Gun rights group sues The Ohio State University

[totalfreakshow]

Just some more fuel for the discussion:

When you take a look at mass shootings in "no gun" zones, these were done by criminals, mentally ill persons who lied on their background checks, basically not by just anyone anywhere that is used to carrying or had lawful concealed carry permits.

The school's liability is a big question-mark. If an individual brings a firearm to the campus with the intent on harming others, does this necessarily make the school liable? If an individual brings a firearm to campus with the intent on protecting self and others, does this necessarily make the school liable? Could this open up the debate that a public university must adhere to the 2nd Amendment while private universities are private property?

Folks that carry regularly practice regularly and attend safety courses. I have heard of no such accidental shootings among lawful concealed carry people in any public place. Guns must remain holstered unless the person intends to use it to defend their life and the lives of others. Even police practice this. The safety training is not only extensive, it is documented and must be presented before a person is allowed to conceal carry.

Some of the comments infer that people who carry are trigger happy. I know of no such persons. The only trigger happy people are the criminals, the mentally ill, basically people who are not lawfully in possession of the firearm(s) that they use to commit crimes in these "gun free" zones.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment should still be the law of the land. However, folks I know who believe in the 2nd also believe in the 1st and are strict property rights observers. They will not carry into a building if there is a sign on the door that says, "no guns." They have respect for all laws and all people. They also will not frequent such places that don't allow guns because the crazies and criminals will likely pick those places to carry out their deadly crimes, like shooting fish in a barrel, because there is no one to oppose them. Statistics and the news reports bear this out.

There is so much misinformation out there about gun owners, making them out to be incompetent and haphazard at best or criminals at worst. I think people should look into the facts about gun owners and gun ownership. Not everyone allows access to their weapons by children, mentally ill or criminals. The responsible gun owners way outnumber the irresponsible, but nobody knows about this because of the media spin painting all private gun owners as some kind of radical or criminal, when most folks use guns as tools, like the hunter or farmer, or for practice and personal protection.

"The only one who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

[Laylana Luminescent]

This is a very touchy issue.. I can understand that there are certain people who think allowing firearms on campus would give students and faculty a better way of protecting themselves and those around them, but does it sound like a good idea to have possibly hundreds of people around you with a concealed weapon? what if these people aren't properly educated on how to store and handle the weapon? what if that person becomes a problem, and to add to it has a gun?
It would also be harder to catch someone who plans to do wrong or is doing so if various people on campus are carrying a firearm. The person they should be worried about would blend right in..
I personally am not sure that allowing concealed weapons would help or do more harm..

[Laylana Luminescent]

totalfreakshow

Just some more fuel for the discussion:

When you take a look at mass shootings in "no gun" zones, these were done by criminals, mentally ill persons who lied on their background checks, basically not by just anyone anywhere that is used to carrying or had lawful concealed carry permits.

The school's liability is a big question-mark. If an individual brings a firearm to the campus with the intent on harming others, does this necessarily make the school liable? If an individual brings a firearm to campus with the intent on protecting self and others, does this necessarily make the school liable? Could this open up the debate that a public university must adhere to the 2nd Amendment while private universities are private property?

Folks that carry regularly practice regularly and attend safety courses. I have heard of no such accidental shootings among lawful concealed carry people in any public place. Guns must remain holstered unless the person intends to use it to defend their life and the lives of others. Even police practice this. The safety training is not only extensive, it is documented and must be presented before a person is allowed to conceal carry.

Some of the comments infer that people who carry are trigger happy. I know of no such persons. The only trigger happy people are the criminals, the mentally ill, basically people who are not lawfully in possession of the firearm(s) that they use to commit crimes in these "gun free" zones.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment should still be the law of the land. However, folks I know who believe in the 2nd also believe in the 1st and are strict property rights observers. They will not carry into a building if there is a sign on the door that says, "no guns." They have respect for all laws and all people. They also will not frequent such places that don't allow guns because the crazies and criminals will likely pick those places to carry out their deadly crimes, like shooting fish in a barrel, because there is no one to oppose them. Statistics and the news reports bear this out.

There is so much misinformation out there about gun owners, making them out to be incompetent and haphazard at best or criminals at worst. I think people should look into the facts about gun owners and gun ownership. Not everyone allows access to their weapons by children, mentally ill or criminals. The responsible gun owners way outnumber the irresponsible, but nobody knows about this because of the media spin painting all private gun owners as some kind of radical or criminal, when most folks use guns as tools, like the hunter or farmer, or for practice and personal protection.

"The only one who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

You have made a very valid argument. I know that not all gun owners are crazy and deadly, and most of the time people keep guns for practical reasons. My mother always kept a gun in the house and even showed me how to use it when I was younger in case of an emergency.
I am just not sure that I would openly trust that many people in one place with the responsibility of carrying a weapon like that.. where I am it isn't that hard to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, so not all holders of such a permit may actually be trustworthy or adequately trained to carry and store such weapons properly..

[Omnileech]

totalfreakshow

Just some more fuel for the discussion:

When you take a look at mass shootings in "no gun" zones, these were done by criminals, mentally ill persons who lied on their background checks, basically not by just anyone anywhere that is used to carrying or had lawful concealed carry permits.

The school's liability is a big question-mark. If an individual brings a firearm to the campus with the intent on harming others, does this necessarily make the school liable? If an individual brings a firearm to campus with the intent on protecting self and others, does this necessarily make the school liable? Could this open up the debate that a public university must adhere to the 2nd Amendment while private universities are private property?

Folks that carry regularly practice regularly and attend safety courses. I have heard of no such accidental shootings among lawful concealed carry people in any public place. Guns must remain holstered unless the person intends to use it to defend their life and the lives of others. Even police practice this. The safety training is not only extensive, it is documented and must be presented before a person is allowed to conceal carry.

Some of the comments infer that people who carry are trigger happy. I know of no such persons. The only trigger happy people are the criminals, the mentally ill, basically people who are not lawfully in possession of the firearm(s) that they use to commit crimes in these "gun free" zones.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment should still be the law of the land. However, folks I know who believe in the 2nd also believe in the 1st and are strict property rights observers. They will not carry into a building if there is a sign on the door that says, "no guns." They have respect for all laws and all people. They also will not frequent such places that don't allow guns because the crazies and criminals will likely pick those places to carry out their deadly crimes, like shooting fish in a barrel, because there is no one to oppose them. Statistics and the news reports bear this out.

There is so much misinformation out there about gun owners, making them out to be incompetent and haphazard at best or criminals at worst. I think people should look into the facts about gun owners and gun ownership. Not everyone allows access to their weapons by children, mentally ill or criminals. The responsible gun owners way outnumber the irresponsible, but nobody knows about this because of the media spin painting all private gun owners as some kind of radical or criminal, when most folks use guns as tools, like the hunter or farmer, or for practice and personal protection.

"The only one who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Lets see those statistics and news reports that allegedly prove that "crazies and criminals research ahead of time to somehow know if there is a business or place that doesn't have guns on site (including security guards if there are any) and that is a factor in their decision to commit a crime there.

[FLynnTagart]

My highschool had ROTC. every 2nd semester we had marksmanship training(i don't want to call it training, it just taught you the proper method of shooting no actual,combat training).

We had an indoor firing range above the gym, and used .22 Remington long rifles.

In the 24 years that program had been available not a single incident had occured....plus it was a nice stress reliever near finals week.

But that was highschool and it was a monitored and controlled setting.

As someone who is an avid supporter of the 2nd amendment i would agree partly with the decision for a gun free campus. I don't see the need to carry a fire arm in a place of learning.

However, i think students who commute and do not live in dormitories should be allowed to keep their fire arms in their car. In most states you have to be 21 to have a CCW anyway.

I'd like to see teachers armed. Or even a private armed security firm working the campus.

[God Emperor Baldur]

Old Blue Collar Joe

kiironobara

JamesWN

Quote:

It takes a special kind of a*****e to reap money from an institution of education.

*coughTEACHERSUNIONScough*

More like administration.

No. The Union as a whole.


If you're going to allow the first amendment then allow them all or bar them all.

False dichotomy.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

God Emperor Baldur

Old Blue Collar Joe

kiironobara

JamesWN

Quote:

It takes a special kind of a*****e to reap money from an institution of education.

*coughTEACHERSUNIONScough*

More like administration.

No. The Union as a whole.


If you're going to allow the first amendment then allow them all or bar them all.

False dichotomy.

Only to those who are against the constitution.

[SparkyKid3000]

Based on what I've been reading so far, Ohio law says that guns are not permitted on college campuses except if they are inside a vehicle. So if the campus police catch a student walking around with a concealed firearm they have the ability to punish him/her with whatever policy they have.

[totalfreakshow]

Omnileech

totalfreakshow

Just some more fuel for the discussion:

When you take a look at mass shootings in "no gun" zones, these were done by criminals, mentally ill persons who lied on their background checks, basically not by just anyone anywhere that is used to carrying or had lawful concealed carry permits.

The school's liability is a big question-mark. If an individual brings a firearm to the campus with the intent on harming others, does this necessarily make the school liable? If an individual brings a firearm to campus with the intent on protecting self and others, does this necessarily make the school liable? Could this open up the debate that a public university must adhere to the 2nd Amendment while private universities are private property?

Folks that carry regularly practice regularly and attend safety courses. I have heard of no such accidental shootings among lawful concealed carry people in any public place. Guns must remain holstered unless the person intends to use it to defend their life and the lives of others. Even police practice this. The safety training is not only extensive, it is documented and must be presented before a person is allowed to conceal carry.

Some of the comments infer that people who carry are trigger happy. I know of no such persons. The only trigger happy people are the criminals, the mentally ill, basically people who are not lawfully in possession of the firearm(s) that they use to commit crimes in these "gun free" zones.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment should still be the law of the land. However, folks I know who believe in the 2nd also believe in the 1st and are strict property rights observers. They will not carry into a building if there is a sign on the door that says, "no guns." They have respect for all laws and all people. They also will not frequent such places that don't allow guns because the crazies and criminals will likely pick those places to carry out their deadly crimes, like shooting fish in a barrel, because there is no one to oppose them. Statistics and the news reports bear this out.

There is so much misinformation out there about gun owners, making them out to be incompetent and haphazard at best or criminals at worst. I think people should look into the facts about gun owners and gun ownership. Not everyone allows access to their weapons by children, mentally ill or criminals. The responsible gun owners way outnumber the irresponsible, but nobody knows about this because of the media spin painting all private gun owners as some kind of radical or criminal, when most folks use guns as tools, like the hunter or farmer, or for practice and personal protection.

"The only one who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Lets see those statistics and news reports that allegedly prove that "crazies and criminals research ahead of time to somehow know if there is a business or place that doesn't have guns on site (including security guards if there are any) and that is a factor in their decision to commit a crime there.

Just Google or Bing it. I'll not do all your homework for you. It's in the news and archived; it's everywhere. You just have to ask the question.

I found it ironic that all the "mass shooters" were of a certain political affiliation, not what you would expect or what you've been told to believe, or they stopped depression or psych or sleep medications suddenly, and were stopped finally when someone with a firearm drew down and they shot themselves or eventually police showed up and killed or arrested them. I prefer neutral sources for this stuff since it is so controversial. Google "Clackamas Mall" and see how events unfolded. There are so many YouTubes on these reports. You can find out anything you want on YouTube.

I love it when folks argue, "show me, prove it, cite it, etc."....when it is all over the internet for everyone who wants to look it up to see. Use your mouse; use your keyboard. [/rant]

[totalfreakshow]

Xana Xaviera

totalfreakshow

Just some more fuel for the discussion:

When you take a look at mass shootings in "no gun" zones, these were done by criminals, mentally ill persons who lied on their background checks, basically not by just anyone anywhere that is used to carrying or had lawful concealed carry permits.

The school's liability is a big question-mark. If an individual brings a firearm to the campus with the intent on harming others, does this necessarily make the school liable? If an individual brings a firearm to campus with the intent on protecting self and others, does this necessarily make the school liable? Could this open up the debate that a public university must adhere to the 2nd Amendment while private universities are private property?

Folks that carry regularly practice regularly and attend safety courses. I have heard of no such accidental shootings among lawful concealed carry people in any public place. Guns must remain holstered unless the person intends to use it to defend their life and the lives of others. Even police practice this. The safety training is not only extensive, it is documented and must be presented before a person is allowed to conceal carry.

Some of the comments infer that people who carry are trigger happy. I know of no such persons. The only trigger happy people are the criminals, the mentally ill, basically people who are not lawfully in possession of the firearm(s) that they use to commit crimes in these "gun free" zones.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment should still be the law of the land. However, folks I know who believe in the 2nd also believe in the 1st and are strict property rights observers. They will not carry into a building if there is a sign on the door that says, "no guns." They have respect for all laws and all people. They also will not frequent such places that don't allow guns because the crazies and criminals will likely pick those places to carry out their deadly crimes, like shooting fish in a barrel, because there is no one to oppose them. Statistics and the news reports bear this out.

There is so much misinformation out there about gun owners, making them out to be incompetent and haphazard at best or criminals at worst. I think people should look into the facts about gun owners and gun ownership. Not everyone allows access to their weapons by children, mentally ill or criminals. The responsible gun owners way outnumber the irresponsible, but nobody knows about this because of the media spin painting all private gun owners as some kind of radical or criminal, when most folks use guns as tools, like the hunter or farmer, or for practice and personal protection.

"The only one who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

You have made a very valid argument. I know that not all gun owners are crazy and deadly, and most of the time people keep guns for practical reasons. My mother always kept a gun in the house and even showed me how to use it when I was younger in case of an emergency.
I am just not sure that I would openly trust that many people in one place with the responsibility of carrying a weapon like that.. where I am it isn't that hard to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, so not all holders of such a permit may actually be trustworthy or adequately trained to carry and store such weapons properly..

After the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, this was watched closely since this state is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry and has open carry. Many of the private institutions decided to allow open carry on campus, and no incidents have occurred.

I read somewhere where a student was in a house on or near campus with several female friends and someone broke in and was attacking the females. He had a legal firearm concealed in his backpack and used it to fight off the attackers, saving the females. (probably an old story archived on gunssavelives.net site, but probably saw it originally on a news feed awhile ago)

Seeing folks carry firearms all around me actually makes me feel safer. Police cannot be everywhere and take several minutes to respond to a shooter incident. Our violent crime and home invasion rates are lower than our neighbors DC and Maryland, I suspect, because the criminals don't always know who they will encounter with a firearm.

Having gone through the concealed carry permit process, I can tell you my Sheriff's Department and Circuit Court go through extensive background checks at the local, state and federal before issuing the CCP, so unless someone all of a sudden gets arrested for stalking or domestic violence and permit is revoked with guns seized, I'm not too worried about it.

But I suppose it is tough to wrap your head around seeing so many with guns in holsters or concealed guns peeking out in public that may show that you may want to wonder why folks carry for personal protection, are they police, are they security, are they just business people?

[totalfreakshow]

SparkyKid3000

Based on what I've been reading so far, Ohio law says that guns are not permitted on college campuses except if they are inside a vehicle. So if the campus police catch a student walking around with a concealed firearm they have the ability to punish him/her with whatever policy they have.

It is the same here in Virginia. They only recently changed the laws to allow guns in personal vehicles at college campuses and government buildings. I work in a government building, and they had to change the policy to conform with the state law. But I had my vehicle broken into in our parking lot, so I'll never ever leave any of my firearms in my car for some criminal to steal.

[totalfreakshow]

FLynnTagart

My highschool had ROTC. every 2nd semester we had marksmanship training(i don't want to call it training, it just taught you the proper method of shooting no actual,combat training).

We had an indoor firing range above the gym, and used .22 Remington long rifles.

In the 24 years that program had been available not a single incident had occured....plus it was a nice stress reliever near finals week.

But that was highschool and it was a monitored and controlled setting.

As someone who is an avid supporter of the 2nd amendment i would agree partly with the decision for a gun free campus. I don't see the need to carry a fire arm in a place of learning.

However, i think students who commute and do not live in dormitories should be allowed to keep their fire arms in their car. In most states you have to be 21 to have a CCW anyway.

I'd like to see teachers armed. Or even a private armed security firm working the campus.

I'm envious. I work all the time and cannot get to the range much.

Controlled settings are great for teaching proper handling. I'm in favor of it.

Thank you for your support. It is hotly debated, but without the 2nd, you don't have any others.

The only reason to carry is for personal protection, whether a place of learning or where you go out and buy your lunch or walking down the street. True, you have to be 21 here too for a CCP, but here you can open carry at 18. We have a lot of military around here, so it makes sense.

I'd also like to see trained teachers armed if they so choose. Private security would also be good only if they are NOT in uniform. First thing a bad guy does is takes out the uniformed security guard at the door. We also expanded our police to provide random roving plain-clothes and uniformed cops at schools here after the Sandy Hook shooting.

[mapcnct]

I am on the side of not allowing guns on campus. Why need them? It's the student's choice to go to a school, not the student's choice what rules the school puts in place.

[totalfreakshow]

mapcnct

I am on the side of not allowing guns on campus. Why need them? It's the student's choice to go to a school, not the student's choice what rules the school puts in place.

Your opinion, your decision. But it is the school's choice on the rules and the laws that are there in the jurisdiction of the school. These students in the first post are mounting a legal challenge asserting the 2nd Amendment, so it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

[Lady Vizsla]

I agree with the university. As a university student myself, I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that some of my classmates or dormitory buddies have guns. I think not having the guns would reduce the risk of gun misuse by college students (especially the stoned or drunk student on a weekend). However, getting criminals on the outside coming in and shooting is always a possibility as has been seen before. But that is why it is important to have armed security forces on campus.