Your point is obvious and valid, I just don't see what your response to the counterargument is. Obviously you would make it easier for guns to be in the hands of wrongdoers as well. What's your response?

Obviously you would make it easier for guns to be in the hands of wrongdoers as well.

Absolutely false.

Noting stated here can be intelligently argued to "make it easier for guns to be in the hands of wrongdoers as well."

Criminals, by definition do not follow laws, and therefore already have little compunction about carrying and employing weapons whenever it suits them. Your "argument" is daft.

Putting aside the idea of "deliberate" criminals, think about "ordinary" people and crimes of passion, young adults going thru the depressions and moodswings of those environments, drugs, alcohol, arguments...

"Your "argument" is daft."

Agreed. Chris, you are unarmed in a mental battle with an armed man. Stop now.

"Putting aside the idea of "deliberate" criminals, think about "ordinary" people and crimes of passion, young adults going thru the depressions and moodswings of those environments, drugs, alcohol, arguments..."

The above has been explained to you ad nauseum in other threads. I do not see a point in rehashing old arguments. You ignored the rational responses then, you will do so now.

CY, can you add an ignore feature to your blog? Please!

"Like everyone in North Carolina over the age of 18 who does not have a criminal or mental health record, Herting has the legal right—and one may argue, moral responsibility—to provide for her own safety by obtaining a firearm, learning to use it, and learning North Carolina's self defense laws."

Agree one hundred percent.

Chris, Matt is right, you're bringing a slingshot to an artillery fight. Quit while your hindquarters are still attached to the rest of you.

Every episode of crime of passion is committed by a person with a history of mental illness? Y you have never s een a n ordinary argument escalate out of ccontrol? Why are you people so rude and caustic by the way w hen someone presents an alternative point of view?

Dear Chris Lee:

Perhaps I can provide a bit of information that you might find useful. I have 17+ years of police experience and am a certified firearms instructor.

The argument that guns are uniquely dangerous among a given group of normal, average folks and that their mere presence will turn minor disagreements into shootouts is quite misleading at best. Firearms are already widely distributed through virtually every strata of society and no such widespread misuse occurs. College students at least 18 years of age already have unrestricted access to firearms. Allowing them to carry handguns on college campuses will not in any way endanger anyone, with the exception of career criminals, who, unless we truly believe that their depradations really aren't their fault, and they aren't responsible for their actions, should very well be in danger whenever they try to harm honest citizens.

Those who misuse firearms, with virtually no exceptions, have long criminal histories of violent and abberational behavior. Those who kill in the "heat of passion" are not, in fact normal citizens of any age, but are invariably criminals with long arrest records and very, very disturbed lives. Guns have no magical, evil powers such that otherwise normal people are compelled to do harm to others that they would not, without the presence of guns, do.

All of my years in police work taught me several incontravertible facts: Gun control has nothing whatever to do with controlling criminals. Criminals do not obey any law they consider inconvenient, gun laws included. No one, not the police, not the public, has anything to fear from an armed honest citizen because such people obey the law. Remember this: While the police love to catch bad guys in the act, they have no legal obligation to protect any individual citizen, and they know that catching someone in the act of rape, robbery, car jacking or other violent (to say nothing of non-violent) crimes is a very, very rare occurance.

So you see Chris Lee, putting a nice, new Glock in the hand of every honest, law abiding American of age would cause not a whit of harm, nor would it endanger anyone. Allowing criminals to have guns does put others at risk. Thank goodness we have more than 20,000 local, state and federal gun laws to regulate criminal use of guns because...darn. I forgot. They don't obey laws, do they?

So the answer is? More laws inconveniencing those who obey the law and pose no threat whatever? Well hey, at least we'll be making a statement and doing something, and expressing concern, and starting dialogues and being diverse and politically correct, and...Ahhh! I can't do this anymore!

When we train kids from the 1st grade on to not fight back why are we suprised when they won't fight back? We've gt to somehow bring sanity back to our schools. I'm a firearms instructor and had a class of teachers in my carry class last Sat. When I raised this, they thought I was nuts. The concept of punshing the guilty party in a fight is an alien concept to them. The idea of fighting back in self defense, might as well tell them the earth is flat.

Mike..Mike..listen..relax and listen....I didn't say putting guns in the hands of the average person will AUTOMATICALLY make them want to shoot someone. I agree with the second amendment, people OUGHT to be free to responsibly own a gun, my question to the person who posted the topic, was what measures do you think would be necessary to deal with the foreseeable and reasonable objections to wider distributions of guns?

"was what measures do you think would be necessary to deal with the foreseeable and reasonable objections to wider distributions of guns?"

I don't see where CY is advocating a wider distribution of guns. Please point to where this state is located in the above article - maybe I parsed it incorrectly.

The argument of this post is that college students be allowed to protect themselves against the routine threats from outsiders who target young, unprotected students ( and unstable insiders who threaten their classmates) I agree, agree, agree..but what reasonable means of monitoring exactly who on campus has guns, where, when etc should be put in place or do you believe that's an unnecessary consideration? The issue hear is adult discussion not toxic insults.

Chris as you are asking seriously, here is your answer, as I see it:

There is not now a means of monitoring who has guns on campus in any great detail, as most campuses are wide-open, with literally thousands of points of ingress or egress. You are presently relying on citizens honoring the existing laws... period. this wold not change if CCH was allowed.

I would continue for a ban on handguns to remain as it typically applies to on-campus dorms (which I think is the typical restriction in campuses that presently allow CCH), but then, that was never much an issue anyway, as those students in dorms are typically underclassmen too young obtain CCH licenses in the first place. I'd also prevent CCH in the (now relatively few) on-campus events where alcohol is served.

Allowing CCH in administrative buildings, educational buildings, and commons areas (libraries, cafeterias, campus grounds and parking areas) is all most proponents are asking for, and yet opponents get hung up on the (frankly unrealistic and fictional) construct of a bunch of dorm room drunks or frat boys getting hammered and going on an angry drunken rampage because they have handguns.

There is nothing preventing that now, and yet I can't recall it ever happening.

It bears repeating, so that it sinks in: these mythical gun-carrying drunks would be people who are generally undergraduates who are not old enough to legally own handguns anyway in most parts of the country.

Those people who obtain CCH licenses and who carry on campus are typically going to be staff, faculty, non-traditional (older) undergraduates returning to school, and graduate students (In my life experience, one student I knew who carried was a nontraditional student, and the two others were graduate students (all were sober, rational people in their mid-20s at the time). In my recent CCH class, two of six students were university administrators, and instructors I've spoken with have consistently reported a high number of educators in their CCH classes.

All of these people tend to live off-campus, and avoid dorms and frat-house environments like the plague.

NONE of these people are the kind to threaten others, and CCH holders are said to break less laws (including even minor traffic laws) than the general population.

I don't know if this is because the kind of people who seek CCH are simply the kind of people who are sober and responsible members of the community to begin with, or if the fact they have now been trained and carry a concealed handgun imparts upon them a previously unheld feeling of responsibility because of their new status, but the net result is the same: a strong asset to the community who tends to take a far more measured approach to conflict resolution.

Also in my experience, the people who are most concerned about stopping CCH are those with very limited experience with firearms. I've NEVER heard of someone who took the time to take a CCH class and then felt that CCH was a bad idea.

Those with the knowledge seem to overwhelmingly agree that CCH in general and on campus is a good idea. That includes at least two LEOs I know who read this site (including Mike above) and a veteran commander who lives in a university town.

Chris, I'd invite you to sign up for a CCH class in your community. You might be surprised to find your perceptions changed.

"Those people who obtain CCH licenses and who carry on campus are typically going to be staff, faculty, non-traditional (older) undergraduates returning to school, and graduate students (In my life experience, one student I knew who carried was a nontraditional student, and the two others were graduate students (all were sober, rational people in their mid-20s at the time). In my recent CCH class, two of six students were university administrators, and instructors I've spoken with have consistently reported a high number of educators in their CCH classes."
If that's your model then fine, I'm skeptical that that would be the actuality, I am trying to survey the issues. Obviously we all wish this honor student had a licensed fire arm and blew her attackers brains out, but the reality is that everyone on campus shouldn't be permitted to have a gun.

Obviously we all wish this honor student had a licensed fire arm and blew her attackers brains out, but the reality is that everyone on campus shouldn't be permitted to have a gun.

Chris, you seem to be stuck in a thought loop you can't extract yourself from.

At no point has anyone ever suggested that "everyone on campus" should be armed, and we've provided specific examples of who by law, is eligible (over 21, CCH class graduates who, by definition, have passed extensive background checks and shooting competency qualifications).

This is a self-limiting sub-set of older undergraduates (typically seniors), nontraditional undergraduates, graduate students, faculty and staff (or guests). If you are under 21, you cannot legally obtain a handgun in most states, and you can't obtain a CCH. That is the actuality, by law.

If someone does not belong to the group above they are by definition a criminal, and laws on the books don't matter anyway.

Your present position is based exclusively on fear and ignorance, so please, educate yourself. I don't mean ignorance as a slur, either, but as a simple lack of knowledge on the subject that is painfully obvious.

Again, I'd invite you to sign up for a CCH class in your community. I'd be very surprised if you didn't emerge with a changed opinion.

I don't think CY or anyone else has argued that everyone on campus be allowed to have a gun. What we are saying (If I can speak for others), is that those who are eligible for carry permits (over 21, complete training, pass background checks) should be allowed to carry for their own defense if they choose to. I doubt even the most ardent gun rights advocate would argue that everyone be permitted to have a gun.

"Your present position is based exclusively on fear and ignorance, so please, educate yourself. I don't mean ignorance as a slur, either, but as a simple lack of knowledge on the subject that is painfully obvious."
I have heard your arguments. I am saying the reality in american LIFE is that people get around these things. I asked for your take on the controls on campus gun possession, you offered them I acknowledged that I think they are reasonable but I expressed a pessimistic OPINION that there would be breaches and loopholes, I am not saying it WILL definitely or should happen but I am pessimistic. Relax. I got the answer you gave and agree with it. You people are ready to go to war over anything. Jeeez.

Chris,

You ask for civility your replies seem a bit condescending.

Yes there will be breaches. And yes there will be people that 'get around these things'. In all the people in those examples would be considered criminals and, since we can't account for criminals to follow laws in any rhetorical argument, they shouldn't factor. There are stop-gaps in place. That's the best we can do. The difference is that now, law abiding citizens will be able to help defend those around them when the wolf comes knocking. And maybe, just maybe, a potential shooter will think twice about going on a rampage at a University. If one person's life is saved because of this then it it's my opinion that any inconvenience felt by the presence of an armed sheepdog in class is well worth it.

((Using the whole wolf, sheepdog, sheep analogy. Think of the famous Team America analogy but with less objectionable language))

I admit I was unfair to many of the people on this post who gave thoughtful comprehensive replies, most did, I am working from my experience actually on other threads. I apologize.
---Team America was a great movie btw.

"I agree, agree, agree..but what reasonable means of monitoring exactly who on campus has guns, where, when etc should be put in place or do you believe that's an unnecessary consideration? The issue hear is adult discussion not toxic insults."

Chris, North Carolina is an open carry state. Lift the gun free zone, they can carry open.

As has been said time and time again, proper training is one of the best ways to prevent idiocy with a firearm.

Chris, if those under 21 are obtaining firearms illegally, what in the world makes you think that a sign saying "gun free zone" is going to stop them?

If I treat you like a brainless idiot, Chris, that's because you cannot seem to comprehend simple concepts like that.

Dear Chris Lee:

I'm listening Chris, and I'm quite calm thank you. Here's a bit of of the problem: "...what measures do you think would be necessary to deal with the foreseeable and reasonable objections to wider distributions of guns?"

Chris, the only reasonable objection to wider distribution of guns has to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It is an article of faith with those who cannot abide firearm ownership by the law abiding that more guns will equal more injuries, deaths, crimes, etc. This leads them, in every state where shall issue concealed carry is contemplated, to trot out the same old red herrings about shootouts when and wherever average folks disagree, The facts are well established and not at all hard to find: There is no downside to the law abiding having as many firearms as they like, In fact, just the opposite is true. An armed citizenry enjoys lower crime rates and greater security, personally and throughout the community as criminals can't know exactly who may be armed so must assume that everyone could be. The data is out there and it is conclusive.

In short, there is no such thing as a reasonable argument against any number of firearms in the hands of the law abiding. I'll say it once more: gun control has nothing whatever to do with crime control. Even anti-gun leaning researchers have, to their chagrin, proved it over and over, such as those who had to conclude--bless their integrity and honesty--that the ten year Clinton "assault weapon" ban accomplishing nothing at all, nor has its sunsetting been in any way detrimental.

Still, if one can't accept that the law abiding public doesn't break the law, it's rather hard to deal with these issues.

"The statement, of course is false. Four girls share that apartment, but they do have the legal option to assert control over the situation, even if they lack the inclination to assert that right."

Unless they live in Durham, of course.