Guns on campus? New bill would allow it; reactions mixed
Concealed firearms would be allowed on college campuses in Michigan under legislation being considered by a House committee.
Colleges and universities are currently exempt from a statute that bans local governments from tampering with state gun laws. Both Eastern Michigan University and the University of Michigan have regents' ordinances banning all concealed weapons from campus, except for those carried by campus police.
Under a separate gun law that's already in place, guns are prohibited from classrooms, dormitories, stadiums that seat over 2,500 people, hospitals, places of worship and other areas. The new legislation wouldn't change that, but it would allow those with Michigan Concealed Pistol Licenses to carry firearms in other campus areas.
First Lt. Matt Bolger, a legislative liaison for the Michigan State Police, said the state police helped to develop this bill and five others considered by the committee Tuesday. The group of bills came about after lawmakers contacted state police last year looking for gun law inconsistencies, he said.
"We're neutral on the university bill," Bolger said. "Because it's an issue we were made aware of, we told the Legislature about it, but it's nothing we're pushing for passage or trying to stop the passage of. We're there as a resource for them to work through the legal issues."
Bolger said incredulous phone calls from someone stopped by campus police at an undisclosed university highlighted the inconsistency and prompted the bill.
The man had a concealed pistol license and a gun in his car, which was legal under state law, but not under the campus ordinance. While the man wasn't ticketed or arrested, the campus police told him he was committing a crime.
State police may be neutral on the issue, but police chiefs at EMU and U-M spoke out against the new legislation.
U-M Police Chief Ken Magee testified before the Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee Tuesday.
Magee called mixing guns and a college campus is a "recipe for disaster."
"The overwhelming majority of our campus members, including students, faculty and staff as well as parents of our students, demand a safe and secure campus and would not endorse the idea of having firearms on campus," Magee said he told the committee. "The only guns and weapons I would like to see on campus are those held by law enforcement officers specially trained in the use of weapons."
When committee members discussed that weapons would not be allowed in dormitories or classrooms, Magee expressed concern and pointed out the numerous places on campus where guns would be allowed, such as the Diag, museums, theaters and study centers.
Magee and Wayne State University Police Chief Anthony Holz were the only campus police chiefs who testified from Michigan's 15 public universities. Holz was also against the legislation. Others, like gun shop owners, a firearms rights group and a Wayne State student, testified in favor of the measure.
EMU Police Chief Greg O'Dell said the legislation presents a number of safety concerns.
"You could have a simple altercation that might involve fists. When you have people who are armed, there is the possibility of increasing the level of violence," O'Dell said. "With a number of people are carrying handguns, the possibility of the accidental discharge of a weapon is also a concern."
Around U-M's campus today, opinions were mixed.
"Nobody needs a gun on campus," said Laura Harlow, a U-M employee. "There are already too many crazy people. Why would anybody need a gun in this city?"
One student worried about the possible mix of alcohol and guns on college campuses.
"Guns should not be permitted on college campuses around the country," said Simon Foster, an education major at U-M. There's a huge number of people who drink in college. It's absurd to mix alcohol with the right to have a gun."
Sociology major Kiley Trupiano disagreed.
"In general, I think gun laws are too strict," she said. "The recent college shootings could have been stopped if someone else had a gun."
Regarding that point, Magee disagreed: "Law enforcement officers are trained to react with weapons in a certain way. It would only create more of a difficult situation for our officers in the event we did get a call for a possible active shooter."
To obtain a CPL, an applicant must be a 21 years old, a U.S. citizen and a Michigan resident for at least six months, with some exceptions. Applicants must have a record clear of various crimes and complete a safety training course.
Bolger said the committee, which meets on Tuesdays, will consider testimony it heard this week and possibly amend the bill at its next session.
Juliana Keeping covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at email@example.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter.
Wed, Nov 4, 2009 : 12:08 p.m.
Tue, Nov 3, 2009 : 10:19 a.m.
Well as usual the sheep bleet no more when confronted with logical, coherent arguments and evidence. I suppose that makes them more like ostriches who stick their heads in the ground. No doubt humming la la la la to themselves the whole time.
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 8:22 p.m.
The limitations on carrying a weapon after obtaining a CPL are clear attempt to ignore the 2nd. Ammendment! The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue against the City of Washington D.C. Now, specifically on the subject of carrying within a University Campus: On April 16 2007, the Virginia Tech Massacre took effect in Blacksburg, VA in which 32 people were killed. The following is copied from Wikipedia under the title "Virginia Tech Massacre": "The shootings also renewed debate surrounding Virginia Tech's firearms ban. The university has a general ban on possession or storage of firearms on campus by employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third parties, even if they are state-licensed concealed handgun permit holders. In April 2005, a student licensed by the state to carry concealed handguns was discovered possessing a concealed firearm in class. While no criminal charges were filed, a university spokesman said the University had "the right to adhere to and enforce that policy as a common-sense protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors". In January 2006, prior to the shootings, legislator Todd Gilbert had introduced a related bill into the Virginia House of Delegates. The bill, HB 1572, was intended to forbid public universities in Virginia from preventing students from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The university opposed the bill, which quickly died in subcommittee. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the defeat of the bill, stating, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." (end of Wikipedia quote). This raises a question: If other students had the ability to defend themselves from the attack, would they prevent the massacre? Did the limitation on carrying guns at Virginia Tech prevent a sick student from commiting a massacre? Criminals always find the way to obtain illegal weapons. The limitations of carrying a gun for somebody with a CPL only serves the interest of the ones interested in commiting violent crimes. Israel is a country in which more citizens are armed than any other country on the planet. A study by Professor Ratner, a sociologist at Haifa University, shows that Israel is one of the countries with the lowest rates of homicide in the world, along with Canada, England and France. While many people feel uncomfortable with the concept of others carrying a gun, their empirical fear is not supported by any data. The opposite!
Mon, Oct 26, 2009 : 9:42 a.m.
Nope nothing to see here. No reports of crime on campus today. NOT!
Sat, Oct 24, 2009 : 10:14 a.m.
Actually one point of clarification. Firearms restrictions came about originally to discriminate against newly freed slaves not criminals. In modern times the laws are ostensibly against criminals but do more to infringe upon the lawful.
Sat, Oct 24, 2009 : 9:22 a.m.
Before you condem the idea check the facts. Utah allows carry on campus and there have been no incidents of license holders violating the law and there has certainly been no one going wild west. Instead of giving emotional arguments on what "will happen" take a look at the places that have already done that and see what the facts show. Having a firearm is a right that was infringed upon by laws that were designed to (but did not) keep criminals from carrying / using firearms. Firearm restriction does not take the guns away from the dangerous people, it just insures that the dangerous people have average police response time to commit their crimes.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 11:40 p.m.
The "Bad Guys" don't care what the law allows. They carry guns. To allow a concealed weapon permit holder (who goes through background checks and safety training) to excercise the same rights they have everywhere else (and there seems not to be any trouble with the OK-Corral predictions elsewhere with lawful carry in the State) is only fair.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 6:14 p.m.
This discussion has drifted way from the issue at hand which is allowing Michigan CPL holders to legally carry a firearm on college campuses. It goes without saying that any armed person who is at "Ground Zero" of an attack, whether it's in a classroom, auditorium, campus, or parking can respond immediately to stop an attack whereas a police response (no matter how close or great they are) will be measured in minutes. As the adage says "when seconds count, the police are just minutes away". The only concern that anyone should have regarding this issue is, does allowing legal concealed carry on campuses pose a reasonable risk to other students or faculty members? We've had concealed carry in Michigan since July, 2001, and I'm not aware of anyone being accidentally shot by a CPL holder. Let's face it. Statistically seaking, your chances of being injured (or killed) while driving to school greatly out number your chances of being shot (intentionally or accidentally)on a college campus. I support this issue to make sure that we never allow another Va. Tech massacre to take place in Michigan, or in this country, ever again. Many of the mass fillings that we've witnessed in this country could have been prevented (or at least lessened) if just one person had been there legally armed.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 3:17 p.m.
Yes please provide the numbers. Apparently we can't trust the FBI's statistics to the contrary. As for split decisions..here is a site where split decisions DAILY by lawful gun owners are SAVING lives. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ FACTS not emotions or speculation win arguments if you're willing to open your eyes and your mind.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 3:06 p.m.
A2MI1984 - Got any evidence that legally owned weapons take more lives than they save? Because if you're including illegally owned weapons, it's not an argument against legal ones. Also, please include numbers for the crimes that are not committed at all because the criminal knows there's a chance the victim could be armed. I'm thinking those numbers will be difficult to get, but they're necessary to paint a complete picture. There are many split second decisions that we all make every day that can change lives forever, such as weather there's enough time to make that left turn safely. In addition, someone committing a crime with a gun also has the ability to affect the lives of many in an instant. But if his victim is armed, his effect might just be considerably lessened. It's easy to say that a legally owned gun can still hurt or kill someone, but that's simply not the whole story.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 2:11 p.m.
Numbers have repeatedly showed that in a typical, normal community, guns take away more lives than saved (I mean innocent ones). A split second's decision could change many people's lives forever.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 1:52 p.m.
It's not like just anyone can go out and get a CCW/CPL permit...I think people are over-reacting a bit. Crazy people and criminals don't care what's illegal or legal when it comes to taking out their homicidal rages. If responsible people want to carry, that's their pervue - just log some extra hours with an instructor, go to the range, practice, practice, practice...you aren't going to help yourself or anyone if you accidentally discharge your gun, can't aim, or otherwise aren't comfortable handling a weapon, and making mistakes is NOT an option when every second counts.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 12:26 p.m.
@ Jon Saalberg Just soyou know, there are plenty of grad students on U-M campus I know who spent years in USMC Force Recon units/Green Beret Units/Ranger units/SEA Team etc, who are far, far better trained than any local cop. Secondly, just because you suffer from an irrational fear of firearms is not reason enough to institute the anti-gun policies you favor.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 12:19 p.m.
Why does it need to be about a bunch of 21 year old students? The average CPL class (yes, you do have to take training before you can apply for the license) runs $150, the application is $105 (plus $10 for your picture) and an average "carry" firearm will run $500+. Once you turn in your application you have a 4 week to 6 month wait (varies by county) while your fingerprints are sent through Michigan State Police and the F.B.I. and a background check is conducted. Is it really believable that "irresponsible" 21 year olds are going to shell out over $700, wait the alloted time and pass a background check and not take carrying a firearm VERY seriously? They learn a list of things you can and can not do in the class. Including the fact that they can not carry concealed with a blood alcohol content above.02 (one drink in most cases). At 19 I went through training at a police academy. I spent 9 years working for a department. I practice / train more now as a private CPL holder than the department's quarterly qualification requirement. For more than 13 years I've owned / carried a firearm without accident or incident (including public service). I'm now in my mid 30's, a father, I run a business and I'm hoping to go back to school and finish my law degree soon. Can you tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to carry concealed to school? My concern with college is on the same level as stadiums (Ford Field for example). I'm less concerned in the classroom (or stadium) than I am on the way back to my car at night. If you don't want to carry a firearm, don't. But please don't try to take away my ability to defend myself. You'll never know I'm carrying (concealed remember) unless something happens where I have to defend myself, or maybe you, and if that happens I'm pretty sure you'll be glad I was carrying.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 11:54 a.m.
You're welcome BUT, that site includes 18-19 year olds as "children" and does litle to differentiate between suicides and homicides with firearms or by other means. You will find this is often the case when this point is used to attack gun rights. Besides by that token, bridges should be banned? Police too since there are suicides-by-cop? Rope, how about we ban rope? Myth: More than 1,300 children commit suicide with guns Fact: This statistic includes children ages 18-19.247 As established previously, a child is defined as a person between birth and the age of 13 or 14 (puberty). Fact: Worldwide, the per capita suicide rate is fairly static (the suicide rate of the U.S. is lower than many industrial countries, including many where private gun ownership is banned). A certain fraction of the population will commit suicide regardless of the available tools. Fact: The overall rate of suicide (firearm and non-firearm) among children age 15 and under was virtually unchanged in states that passed and maintained safe storage laws for four or more years.248 Fact: Among young girls, 71% of all suicides are by hanging or suffocation.249 Fact: People, including children, who are determined to commit suicide will find a way. There is a documented case of a man who killed himself by drilling a hole in his skull by using a power drill.250 247 Determined using CDC mortality data, and finding the only possible fit for the claim 248 Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime Safe Storage Gun Laws, John Lott, Yale Law School, 2000 249 Suicide Trends Among Youths and Young Adults Aged 10--24 Years --- United States, 1990--2004, Center for Disease Control, September, 2007 250 Drilled Head Husband Dies in Hospital, The Scotsman, April 28, 2003
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 11:50 a.m.
Sigh, that site includes 18-19 year olds as "children" and does litle to differentiate between suicides and homicides with firearms or by other means. You will find this is often the case when this point is used to attack gun rights. Besides by that token, bridges should be banned? Police too since there are suicides-by-cop? Rope, how about we ban rope? Myth: More than 1,300 children commit suicide with guns Fact: This statistic includes children ages 18-19.247 As established previously, a child is defined as a person between birth and the age of 13 or 14 (puberty). Fact: Worldwide, the per capita suicide rate is fairly static (the suicide rate of the U.S. is lower than many industrial countries, including many where private gun ownership is banned). A certain fraction of the population will commit suicide regardless of the available tools. Fact: The overall rate of suicide (firearm and non-firearm) among children age 15 and under was virtually unchanged in states that passed and maintained safe storage laws for four or more years.248 Fact: Among young girls, 71% of all suicides are by hanging or suffocation.249 Fact: People, including children, who are determined to commit suicide will find a way. There is a documented case of a man who killed himself by drilling a hole in his skull by using a power drill.250 247 Determined using CDC mortality data, and finding the only possible fit for the claim 248 Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime Safe Storage Gun Laws, John Lott, Yale Law School, 2000 249 Suicide Trends Among Youths and Young Adults Aged 10--24 Years --- United States, 1990--2004, Center for Disease Control, September, 2007 250 Drilled Head Husband Dies in Hospital, The Scotsman, April 28, 2003
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 11:08 a.m.
The same tired and incorrect rhetoric. How about some facts to back up the OK Corral, blood in the streets, America has more gun violence than X country. That you bring up Britain especially shows your ignorance. For the love of (insert your choice of deity here) do some research. Look for the CDC and FBI statistics that have debumked the OK Corral argumet. This same argument which has been used in every state that was considering Concealed Carry. Guess what? Not one of those states had the streets run with blood and those in power had to retract those statements. Even Gov Granholm here in MI. As for Britain, their violence rates are through the roof. Only the government has the right to use force. Those who attempt to defend themselves are prosecuted. They are trying to ban knives now. Avail yourself of some knowledge. Citations and annotations for everything can be found here. http://www.gunfacts.info/ If you want to debate, be prepared. Otherwise you get laughed off the court.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 9:27 a.m.
Where have all the bleeting sheep gone? As usual when faced with the facts they flee back to their herd behaviour. http://en.wikipedia.org Herd behavior in animals From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A group of animals fleeing a predator shows the nature of herd behavior. In 1971, in the oft cited article "Geometry For The Selfish Herd," evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton asserted that each individual group member reduces the danger to itself by moving as close as possible to the center of the fleeing group. Thus the herd appears to act as a unit in moving together, but its function emerges from the uncoordinated behavior of self-serving individuals.  W. D. Hamilton (1971), "Geometry for the Selfish Herd," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp. 295-311. Predator satiation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Predator satiation has evolved as a reproductive pattern in cicadas of the genus Magicicada.Predator satiation (less commonly called predator saturation) is an antipredator adaptation in which prey occur at high population densities, reducing the probability of an individual organism being eaten. When predators are flooded with potential prey, they can only consume a certain amount, so by occurring at high densities prey benefit from a safety in numbers effect. This strategy has evolved in a diverse range of prey, from trees to insects. Predator satiation can be considered a type of refuge from predators.  Molles, Manuel C., Jr. (2002). Ecology: Concepts and Applications (International ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.. pp. 586 pp.. ISBN 0-07-112252-4. By most naysayer's logic, cars and alcohol should be banned to everyone regardless of their individual responsible behaviour. After all people abuse both to the detriment to all right? No cars and no alchohol must mean these problems will be resolved for the good of everyone, right? Do not complain and cry out in order to FEEL safe, rather more effective is actual ACTION and preperation to be safe. Use your logic to overcome your emotions. Learn. This is the hallmark of higher education and intelligence is it not? Oh yah how'd that alchohol Prohibition thing work out? those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 9:14 a.m.
I don't understand the logic here - having more guns means more people have guns - that doesn't make our area safer. It means there is a greater likelihood that before too long, we'll have our very own OK Corral. This is to say nothing of the point that only in America do we even discuss guns in this way - our fanaticism with firearms is showing. We have more guns than any comparable nation, and far more gun violence than any of those nations - say England, France, Germany. Doesn't really support the argument of a gun in every home. Notice that while I am adamantly against people loading up on firearms, as some seem to want, I don't think for an instant banning guns is reasonable or will ever happen in the U.S. As I previously stated, the love of firearms is ingrained in many Americans, inexplicably in my opinion, but there it is. I don't believe it makes us any safer. Surely pro-gun people are joking when they state people would feel safer if they more people were armed. I think most people would be scared if they saw someone carrying a firearm that is not a law enforcement representative - there is no way to know that a "regular" citizen is trained in any way or has a permit to carry a firearm.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 7:28 a.m.
Two problems here. First is police, no matter how good they are, can't outrun the speeding bullet of the criminal who will ignore a gun ban. Question? Do you think a 911 response can beat human impulse and a bullet traveling 1200 feet per second? BTW, 1200fps is about 818 MPH. The other problem is that if people were properly educated in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 5:39 a.m.
I believe that it was Ted Nugent who once intoned: An armed society is a polite society.
Fri, Oct 23, 2009 : 4:14 a.m.
I did not see any opnion offered by the Attorney General (AG) on the proposed new law. The last AG opinion I read regarding The University of Michigan ordinance that prohibits firearms on Campus was that MSU, U of M and Wayne State ordinances carried the same weight as any law enacted by the State Legislature. This is because all 3 universities were created by the State Constitution.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 10:39 p.m.
25 Colleges with the Worst Crime Rankings http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-18/how-safe-is-your-college/ Note that the Brady State Rankings Top 10 Gun Control states represent 74% (19 of 25) of the list. Brady's top 15 represents 92% (23 of 25) of the list. Coincidence???? http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/scorecard/2008/2008_scorecard_rankings.pdf
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:52 p.m.
By this same logic no one should fight back or defend themselves against anything for fear of injuring themselves? Come on this has been debunked over and over and fighting back is taught to children, men & women all over now. Even to our pacifist bretheren north of us: http://www.trccmwar.ca/fight-back.html Fighting Back and Stopping Rape 70% of women who fight back during an assault avoid rape. This statistic, which we used in an education campaign a few years ago, has its' origins in a U.S. study by Pauline Bart and Patricia O'Brien in Stopping Rape: Successful Survival Strategies (1985). This research has been supported by numerous studies. The most recent of these studies, by Sarah Ullman and Raymond Knight, 'The Efficacy of Women's Resistance Strategies in Rape Situations' (1993) found that women who fought back were more likely to avoid rape than women who did not fight back, regardless of the presence of a weapon. In general, the studies found that strategies such as crying, pleading or reasoning were ineffective. Some studies even indicate that these strategies can cause increased chance of injury.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:47 p.m.
Myth: You are more likely to be injured or killed using a gun for self-defense Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were: Resisting with a gun 6% Did nothing at all 25% Resisted with a knife 40% Non-violent resistance 45% British Home Office not a pro-gun organization by any means from: http://www.gunfacts.info/index.html oy the same tired myths over and over...
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:44 p.m.
thinkplease; I you prefer to be unarmed and risk making your wife a widow and your children orphans I will fully support your decison. In return, you should also support my choice to be armed for the sole purpose of defending myself (and possibly my life) and that of my family, or another innocent person against a criminal attack.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:29 p.m.
Detroit Free Press, I believe it was last Sunday's edition (I apologize for not remember the precise edition) actually ran a story questioning whether carrying a concealed weapon makes you less likely to be shot in an altercation. Because of the immediate escalation of conflict that weapons create you are more likely to be shot in an altercation when carrying a firearm, legally or illegally. And Duane, I don't remember seeing any citation in your argument for why people should carry weapons. Unfortunately it isn't an argument at all to call the posting of another person uneducated, or as another put it "ideological". I'm not saying it was ideological but questioning an idea and failing to live up to your own standards in a debate quickly negates the weight one might hold.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:39 p.m.
AGAIN, this only applies to State certified and vetted people with Concealed Pistol Licenses. Anyone else carrying on campus currently is ALREADY doing something illegal and this change in the law will not change anything. Criminals by definition DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. That being said however CPL holders are MORE law abiding than the majority of the general population. We are less likely to booze it up, brandish and otherwise mishandle firearms and MORE likely to de-escalate than engage in brawls and other anti-social behavior. FACTS: Fact: The results for the first 30 states that passed shall-issue laws for concealed carry permits are similar. Fact: In Texas, citizens with concealed carry permits are 14 times less likely to commit a crime. They are also five times less likely to commit a violent crime.300 Fact: People with concealed carry permits are:301 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public Fact: Even gun control organizations agree it is a non-problem, as in Texas because there haven't been Wild West shootouts in the streets.302 Fact: Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. 291 Reports were as received. No selection or filtering process was used. 292 Violent crime rates are from inception of shall issue CCW through 2006, the most recent period available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics online database. 293 October 1987 through Jan 2008 294 1995 no follow-up data available 295 1994 through 2007 296 1995 through 2004 297 2002 through 2006 298 In 2005 and 2006, Minnesota had an abnormal spike in robbery and aggravated assaults. The first three years of CCW in Minnesota saw violent crime rates being roughly stable and the problem has somewhat abated since then. 299 2001 through 2007 300 Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September, 2000 301 An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999 302 Nina Butts, Texans Against Gun Violence, Dallas Morning News, August 10, 2000 From http://www.gunfacts.info/index.html
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:35 p.m.
Boots - No one under 21 has a CCW/CPL. Anyone under 21 (and almost anyone over 21) holding someone up at gunpoint doesn't have a CPL. They are illegally carrying that gun. Stopping their intended victim from carrying a gun doesn't help anyone, and doesn't keep the criminals from carrying illegally. Are you sure you want to punish everyone because some people break the law? Because there are some rules I might like to institute if we're going to follow that logic...
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:19 p.m.
In regards to the argument that most violent crimes happen off campus where students can carry, so why isn't it a deterrent there... keep in mind that most students live off campus but can't very well carry all the time off campus as they have no way to safely store their firearms at the edge of campus. This effectively disarms them while they're off campus as well if they have any intention of going on campus after leaving home. This is related to the so-called "parking lot" bills that have been passed in other states. If an employer prohibits you from having a gun in your car while parked on their property they are disarming you during your commute to and from work as well. There are, of course, University staff members who would like to be able to drive to work on campus armed even if it means they have to leave their firearms in their car. As the law currently stands they face criminal charges if they do this. I imagine many are either ignorant of this fact and break this law without consequence or break it knowing full well that if the gun is in their glovebox nobody else is going to know it is there... and if something does happen it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. I don't suggest anyone should break the law, but it's ridiculous to think there aren't guns on campus like this already.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:17 p.m.
Until anyone of you is held-up at gun point, by some under 21 year old, then I do not want to read you CRAP. The only people who should have CCW's are Officers of the Court, people carring large sums of money to a bank for deposit. I do believe the amendment to bear arms to protect your property, College campus do not count in this context.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 7:07 p.m.
I think those arguing that college students are too irrational to carry guns while they're in college (proving they're the "leaders and best" no less) are being a bit hypocritical. Not to mention that these very same students, provided they qualify for and have obtained their CPL's, can carry off-campus to their heart's content. I'm quite certan many do... so where are all the stories of CPL holding-college aged kids killing people wontonly off campus? Is there something about a college campus where if you cross the magical boundary between there and the real world (which, in Ann Arbor means crossing a street most of the time) they suddenly lose all control of themselves? Nobody is advocating that every student carry a firearm 24/7/365. However, to say that it is 100% legal to carry a firearm concealed while walking down Liberty St. but it is a crime to do so while walking down the north sidewalk of South University Ave. doesn't make any sense. Do criminals cease to exist on South University Ave.? That would be news to all of those who have been the victims of crime there over the years! What about the ex-military students? We can't trust them with guns? ROTC students? Law enforcement officers taking classes part time? Law abiding citizens who don't have as much as a moving violation on their records? These are the people you're all afraid of? I have news for you, CPL holders are ALL OVER THE PLACE off-campus! If the idea of a law abiding citizen carrying concealed scares the bejeezus out of you, then you'd have to live a lonely and isolated existance to avoid them entirely.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 6:07 p.m.
Uh, Jeremy - You do realize that there are already two ways that some drunk, emotionally charged young adult could be walking around with a gun to prove he/she is tough, don't you? 1) They could be legal CPL holders who would legally be armed if they were not drunk. This is highly unlikely since, as stated above, doing so and getting caught would mean having the CPL revoked the person's head would spin. Most people don't put that much effort and money into getting a CPL and then take the responsibilities lightly. Allowing carry on campuses won't change this. 2) They could be illegally carrying a gun (whether or not they purchased it legally) because they don't possess a CPL. I said it earlier, and I'll say it again. It's called concealed, because you can't tell it's there. There are plenty of people who carry guns illegally, on or off campus. Allowing carry on campus won't change this either, since it won't suddenly allow people without CPLs to carry legally. So go ahead and continue to be afraid of people who carry guns illegally, but maybe don't worry so much about the CPL holders.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 5:55 p.m.
Can we all agree that the "students" we are discussing are 21 year old adults, not children? Additionally, these "students" must have a CPL, which to obtain requires a backgound check and also a firearms class covering the legal aspects and responsibilities of carrying or using a firearm. Many of our fine soldiers who are currently fighting to protect us and our country are younger than 21 and thay are also capable of carrying and using a firearm safely and effectively. As an earlier poster has previously stated, during the years of debate about the prospects of allowing law-abiding citizens to legally carry concealed weapons in Michigan met the same resistance as this proposal. Similarly, facts took a back seat to fear, ignorance, and mistrust. After more than 8 years of the new concealed carry law all of the claims and warnings of us "returning to the Old West with gunfights in the streets", have not been a factor. Much has been said about the potential disasterous effects of combining youth, guns, and alcohol. An individual, regardless of their age who has a CPL cannot legally carry a firearm if their blood alcohol level (BAC) is.02 or above. This offense will lead to the revocation of the CPL. In other words, you'd better not use Listerine before you leave home. Getting a DUI also requires the revocation of a CPL, so it's not "party hearty" and still be able to legally carry a concealed firearm. Truly responsible CPL holders regardless of their age, will not risk the chance of losing their CPL by drinking irresponsibly. Next, the issue of a firearm being discharged accidentally, or an "AD" as it is known among firearm enthusiasts. Modern firearms are fired by the pulling of the trigger. A modern firearm, that's kept (as it should be) in a quality holster, untouched, will rust beyond recognition before it will accdentally discharge. We currently have more than 200,000 CPL holders in Michigan. We're everywhere (just about) that you go. The supermarket, restaurant, service station, bank, auto parts store, etc., so how many "AD's" have you witnessed or even heard about? Finally, the Va Tech massacre, should be an event that is never, allowed to be repeated. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to have an armed police officer in every classroom of every college in this state or country. However, allowing trained and licensed CPL holders to legally carry there will send the message that college and unversity classrooms are no longer "soft targets" for those looking for potential victims
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 5:47 p.m.
cant say i feel safe knowing there could be some drunk emotionally charged young adult waking around with a gun to prove he/she is tough. Not a very smart move by the legislature. Im all for owning a gun and protecting your home, but i cant see any good coming out of this
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 2:17 p.m.
1.There have been no known incidents of a CPL holder committing a violent crime or using the gun improperly. 2.Even the Governor had to admit that there has been NO problems with the law. She also made the silly Dodge City statements at first. 3.A CPL owner cannot carry or possess if they have over a.02 BAC level, one quarter the DUI level!!! 4. When seconds count, remember that the police are only minutes away 5. It is a constitutional right with no good reason to deny.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 2:06 p.m.
Actually, jlkddd, you've made the argument stronger. You can't expect everyone to be responsible with either cars or guns. How many children do you know who've been injured or died in car accidents? Some because their own parents were driving irresponsibly, some because someone else was. It's the same with any potentially dangerous item. When someone shows a reason that they should not be allowed to have access to that item (car, knife, gun, alcohol, etc.), then we deny access. Until that time, we don't take away the rights and/or privileges of other citizens simply because there are people out there who can't handle those rights and/or privileges.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 1:57 p.m.
notyou - let me clarify. just like in the example you gave me about cars, it's not the actual inanimate object that is dangerous, it's when they get into peoples hands that don't need them. Example, I myself have never got into a car accident (knock on wood) however that is because I am a responsible driver. However, you can't expect everyone to be responsible, just like you can't expect everyone to be responsible with guns. There is always a danger of guns, I mean how many stories have you heard of a child getting shot by the gun that the parent had in the house because the gun "accidently" went off. Seriously...come up with a better argument then cars are dangerous too.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 1:14 p.m.
This legislation is a very good idea. Criminals choose to commit crimes on or near college campuses because of the large population of "rich kids" who are not allowed to carry firearms. This statute is being considered strictly because of deterrence capability. It isn't going to cause college students to go out and purchase firearms. It is simply a bill designed to make people "think twice" before they decide to "make some money off the easy targets on college campuses".
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 12:36 p.m.
Don't our legislators have anything better to do? We've been getting along just fine without guns on campus. Why do we need to change the law now? If they want to improve campus climate, maybe they should focus on the abuse of alcohol, which many unruly students seem to think it is their right to do, even is this poses a public nuisance, coontributes to under age drinking, and a host of health and social propblems. Or, should we just add guns to the booze and see what happens then?
dading dont delete me bro
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 12:25 p.m.
pencils are responsible for mispelled words... so what is the penalty for an oridinace violation at emu...? bet there's a lawyer out there that would love to fight that ordinance and the right to defend oneself...
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:54 a.m.
@David Briegel, To be honest with you, Id like to see this information. Im not familiar with this aspect of history. However, being that it is history, Im sure it was fueled by race. Personally to this day, citizens could march up and down the streets slinging AK-47s regardless of what race they were and I wouldnt be too concerned. Additionally, for the sake of desensitizing your stereotypes, Im not a republican (or democrat for that matter) nor do I or have I ever attended an NRA rally. Also, you speak of automatic weapons. Do you perhaps mean semi-automatic? Fully automatic weapons have some legal attachments. @Nick, I understand your prospective, however do you think criminals are more likely to target someone they know is not armed or someone that could possibly be armed? Then again, criminals dont exactly score high in the common sense department
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:47 a.m.
@ Steve- It's not my burden to prove that weapons are a deterrent to crime. Only those who are using it as their supporting evidence do. Your logic proves my point: you CAN'T say that concealed weapons DO or DO NOT deter crime. Hence, the "crime deterrent" argument is invalid. Therefore, those who support concealed weapons should choose another tactic to support their POV. I suggest something along the lines of the 2nd amendment.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:43 a.m.
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet (or I just missed)is how campus carry could effect the outcome of an Active Shooter on campus. Just think about the potentially different out come if a student, teacher or janitor etc had been legally armed on the Virginia Tech campus when Mr Cho walked into Norris Hall (he killed 32 people, most in the time frame of aprox 2 minutes). Could legal campus carry have changed that outcome? Almost assuredly. What are you gonna do when the next "Cho" (because statistically it will happen again and will be worse) walks into you lecture hall. Sure would be nice to atleast have the option of effecting the outcome of that situation, wouldn't it?
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:42 a.m.
"Guns are dangerous, no matter who is carrying them. Period." jlkddd - Are they? My firearms have never shot or been shot at anyone. They haven't even been pointed at anyone. So how are they dangerous? I believe that your car is more dangerous than my guns. Ever have any of the cars you have ever owned in an accident? None of the guns I own or have owned in the past have been in an accident. Period.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:35 a.m.
I remember the Black Panthers showing up in uniforms and carrying automatic weapons. If they showed up at your meetings and places of employment and Repulican or NRA rallies do you think these 2nd ammendment radicals would feel "secure"? Ironic eh?
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:33 a.m.
@Nick So, 13% of all those crimes was on campus as compared to EVERYWHERE else? Your logic again is one sided. You ask how can concealed weapons be considered a deterrent, but you dont have nor is it possible to have a census without concealed weapons with the exact same circumstances. This being said, you cannot say whether it did or did not deter crime.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:28 a.m.
This is just a straight up awful idea. You never know what someone is going to do with that many young people around. If you ask me I dont think that anyone should be able to carry guns ANYWHERE. But those wonderful people that wrote the consitution FOREVER ago seem to think otherwise. Guns are dangerous, no matter who is carrying them. Period.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:28 a.m.
mcskippy: Would you please explain to me how "the average liberal" and "car and cellphone" are connected? Are you saying that the average conservative is MORE responsible with the car/cellphone combination? Or more likely, perhaps you were just looking for an opportunity to use "liberal" as if it was a 4-letter word. Typical. Too bad. I really liked the rest of your post. But that part makes you sound a bit like a jerk. If someone gets killed by a gun... be it by reckless misuse, or in justifiable self-defense... no one is gonna be caring about their political beliefs. And FYI... here in Ann Arbor, the "average liberal" is more likely riding a bike, walking, or using public transit.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:27 a.m.
@beegee19 Im sorry that you have this personal experience with guns. When used incorrectly, as with any weapon or item used as a weapon, it can be a terrifying experience. Again I must cite the fact that terrifying things happen with vehicles and people are not against driving on campus. I encourage your enthusiasm to learn. That is in fact the best way to approach a subject. As for a public census pertaining to allowing firearms to be carried on campus, Im not aware of any. However, Utah does allow it state wide. Perhaps that would be a good place to start.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:23 a.m.
@ EyeheartA2- What's your point? Whether sexual assault, armed robbery,or aggravated assault, your own numbers show that more violent crimes occur off-campus, where concealed weapons are allowed! How then, can concealed weapons be considered a deterrent?
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:11 a.m.
This is such an interesting debate to me, and I find myself on the fence for now. But I think that this IS an emotional issue. Rationally, I don't think that everyone who would carry a gun would be dangerous, crazy, or a threat. However, I am completely unfamiliar with guns, as I'm sure are many people in Ann Arbor. To me, guns are scary, and the only association I have with guns are bad. Does that mean that I expect a law to pander to my fear? No. But for people who don't know anything about guns, this is an emotional and terrifying issue. I think that many of us, including me, would benefit from some statistics and facts about campuses that have allowed guns on campus (are there any?), and just more general information about possible outcomes.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 11:01 a.m.
@Nick, Are you saying that a large portion of the sexual assaults and violence doesnt occur on college campuses? Do you have a census on how many students do carry such personal defense apparatuses? Do you know the general effectiveness of these tools? Additionally, believe it or not, carrying a knife in Michigan is much more legally difficult then a firearm. Saying that concealed weapons will decrease campus safety is a false argument. The difference is, its already a standing fact that firearms for self defense work. Regardless of this, the law as it is currently written does not prohibit CPL holders from carrying on a college campus. It is a gray area in the law they are simply trying to clear up to prevent confusion.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 10:52 a.m.
Nick - A campus doesn't have to be a raging hotbed of violent criminal activity for there to exist the possibility of making it a safer place. Whether or not allowing concealed weapons on campuses will make them safer, there still is violent crime on campuses. Also, tasers are illegal in Michigan, as are the most effective pepper sprays. Safely carrying a knife for self-defense requires at least as much training as safely carrying a gun, so it makes sense that many people would not choose that option.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 10:46 a.m.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Always an interesting debate!
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 10:45 a.m.
If campus is prime hunting for criminals because students are unarmed, why don't more students carry non-firearm forms of defense? E.g., tasers, pepper spray, concealed blade? You would think that if the number of assaults were really that high, wouldn't the students try to protect themselves? Also, most of the student-related crimes happen off-campus: muggings on South/East U, home invasions off of plymouth rd; where people would be allowed to carry concealed weapons, but it's sure not acting as a deterrent! So the argument that concealed weapons will increase campus safety is a false argument.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 10:34 a.m.
Private property rules apply in all circumstances. Firearms can be prohibited on private property. The person must be asked by the property owner or official representative to leave or not to bring the firearm onto the property, if they refuse, it becomes trespassing.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 10:29 a.m.
I got a good question from a reader: Would the bill allow guns on private college/university campuses? I called over to the Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee to check. The answer is no.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:51 a.m.
Every one of the leftist name callers who is lumping everyone who has every handled a gun as either an ignorant hillbilly or a drunk needs to shut up until they know what they are talking about. I guarantee I know 10 times the amount of people that they do who use and handle firearms. These are invariably more intelligent and responsible about their use of firearms then the average liberal is with their car and cellphone, which is STATISTICALLY a much deadlier combination. That being said, as a person who DOES have experience with both firearms and young adults, I have to agree that allowing STUDENTS to have firearms on campus is a BAD idea. The post about "impulsive" students said it best - anyone who reacts as young adults tend to should not be permitted to have a firearm at their beck and call. However, if there could be some way that we could allow guns on campus, but keep them out of the hands of students, I would support that. Contrary to what some people think, a large number of the high school or college shooting deaths over the recent years could have been averted if a responsible adult (I.E., teacher, principal, etc) had been armed. Most of the time, by the time the police or campus safety has time to respond, the damage has already been done. Additionally, these people that we are discussing - teachers, administrators, and so forth - still have a 2nd amendment right to protect themselves. They should not have to give up those rights simply because of where they chose to work.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:46 a.m.
@d, Well, that's just silly. You expect the laws to tailor specifically to you because you have an an unjustified anxiety and fear? Why should anyone else have to suffer because of your problem? That is completely selfish.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:26 a.m.
Id like to address the concerns of the nay-sayers, as I am a pro-gun advocate on numerous levels and wish to provide a logical response rather than an emotional one. To the common criminal, a college campus is a free-for-all supermarket of known to be defenseless targets. A person with criminal intent, obviously does not have a conscience to obey rules or law. When or if a criminal intends to commit serious bodily harm or death to the people within the Gun Free Zone, it has eliminated almost all possibility of prevention or defense. Police or campus authority take minutes to arrive, and deadly assaults from criminals takes only seconds. Your Gun Free Zone is in turn, only serving to further endanger the innocent people on the campus by disarming those trained and willing to take defensive action against hostile thugs. If an altercation of physical violence occurred with an individual legally able to carry a gun and they escalated the altercation by using their firearm, they have just shown criminal tendencies. This obvious poor and lack of judgment just proves that this individual lacks the ability and control to be a law abiding citizen and shouldnt be a student in the first place. As for the possibility of accidental discharge, human error in any circumstance is always at least a possibility. Car accidents are widely accepted as a fact of life because everyone drives, but a resulting injury from a vehicle would be far more likely and common than it would be from a firearm assuming everyone carried one. All it takes is a look back to our history to prove this. Firearms today are much safer, not only because of engineering advances, but also preventative designs. Nobody needs a gun on campus, until they are sexually assaulted or face imminent bodily harm or death. Everyone knows it is better to be prepared for what could happen and have it not, than to be unprepared when something does happen. "There are already too many crazy people. Why would anybody need a gun in this city?" Lady, you just answered your own question. You seem to imply that anyone that has a gun is crazy. Not only is that an insult to millions of people, but is statistically unrealistic. Guns and alcohol do not mix. Anyone taking the responsibility to own and/or carry a firearm knows this. Failure to exercise common sense in this particular manner, again shows criminal intent and they should have their rights and freedoms restricted to their level of competence. Law enforcement officers may be trained a certain way, but they are also, by ruling of the Supreme Court, not required to defend your life. Some of you may be comfortable placing your lives in the hands of another person who may not help you or reach you in time, but some of us are not. The fact is, law enforcement officers are aware that citizens can legally conceal and also in 46 states, openly carry a firearm. This is not new and the occurrence of problems is nearly extinct. @emu2009, Let us define a lunatic; 1.an insane person. 2.a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness. 3.Law. a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law. Insults and slander is a poor defense. You fail. @Duane Collicott, you are simply spewing out statements with no facts to back your claims. You are a paranoid extremist reacting purely on emotion. @mermaid, again someone speaking from emotion and not facts. @ anyone else, if you wish to have your concerns address, that is fine. I will be happy to answer you but for the sake of not sounding like a thug, lets keep it civil.
dading dont delete me bro
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:25 a.m.
i am 39 years old, married and have children. i am a student at emu too. being a cpl holder, i see no reason i couldn't have a weapon on campus w/a valid permit. living on campus could be another story. but i commute to class and leave. my classes are in the evening when most crimes are being committed. as for the story of the student having his gun in his car and not 'on his person', i'd much rather have my gun IN MY POSSESSION, then in a locked vehicle, where simply a window can be broken, car gone through then there's ANOTHER GUN out on the street. let's think this out rationally please.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:24 a.m.
The same hysterical cries from illiberal liberals echoed during the concealed carry debate several years ago. Guess what, not a single point raised by the fear mongers of the left came true. The facts are self evident, allowing law abiding citizens to practice their inherent right to self defense makes every one safer. The statistics support this. Paranoid delusions do not make good public policy.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:20 a.m.
Mermaid - The two don't go hand in hand. If you happen to know some people who have CPLs and hunt irresponsibly and illegally, then you happen to know some criminals who should not have access to guns. As was suggested previously, report them to the proper authorities. It can quite simply be summed up as: Telling me, or any other person who is legally allowed to carry a handgun, that we shouldn't be allowed to do so (on a college campus or elsewhere) because you know some people who are criminal idiots doesn't fix the problems you're seeing. Those people are already breaking laws. Why would putting one more law in place stop them?
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:11 a.m.
Total carnage, hunters shooting every thing that moves, farm animals, pets, and of course, each other. Carnage? The number of accidentally shooting while hunting for in MI is extremely low. Check DNR website for stats. If they are shooting at livestock that is a property crime in MI and drinking while hunting another crime then call the police or DNR. I to live near a state park, Island Lake and I hunt on it. I have never seen this! Let me guess you are anti-hunting also?
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:04 a.m.
Universities and colleges in my home state of Utah was forced by the Utah Supreme Court to allow people who have CCW permits to carry their weapons concealed, on all State owned campuses. That was sometime in 2008,and Ihavent heard of one single instance where a person with a legally obtained CCW permit, who has either gone on a shooting spree, or even one single instance where a permit holder has pulled his/her handgun out and brandished it at another person. And, as far as CCW holders being untrained and inexperienced- a lot of folks are ex-military, with probably more training and more experience in confronting gunmen than most regular police officers are.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 9:04 a.m.
Mermaid - I'm glad to hear you stop these fine folks to ask them if they are indeed CPL holders and they actually tell you the truth! Sounds like your really proactive in your search for truthful information. And the fact that you can combine one license that anyone can get at meijer and another that takes 2-4 months to get really shows your commitment to the truth! Good for you!!!!!
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:57 a.m.
Jenifer, Please come out to where I live, near State hunting grounds & see what goes on every November. Total carnage, hunters shooting every thing that moves, farm animals, pets, and of course, each other. (Not too bad!) They trash the woods with beer cans, animal carcasses sans the head are thrown in the roads & in yards, and we who live out here are afraid to drive down our own roads. These guys are not only hunters, but usually & mostly the CPL holders as well. The two go hand in hand. Responsible, well-trained? No way!
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:44 a.m.
edit: I got my CPL when I turned 21 and was in college 6 years ago
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:43 a.m.
It's amazing how the people who know the least about a subject are the first to cry foul. The fact of the matter is this - Criminals will always have guns. Period... No debate - It's the truth. If they have a criminal record then most likely they didn't legally purchase said gun. So if a criminal already owns a gun illegally what on earth makes people think that they are going to follow the law and not take their gun into a "Gun free" zone. Put yourself in the shoes of a person who wants to cause harm and Chaos. I'll give you 2 places that you can do this and you tell me where you would go. #1 - A College Campus that is a "No Gun zone" Or #2 - A shopping center with no such policy. now tell me where do you think you could cause the most damage? Before you post your next "GUN ARE BAADDD!!!" or your "SECOND AMENDMENT COOKS!!!" comment think about what it takes to actually obtain a CPL. (Concealed Pistol License) Here is the breakdown for the uninformed. Those licensed to carry concealed pistols in the State of Michigan MUST: Successfully complete State mandated training; Local, State, & National background checks; Be free of felonies and serious misdemeanors; Meet many other restrictive criteria before being allowed to carry for self-defense.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:40 a.m.
I got my CPL when I turn 21 and was in college 6 years ago. I lived about 50 feet from campus. Guess what I did not hurt anyone off campus carry under state law why would that change by walking 50 feet onto campus? I would also venture to say very few 21-year-old adults would bother to get one unless they were a mature person. Staff, non-traditional students and graduate students will likely make up the majority Lastly it comes down to this. Campus is full of people that are ignorant towards firearms and if they had there way no one would be able carry anywhere or probably own one. They are trying to protect their little bubble. If the state deems you responsible enough to carry just about anywhere else (and giving studies that CPL holder are more law-abiding then cops) then why not campus?
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:36 a.m.
biteme - What is your opinion, then, on a 21-year-old non-student having a legal concealed handgun? In any setting - on campus or not. If you're not against that, what's the difference if that 21-year-old happens to be taking classes. Or what about a 21-year-old student who is legally armed but not on a campus? Is that okay?
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:26 a.m.
mermaid - Telling anyone in a rational debate to "grow up" is not exactly mature, is it? And you don't need any background check or gun permit to hunt. You need a hunting license, which anyone can purchase. Maybe you have to have passed a hunting safety course as a kid, but there are no training or psychological stability requirements. Totally different from concealed handgun carry.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:22 a.m.
Most of these arguments, valid or not, are the same used to say that people shouldn't be allowed to carry concealed weapons anywhere. The ones that differ - basically that college kids are too irresponsible to own guns - are mostly irrelevant, since only students who would otherwise qualify for carry permits would be allowed to have them. This isn't a proposal to arm all students when they walk on campus or to allow students under 21 access to handguns. These same "problems" occur in any society that allows citizens to arm themselves. People might abuse their rights and do something stupid with their weapons. If they do, there are penalties to pay. If they don't, then clearly it's not a problem after all. And I can promise you that there are already students carrying guns into classrooms on most college campuses. Not many, and not legally, but they're certainly there. A concealed weapon is called concealed because you, as an observer, can't see that it's there. Allowing students (or anyone else - this law applies to the general population who also walk or drive from time to time through college campuses) to have guns on campus but not in classrooms means that the honest, law-abiding, licensed gun carriers would not generally take them into classrooms. They wouldn't want to risk losing their right to carry that weapon in legal situations. Criminals will continue to do as they please in any event.
Some Guy in A2
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:21 a.m.
The part that people seem to be missing is that concealed carry on any university grounds is not illegal right now. Sure, it is against most school's policies if you are a student there, but the most any otherwise law-abiding CPL holder would get is asked to leave. They would then get a trespass citation if they refused to leave. Currently, it is only illegal to carry a concealed weapon (if you have a CPL) in to a dorm or classroom. The hallways of classrooms are technically ok, and simply walking around outside of buildings has always been ok. I know Ann Arbor has a long history as a peace-loving community, so it seems only natural that there would be a knee-jerk reaction to the possibility of guns on campus. People need to look beyond their own bias and actually consider that statistics clearly show CPL holders, if anything, are less likely to break laws or over-react to a situation than the rest of the populace.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:18 a.m.
If you talk to law enforcement officers they will tell you that they are their to clean up. They will always arrive too late for those that are injured or killed. Remember that they do not just hand out CPL's to anyone, you actually do have to meet some requirements. Also in a heavily biased 60 minutes story one of three "students" in a classroom was able to shoot an armed intruder that burst into the classroom even those she had minimal training and the "criminal" knew exactly who she was and where she was in the "classroom" when her burst in.
Stephen J. Gill
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:11 a.m.
It's not only U-M and EMU that would be affected by this legislation; also Washtenaw Community College and all 28 community colleges in the State are included, as I understand the current proposed bill. The Michigan Community College Association is against this legislation. And as a trustee of WCC, I am too. Every campus has its own security force trained to deal with violent situations. Having untrained, inexperienced people walking around with loaded handguns creates an unsafe environment for the 30,000 students, faculty, staff, and communtiy members who are on our campus each year. Having a license is not the same as having the training and temperament to react within a split second to a violent situation nor does it mean that they have the emotional capacity to handle a weapon appropriately. And what are we going to do, have a gun-check clerk at each classroom door?
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:11 a.m.
Only criminals should carry guns on our college campus'. Arming law abiding citizens could have a chilling effect on criminal activity.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 8:03 a.m.
If you allow guns on campus with rape druga underage drinking and imaturity on these kids, (and they are still kids), it will only be a matter of time, maybe six months before you will have a shooting.....FACT!
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 7:57 a.m.
I read all the comments and didn't see one that made a logical case against guns on campus. 'thinkplease' came the closest but it was an ideological argument (and I do agree with your point from an intimidation standpoint, even if the intimidation is unintended). I think the most valid argument against guns on campus is accidental discharge. I suppose we have to weigh the unintended intimidation and risk of accidental discharge against having more good guys armed.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 7:44 a.m.
Ditto what emu2009 said. College kids are volatile with less impulse control than older people. They are also away from home and involved in more intense social relationships than they have experienced before. Why ever would you want them to be able to carry guns -- yikes!
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 7:35 a.m.
Whats missing is hand granades for the blind. This would take care of ADA compliance.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 7:34 a.m.
There is a valid point when you mention that those with permits are trained to carry weapons. However, I wouldn't be comfortable with the thought of anyone carrying a gun on campus other than law enforcement. Who's to say that the legal weapons don't somehow end up in the hands of those without permits? As pointed out in the article, what if you have a altercation between two people that escalates and one of those involved has a gun and a permit to carry it. Now what if the other person involved seizes that weapon from his opponent? You take a fist fight and it becomes something completely different now. I can appreciate the training that goes into obtaining a permit, I just don't think a college campus with young, impulsive people with a lot of differing opinions is place for guns to be in the mix as well.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 7:23 a.m.
thinkplease, if people have the facts backward, that's uneducated. Do you have any fact to show that CCW licensees are committing gun crimes at a higher rate than others?
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 7:19 a.m.
Why fear trained law abiding people, the criminals will do as they please, without worrying about the safty of anybody else. Being afraid of a trained law abiding person is the same as being afraid of the dark. Grow up people and get a grip on your fear.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 7:17 a.m.
Duane, I can appreciate your fervor in attempting to prove your opinion superior by by calling the opposing opinion "uneducated". I mean we are talking about guns on university campuses and the irony is certainly a tasty dish, unfortunately it isn't a valid argument. Personally, I have always had this idea that university campuses were the breeding ground for thoughtful, educated reasoning. University campuses are where people learn to think and rationally solve problems, in an effort to find peaceful solutions without violence. I believe the people who carry weapons illegally are the ignorant and uneducated populace who have run out of ideas, not the students educating themselves. To say that they should lower themselves to the thoughtless lack of ingenuity demonstrated by this wild west mentality in our country of guns on every hip is an entirely different and perhaps scarier kind of irony don't you think?
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 7:17 a.m.
When you compare legal gun carriers and illegal gun-carriers, there is a much lower chance that a legal gun-carrier has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy did.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 6:54 a.m.
This is a bad idea. Just that simple. Bad Idea.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 6:54 a.m.
It's amazing how prevalent the opinions are that having citizens legally carry guns on campus makes the campus more dangerous. Of all places, university campuses should be places where this uneducated, backwards thinking is challenged and corrected. It's the people who are already dangerous and unstable who are illegally carrying that guns you need to be worried about. People who are trained and legally carrying guns may save your life some day, not take it.
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 6:51 a.m.
The second ammendment "lunatics" are running the asylum!
Thu, Oct 22, 2009 : 6:39 a.m.
As if EMU doesn't have enough issues with public safety already, allowing guns on campus is a BAD idea. I know if wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that someone could have a gun on campus at any time.