Quantcast

Should med students be allowed to carry guns on campus?

Free Sample Essays
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

TehTeddy

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
298
Reaction score
749
And by carry I mean concealed carry, assuming they already have a license in the state already.

Several medical schools (temple and hopkins come to mind), while having a safe campus, have not-so-safe surrounding areas. It's pretty common for students to live in these areas, and thus commuting through them daily. Would it be unreasonable for schools to allow these students to carry on-campus?
As far as I know no medical school allows concealed carry now, but I could be wrong.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
169
Reaction score
57
1) almost every piece of social science literature on the topic has found that homicides increase in areas with conceal and carry laws. The idea that it makes people safer is a political talking point perpetuated throughout the years. More people will die from guns. It's just a statistically false statement.

2) however constitutionally there is a different argument. Constitutionally they have rights to own a gun, thus that could be extended to a campus. However it would be a private Universities choice. And since most universities tend to lean left either because of their location in urban areas, or just the natural tendency of professors being liberal thinkers, a medical school accepting this as a policy is politically and statistically unattractive.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

Lucca

Will Walk Rope for Sandwich
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
8,584
Reaction score
19,740
Even if the mother university is required to comply with the campus carry laws of the greater state, medical schools have a protected interest in disallowing guns from their premises and would be available to null the law.

The same is true for laboratories. Here in Texas, most laboratories (even in and especially in universities) will continue to disallow firearms on the premises after Campus Carry goes into effect precisely because weapons present an unnecessary safety concern in the laboratory. Lots of flammables, pressurized gas, could get contaminated if it's on your person and there is a spill, etc etc.

Similarly, medical schools have an interest to keep them off the campus. Namely, if they are attached to a hospital, allowing students to carry weapons on campus presents an unnecessary risk to patients being seen by medical students, other medical students themselves, and the faculty of the school due to the intrinsic risk involved in carrying a weapon into a hospital. There's a reason only police carry in the hospital. As far as the campus is concerned? I suppose there would be no legal reason to prevent students from carrying in the classroom. There is currently a lawsuit in Texas from a group of professors challenging Campus Carry but it will most likely fail, the argument is sort of flimsy even though the thrust of it is basically correct, in my opinion.

Personally, I take the position that medical students should not be allowed to carry weapons on campus. While off the premises, students are entitled to their own person, but I would like to believe tha at least while they are on campus that students feel some sort of professional anxiety associated with the idea of carrying a weapon made for killing people while espousing the Do No Harm principle. The weapon is not only physically dangerous, but is also psychologically threatening. Further, the real and most serious threat for Campus Carry is not mass shootings. It is suicide. Suicide is opportunistic, and having a weapon on campus only makes it easier and simpler to kill yourself. This is dangerous in any environment filled with young people, especially young people under a serious amount of pressure and with historically more mental illness and suicidal tendencies than the greater population (not just med students but physicians as well). People do not commit to suicide with an iron will. It is not sufficient to say "if they really want to kill themselves, they will find a way." Suicide depends on ease and opportunity and ultimately it takes a lot more commitment to jump in front of a train or jump from a building than it does to pull a trigger
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users

chrisjh

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
815
Reaction score
1,008
1) almost every piece of social science literature on the topic has found that homicides increase in areas with conceal and carry laws. The idea that it makes people safer is a political talking point perpetuated throughout the years. More people will die from guns. It's just a statistically false statement.
absolutely false. Where on earth did you read that garbage? ACTUAL stats show gun homicides increase on average by about 10% in areas that restrict CCW permits.
Even the national crime prevention research center has released stats that show a 22% decrease in murder rates and violent crimes coincided with a more than doubling of the amount of people holding CCW's. In fact, the vast majority of the literature I have come across completely contradicts what you claim. I have a feeling you have a very hard leaning liberal news feed composed of not very reliable sources......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users

gonnif

Rule One: Take a Breath
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
24,051
Reaction score
41,018
absolutely false. Where on earth did you read that garbage? ACTUAL stats show gun homicides increase on average by about 10% in areas that restrict CCW permits.
Even the national crime prevention research center has released stats that show a 22% decrease in murder rates and violent crimes coincided with a more than doubling of the amount of people holding CCW's. In fact, the vast majority of the literature I have come across completely contradicts what you claim. I have a feeling you have a very hard leaning liberal news feed composed of not very reliable sources......

please provide links to actual data as of now the CDC statutorily prohibited from receving funding for studies or any access to federal fire arms database see http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violence

CDC can study deaths from gun violence anf justice dept has statistics on homocide rates see https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

chrisjh

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
815
Reaction score
1,008
please provide links to actual data as of now the CDC statutorily prohibited from receving funding for studies or any access to federal fire arms database see http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violence

CDC can study deaths from gun violence anf justice dept has statistics on homocide rates

seehttps://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/
What does the CDC have to do with this discussion?
Edit: that's odd, I couldn't see your entire post until I quoted it. Glitchy app I guess.

Another liberal website. I can manipulate and distort data to appear to support any viewpoint also. Using biased data is not good support for any position.
Just one example is the black men being 10x more likely than white men to be murdered by guns, but I challenge you to look at the statistics for how much more black men are likely to be involved in crime, involved in VIOLENT crime, and to get rid of the racist slant to the data, look up the data for how many blacks are killed by others blacks annually.
 
Last edited:

gonnif

Rule One: Take a Breath
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
24,051
Reaction score
41,018
What does the CDC have to do with this discussion?
Edit: that's odd, I couldn't see your entire post until I quoted it. Glitchy app I guess.
sorry reading without my glasses

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/gun-researcher-john-lott-offers-false-firearm-s/196621

the nation crime prevention research center is a wholly discredited psuedo academic attempt to provide data with poorly designed and generally unsupported surveys. it is the equivalent of a really low level carribean medical school

while there may be an argument that CCW can protect an individual from a crime, the flip side clearly shows gun being present increases accidental death, suicide, domestic violence and murder in general. in short any increase in safety over crime prevention is accompanied by a much larger increase in the other areas. you save 1 life in prevention but kill far more with presence of a gun. https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

when the NRA , an organization I formerly belong to as riflery was my sport in high school, starts providing some arguments on how to deal with "flip side" of gun ownership, I might pay attention to their rhetoric.

personally I cannot fathom why so many Americans who claim second amendment rights and individual freedom does not take the individual responsibilty to ownership and registration of each and every fire arm in their possession.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

JustAPhD

Not a hummingbird expert
5+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
3,472
Reaction score
8,836
Published list of campuses supposedly allowing concealed carry on campus: http://www.liberty.edu/administration/lupd/index.cfm?PID=4153 Those with med schools:
UUtah
UColorado
MSU
UMississippi
Liberty (DO) (Will be allowed in residence halls starting next fall.)

Is that true? The link you provided states:
HOWEVER, STUDENTS MAY NOT CARRY OR STORE WEAPONS IN RESIDENCE HALLS.
It says that concealed carry on campus will be allowed but guns must be locked away in a car while not carried.
 

Med Ed

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
3,576
Reaction score
13,226
And by carry I mean concealed carry, assuming they already have a license in the state already.

Several medical schools (temple and hopkins come to mind), while having a safe campus, have not-so-safe surrounding areas. It's pretty common for students to live in these areas, and thus commuting through them daily. Would it be unreasonable for schools to allow these students to carry on-campus?
As far as I know no medical school allows concealed carry now, but I could be wrong.

Some students shouldn't even be allowed to carry their genitals on campus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

PathoTurnUp1865

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
548
Reaction score
392
That season finale of Greys when shepherd gets shot tho
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
35,064
Reaction score
14,961
Is that true? The link you provided states:

It says that concealed carry on campus will be allowed but guns must be locked away in a car while not carried.
https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2016/05/firearms-in-the-dorms/
Also reported in multiple mainstream venues: Washington Post, CBS News, Fox News, etc

WEBSCLUSIVES FIREARMS IN THE DORMS
FIREARMS IN THE DORMS
SARAH RODRIGUEZMAY 3, 2016WEBSCLUSIVES
Board of trustees approves concealed carry weapons in residence halls.

The Liberty University board of trustees recently approved a policy change for concealed carry weapons on campus, which will allow President Jerry Falwell to permit students to have their concealed carry in the residence halls.

The previous campus firearm policy stated that “members of the University community that are over 21 with concealed weapons permits can seek permission from LUPD to carry concealed weapons on campus and store them in their locked vehicles.”

With the new change, students and faculty must still have a valid concealed weapons permit from the state and be approved by the Liberty University Police Department (LUPD).

David Corry, general counsel of Liberty, said students will be required to place their guns in a safe in the residence halls under the new policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

JustAPhD

Not a hummingbird expert
5+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
3,472
Reaction score
8,836
https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2016/05/firearms-in-the-dorms/
Also reported in multiple mainstream venues: Washington Post, CBS News, Fox News, etc

WEBSCLUSIVES FIREARMS IN THE DORMS
FIREARMS IN THE DORMS
SARAH RODRIGUEZMAY 3, 2016WEBSCLUSIVES
Board of trustees approves concealed carry weapons in residence halls.

The Liberty University board of trustees recently approved a policy change for concealed carry weapons on campus, which will allow President Jerry Falwell to permit students to have their concealed carry in the residence halls.

The previous campus firearm policy stated that “members of the University community that are over 21 with concealed weapons permits can seek permission from LUPD to carry concealed weapons on campus and store them in their locked vehicles.”

With the new change, students and faculty must still have a valid concealed weapons permit from the state and be approved by the Liberty University Police Department (LUPD).

David Corry, general counsel of Liberty, said students will be required to place their guns in a safe in the residence halls under the new policy.

Ah gotcha. Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
169
Reaction score
57
absolutely false. Where on earth did you read that garbage? ACTUAL stats show gun homicides increase on average by about 10% in areas that restrict CCW permits.
Even the national crime prevention research center has released stats that show a 22% decrease in murder rates and violent crimes coincided with a more than doubling of the amount of people holding CCW's. In fact, the vast majority of the literature I have come across completely contradicts what you claim. I have a feeling you have a very hard leaning liberal news feed composed of not very reliable sources......

Hey buddy,

I'm not trying to get banned by engaging with you. I don't want you to get banned either. You're mad it's ok, research will make you less mad. Here I'll just leave a link to an article from the nation's leading legal researcher from Stanford.

http://news.stanford.edu/2014/11/14/donohue-guns-study-111414/


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

binko

At home I want you to call me Dr. Marvin.
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
995
Reaction score
138
Only if "do no harm" is written on the side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

NotASerialKiller

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
1,457
Reaction score
7,052
Gonna put this down as one of the top 10 reasons I'll be forever thankful that I got in in Canada.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users

Goro

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
67,817
Reaction score
104,661
I'm Ok with it IF said guns are licensed, owners have been trained to use them, and are members of the National Guard or Armed Forces reserves, or the Ready Reserves. You know, the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment that everyone keeps ignoring?



And by carry I mean concealed carry, assuming they already have a license in the state already.

Several medical schools (temple and hopkins come to mind), while having a safe campus, have not-so-safe surrounding areas. It's pretty common for students to live in these areas, and thus commuting through them daily. Would it be unreasonable for schools to allow these students to carry on-campus?
As far as I know no medical school allows concealed carry now, but I could be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12 users

bc65

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
808
Reaction score
1,407
I know this won't end well, but I will jump into the fray against my better judgement.

If allowed, the problem would be with what to do with the gun when in anatomy lab or the OR. It might end up having to stay in the locker, where it would have a high risk of being stolen.

On a more general note, the fact is that there are 380 million guns in this country already, and all the bad guys are carrying theirs. So it's not a question of whether we will keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. It's only a question of what to do about the good guys.

Further, the real and most serious threat for Campus Carry is not mass shootings. It is suicide.

I don't find this argument compelling. First of all, there's no legal basis for banning guns at home, so regardless of the ability to carry on campus or not, someone who wants to shoot himself will be able to do so at home, so prohibiting guns on campus will not inhibit someone's ability to kill himself.

One's ability to protect one's self should not be compromised because someone with depression might want to use a gun to commit suicide. Alcoholics are at a higher risk for DUI injuries and deaths, but that's not a good reason to ban all cars.

Children are at a higher risk of accidental gun death in homes that have guns, and that's put forward as a reason to ban guns, but they are at an even higher risk of accidental death in homes with swimming pools, yet there's no clamoring for the banning of home swimming pools in order to protect children ( but I would not risk owning a pool ).

Consider that every year or so, we read about a doctor who is shot by a disgruntled patient or family member. In an incident earlier this year, a doctor successfully defended himself by shooting back. Statistically, this is an unlikely scenario, but as physicians, we do a lot of testing and treating to prepare for the unlikely event. Personally, I would prefer for my fate to be in my own hands. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

Lawpy

31 ★ The L is for Lend No Okays
7+ Year Member
SDN Ambassador
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
58,615
Reaction score
149,810
I'm Ok with it IF said guns are licensed, owners have been trained to use them, and are members of the National Guard or Armed Forces reserves, or the Ready Reserves. You know, the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment that everyone keeps ignoring?

Most people don't even know the details of all amendments, let alone the Constitution. So selectively reading an amendment that is a political hot topic is expected and encouraged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mad Jack

Critically Caring
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
37,399
Reaction score
72,519
1) almost every piece of social science literature on the topic has found that homicides increase in areas with conceal and carry laws. The idea that it makes people safer is a political talking point perpetuated throughout the years. More people will die from guns. It's just a statistically false statement.

2) however constitutionally there is a different argument. Constitutionally they have rights to own a gun, thus that could be extended to a campus. However it would be a private Universities choice. And since most universities tend to lean left either because of their location in urban areas, or just the natural tendency of professors being liberal thinkers, a medical school accepting this as a policy is politically and statistically unattractive.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
Higher gun ownership rates correlate with higher homicide rates, but concealed carry policies have no relationship with homicide rates. This is likely because the sorts of people that legally concealed carry with a permit aren't the sorts of people that commit homicides regularly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15128143
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

Mad Jack

Critically Caring
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
37,399
Reaction score
72,519
Hey buddy,

I'm not trying to get banned by engaging with you. I don't want you to get banned either. You're mad it's ok, research will make you less mad. Here I'll just leave a link to an article from the nation's leading legal researcher from Stanford.

http://news.stanford.edu/2014/11/14/donohue-guns-study-111414/


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
Right-to-carry without a permit is different than permitted CCW via a permit process. This study sort of lumps everything together, doesn't link whether crimes were committed with weapons held by those carrying a permit, etc. The authors themselves note that there are a lot of confounding influences and using a different statistical model could yield different results.

I don't think right to carry should be a thing- CC should require a permit and training. But studies that use very lose correlative models that do not compare different types of CC laws and that do nothing to establish a causative nature to the laws do us no favors in addressing this subject in the slightest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Lucca

Will Walk Rope for Sandwich
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
8,584
Reaction score
19,740
I know this won't end well, but I will jump into the fray against my better judgement.

If allowed, the problem would be with what to do with the gun when in anatomy lab or the OR. It might end up having to stay in the locker, where it would have a high risk of being stolen.

On a more general note, the fact is that there are 380 million guns in this country already, and all the bad guys are carrying theirs. So it's not a question of whether we will keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. It's only a question of what to do about the good guys.



I don't find this argument compelling. First of all, there's no legal basis for banning guns at home, so regardless of the ability to carry on campus or not, someone who wants to shoot himself will be able to do so at home, so prohibiting guns on campus will not inhibit someone's ability to kill himself.

One's ability to protect one's self should not be compromised because someone with depression might want to use a gun to commit suicide. Alcoholics are at a higher risk for DUI injuries and deaths, but that's not a good reason to ban all cars.

Children are at a higher risk of accidental gun death in homes that have guns, and that's put forward as a reason to ban guns, but they are at an even higher risk of accidental death in homes with swimming pools, yet there's no clamoring for the banning of home swimming pools in order to protect children ( but I would not risk owning a pool ).

Consider that every year or so, we read about a doctor who is shot by a disgruntled patient or family member. In an incident earlier this year, a doctor successfully defended himself by shooting back. Statistically, this is an unlikely scenario, but as physicians, we do a lot of testing and treating to prepare for the unlikely event. Personally, I would prefer for my fate to be in my own hands. Just my opinion.

So my argument is against campus carry in particular, which affects medical schools if and only if a medical school is on a college campus or part of a larger university system required to abide by the rules. I'm not saying ban all guns at home, what I am saying is that is allowing guns on campus specifically, where students live in shared, public spaces, presents an unnecessary risk to the students and the university property. One that can be prevented through the intervention - or, rather, lack of intervention since carrying on campus was previously restricted - of the government. A medical school doubly so for reasons I have outlined above. This is not a question of rights, no one's rights are being violated because you are not allowed to carry a weapon on campus, especially if carrying a weapon contradicts or endangers the interests of the medical school or university.

I would quarrel with the notion that guns increase one's ability to protect oneself in an appreciable way greater than it does put one in danger. However, That is neither here nor there in this topic
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

bc65

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
808
Reaction score
1,407
. This is not a question of rights, no one's rights are being violated because you are not allowed to carry a weapon on campus, especially if carrying a weapon contradicts or endangers the interests of the medical school or university.

I doubt that very many people argue either for or against gun rights based on the constitution or rights or very much logic, just as the constitution and logic has little to do with arguments around abortion rights. People have a position and look for arguments to support it.

Most of the arguments pro and con are silly. For example, I can see no good reason to oppose background checks. Similarly, assault rifle bans are stupid. The characteristics that make a rifle an assault rifle have nothing to do with the characteristics that make it lethal. They are purely cosmetic features. ( semi automatic , magazine fed rifles would still be legal. Pistol grips and collapsible stocks would be banned ). Banning them makes as much sense as banning red cars because they tend to speed more.

I would quarrel with the notion that guns increase one's ability to protect oneself in an appreciable way greater than it does put one in danger. However, That is neither here nor there in this topic

I agree that carrying a gun will rarely be helpful, but I have spent several hundred thousand dollars on disability insurance, life insurance, automobile insurance, umbrella insurance, and homeowners insurance, none of which has helped me either, but I still pay for the coverage and I'm happy to have it. I would like to be able to legally carry a handgun as a form of insurance. There are risks associated with carrying a handgun, but I would be willing to assume those risks. I have survived a long time without having every carried one, and I would not have been any better off with one. On the other hand, I was held up once at gunpoint and several times at knifepoint, and while I suffered no ill effects from any of those experiences, had I had a gun, there would be several fewer criminals alive today. In all likelihood, the world would have been a safer place, although my life might have been worse as a consequence. It's impossible to say with certainty. But I like being in control of my own life as much as possible, so my preference is for the right to carry.

I think the world would be a much safer place if no one had a gun except for me, but sadly, that is an unlikely eventuality. I'll take the next best option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Technology

Level: 25 HP: 90
2+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2015
Messages
130
Reaction score
65
Pepper spray is a much safer alternative :), especially if you are looking to diminish your paranoia.

Are tasers feasible instead of guns?
 

Kurk

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
663
Reaction score
223
If I was a physician who dedicated a quarter of my life working as hard I could to make it into a med school only to work even harder to ultimately work very hard for the rest of my life, I would have a very large sense of entitlement to life as a person who saves the lives of others and ultimately carries a large amount of market-value. That being said, I would be extra cautious with my life as it is in a way the lives of countless others. If being held at gun point (you don't fight obviously unless you know you're going to die) the thoughts running through my head would go some like "wow I spent all these years training and sacrificed so much to get to this position; I'm not about to let that all go to waste by this street thug who probably didn't finish high-school."

Anyway, I can see how it could be hypocritical for a doctor to CC. Still, that isn't an excuse to not know how to defend yourself. Tasers and Karate exist.

As far as gun statistics are concerned, I'll just leave this here.
 

DrDarce

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
295
Reaction score
457
Man some of my classmates are so bat **** crazy I hope they don't let them conceal carry
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

ShenandoahDoc

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
65
Reaction score
67
Some schools have an obvious interest in allowing concealed carry: LU Is in the middle of nowhere, literally on a mountain surrounded by forest, a few minutes drive from Lynchburg. However, being the largest Christian university in the world with outspoken students and faculty, they are obviously a massive target for terrorist attacks and the like. It would take the police minutes to get to the school in the case of an active shooter. LU is extremely proactive on this and there is a massive deterrence factor in that many professors and some students over 21 carry. Sadly at some point in the future some terrorist will probably attack LU. Hopefully, one of these carrying individuals will be nearby, and the death toll will be closer to 1 (the shooter) than to 40 or 50.
 

TehTeddy

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
298
Reaction score
749
While off the premises, students are entitled to their own person, but I would like to believe that at least while they are on campus that students feel some sort of professional anxiety associated with the idea of carrying a weapon made for killing people while espousing the Do No Harm principle. The weapon is not only physically dangerous, but is also psychologically threatening.
I think it's safe to say that if you feel anxiety about carrying, it may be best not to carry. I think the Do No Harm principle breaks down if the alternative is receiving harm yourself.
The problem for me is that students cannot carry off-campus if at any point in their day/commute they intend to visit the school. A reasonable requirement could be that they must be left in a locker, either in the med school or hospital. This way they could have it off-campus.
Not sure what to say about the suicides. The employee/student could still have a gun at home to use, unless you think being more frustrated at the hospital, rather than at home later, would increase the risk of suicide. It's possible, but I don't think the risk would be increased enough to justify a ban alone. Anyways, if you suffer from depression/suicidal thoughts it's best not to have a gun period.

If allowed, the problem would be with what to do with the gun when in anatomy lab or the OR. It might end up having to stay in the locker, where it would have a high risk of being stolen.

Consider that every year or so, we read about a doctor who is shot by a disgruntled patient or family member. In an incident earlier this year, a doctor successfully defended himself by shooting back. Statistically, this is an unlikely scenario, but as physicians, we do a lot of testing and treating to prepare for the unlikely event. Personally, I would prefer for my fate to be in my own hands. Just my opinion.
Aren't lockers.. locked? I'm not sure who has access to them, but if lockers are limited to employees and students, with a lock, a gun being stolen would be unlikely.

Pepper spray is a much safer alternative :), especially if you are looking to diminish your paranoia.

Are tasers feasible instead of guns?
It's an alternative, although it's 1 shot for a taser.
 

Lucca

Will Walk Rope for Sandwich
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
8,584
Reaction score
19,740
I think it's safe to say that if you feel anxiety about carrying, it may be best not to carry. I think the Do No Harm principle breaks down if the alternative is receiving harm yourself.
The problem for me is that students cannot carry off-campus if at any point in their day/commute they intend to visit the school. A reasonable requirement could be that they must be left in a locker, either in the med school or hospital. This way they could have it off-campus.
Not sure what to say about the suicides. The employee/student could still have a gun at home to use, unless you think being more frustrated at the hospital, rather than at home later, would increase the risk of suicide. It's possible, but I don't think the risk would be increased enough to justify a ban alone. Anyways, if you suffer from depression/suicidal thoughts it's best not to have a gun period.


Aren't lockers.. locked? I'm not sure who has access to them, but if lockers are limited to employees and students, with a lock, a gun being stolen would be unlikely.


It's an alternative, although it's 1 shot for a taser.

Locker or not a gun should always have a trigger lock on it if you are storing it and are being responsible. Further, it shouldn't be loaded and you should store ammo in a separate (ideally also locked) location. If campus carry is going to even have the façade of being responsible, I'm sure institutions will make sure common sense guidelines gun owners are expected to follow elsewhere are observed on campus.

Look, I live in Texas. I get the whole gun thing. I see them frequently. Personally, I think they are pointless and the chance of you or someone else carrying actually protecting you or anyone else is probably on the same order as lightning striking within 100m of where you are standing. My answer is typically, go to Venezuela (where I am from) and carry a weapon. Lots of people carry there as well, owning a gun is very common since the police are not to be trusted or expected to help you in any event and the security situation is very poor. Walk down the street at night with your 9mm or whatever and tell me how safe you feel. Just makes it more likely for you to be killed if you ask me.

Personal anecdotes aside, I think the legal argument ultimately comes down to the protection of individuals and property. On a university, this means protecting public living space by placing reasonable restrictions on individuals therein. A world where you can bring a gun and not a rice cooker into a dorm is one that needs to seriously reevaluate what threats it considers legitimate and worthy of intervention. Remember the university is to some degree responsible, if not legally, at least in spirit for its students. Personally, I do honestly believe the campus climate would suffer because of campus carry. Parties on campus would be a lot more dangerous (alcohol + minors + guns). Protests and other mass assemblies on campus would be less attractive, psychologically speaking, and as a result less inclusive and open to the student body than they are now even if the increased presence of guns is very small or does not actually pose a threat to the student body.

There is a dearth of research on guns and gun policy. There are some numbers we can pull out and draw correlations with but all conclusions drawn from this type of data are inconclusive at best and specious at worst. The CDC is literally not allowed to conduct the type of research we need to make an informed gun policy and I am willing to employ Occam's razor and claim that the university's right to self-determination of policy on its own campus ought to win out in the campus carry debate and the faculty and student body of a campus should decide for itself whether it wants guns or not on the premises. Either way, the places where guns are literally an illegal and exceedingly dangerous threat to public safety (laboratories, hospitals, power plants, etc) are going to keep excluding guns from the environment. People being able to carry wherever they want is not the problem in question, nor has it ever been as the second amendment I think makes abundantly clear.
 

Goro

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
67,817
Reaction score
104,661
I submit that Einstein and the Touros would be far more likely to suffer a terrorist attack, and from a home-grown terrorist, not a jihadi (domestic or foreign) either.

Sadly at some point in the future some terrorist will probably attack LU. Hopefully, one of these carrying individuals will be nearby, and the death toll will be closer to 1 (the shooter) than to 40 or 50.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Lawpy

31 ★ The L is for Lend No Okays
7+ Year Member
SDN Ambassador
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
58,615
Reaction score
149,810
Some schools have an obvious interest in allowing concealed carry: LU Is in the middle of nowhere, literally on a mountain surrounded by forest, a few minutes drive from Lynchburg. However, being the largest Christian university in the world with outspoken students and faculty, they are obviously a massive target for terrorist attacks and the like. It would take the police minutes to get to the school in the case of an active shooter. LU is extremely proactive on this and there is a massive deterrence factor in that many professors and some students over 21 carry. Sadly at some point in the future some terrorist will probably attack LU. Hopefully, one of these carrying individuals will be nearby, and the death toll will be closer to 1 (the shooter) than to 40 or 50.
I submit that Einstein and the Touros would be far more likely to suffer a terrorist attack, and from a home-grown terrorist, not a jihadi (domestic or foreign) either.

LU and LUCOM should be dissolved. Simple as that.
 

bc65

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
808
Reaction score
1,407
Tasers and Karate exist.

Nice thoughts, but tasers are not reliable or effective enough to be used against a firearm. Karate is not even a very effective form of hand to hand combat, let alone effective against a gun. Even the one martial art that addresses defense against weapons, krav maga, stresses that such maneuvers are to be used as a last resort. At best, an unarmed person attempting to disarm a gun or knife wielding assailant is more likely than not to be stabbed or shot. And that's only for a young, strong, fit, and specially trained combatant. Fights in real life are not like they are on TV.

A taser has limited range, and one shot. Also, the darts might not penetrate clothing. The taser would have to reliably and instantaneously disable the person with the gun. Even gunshots can't do that reliably. There's extensive literature devoted to finding a combination of handgun caliber and ammunition and bullet type that will reliable stop an assailant after one shot. The best anyone can come up with is around 60 - 70%. In a study from a few years back, police in shootouts at a distance of 7 feet ( I believe it was feet, not yards) missed their targets with 90% of their shots ( That doesn't mean that they didn't eventually hit the target the 10th time, but 9/10 bullets missed. That's why tasers won't work. If they did, cops would use them more often. I don't think they enjoy shooting people. The paperwork alone is probably daunting.

Why not allow guns in the ICU as well?

I see that you have never worked in a hospital. The last ICU I was in had a cop in there 24/7 guarding a patient who had a professional organized crime hit out on him ( The first attempt hadn't quite succeeded, despite several gunshots to the chest ). He was there for at least 2 months. I was happy to note that my patient was on the other end of the ICU.

The ERs that I worked in had armed police there 24/7 as well.

When I was a resident, an inpatient prisoner was shot by his corrections officer because he tried to wheel himself down the hall to go to the TV room without permission. ( I know that sounds harsh, but while he was probably going to watch daytime tv, he might have watched the news, or even a documentary. Best to nip that behavior in the bud.) I was in the OR and so missed the actual gunfire, though my fellow resident was there and dove for cover. I got the prisoner's side of the story because I operated on him.

So yes, there are guns, and gunfire, in hospitals, ERs, and ICUs.

Aren't lockers.. locked? I'm not sure who has access to them, but if lockers are limited to employees and students, with a lock, a gun being stolen would be unlikely.

No, lockers in the OR are not safe, and not always available. Never leave your wallet or keys in the OR locker. Plus, often there are no lockers available. And if anyone sees you put a gun in the OR locker, word will get out, and it will disappear.

A lock can be snipped open with a bolt cutter in about 2 seconds. Those locks are purely decorative.

Locker or not a gun should always have a trigger lock on it if you are storing it and are being responsible. Further, it shouldn't be loaded and you should store ammo in a separate (ideally also locked) location.

Not if you're carrying it, and just leaving it locked up for an hour or so, but I agree that lockers are unsafe.

Otherwise, I agree with much of your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

hamstergang

may or may not contain hamsters
7+ Year Member
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
2,160
Reaction score
2,489
As far as gun statistics are concerned, I'll just leave this here.
It's hard to get more than 4 minutes in before having to quit watching this video as it's just wrong. In the beginning, he talks about suicide, which is something I actually know about having finished a psychiatry residency. Most completed suicides in the US involve guns, though most people who attempt suicide use other less-successful methods. Access to lethal means of suicide allows for impulsive suicidal thoughts to lead to actual death. Having a gun in your home increases your chances of death by suicide.

The video counters this by showing that people in other countries still commit suicide, and some countries have higher suicide rates than in the US. This isn't much of an argument -- mental health and suicide differs around the world in different cultures, and a direct comparison between 2 countries that all gets attributed to a single variable (guns) is honestly stupid. He says that people that want to commit suicide will find a way to do so. And this is correct to an extent, but it ignores that 1) many suicides are impulsive actions and so removing immediate access to something lethal can actually decrease suicides and 2) not everything is as lethal as each other. It's much more difficult to mess up killing yourself with a gun than it is with pills, which is likely why most suicide attempts with pills (easily available) fail. In South Korea, he says that most suicides are by fertilizer, which is almost surely due to the easy availability of fertilizer and its lethality.

In the next segment, he asserts that banning guns will not keep criminals from getting guns (because if you can't stop all guns, then why even try?). In the very next slide, he shows that after Australia banned guns, the gun death rate dropped, presumably due to fewer criminals having guns, right? There appears to be a contradiction here that he completely glosses over.

What does any of what I said have to do with this thread? Well, that video was posted as "real" statistics on guns. In this little section, the guy in the video draws conclusions not supported by the actual data and misleads his viewers. This does not give me faith in anything else he's going to say later in the video. It's very easy to mislead with statistics and draw conclusions from data with tons of confounding variables. This guy is upset that other people do that yet he does it himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Kurk

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
663
Reaction score
223
It's hard to get more than 4 minutes in before having to quit watching this video as it's just wrong. In the beginning, he talks about suicide, which is something I actually know about having finished a psychiatry residency. Most completed suicides in the US involve guns, though most people who attempt suicide use other less-successful methods. Access to lethal means of suicide allows for impulsive suicidal thoughts to lead to actual death. Having a gun in your home increases your chances of death by suicide.

The video counters this by showing that people in other countries still commit suicide, and some countries have higher suicide rates than in the US. This isn't much of an argument -- mental health and suicide differs around the world in different cultures, and a direct comparison between 2 countries that all gets attributed to a single variable (guns) is honestly stupid. He says that people that want to commit suicide will find a way to do so. And this is correct to an extent, but it ignores that 1) many suicides are impulsive actions and so removing immediate access to something lethal can actually decrease suicides and 2) not everything is as lethal as each other. It's much more difficult to mess up killing yourself with a gun than it is with pills, which is likely why most suicide attempts with pills (easily available) fail. In South Korea, he says that most suicides are by fertilizer, which is almost surely due to the easy availability of fertilizer and its lethality.

In the next segment, he asserts that banning guns will not keep criminals from getting guns (because if you can't stop all guns, then why even try?). In the very next slide, he shows that after Australia banned guns, the gun death rate dropped, presumably due to fewer criminals having guns, right? There appears to be a contradiction here that he completely glosses over.

What does any of what I said have to do with this thread? Well, that video was posted as "real" statistics on guns. In this little section, the guy in the video draws conclusions not supported by the actual data and misleads his viewers. This does not give me faith in anything else he's going to say later in the video. It's very easy to mislead with statistics and draw conclusions from data with tons of confounding variables. This guy is upset that other people do that yet he does it himself.
I appreciate the response. While he at one point his videos used to be of quality, they have in recent years slipped and become skewed. I take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Too bad there aren't any other quality libertarian channels on youtube.
Nice thoughts, but tasers are not reliable or effective enough to be used against a firearm. Karate is not even a very effective form of hand to hand combat, let alone effective against a gun. Even the one martial art that addresses defense against weapons, krav maga, stresses that such maneuvers are to be used as a last resort. At best, an unarmed person attempting to disarm a gun or knife wielding assailant is more likely than not to be stabbed or shot. And that's only for a young, strong, fit, and specially trained combatant. Fights in real life are not like they are on TV.

A taser has limited range, and one shot. Also, the darts might not penetrate clothing. The taser would have to reliably and instantaneously disable the person with the gun. Even gunshots can't do that reliably. There's extensive literature devoted to finding a combination of handgun caliber and ammunition and bullet type that will reliable stop an assailant after one shot. The best anyone can come up with is around 60 - 70%. In a study from a few years back, police in shootouts at a distance of 7 feet ( I believe it was feet, not yards) missed their targets with 90% of their shots ( That doesn't mean that they didn't eventually hit the target the 10th time, but 9/10 bullets missed. That's why tasers won't work. If they did, cops would use them more often. I don't think they enjoy shooting people. The paperwork alone is probably daunting.
I'm almost done training for my black belt in Okinawan karate. I would have to say that it's one of the better forms for practical self-defense; especially the way our school trains. We learn how to defend against weapons (in theory of course) though like you said nothing is guaranteed. At least it keeps me fit and gives a false sense of security. The taser is probably the most I'd be willing to go for now; I'm not the stereotypical white, American, Caucasian male so being profiled by police or whatever is a concern. Maybe I'll just bulk up to 25o pounds like Rich Piana and scare people away as a last resort.
 

UNMedGa

Newbie!
5+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
2,952
Reaction score
3,845
Even if the mother university is required to comply with the campus carry laws of the greater state, medical schools have a protected interest in disallowing guns from their premises and would be available to null the law.

The same is true for laboratories. Here in Texas, most laboratories (even in and especially in universities) will continue to disallow firearms on the premises after Campus Carry goes into effect precisely because weapons present an unnecessary safety concern in the laboratory. Lots of flammables, pressurized gas, could get contaminated if it's on your person and there is a spill, etc etc.

Similarly, medical schools have an interest to keep them off the campus. Namely, if they are attached to a hospital, allowing students to carry weapons on campus presents an unnecessary risk to patients being seen by medical students, other medical students themselves, and the faculty of the school due to the intrinsic risk involved in carrying a weapon into a hospital. There's a reason only police carry in the hospital. As far as the campus is concerned? I suppose there would be no legal reason to prevent students from carrying in the classroom. There is currently a lawsuit in Texas from a group of professors challenging Campus Carry but it will most likely fail, the argument is sort of flimsy even though the thrust of it is basically correct, in my opinion.

Personally, I take the position that medical students should not be allowed to carry weapons on campus. While off the premises, students are entitled to their own person, but I would like to believe tha at least while they are on campus that students feel some sort of professional anxiety associated with the idea of carrying a weapon made for killing people while espousing the Do No Harm principle. The weapon is not only physically dangerous, but is also psychologically threatening. Further, the real and most serious threat for Campus Carry is not mass shootings. It is suicide. Suicide is opportunistic, and having a weapon on campus only makes it easier and simpler to kill yourself. This is dangerous in any environment filled with young people, especially young people under a serious amount of pressure and with historically more mental illness and suicidal tendencies than the greater population (not just med students but physicians as well). People do not commit to suicide with an iron will. It is not sufficient to say "if they really want to kill themselves, they will find a way." Suicide depends on ease and opportunity and ultimately it takes a lot more commitment to jump in front of a train or jump from a building than it does to pull a trigger

I tend to support gun rights in the general populace, but I think the points about having guns in a hospital as a safety issue and about the moral conflict of carrying deadly weapons while trying to heal others are good ones. With suicide, couldn't med students and doctors still just kill themselves with their guns at home though? I think it's definitely best not to have guns at the hospital or med school but I'm not sure if it'd make an impact on suicide rates in these groups.
 

bc65

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
808
Reaction score
1,407
Right, but I was wondering why that makes them especially vulnerable to domestic terrorism?

Because in addition to being among the targets of Muslim terrorists worldwide ( bombing of Jewish targets in Argentina, several in France, Kenya, India, etc ) they are also among the primary targets of US white supremacist groups. There were shootings at a Kansas Jewish community center, a Kansas nursing home, a Los Angeles Jewish community center, and at the Holocaust museum in DC, to name a few. Their propaganda targets Jews, perhaps more than any of their other targets. They complain about a lot of issues, but they attribute all of the other problems ( with immigration, economy, banks, minorities, etc ) as ultimately the fault of the Jews, who according to them, control everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

bc65

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
808
Reaction score
1,407
'm almost done training for my black belt in Okinawan karate.

Everyone's a tough guy on the internet, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but I have a lot of martial arts experience, including more karate than you. My advice: skip the karate, and train in MMA, or at least muy thai. Studies show that boxing punches are much more effective than karate punches. The latter also expose your face. Sure, you'll develop some useful crossover skills, but it's mostly just all wrong. Most fights end up on the ground, so you need grappling training, BJJ or MMA or at least wrestling. The weapons defense you learn in a karate class are not likely to be useful or correct.

A taser will not help but will increase the chance of your being killed unnecessarily. It looks like a gun. If you pull it out, someone with a gun will shoot you, with a knife will stab you. It probably won't even work. It's fine for a cop. They are using it to subdue someone with a lesser weapon, they usually have help, and a gun. It's not for you . If you have time to go for a taser against a knife, just run away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Lucca

Will Walk Rope for Sandwich
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
8,584
Reaction score
19,740
Because in addition to being among the targets of Muslim terrorists worldwide ( bombing of Jewish targets in Argentina, several in France, Kenya, India, etc ) they are also among the primary targets of US white supremacist groups. There were shootings at a Kansas Jewish community center, a Kansas nursing home, a Los Angeles Jewish community center, and at the Holocaust museum in DC, to name a few. Their propaganda targets Jews, perhaps more than any of their other targets. They complain about a lot of issues, but they attribute all of the other problems ( with immigration, economy, banks, minorities, etc ) as ultimately the fault of the Jews, who according to them, control everything.

Right, duh. Can't believe I didn't connect the dots there
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kurk

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
663
Reaction score
223
Everyone's a tough guy on the internet, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but I have a lot of martial arts experience, including more karate than you. My advice: skip the karate, and train in MMA, or at least muy thai. Studies show that boxing punches are much more effective than karate punches. The latter also expose your face. Sure, you'll develop some useful crossover skills, but it's mostly just all wrong. Most fights end up on the ground, so you need grappling training, BJJ or MMA or at least wrestling. The weapons defense you learn in a karate class are not likely to be useful or correct.

A taser will not help but will increase the chance of your being killed unnecessarily. It looks like a gun. If you pull it out, someone with a gun will shoot you, with a knife will stab you. It probably won't even work. It's fine for a cop. They are using it to subdue someone with a lesser weapon, they usually have help, and a gun. It's not for you . If you have time to go for a taser against a knife, just run away.
Hmm...good advice for consideration in the future.
Studies show that boxing punches are much more effective than karate punches
Karate punches generate more power than a punch thrown from the shoulder. We want one strike powerful enough to KO someone even if means leaving the face momentarily exposed—one shot just like a taser. I'll consider training in another style after 1st Dan.
 

bc65

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
808
Reaction score
1,407
I don't want to hijack the thread or go off on a tangent. But...

Karate punches generate more power than a punch thrown from the shoulder

No, not at all true. This is been examined over and over again with pressure sensors. a boxing straight right and left hook have way more power, double I think. Look at evidence, don't just believe what you're told.
If this were true, then people would use karate punches in mma fights, but they don't. They box.

We want one strike powerful enough to KO someone

There's no such thing. But do watch boxing matches, The punch most likely to do this is a hook, because it torques the brain around more than a straight punch.

Just because people sell something, it doesn't mean you have to buy it.

That's all I'll say on the subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

darkjedi

how did this get here I am not good with computer
10+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
2,982
Reaction score
3,014
Hmm...good advice for consideration in the future.

Karate punches generate more power than a punch thrown from the shoulder. We want one strike powerful enough to KO someone even if means leaving the face momentarily exposed—one shot just like a taser. I'll consider training in another style after 1st Dan.
I'd have to agree with bc65 and say that boxing punches are far more powerful. The world of MMA fighting has really distilled down what is actually effective in martial arts and what isn't. It turns out that the vast majority of martial arts is BS and I say that as someone who's not even a fan of MMA fights and has trained for several years in Tae Kwon Do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

abn632

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
86
Reaction score
82
I'm almost done training for my black belt in Okinawan karate. I would have to say that it's one of the better forms for practical self-defense; especially the way our school trains. We learn how to defend against weapons (in theory of course) though like you said nothing is guaranteed. At least it keeps me fit and gives a false sense of security. The taser is probably the most I'd be willing to go for now; I'm not the stereotypical white, American, Caucasian male so being profiled by police or whatever is a concern. Maybe I'll just bulk up to 25o pounds like Rich Piana and scare people away as a last resort.

Are you in the All Okinawan Shorin-ryu Kenshin Kan Karate and Kobudo Federation? I trained under the Grand Master Fusei Kise while I was on Okinawa and am a 1st degree black belt! (this was well over 10 years ago, though). I do agree that it keeps one fit, but must respectfully disagree with the false sense of security part. Since the philosophy of AOSKKF is self-defense, not offense, I feel as if the training prepared me well to defend myself. I wouldn't go up to the biggest, baddest guy at the bar and take a swing at him, but if I was jumped for some reason, or in some dark, gloomy parking garage, I feel that I would be able to fend off and possibly disable an attacker. Then again, I'm 6'5" and 230 pounds of twisted steel and sex appeal with 14% body fat (and dropping), so YMMV. Keep up with the training - earning that black belt is an incredible feeling!

Everyone's a tough guy on the internet, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but I have a lot of martial arts experience, including more karate than you. My advice: skip the karate, and train in MMA, or at least muy thai. Studies show that boxing punches are much more effective than karate punches. The latter also expose your face. Sure, you'll develop some useful crossover skills, but it's mostly just all wrong. Most fights end up on the ground, so you need grappling training, BJJ or MMA or at least wrestling. The weapons defense you learn in a karate class are not likely to be useful or correct.

A taser will not help but will increase the chance of your being killed unnecessarily. It looks like a gun. If you pull it out, someone with a gun will shoot you, with a knife will stab you. It probably won't even work. It's fine for a cop. They are using it to subdue someone with a lesser weapon, they usually have help, and a gun. It's not for you . If you have time to go for a taser against a knife, just run away.

I agree that MMA training is better training overall for both offensive and defensive techniques, but I would argue that karate is good enough for defensive purposes. Much of karate is about discipline and confidence, not necessarily going on the offensive. There are a lot of useful moves, strikes and blocks to learn, though there are some things that you would only see in tournaments. I probably wouldn't roundhouse kick someone to the head if I was getting mugged, but the shin kick would be very useful, as well as the many blocks that are taught from which you can transition quickly to a hold followed by a disabling strike.

I agree with your comments about the taser. It has all the downsides of having a gun (looks like one, a friendly or a cop will think you're a bad guy and shoot you), and you only have one shot.

*****
Most concealed carry training that I've seen requires one to attend a gun safety class followed by range time, in which 70% of your shots have to hit the target silhouette. In most states that allow concealed carry, this is accomplished in one day. This is hardly sufficient training to demonstrate weapons proficiency, and I think a lot of people who complete these courses now think that they're Rambo or Jason Bourne, when the reality is that they're probably just another overweight, pre-diabetic, slightly paranoid about the black helicopters weirdo.

I've been through some significant and intensive weapons training, either by being in, or being attached to some pretty good military units. Those are the people I trust in a gunfight, but I wouldn't trust most veterans in a gunfight that involved pistols. I don't even think that veterans should be able to automatically get a concealed carry permit (which is how I got mine, BTW). Unless you were spec ops in the Air Force or Navy, your weapons range time was probably one (miserable) day per year. Even in the Army, most units only do live-fire training, including weapons qualifications, once or twice a quarter. And when they do, most soldiers are issued rifles, not pistols, so their weapons proficiency is limited to something that would not be carried concealed. They may understand the fundamentals of weapons safety, but that's a very low bar. Keep in mind that when qualifying with a rifle in the Army, the minimum passing score is 23 out of 40 (58%) which is...pretty low...

Concealed carry permit holders need to be trained to understand that their permit is for self-defense. My worry is that most CCW holders will try to John Wayne their way through an active shooter situation and end up getting themselves or others killed. Their first line of defense should not be to attack an active shooter, but to first retreat to a position of safety, scan their fields of fire for collaterals, and fire only when there is a clear shot. If no clear shot, hold fire until a clear shot presents itself. But my understanding is that this is not stressed enough in training. Even if it is, a one day CCW course is insufficient to ingrain this in someone's memory. Now imagine that same person in an active shooter situation - hands trembling, heart racing, rapid breathing, eyes wide open, sweating profusely, possibly even scared enough to where bladder and bowels have emptied into their pants - this is the condition that many well-trained soldiers find themselves in during their first actual combat scenario (though I never [email protected] my pants, I certainly came close). But at least soldiers have a squad of other soldiers with them, yelling commands and controlling the setting so that in the heat of battle you can, if necessary, just start following commands and doing the same thing as those around you. The CCW permit holder? Likely has nothing more than some cursory training provided by some dude wearing cargo pants and a multicam ball cap with a subdued US flag velcroed to the front.

If CCW holders were to go through some serious training (I'm talking at least a week long) that includes a LOT of weapons safety training, retreat as the first line of defense, weapons qualification for EACH and EVERY weapon they would possibly carry concealed, and stress-fire training, I might be more amenable to allowing concealed weapons on campus. Until then, hell no.

TLDR - Nope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Toutie

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
2,692
*****
Most concealed carry training that I've seen requires one to attend a gun safety class followed by range time, in which 70% of your shots have to hit the target silhouette. In most states that allow concealed carry, this is accomplished in one day. This is hardly sufficient training to demonstrate weapons proficiency, and I think a lot of people who complete these courses now think that they're Rambo or Jason Bourne, when the reality is that they're probably just another overweight, pre-diabetic, slightly paranoid about the black helicopters weirdo.

I've been through some significant and intensive weapons training, either by being in, or being attached to some pretty good military units. Those are the people I trust in a gunfight, but I wouldn't trust most veterans in a gunfight that involved pistols. I don't even think that veterans should be able to automatically get a concealed carry permit (which is how I got mine, BTW). Unless you were spec ops in the Air Force or Navy, your weapons range time was probably one (miserable) day per year. Even in the Army, most units only do live-fire training, including weapons qualifications, once or twice a quarter. And when they do, most soldiers are issued rifles, not pistols, so their weapons proficiency is limited to something that would not be carried concealed. They may understand the fundamentals of weapons safety, but that's a very low bar. Keep in mind that when qualifying with a rifle in the Army, the minimum passing score is 23 out of 40 (58%) which is...pretty low...

Concealed carry permit holders need to be trained to understand that their permit is for self-defense. My worry is that most CCW holders will try to John Wayne their way through an active shooter situation and end up getting themselves or others killed. Their first line of defense should not be to attack an active shooter, but to first retreat to a position of safety, scan their fields of fire for collaterals, and fire only when there is a clear shot. If no clear shot, hold fire until a clear shot presents itself. But my understanding is that this is not stressed enough in training. Even if it is, a one day CCW course is insufficient to ingrain this in someone's memory. Now imagine that same person in an active shooter situation - hands trembling, heart racing, rapid breathing, eyes wide open, sweating profusely, possibly even scared enough to where bladder and bowels have emptied into their pants - this is the condition that many well-trained soldiers find themselves in during their first actual combat scenario (though I never [email protected] my pants, I certainly came close). But at least soldiers have a squad of other soldiers with them, yelling commands and controlling the setting so that in the heat of battle you can, if necessary, just start following commands and doing the same thing as those around you. The CCW permit holder? Likely has nothing more than some cursory training provided by some dude wearing cargo pants and a multicam ball cap with a subdued US flag velcroed to the front.

If CCW holders were to go through some serious training (I'm talking at least a week long) that includes a LOT of weapons safety training, retreat as the first line of defense, weapons qualification for EACH and EVERY weapon they would possibly carry concealed, and stress-fire training, I might be more amenable to allowing concealed weapons on campus. Until then, hell no.

TLDR - Nope.
Can I like this a million times?!!! Well said and something EVERYONE should read and understand before we let just anyone carry just anywhere.
 

Kurk

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
663
Reaction score
223
Are you in the All Okinawan Shorin-ryu Kenshin Kan Karate and Kobudo Federation?
We train under the style of the late Hanshi George Anderson if that means anything. I should take back what I mean about a false sense of security; I'm not a beast of a human myself, but I would feel a little more confident if I was jumped in an alley or something. You're correct in saying that Karate is focused around self-defense and discipline—like a jedi now that I think of it :).

Also I agree that more training should be required, but then I wonder how a doctor would be able to complete an eight-week gun course with their schedule...
 
Top