Abhishek
February 15th, 2010 - 18:34

It could increase crime and murder on campus more than ensuring safety. We just had a horrible incident.

jake
February 15th, 2010 - 18:57

Nice ad hominem, Abs.

The 2nd amendment of the U.S. guarantees a right to bear arms. The 14th amendment applies that amendment to the states. The Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd amendment is a personal right, similar to the 1st amendment.

This shouldn’t even be up to ******* debate. It’s black and white.

Alex
February 15th, 2010 - 19:10

“It could increase crime and murder on campus more than ensuring safety. We just had a horrible incident.”

People who commit crimes and murder on campus do not have concealment licenses. They carry these guns without permits, with illegally obtained guns, with the sole intention of armed theft or murder. No law will stop these people from committing these crimes, but if lawful concealment on campus was allowed, it could improve safety by allowing those license holders to protect themselves and/or their fellow students/ faculty.

Yes we just had a horrible accident, but it was done with a samurai sword. He didn’t have a concealment license, but that didn’t stop him from bringing it onto campus and attacking someone with it. If someone in the vicinity had a licensed concealed weapon the situation could have turned out very different.

Puneet
February 15th, 2010 - 19:13

Hubert, if you remember there was incident on campus (an ex graduate student tabbing another), What makes you think it wont happen again?

Evan Johnson
February 15th, 2010 - 19:16

It makes me infuriated to read the comments by people that go somewhere along the lines of this: “Allowing students to carry guns on campus will increase violence and murder.”

I know this a personal opinion… but how ignorant are you? Do you not realize that the people who are actually going to kill people and shoot others are the people who will completely disregard the law to do so in the first place?! We are 21, we are adults, and we can handle ourselves like adults… How else does everyone else 21+ in the United States do it? Man I don’t know!

Goodness, you people make me sick. There are hundreds of incidents involving crime on campus involving students every year. I personally know at least 5 most directly and some indirectly, who have been affected by this crime. People are being robbed at gun point left and right. Allowing students a right that is allowed to them almost everywhere else, except government buildings, is only going to allow those who wish to protect themselves. Again the people who are going to shoot people, just disregard the law anyways. I am completely for this piece of legislation, because as a Current Georgia Tech Student, I don’t feel safe walking around my own campus when it gets dark. I don’t like having to watch my back every second just to cross a street! If anything, this will discourage those LOW-LIFE, good for nothing theifs from messing with us “Innocent College Students.”

Phillip
February 15th, 2010 - 19:18

Puneet,

The attack happened in spite of the fact that Tech is in a “weapon free zone.” Clearly, such restrictions do not prevent criminals from bringing weapons on campus and committing crimes. They do, however, prevent students like myself from responsibly protecting our own lives while on campus (not to mention while being in transit to and from campus).

So Pruneet, what right does anyone have to force me to be a victim?

Dave
February 15th, 2010 - 19:20

just imagine a bunch of socially-maladjusted Call of Duty playing libertarian gun fetishists packing gats under their fedoras/camo-caps, waiting in skittish anticipation to murder the first homeless person that approaches them “too aggressively.” sounds like a great idea

Dave
February 15th, 2010 - 19:30

are comments being selectively approved? Mine, which take an anti-concealed carry stance, aren’t showing even though they don’t mention other commentators. apparently some people value the 2nd Amendment more than the 1st…

Phillip
February 15th, 2010 - 19:36

“just imagine a bunch of socially-maladjusted Call of Duty playing libertarian gun fetishists packing gats under their fedoras/camo-caps, waiting in skittish anticipation to murder the first homeless person that approaches them “too aggressively.” sounds like a great idea”

Dave,

I’m glad you are using logic and reason when discussing this issue. Oh. Wait…

If the scenario you have presented were realistic, then why does this not happen off campus where students can and do carry a firearm?

Antonio Salazar Cardozo
February 15th, 2010 - 19:52

The worry that violence will increase is perhaps unfounded. However, in a situation where a robber holds you up at gunpoint and you give him your money, the likelihood of your getting shot is relatively low. In a situation where a robber holds you up at gunpoint and someone else pulls out a gun, the chances that someone — or, in fact, multiple someones — will get shot goes up dramatically. Because suddenly the robber isn’t using the gun mostly to get your money and get on with it, he is using it to defend him or herself.

And before you ask, yes, it’s a problem if the robber gets shot, too. There’s taking your money, and then there’s getting shot. They are not commensurate crimes, even in an eye-for-an-eye world.

As for soldiers vs students… The dissimilarity between the two roles is so different as to defy comparison. A soldier has far more training than a concealed carry license requires.

That a student with a gun can defend himself better is perhaps true, but omitted in that analysis is the collateral damage. Not to mention the fact that it neglects nervousness in the moment. Maybe you manage to draw your gun but can’t shoot straight. Maybe you get shot drawing your gun because your ability dropped drastically with the adrenaline surging through your veins. Maybe you don’t even think to draw your gun because someone is shooting at you.

I don’t have numbers backing my statements up, of course. But I would be curious to see a comparison of cases where concealed carry helped (i.e., mitigated the number of injuries or deaths) vs those in which it hurt (i.e., collateral damage hurt more people than if the gun had stayed put away).

Phillip
February 15th, 2010 - 20:42

Antonio,

The constitution of the United States guarantees my right to bare arms. If you “don’t have numbers backing [your] statements up,” then why should the default opinion be to restrict a constitutional right?

Concealed and open carry off campus has been legal in Georgia and elsewhere for a long time, so if your concerns were valid, there would be a substantial amount of data to support them. I am unaware of such data.

Additionally, many of your concerns are about the repercussions of an INDIVIDUAL who chooses to protect his or her self. If you choose to carry a firearm without being prepared mentally to use it wisely, then you are responsible for any negative impact this may have on you (The idea that others are likely to suffer from your decision is not supported by available data).

We are not arguing that everyone should carry. We are arguing that everyone should have the right to decide individually whether they want to carry given the pros and cons involved.

You are essentially arguing that, since some people will do stupid things and cause themselves harm, we should deny everyone the right. Using this type of argument, why are we allowed to drive cars on campus?

As for the comment about members of military, you have misunderstood the original comment. The mention of students in the military was in response to the idea that students are not responsible enough to carry on campus. Since students already do carry on campus, the implication is that this must not be true. It was not a question of firearm competence (You can find the testimony from Dr. Kaufman online).

So, in closing, you–like most of the anti-concealment crowd–are presenting a lot of “what if” situations which are not supported by statistical data. Until people on your side are able to do more than propose hypothetical situations with no factual basis, I’d prefer you did not urinate on the constitution.

Steven Parker
February 15th, 2010 - 20:57

This will in the long run decrease the amount of crime committed on campus and i am very much for this bill.

Phillip
February 15th, 2010 - 21:10

Antonio,

I posted two sources where you can find statistics which go against what you have been claiming. If you are truly interested in being informed, go to GunFacts.info and read. Many of your myths are likely addressed.

As for the constitution, the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. As for current laws, more specifically Georgia’s public gathering law (which is the main subject of HB 615), there is a very good argument to be made that the reason for its existence is racism. Essentially, the public gathering law–as well as others–was created in order to disarm blacks (For those interested, google for the paper “Disarm the Negroes”). Additionally, Georgia is the only state which has such a public gathering law.

So, I think you will excuse me for not accepting the idea that the current laws are more important than the constitution (especially considering the general populations insistence on believing irrational gun myths).

Antonio Salazar Cardozo
February 15th, 2010 - 21:31

Phillip — sorry, I hadn’t seen those links. I’ll go have a look now. By the time I had a burgeoning thought to put down, I guess I had missed the links.

Phillip
February 15th, 2010 - 21:39

Antonio,

You are supporting an infringement of a constitutional right for no reason other than your gut feeling. I find this considerably more disrespectful than saying someone is “urinating on the the constitution.”

As for my conclusion, I would have to ask, what conclusion? My argument is backed by the constitution, so the burden of proof is on your side. For instance, if I present some hypothetical arguments against free speech, would you think it’s reasonable for me to demand that you prove it’s a good thing?

So, your lack of proof is considerably more damning than my “lack if proof” (though I don’t lack proof and have provided a source which can be used to find out for yourself.)

Finally, if you are not arguing against the responsibility of students, then what in the world are you basing your attack of HB615 on?

The legality of concealed carry is not up for debate wrt HB 615. HB 615 is primarily a bill about geography (ie, WHERE you can carry). If you believe students are responsible enough to carry on campus, then what else is there to debate?

Perhaps you desire to have tighter controls in general. If that’s the case, then why are you having this debate in the context of a post about HB 615?

Antonio Salazar Cardozo
February 15th, 2010 - 21:50

Hm. There are indeed some interesting statistics in there, but the focus in the accidental death section seems to be on deaths — an important statistic, to be sure, but I included injuries in my question. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the book they mention, which may well have that additional statistic.

Sadly, it’s late, so I neither have time to look further into these statistics nor to see what statistics the other side waves around to support their stance. But I never really meant to say anyone was wrong, which is why I clearly stated that I had no support — I just wanted to mention a few ideas that hadn’t been mentioned here yet and that perhaps should be considered.

Thanks for the links; I’ll try and do some more digging tomorrow if time permits.

Antonio Salazar Cardozo
February 15th, 2010 - 22:14

Phillip — I’ll go bottom up. For one thing, the debate in the comments quickly moved towards a more general one. For another, just like someone against gun control would likely start at removing it in specific cases with an eye to the greater cases, so the same reasoning could be applied here. For myself, I simply saw an opportunity to have this debate a little more clearly, something which I haven’t really had an opportunity to do before. It’s actually why you’ll also see I carefully avoided saying anything opposed to this particular bill, and, in fact, very carefully targeted everything I said to specific arguments or ideas.

You are continuing to assume that your reading of the Constitution is the only one. The fact that these laws exist and are relatively unchallenged in a federal context (those challenges that have occurred have generally been inconclusive to the broader question of state gun control, and have often had to deal with the question of what the militia-related portion of the Amendment was meant to do) means that there is at the very least some unclearness about this matter. The most recent precedent on this matter is from 2008, so it’ll be a few years yet before we’ve seen how exactly this precedent is meant to be applied.

Don’t present a hypothetical argument for free speech, present a real one: libel. The Supreme Court has held on multiple occasions that there is such a thing as reasonable limits to the rights presented in the Constitution.

To present a more germaine one, DC vs Heller, the most recent 2nd Amendment precedent from the Supreme Court, specifically mentions that the decision “should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, *or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings*, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.””

An accidental response specific to HB615, but there you have it. The Constitution is not defined by you, nor is it defined by me. It is defined by its text and almost 225 years of jurisprudence. And the debate that has led to its current state has never been particularly furthered by furtive or overt accusations of desecrating this nation’s foundational document, or the `anti-American’ label that often follows on the heels of such accusations.

Ryan P
February 15th, 2010 - 22:42

I understand how the gut reaction for many students is to think that guns introduced into any environment or situation dangerous. Some of us have even mentioned how the more unstable among us may use guns to carry out horrific acts of violence against themselves and others.

But being the reasoning and (sometimes) intelligent people we are, I think we can look past feelings and gut reactions to the logical consequences of this bill. It does not allow for the uninhibited permeation of weapons, but instead gives the willing individuals among us (who have been run through background checks and training courses) the ability to carry weapons on their person – in a tightly monitored and tightly regulated – but legal fashion. I don’t know if I would conceal carry myself, but I feel safer knowing that other people can and do.

I believe the concept is simple:

Those who carry weapons to commit illegal acts are not stopped simply because carrying/concealing a weapon is illegal (duh). Do you think conceal/carry laws stop people who intend to commit murder or rob a bank? Of course not. But a good, law abiding citizen who might prevent a murder or crime will (by definition) cannot be carrying a gun. In effect, these laws work reverse. They un-arm the good to create sacrificial animals for the evil.

Just my two cents.

Patrick
February 16th, 2010 - 06:20

So, there seems to be a heated debate going on here. I don’t know if anyone will be convinced, but here are my thoughts:

Carrying a concealed weapon requires a license, which in turn requires some background checking. Additionally, most gun crimes are not committed by persons with concealed carry permits, but rather crimes can be stopped by those individuals.

Some relevant statistics: http://www.gunmyths.com/2009/04/03/myth-people-with-concealed-weapons-permits-will-commit-crimes/

Additionally,
1) Someone determined to commit a gun crime on campus is (in my opinion, I don’t have stats for this) more likely to obtain a gun without concealed carry or just plain illegally because it’s much quicker than waiting for all the concealed carry paperwork. Statistics do show that concealed carriers are less likely to commit violent crimes. A determined person is going to do what they are going to do, regardless of the law.
2) I can’t conceive of a valid justification to treat college campuses differently than most other public areas. Many students and faculty are over the age of 21, especially at Tech where we have so many 5+ year students. At a high school, for example, there are relatively few who could take positive advantage of a concealed carry permit due to age restriction, but that is not the case here.
3) Those North Ave guys need to be able to defend themselves. Even when they just give the robbers what they want, they are still getting shot. That is just ridiculous. If criminals learned that some decent portion of students packs a firearm, I think they’d be less likely to attack them because they won’t be easy targets.

I would not be opposed to the university requiring students who plan to carry on campus to register those weapons with the GTPD (in addition to their state granted license) and anytime that weapon is drawn on a person or animal or discharged at all being required to file a report or face consequences from the Dean of Students. Including a week of gun safety in Health class or GT1000 might not be a bad idea if the concealed carry ban is lifted, either.

Phillip
February 16th, 2010 - 06:45

Ryan P,

I am not disagreeing with your premise at all, but I believe that, in the spirit of fair debate, I should point out that the statement:

“It does not allow for the uninhibited permeation of weapons, but instead gives the willing individuals among us (who have been run through background checks and training courses) the ability to carry weapons on their person – in a tightly monitored and tightly regulated – but legal fashion.”

Is misleading. In Georgia, no training courses are required for a GFL.

David G
February 16th, 2010 - 09:01

The consensus certainly seems to be for carry on campus if the comments are any indicator; admin(s) – will you please post any information about how/when the SGA will convey the students’ stance to the General Assembly? I would like to hear and observe the SGA’s representation for myself.

David Gallmeier
February 16th, 2010 - 10:53

I’d like to know whether or not the SGA is accurately conveying the students’ views on the matter. Phillip, can you put up a record of the SGA president doing so? It may very well be necessary to bypass the SGA and mobilize students to represent themselves at future hearings on HB 615.

Phillip
February 16th, 2010 - 12:01

David,

Unfortunately, I don’t have a transcript or recording from the hearing on the 27th.

Here is a link about the official statement from the University System of Georgia:
http://www.usg.edu/news/release/university_system_issues_statement_supporting_current_georgia_law_on_firear

At this link, you will find the following at the bottom: “At the hearing, two University System of Georgia (USG) representatives spoke in support of current Georgia law: Dr. Daniel J. Kaufman, president of Georgia Gwinnett College in Lawrenceville and Alina Staskevicius, president of the Georgia Institute of Technology student government association.”

You can also find a thread in the forum on GeorgiaPacking.org which mentions her statement, but I don’t know if they said anything about it other than it being a “cookie cutter” anti-gun argument.

As for bypassing the SGA, I ABSOLUTELY agree. I actually was planning on posting that. People need to understand that HB 615 is NOT a bill to allow concealed carry on campus. It is a bill to reform many aspects of Georgia’s firearm/weapon laws (focusing on the public gathering law). Being able to carry on campus is merely one of the results of the reform.

This means two things:
1) We, collectively, have as much say as the SGA with respect to the bill in general. SGA is only relevant for one aspect of the bill–though we, as you mention, do not have to go through SGA even for this aspect.
2) Even if the SGA did support the bill, there is no guarantee that it will pass, since that is not the focus of the bill!

Considering these to facts, it is imperative that you identify the representative for your district and PERSONALLY write him or her to express your desire to have this bill passed. Arguing about this on the internet does little–your reps must know that this is important to you!

Again: WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

GeorgiaPacking.org provides a ton of information about HB 615 and how to write your representative. So I would suggest checking them out and getting informed about all developments as well.

Susan
February 17th, 2010 - 12:17

There are people around you every day, outside of at least Tech, who could be carrying a gun. Now does that make you scared. They could as often as not be the ones to protect or to harm you. The average student asked his/her opinion would probably resort to the gun=death scenario. But there are two sides to every coin..