does suffer from times of depression. But what had set him on serious violent thoughts and actions was not him. The GP doctor here had put him on Prozac and not set him up to come back in to see how it was affecting him. As soon as he stopped taking it he returned to the kid we knew, compassionate, respectful, and intelligent. That was 12 yrs. ago. He is now married and doing OK. No violent behaviors but does still has bouts of depression.
It seems to me that rather than putting so much money into fighting legal gun owners that time, energy, and money should be used to fight for better mental healthcare.
Mentally stable people do not kill over bad grades.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Perhaps, but if someone is having a heart attack you still call a professional, if your house catches on fire you call the fire department even if your neighbors own a hose.

You call a professional yes, but that does not mean that people do not do what they can to help before the professional gets there ( PARTICULARLY in a situation where the danger is then. There is for example, a difference in a small fire and a full on fire. Heart attacks CPR. For example, if someone is having seizures yes call a professional, but get them on the ground and ensure they are breathing as well.

 

[Archivist]

Thus far I have seen posts from two faculty members who think that this is a bad idea. As a tenured university faculty member, I would agree with my academic colleagues--this is not a good thing.

 

[Hank77]

You tell me to get my facts straight, and while since you don't know me I'll leave the scare the bejeebers out of me comment and the mistake that most of my students are under 21, and point out that in my state there's no FBI background check to carry concealed and you only have to be 18. Fingerprinting is also not required. Rules vary from state to state.

It is not that simple. You are just naming the requirements that the individual must meet but not the things that can keep them from receiving that permit.

In order to get a concealed carry permit in your state you cannot be a felon who has been convicted of certain felonies, have outstanding felony charges, have a documented mental disorder, etc. This means that a background check has been performed or there would be no way that they could know these things.
This quote is from your own DOJ government website in reference to felonies ....

If you have completed your sentence so that your rights are restored pursuant to article II, section 28 of the (state name) Constitution, and there are no other legal impediments to receiving a CWP, you may be eligible to apply for and receive a CWP unless (1) the crime included as an element of the offense an act, attempted, act, or threat of intentional homicide, serious bodily harm, unlawful restraint, sexual abuse, or sexual intercourse or contact without consent, or (2) you are under lifetime supervision for having received an enhanced sentence for using a weapon in the commission of the underlying offense. The CWP may be denied, however, if a background check reveals that you are ineligible under state or federal law to own, possess, or receive a firearm. Other circumstances may also affect your eligibility. Please consult with your attorney regarding your specific legal rights. The Office of the Attorney General cannot provide individual legal advice or representation.

It is Federal law that in order for a legal gun dealer to sell a gun they must do an FBI background check. State law enforcement agencies have access to the same background check resources that the FBI does.
It is up to the Sheriffs Department if they want to do fingerprinting which cost $5.00.

 

[Archivist]

These stats are all public knowledge. Legal gun owners don't commit crimes. In fact they commit crimes at a lower level than police officers.

A bit of a contradiction in your post. First you say that "legal gun owners don't commit crimes." Then you say that "they commit crimes at a lower level than police officers."

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

It is not that simple. You are just naming the requirements that the individual must meet but not the things that can keep them from receiving that permit.

In order to get a concealed carry permit in your state you cannot be a felon who has been convicted of certain felonies, have outstanding felony charges, have a documented mental disorder, etc. This means that a background check has been performed or there would be no way that they could know these things.
This quote is from your own DOJ government website in reference to felonies ....

If you have completed your sentence so that your rights are restored pursuant to article II, section 28 of the (state name) Constitution, and there are no other legal impediments to receiving a CWP, you may be eligible to apply for and receive a CWP unless (1) the crime included as an element of the offense an act, attempted, act, or threat of intentional homicide, serious bodily harm, unlawful restraint, sexual abuse, or sexual intercourse or contact without consent, or (2) you are under lifetime supervision for having received an enhanced sentence for using a weapon in the commission of the underlying offense. The CWP may be denied, however, if a background check reveals that you are ineligible under state or federal law to own, possess, or receive a firearm. Other circumstances may also affect your eligibility. Please consult with your attorney regarding your specific legal rights. The Office of the Attorney General cannot provide individual legal advice or representation.

It is Federal law that in order for a legal gun dealer to sell a gun they must do an FBI background check. State law enforcement agencies have access to the same background check resources that the FBI does.
It is up to the Sheriffs Department if they want to do fingerprinting which cost $5.00.

I was responding to the poster that informed me that to get a concealed carry permit one must be 21 and pass an FBI background check. My point was that one could be 18 in my state (and thus most all college students would be age eligible ) and didn't necessarily need to pass an FBI background check. I don't see anything in your post that contradicts that.

 

[Hank77]

I was responding to the poster that informed me that to get a concealed carry permit one must be 21 and pass an FBI background check. My point was that one could be 18 in my state (and thus most all college students would be age eligible ) and didn't necessarily need to pass an FBI background check. I don't see anything in your post that contradicts that.

There doesn't have to be an FBI background check because the state can and does do a background check from the same data resources as the FBI background check.

You cannot buy a gun from a legal gun dealer without them running an FBI background.

I do wish all states would require that ALL gun transfers, except those between close family members, must have an background check run through a legal gun dealer before the transfer is made. My state has implemented this law.

Another thing your state requires, as does mine, is that in order to get a CWP one must have a certificate from a state approved gun safety and training center. There are many requirements in order to get a CWP, they don't just hand them out to every Tom, Dick, and Harry of any age.

 

[Hank77]

@Mountain_Girl406

I just thought of this...talk about irritate people. My niece is a CPA. Some clients are pretty angry when they discover they owe a few thousand in taxes and they blame the CPA saying that the firm does not know what they are doing.

She got her CWP just a couple of years ago, but I would have to ask her if it had anything to do with a client or not.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

With all due respect, I find it sort of odd that people who oppose citizens having guns call the police when it all hits the fan.

What, you think we oppose police having guns?

 

[droptozro]

I'm in Ohio. I'm glad Kasich passed that part of the law and the updating of some other laws. I've been on OSU campus and I don't trust walking around there unarmed. I was really uneasy disarming myself going there one night for a concert just to keep their laws. Thankfully they at least pat down the people going into the concert--but it wouldn't have been difficult to hide one if one was intent on getting in with a firearm. It was only a matter of weeks later that the attack happened at OSU. I have family members that do go there and I'm also glad the law passed. Hope to convince my family member to carry if OSU begins to allow carry on campus(and not just left in cars).

The only part I disagreed with(even though I know why it's in there) is the law in SB199 regarding companies having no say over a person leaving a firearm in a car even if they ban firearms on their property. I know the point is that people want to be able to carry before/after going to work and not have to worry about getting fired for it--but the law is unjust, it's just nationalistic socialism on the other side forcing private companies to allow something on their property they do not wish to have.

I used to carry to my work. They ban firearms in our workplace and I believe it extends to the parking lot. Ultimately though, there's other options than forcing a company to do the masses' will by law. You can quit(no one makes you work there), hide the firearm, or park somewhere else.

 

[marawuti]

Clearly untrue.


Even if this is true, it is misleading. By the nature of their work, police officers are presented with more opportunity to commit more crimes than the rest of us.

By your chosen scenario that follows I'm guessing you mean LEOs have their buttons pushed more often than the rest of us? You're expecting them to assault people (the putative crime) at a higher aggregate or rate?
Not the case. The reason is their training and expectations surrounding their workplace.

Example: I deal with difficult obnoxious people rarely in my work; police officers deal with them all the time. It is therefore much more likely that a police officer will haul off and punch someone than I would, even if that police officer is as "moral" and "self-controlled" as I am.

Actually, folks such as yourself are much more prone on a per case basis to react badly than LEOs because of your expectations and lack of training.

 

[marawuti]

Possibly, but it's also possible they might end it.

Weak repartee. You should look into the 1966 Univ of Texas Austin shootings. The perp was taken under fire by students until police made it to the scene thus successfully reducing his ability to target more victims unmolested. One civilian participated in the assault in the clock tower.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What, you think we oppose police having guns?

no

 

[Hank77]

Weak repartee. You should look into the 1966 Univ of Texas Austin shootings. The perp was taken under fire by students until police made it to the scene thus successfully reducing his ability to target more victims unmolested. One civilian participated in the assault in the clock tower.

Even after the police arrived private gun owner's continued to fire on him with the police. No one was accidentally shot by the police or the gun owner's.

 

[Archivist]

Even after the police arrived private gun owner's continued to fire on him with the police. No one was accidentally shot by the police or the gun owner's.

That was 50 years ago. Big difference between students then and students today.

 

[Hank77]

That was 50 years ago. Big difference between students then and students today.

I suspect that it depends on which part of the country they come from and how they were raised.

 

[Archivist]

I suspect that it depends on which part of the country they come from and how they were raised.

Perhaps. But in the 28 years that I have been in academia I have seen a change in the students. I can remember when many--perhaps a majority--of our students, particularly male students, skipped classes on the first day of deer season to go hunting. Very few do that today, the majority have never hunted. These students don't have the connection with guns, including the training in the use of guns and the respect for guns, that students once had.

 

[Fantine]

Any thread discussing the possibility of sensible gun regulations always seems to be a magnet for everyone who believes there should be NO gun regulations. What a depressing read...

I hope in a few months when Tea Party Congressmen are trying to privatize Social Security and Medicare that there will be as many people--hopefully more--coming to the defense of programs that are EARNED, not entitlements, by people who have contributed through payroll taxes their entire working lives.

There will be other important programs coming under attack--things that might concern people's very survival--things that make whether you can carry a gun seem trivial by comparison.

Let's make an effort next year to fight for the good stuff, too--the stuff that feeds hungry children, houses homeless veterans, cares for seniors who have worked their whole lives--and the disabled, who worked as long as they could.

It's obvious that gun owners know how to fight for what they believe in--so join with us in fighting for a socially just society.

The gun issue is divisive. I understand that. But there shouldn't be anything divisive about a socially just society. It's an initiative we can all proudly support.

 

[expos4ever]

By your chosen scenario that follows I'm guessing you mean LEOs have their buttons pushed more often than the rest of us? You're expecting them to assault people (the putative crime) at a higher aggregate or rate?
Not the case. The reason is their training and expectations surrounding their workplace.

I do expect them to assault people at a higher rate. You are saying this is not the case. Well, we both have to provide evidence to support our respective claims. I am not motivated to take the time to do this, so I do have to concede that I am speculating. But unless you are prepared to present evidence that LEOs do not assault at a higher rate, you, too, are speculating.

Actually, folks such as yourself are much more prone on a per case basis to react badly than LEOs because of your expectations and lack of training.

Misleading. I would agree that a non-trained person - like me - is more likely to assault in the presence of provocation than a police officer. But - and this is the point - the police officer is almost certainly going to be exposed to hundreds, if not thousands more instances where they are provoked (compared to a desk jockey like me).