Students for Concealed Carry on Campus


version 226 (2008-11-24 20:58:49 by BrendanChan)
←previous edit
version 227 (2008-11-24 21:21:03 by gurglemeow)
next edit→
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 428: Line 428:
''2008-11-24 21:21:03'' [[nbsp]] Oh wow. I'm not even going to get into these comments. But may I say that I am saddened and disappointed by the existence of a Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. --["Users/gurglemeow"]

SCCC banner 2.gif

Web site

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) is a non-partisan, national grassroots organization comprised of over 30,000 students, faculty members, parents, and concerned citizens across the nation who support the right of concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. It has no ties with the Democratic, Republican, or other political parties or with the National Rifle Association.


1. To educate the public about the facts of concealed carry and dispel the many myths about concealed carry.
2. To push state legislatures and school administrations to grant concealed handgun license holders the same right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses that these license holders currently enjoy at most other places (movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, banks, and so on).


For more information about us, join our [WWW]Facebook group or email [MAILTO]SCCC's UC Davis campus leader.

Current & Future Plans:


National Demographics:
~90% college students and ~10% faculty, parents, and concerned citizens

Related Organizations

See also


Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2008-08-06 10:43:36   Are there any stories of success about students who defended themselves using their concealed weapon? —JamesSchwab

2008-08-06 11:03:10   I would find Davis to be a much scarier place if I knew that people were walking around with concealed weapons. This is probably one of the safest places to live in the country, and the thought of people getting into gunfights (or asserting that they *could* get into a gun fight if they felt threatened) is truly frightening. No, the use of licensing does not make this more acceptable to me. Assume that someone has a concealed weapon. Could (would!) someone walk up to them and ask them to prove that they have a license for it? Of course not. By definition, no one would know that they have a concealed weapon. If we assume that a licensing process could somehow differentiate those people who would only use a weapon for self defense from those who might use it for non-legal uses (not actually possible, but let's assume it for the sake of discussion), then one might argue that only people who are licensed would be carrying a concealed weapon. But clearly, anyone who obtains a gun without going through the licensing process could *also* be carrying that gun in a concealed manner. So licensing has not bought you anything as an argument for concealment. Now assume that some percentage of people who might be carrying a concealed weapon might be crazy, unstable, have a grudge against society, etc. (Think Virginia Tech.) Do you know who those people are? Would you want to make it easier for someone to have such a weapon?

Note: A friend of mine (and someone else) died because access to guns was easy and legal. One of the two died because the other was carrying a concealed weapon, was mentally unstable because they had suddenly stopped taking the sort of medication that you aren't supposed to stop taking suddenly, and had easy and legal access to a gun. They were shot four or five times. The other killed themselves. The mentally unstable person would have had no trouble getting licensed to acquire a gun.

Dozens of people have died on college and high school campuses in the past few years because people had easy access to guns, and were able to bring them onto the campuses. The idea of making them even more widespread, and making them more prevalent on college campuses, is truly frightening. —IDoNotExist

2008-08-06 11:19:07   James - There are, actually.

IDoNotExist - UC Davis was actually cited by Reader's Digest as one of the most dangerous college campuses in the U.S. Furthermore, licenses can be produced by concealed handgun license (CHL) holders on demand. SCCC is not about making it easier for people to carry a weapon, but about extending the rights of legal CHL holders to carry on campus when they can already carry everywhere else in society. —BrendanChan

2008-08-06 11:53:01   The fact that they can carry them elsewhere is also very frightening.

While I would not put much faith in Reader's Digest as a source of high quality journalism, I can cite some actual crime statistics (with references!) for the Davis campus:

As reported by the UC Davis campus to the Department of Education, for 2004 - 2006:
In 2004-2006, there were 0 cases of murder or manslaughter at Davis. These are the cases where you might be legally justified in using deadly force (ie. a gun) for self defense.

The most common crime here in those years was Burglary 51 - 75 incidents per year in a campus of 30,000 and a town of 50,000-60,000. That means that your odds of being hit with a burglary were between 0.17% and 0.25%, depending on which year you decide to use.

The next most common crime was forcible sex (I assume this means rape, attempted rape, etc.) There were 22-38 cases in campus for those three years. That means that your odds of being a victim of this crime was between 0.12% and 0.044%.

The next most common crime was motor vehicle theft, with 15 incidents per year.

Off campus, there were 0 cases of murder or manslaughter. The most common crime was burglary. In a town of about 60000 people, in the worst year (2004), there were 23 incidents of burglary. Your chances of being burgled in 2004 were 0.0383%.

Source: [WWW]

Now let's look at FBI statistics for the most dangerous campuses in the country. According to the San Francisco Examiner, Davis is not among the most violent campuses.

Source: [WWW]

Because the Examiner breaks down their statistics differently than the ones on the DOE site, we can't make a direct comparison of the statistics. However, Davis is definitely not on the list. You can, however, go to the Department of Education site linked to above, and obtain comparable statistics for any campus you wish. A quick look at Michigan State, which is the last ranked campus in the Examiner article, shows far more incidents of physical violence on their campus than at Davis. —IDoNotExist

2008-08-06 12:09:57   I should also note that were UCD to be among the most dangerous campuses in the country (which, based on the article cited above, it is not), it would still be an extremely safe to be. *Some* college campus has to be among the most dangerous, but the entire pool of college campuses has a fairly low crime rate. So the difference between the most dangerous and least dangerous campuses is quite small. A better comparison would be between college campuses and other environments, such as cities. In any case, it hardly seems to justify the desire to carry lethal weapons. —IDoNotExist

2008-08-06 12:39:03   Brendan, would you mind providing links to those stories.

Also, as a Davis native we are by no means one of the most dangerous campuses in the US. —JamesSchwab

2008-08-06 14:26:57   Certainly.


2008-08-06 14:27:42   I apologize, however, as the blog is not limited to incidents involving students. —BrendanChan

2008-08-06 14:39:06   Do you have links to specific stories about colleges? I don't have the time to look through many years of stories. —JamesSchwab

2008-08-06 15:07:34   No, I'm afraid not. The owner of the blog isn't affiliated with SCCC, and he hasn't elected to create an index of blog entry tags that I could use to point directly to incidents involving students. I spent some time reading it myself and am aware of time constraints. —BrendanChan

2008-08-06 15:52:37   Huh? That's your argument so far? A "Reader's Digest" article and someone's anecdotal blog? You really should offer a better argument for this than the one you've offered so far to Jim. We have a police force on campus, we are an extremely safe campus, so what will concealed carry bring to the table ? —JesseSingh

2008-08-06 16:53:17   When has allowing more guns anywhere made anything safer? I'm interested in the facts so I'll go check out the references for myself, but. . .I'm skeptical at this point. Both my professional and personal experience tell me this is a bad idea for about a thousand reasons. I'll have to go read up and come back once I'm better informed.

This has started a spirited discussion. What do other's think about this issue? I'm interested.

2008-08-06 18:07:17   I doubt that allowing guns on campus will make school safer, but it could make school more fun! —BrentLaabs

2008-08-06 19:26:14   Best of luck on getting concealed permits in California! —StevenDaubert

2008-08-06 19:31:37   I have to say that I truly feel sorry for any person that feels they need to carry a gun on our campus to feel safe. I have never felt that type of fear, even now, as I type this, I am sitting in downtown Chicago at ten thirty at night and I feel perfectly safe walking home without a loaded weapon. I am wondering if the leader of the group can tell me exactly why he is so afraid? I don't mean the word "afraid" to be demeaning, I just can't think of any other motivation to want a handgun other then fear of attack.

2008-08-06 20:08:52   Some thoughts:

I know a few people who feel the need to carry guns. They all seem quite worried that *someone* will suddenly attack them at some point, and that they will be able to deal with this by shooting the other person, or that potential attackers will be afraid to attack them because the attacker won't know who might have a gun. (Of course, this is already the case, whether doing so is legal or not.) I'm not sure why they are so convinced that someone will attack them. Some of them also seem to associate having a gun with their self image. Being able to carry a gun makes them feel better about themselves and their insecurities. This may or may not apply to other people who feel the need to carry them.

The other observation is that in order to generate high ratings (ad sale revenue), many media outlets now cover and emphasize murders and other sensational and violent events as if they are commonplace. In reality, your chances of being in a violent incident have actually decreased over the years, and there are not very many incidents per capita. However, if you don't put the sensational reporting of the media in context, you might believe that anywhere you look, someone is likely to go after you. (Just as everyone on the Internet is scary and dangerous, right?!) —IDoNotExist

2008-08-06 20:32:03   I support Self Defense too, slight difference of opinion however. I think it's cool to see gun-rights groups emerging on campus, you should get in touch with Davis College Republicans and Davis College Democrats. I'm sure both groups would be interested in collaborative debates about gun issues. You could possibly achieve the educational objective in doing so and I know there's passion amongst libertarian leaning liberals in support of concealed carry. Best of luck to the organization, always good to see a diversity of thought. —GregWebb

2008-08-07 11:11:39   You don't need a gun for self defense. Unless it is defense from another gun. Also if you kill someone with any weapon in "self defense" you may be tried for murder and use of excessive force. —TusharRawat

2008-08-07 12:03:06   Of course there is going to be a fine line between justifiable homicide and excessive force; however the point is that CHL holders (as well as policemen) shoot to STOP, not to KILL. A CHL is not by any means a license to kill. By the same token, CHL holders are not going to be vigilantes, because that kind of action is at the very least going to get their CHL pulled and more likely it will result in prison time.

Furthermore, according to law enforcement studies, if someone has a knife and is within 21 feet of you, he can reach attack range before you can draw your weapon and command him to stop (or take it off safety and fire if necessary). —BrendanChan

2008-08-07 17:58:08   There is, of course, a difference in the lethality of bullets that are fired with the intention of stopping someone rather than killing them. Much like phasers in Star Trek, which have a stun setting, modern bullets can be placed into a non-lethal "stop" setting. In this setting, the bullets will not permanently damage any vital organs. Rather they will irritate their target, or make them fall gently to sleep, so that they can wake up refreshed, having failed in their attack and been arrested.

Stopping power is simply a euphemism used by the gun industry for the likelihood of killing someone.

Red lights stop. Phasers stun. Guns kill. Although sometimes they stop people too. Permanently. —IDoNotExist

2008-08-07 20:25:38   Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that gun target practice rewards you for shooting the target's chest, not their hand. Besides, shooting someone in the leg is not exactly good for them either, and if you miss, you kill them. Or someone else.

Back in 1994ish, a UC Davis student living in an apartment was shot when his roommate started playing with a loaded gun (his, I think) in their apartment. No one was being evil. The student was wounded or killed.

No one has ever died or been injured by a gunshot wound when there was not a gun somewhere nearby. Drive by knifing are not considered dangerous. —IDoNotExist

2008-08-07 23:18:07   Again, I don't think that the use of a license or a test is a good measure of who is likely to kill or injure someone with a gun. As an example out of today's headlines, take a look at alleged anthrax suspect Bruce Ivins (see [WWW] This was someone working in a high security government job whom, the government alleges, killed people using a deadly weapon (anthrax). Just because someone has not been convicted of a crime or can pass a test does not mean that they are not going to use a deadly weapon on somebody. In fact, by definition, 100% of people who do use a legally carried gun in a crime must have passed such a test!

As for outlawing forklifts, the difference here is that a forklift is designed for lifting heavy objects. It is not designed as a tool for killing someone. Very few people (if any) have died in intentional forklift attacks. Guns are designed to kill people (and in some cases, animals.) While it is certainly true that many guns are used perfectly legally and without violent intent, the purpose of a gun is to kill.

Let's look at the website of a popular gun magazine for confirmation of this (Guns and Ammo). You can find this at [WWW] The picture currently shown on the front page of their website shows a man with a rifle and a very large, very dead, buffalo. Quoting from the article at [WWW], "Penetration was more than 40 inches through bone and muscle." Clearly, we are not talking about something that is designed to shoot paper targets.

A quick Google search for other gun related sites brought up this one: [WWW] . They talk about ordering machine guns on their home page. That's the sort of thing that you take to a war, not use for self defense.

Seriously - the main purpose of a gun is to kill - even the little tiny ones. You can pretend that no one would ever use it for any other purpose, or that people with a gun license would never use it for that purpose, except in self defense. The 33 dead and 23 injured at Virginia Tech, the 12 dead and 23 wounded at Columbine High School, the 1 dead and 19 injured at Dawson College, the two killed at Platte Canyon High School, the 6 dead and 5 injured at West Nickel Mines School, and the 9 dead and 12 injured at Jokela High School (Finland) demonstrate this quite well. So do my friend, and the other person who died that day. —IDoNotExist

Though I agree with the general notion that more weapons isn't the best means to peace and that sentiment is dear to my heart, if I may draw this discussion to a tangent of a meta-argument. Here I see a page about a group which has a purpose and an identity, and this datum is being included on the wiki. As I see it, the fact that the group is, is not a subject to debate, and such I cannot find a word on this page (I think) that is indisputable in this regard. Regardless of what they promote, heck Ku Klux Klown or Scientology, and how we may feel about this message, they still are free to promote it, just like the preachers with signs. Now, we can add in community opinion of this group, statistics regarding how well they are supported or denounced by the Davis community at large, and write of these things concisely, but a large argument of the disagreement is a pointless waste of our lifespans. If there is apparent datum that isn't true, then that is a matter of debate, but this page isn't to convince people of the truth status of this group's belief, it is just about the group itself. I will delete this argument, including my comment, later, not to support either side of this debate, but to be a jackass and end pointless bickering and infighting that at times past has led to many sad misuses of fists, firearms, and most powerful of all, words. ~D

2008-08-07 23:41:02   A question of statistics, how many members are officially reported on this groups SPAC registration and what are the demographic statistics of the local membership? (note that this data must be reported to SPAC at the time of club registration), Also for the given membership statistics, over how many campuses etc, lets get some research in. —DavidPoole

2008-08-07 23:58:28   I completely agree that the group (unlike myself) does apparently exist, supports a particular point of view, is promoting it, and has every right to do so. I disagree that removing discussion about the group or its views is productive. The group is promoting something that:

1) Does not appear to be necessary, based on statistical data
2) Is not (at least in my opinion) likely to enhance the quality of life for campus residents, but may put residents in severe danger
3) Is the subject of a major national debate, which likely will play a part in the current election.
4) May be based on incorrect or invalid assumptions (as the discussion may or may not show.)

The discussion is a valid debate on the merits of the ideas that this group espouses. It also has not devolved into a flame war, although it has certainly become emotional. —IDoNotExist

2008-08-08 10:02:47   DavidPoole - we are not registered with SPAC yet. That's a future objective. As for total SCCC membership, it is currently more than 32,000 members over 500-odd campuses. —BrendanChan

Ah, okay, I would like at this time to note that it takes a minimum five members for form an SPAC recognized club, as you are not registered, I should ask, how many people are working on this group? ~Dp

2008-08-08 10:23:11   How does this group stand on non-concealed weapons on campus? in most all cases you can get stopped for carrying a replica/airsoft gun or even foam noodle much less an actual firearm or weapon (without permission from admin, excluding rotc and their armory). —DavidPoole

2008-08-09 01:39:43   Curiously, how many of the members, both local and nationally, actually have a concealed carry permit? —DavidPoole

2008-11-15 17:25:40   While I am a strong proponent of the second amendment and am disgusted by the plethora of unconstitutional gun laws on the books at both the state and federal levels, I don't think that there is a reason for this organization to be active in the State of California. Concealed carry in general is in a bad place in CA. In the most populated areas in this state, you need to be a professional, a campaign donor to the sheriff, a law enforcement officer, a body guard, or a high profile rich person in order to get the permit to legally carry. If you go to some place like San Francisco, only being a LEO works. We need to fix these problems first before even attempting to repeal the laws that prohibit those lucky few with CCW permits from carrying on campus without the written permission of the Chancellor. —WilliamLewis

2008-11-22 19:53:52   How come there are an awful lot of people in the United States with guns (and all of them claim it's to protect themselves or hunt) and yet—the United States seems to have an awful lot of crime. And hasn't the gun sales in recent years gone up? And yet, not much reduction in crime? Doesn't Canada have a lot of guns, but not much crime? Has anyone figured out why the United States has lot of deaths caused by shootings (when compared to Canada, England, et al)? Has anyone figured this out? —CurlyGirl26

2008-11-23 10:01:39   Justification/Opinion: Skimming through the comments a lot of people seem to point out that the only reason for carrying a handgun is fear. I prefer to think of my support for concealed carry as a desire to be prepared for the worst even though I hope for the best. School shootings happen regardless of the concealed carry policy on a campus because, let's face it, if someone is planning on going about a murderous rampage they will hardly be concerned with breaking the law. Restricting access to guns from law abiding civilians only means that those who wish to arm themselves for the unfortunate moment when they require self-defense will not do so; criminals can't be expected to and thinking that gun laws keep guns out of the hands of people who would use them for nefarious purposes is naive. Unless you can un-invent weapons, individuals who want to harm others will always find a way. I'm sure many of you will write me off as paranoid for thinking this but it is true. Someone who is crazy, vicious will find a way to get a gun; I know from experience that an ex-con who can't legally buy a gun will do so anyway.

School shooting information: In 1966 there was a school shooting in Texas. A young man, Whitman, locked himself in the university clock/bell tower observation deck with rifles and began picking off students. The situation was resolved in part because of the civilian response to the situation. Police officers at the scene credited the civilians (who used their legal fire arms in an attempt to stop Whitman) for restricting his movements, keeping him from being able to continue his attack and distract him. In fact when the tower was infiltrated, it was with the aid of two civilian sharp shooters.

In this specific case Whitman was suffering from a brain tumor. Whitman sought help and even indicated that something was probably wrong with him in his suicide note. Prior to the shooting he killed his mother and wife with a knife. As in Columbine and VTech, there were warning signs and appropriate medical care was not sought/provided. Perhaps if psychiatric care were able to weed out every single person who poses a threat to society there wouldn't be a need for self-defense weapons but unfortunately that is impossible. —OliviaY

Just curious about a hypothetical case. I hear shooting in the quad, someone falls next to me, everyone draws a gun.. who do I shoot? clearly it was that guy there, bang! chaos. That would be so funny in its self destructiveness. Right now for all those who may also illegally be carrying a gun on campus for whatever reason, that the guy with the gun is the crazy shooter, so shoot him. ~DP

2008-11-23 15:51:05   If you want another example: School shooting in Pearl Mississippi in 1997. Luke Woodham shot and killed 2 students but was then stopped by the Vice Principal who retrieved a gun from his car.

Or in Israel (which I recognize has a slightly different danger level) this year there was a terrorist attack/shooting in a Seminary which was halted when one student heard the gun shots, grabbed his weapon and killed the assailant.

I understand the fear that tons of people will draw their weapons and more chaos will occur but that has yet to happen(?) whereas there are many cases when an individual or individuals who are armed manage to help. *? as I don't know for a fact but presume I would have heard about it by now from someone if there were such a case. Also I think that there are fewer individuals who want firearms than those who do not, so it is rather exaggerated to imagine that everyone would suddenly draw a weapon. —OliviaY

2008-11-23 15:55:14   Another case: 2002 - Appalachian school of law. Shooter was stopped by three students; two were armed and the third was not. —OliviaY

2008-11-23 15:57:39   I think part of the point is that once someone draws a weapon on an attacker, quite often no shots are needed. While these stories aren't about concealed carry on campus, I often read articles about home invasions/robberies halted when someone pulls a weapon on the criminal. One in particular was amusing as it was an 70-80 year old woman who stopped a convenience store robbery when she pulled her pistol. —OliviaY

2008-11-23 16:10:55   One last example: 1998 Andrew Wurst brought a gun to a school dance, which was held at a nearby restaurant, he killed one person and injured three before the owner of Nick's Place aimed a shotgun and held him until the police arrived. —OliviaY

2008-11-23 17:28:29   Compare that to the many many thousands of people who have been shot with guns (illegal or not, illegally carried or not) over the years. I'm sure that given enough people with guns, and enough shootings, you would expect that every once in a while, one would happen to get successfully stopped. In fact, given enough samples, it would be VERY surprising if that didn't happen. But given that the rate at while shootings are stopped by non-police with guns (by your set of examples, about one every few years) compared with the rate at which shootings occur, we're talking virtually no benefit, but a greatly increased risk from more people walking around with guns. Also, as was established in the previous (extremely lengthy) discussion, your risk of being a victim of *any* crime on the UCD campus is less than 0.25%, and the number of victims of crimes where the use of a gun would be legally justified over the past decade was 0.

If you truly feel unsafe on the campus (although in most cases, you shouldn't), you might want to contact the campus police to discuss your concerns. If you would feel safer with people with guns walking around nearby, why not take the money that it would cost for everyone to go out and buy a gun, training, and a concealed carry permit to implement the strategy that you are advocating and use it to pay for a few more police on the campus. That would put an officer within a minute or two of just about every point on campus at any time of day. Police are: trained to use weapons properly and legally, allowed to do so in appropriate situations, unlikely to use their weapons in inappropriate situations, aware of the law and campus policies, able to coordinate with other police, and probably much better able to make a good judgment about when a weapon should or should not be used. I really don't think that this is necessary, given the very low crime rates in Davis. But if it makes you feel better, why not advocate for that instead of random people who might shoot someone? —IDoNotExist

* >>Police are: trained to use weapons properly and legally, allowed to do so in appropriate situations, unlikely to use their weapons in inappropriate situations, aware of the law and campus policies, able to coordinate with other police, and probably much better able to make a good judgment about when a weapon should or should not be used. I really don't think that this is necessary, given the very low crime rates in Davis. But if it makes you feel better, why not advocate for that instead of random people who might shoot someone?<<

Are you willing to take away the right to self-defense based on a "might"? What in your first sentence distinguishes CHL holders from police? CHL holders are: trained to use weapons properly and legally by the state-mandated CHL class, unlikely to use their weapons in inappropriate situations (as shown by various studies listed on SCCC's web site), aware of the law (thanks again to the state-manded CHL class - and if CC on campus is allowed, campus policies will not be an issue), able to coordinate with police officers (they can talk to them, unlike violent criminals who will only speak with bullets), and can you prove that the police are better able to judge? I would give the benefit of the doubt to the CHL holder and say that CHL holders and law enforcement officers have equally good judgment about when to employ their weapons.

Furthermore, going back to 1998, I'm going to list all the incidents in which a concealed weapon might have made a difference: Jose Reyes, August 1998; Tapioca Express stabbing, April 2004; Dennis Thrower, November 2004; John Finley Scott, June 2006. Four incidents. Not zero. Leaving aside inclination and eligibility to acquire a concealed weapons permit, having one and a concealed weapon might have made a difference. Shots may not even have had to be fired in the case of the Tapioca Express stabbing - after all, a criminal with a knife will most likely stop dead in his tracks when faced with a gun-armed individual.

Finally, how would $150-300 for a class and $25 for a (California) license pay for enough police to put officers within a minute or two of every point on campus for more than two days? —BrendanChan

2008-11-23 19:45:15   Ok. Let's say that my suggestion that police are not particularly likely to misuse or abuse their weapons is incorrect as you have suggested, and that police are indeed just like everyone else in that respect. Then your assertion that people would be safer if ordinary people are allowed to carry concealed weapons must be false, since ordinary people, like police, will misuse or abuse their weapons. (In fact, I'd argue that they would be more likely to, but for the sake of argument, we're assuming no difference, as you have asserted.) Therefore, having ordinary people carry weapons is (by your own argument) quite dangerous, since they are likely to abuse or misuse them!

Gun bans may not work if guns are readily available despite the ban. The problem here is that guns are readily available. Wouldn't you feel safer if people couldn't shoot other people? I know I would!

If you've read the entire discussion, you also know that easy access to guns resulted in the rather brutal death of a friend of mine, and her boyfriend. I find it unconscionable and frightening that someone would want to increase the number of these weapons on campus. Maybe it would make you feel better that you have a gun, but it wouldn't make me feel better that you (or anyone else - I don't know you specifically) have a gun.

I also know quite a few people who have been raped. In every case (of those people I know), it was date rape, by people they were involved with, or it was molestation by family members. In none of these cases would someone have been likely to have been protected by a gun. As I've mentioned previously, between 2004 and 2006 (the latest year for which statistics were available when I posted about it previously), there were 22-38 reported cases of forcible sex on campus for those three years. That means that your odds of being a victim of this crime was between 0.12% and 0.044%. So your chances of being a rape victim were close to 0. But had each of these people used a gun and shot their attackers, we would have had up to 38 deaths by gunshot in those three years (as opposed to 0.) I'm certainly not defending the attackers. But the idea of killing all of these people is rather frightening. —IDoNotExist

2008-11-24 00:30:16   There are many countries where it is not legal for a private citizen to own a gun. Japan is one such country. Shockingly, it has virtually no gun violence.

I don't see how an arms race could possibly make people safer. —IDoNotExist

2008-11-24 10:07:47   Good. Let's get rid of the guns *off* campus too!

I think that the whole basis of the argument for guns on campus is based on an irrational fear of being attacked. The statistics for Davis, which I've cited previously, clearly show that your odds of being a victim of a physical attack in Davis are close to 0. The rate of manslaughter or murder in Davis is approximately 0. If you truly believe that you are unsafe here, are likely to be attacked, and are in so much danger that you would need a gun to defend yourself, then the rational thing to do would be to go to some place safe where you are unlikely to be attacked! You've cited several places internationally, but I'm sure that there is *somewhere* in the country with a crime rate even lower than that of Davis that you could move to instead. (Not many places, but they do exist.) If you truly believe that the campus is unsafe, why do you keep placing yourself in danger?! If you don't believe that the campus is unsafe, then carrying a gun is not a rational act, and in fact is something that other people should oppose since it puts *them* in danger.

We've established previously that the fact that someone has a license and training does not mean that they won't use a weapon for something other than self defense. For example, they might use it out of anger, or they might have psychological problems that result in them shooting random people. So the argument that people who have concealed weapons are all going to use their weapons at exactly the right time (ie. when attacked), and never at any other time is not rational.

There are over 300 million people in the country. You have stated that in the past decade, there have been exactly *four* incidents in which a concealed carry weapon *might* have helped. That means that your odds of being helped in the past decade by such a weapon was 300 million / 4 = 1 in 75 million. On a yearly basis, your odds of having been helped by such a weapon are 1/750 million. For comparison, the [WWW]odds of winning Mega Millions, an 11 state lottery with jackpots that are likely to exceed $100 million, are 1 in 176 million. In other words, on a yearly basis, it is more likely that you will become unimaginably rich by playing the lottery than it is that you will benefit from a concealed carry weapon. According to the National Weather Service, your [WWW]odds of being struck by lightning during your lifetime are 1 in 700,000. Your odds of being struck in in 80 year lifetime are 1 in 5000. In the same *lifetime*, by your own statistics, your odds of being helped by the weapons you are advocating would be 1 in 75,000,000 / 8 = 1 in 9,375,000. In other words, your chances of benefiting from carrying your weapon, by your own statistics, are 1,875 times worse than your chances of being hit by lightning in your lifetime. Given these statistics, you would be much better off saving your money, investing it in the market (securities are cheap now!), or even buying a few hundred lottery tickets!

But, you might say, I keep hearing about crime every day in the news! There are shootings! But if you think about it, you are hearing about events happening *somewhere* in the country, with a population of > 300 million. Your chances of actually being involved in such a crime are close to 0.

Clearly, the statistics show that carrying a gun on campus is not rational, since it is extraordinarily unlikely that you would ever need it. But it does increase the chances of someone being injured or killed either by accident, or because someone who is carrying one of these weapons decides to use it out of anger, because they have a mental issue, etc. So you are asking us to believe that the campus community would benefit from being placed in significantly *greater* danger in exchange for you receiving protection against an event that is almost certain never to happen. Supporting what you are advocating seems like a really bad idea to me. —IDoNotExist

And they didn't stop the Columbine shootings in Colorado or the VA Tech shootings in VA, now did they? Those are perfect test cases to see if your argument for concealed carry weapons is correct. Clearly, they did not. —IDoNotExist

2008-11-24 10:48:43   Olivia: Please read the entire discussion. I've cited numerous statistics for the city of Davis and for the Davis campus previously, as well as national statistics. In fact, those have been the basis of the core of my argument! I've shown that my argument is correct using actual data. I've cited the sources of that data (including the NRA!), and provided convenient links to those sources. I've even demonstrated mathematically that the counterarguments do not make sense. Continuing to push for something based on an assumption that has clearly been shown to be false is not rational, and is really a religious argument (not in the deity sense, but in the adherence to an "absolute truth" sense). The Iraq War is a good example of what happens when someone makes decisions based on what they want to be true, rather than what the data actually shows.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you, as you are advocating for changes to existing policies (laws?).

Yup. The chances are not 0. However, the chances of you being killed or injured in Davis in lots of other ways are much greater. Why not advocate for those instead? You might save far more lives. —IDoNotExist

2008-11-24 11:04:50   But according to the statistics on UCD campus crime, the campus violence in which your solution could be in any way considered to be appropriate or legal virtually never occurs! So you are presenting a solution to a problem that either doesn't exist, or that happens so infrequently that it might as well not exist. (In the years for which data was available, there were 0 such incidents!) I propose an alternative solution: Don't do anything. The rate of violent incidents in which guns could have been used will remain the same: 0. People will remain safe, since they already were. —IDoNotExist

2008-11-24 11:22:54   Ugh. I'm arguing math and evidence against a belief in an absolute truth here. Clearly, nothing that I can possibly say will ever change your mind (Olivia and Brandon). My argument is clearly laid out for anyone else who wants to read through all of this. I'm moving on... —IDoNotExist

2008-11-24 11:33:46   I think part of the problem inherent in any attempt to talk reasonably about guns is that people seem to believe that guns have some innate quality that makes them bad. I have noticed this a lot in California, and it always puzzles me. People seem to think that a gun will cause a person to do things they wouldn't normally do, or that it is capable of going off on it's own, and usually will do so when there's a convenient crowd of innocent bystanders. Guns are just tools, the same as hammers or cars, and they are only dangerous when used negligently or abusively. Negligence and abuse is something that occurs when someone is improperly educated about guns, or when they already intend to do some mischief. If I drive my car recklessly, then it is very possible that I could hurt someone. Does that mean we should ban cars? Of course not, it only means that we should have rules regarding car use, and require that anyone who wishes to drive a car get a license. Did you know that more than half of all gun deaths in the United States are from suicide? (You can research all the ways people die and the statistics involved [WWW]here.) People sometimes use ropes to kill themselves, should we ban those as well? —JoePomidor

2008-11-24 12:40:29   Joe: there's an important difference. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. The primary purpose of a car is for transportation. The primary purpose of a rope is (presumably) to tie things together. I don't buy the argument that because a gun is an inanimate object without the ability to decide to kill for itself that it is any less dangerous. You could make the same argument about nuclear weapons. A nuke is just an object. It doesn't do anything unless someone deliberately arms it and uses it to blow up a city. But it is *designed* to blow up a city. Therefore, it's not a good idea to let people carry them around, because someone might *use* one. Yes, you can injure or kill someone with nearly any object. You can kill someone with a small amount of water if you cause them to inhale it. But no one goes around talking about how you can use a water bottle to drown someone. People don't talk about drive by brickings, even though you can kill someone with a brick. A plastic bag can be used to kill someone by suffocation, but they aren't *designed* or *intended* to be used for that. Guns aren't terribly useful for anything other than putting holes in things, whether those things are paper targets, defenseless moose, or people. No one here is advocating for the construction of a shooting range on campus, so I think it's a pretty safe bet that we are talking about the more lethal uses of a gun.

If you drive recklessly, you can lose your license. But the analogy is poor, because cars aren't meant to kill. Guns have that as their primary purpose. (In fact, in Europe, cars are now required to be designed to reduce injuries to pedestrians, not just to their own occupants, because there is a desire to make them LESS dangerous.)

Olivia: Actually, I did know someone who suddenly developed homicidal tendencies, resulting in the death by gunshot of two people. The person had actually been very nice, and there was no reason to believe that anything like that might happen. I'm sure that they could have even passed your concealed carry test with no problem. All it took was a failure to take their medication at the wrong time. The other person who was killed, by the way, was in the military and most likely had legal possession of a gun as well as real training in how to use it.

Joe: I'm sorry that you don't like how I'm leaving the discussion. But it's gone on for months, and I have other things to do with my time. I feel that I've made my point, and anyone who reads this discussion will be able to tell what that is, and why I've made that argument. They can agree with it or not as they wish. I also feel like nothing that I say here is going to change the minds of Brendan and Olivia, since they readily dismiss all evidence that opposes their view. I am happy to adopt views other than the one that I currently have, but I haven't seem any evidence presented that supports their opinion, and there's plenty of evidence that runs counter to it. This could go on for a *very* long time (parallel discussions about gun control certainly have on a national level), but at some point I think we have to acknowledge that everyone has presented their best argument, and it's time to move on and discuss something else (at least it is for me.) I'm sorry that my method of doing so sounds sanctimonious to you, but I really do feel like this has become something more akin to trying to debate religion rather than looking at real world evidence, deciding whether a problem actually exists, deciding whether or not it makes any real sense to address that problem if it does, and finding the most effective solution if the problem needs to be addressed. I don't think that such discussions are productive for me, because they very rarely result in anyone changing their view, regardless of what arguments are made. So I'd rather move on and deal with something more productive. —IDoNotExist

comparison of statistics** in the mid-nineties, when Florida was still one of the few shall-issue states, found that Florida concealed handgun license holders were three times less likely to be arrested than were New York City police officers." (A comparison of statistics on arrests of police officers, published by the Washington Post on 08/28/94, to Florida
Department of Law Enforcement statistics submitted to the Governor on 03/15/95.)

>>I'd be much less afraid of surrendering to a cop and risking jail too, then I would of some adrenaline pumped idiot with a gun.<< You're forgetting that none of the CHL holders who used their firearms to defend themselves or others were idiots. I can remember at least half a dozen, off the shelf, and a whole lot more if I do serious research. —BrendanChan

As a response to the post above, and placed here as a new thread, if the point is to stop said potential shooting, why a lethal handgun? Would a taser not be sufficient? I suspect pulling a gun out would only add problems. Unless ten people pull a gun out, which is what I think some of you are envisioning (yay heros!)... But in said extremely disturbed cases such as the VT guy, I'd expect it to prompt a shootout. A taser would definitely be able to take the person down, more than long enough to be restrained. Excluding certain cases where someone brings a rifle or is rooftoping it, most shootings seem to be (not doing proper fact checking here) at close to very close ranges, well within the 30/35 foot range of a taser. Conversely, a tranquilizer gun is also highly accurate, well ranged, are available as pistols, and are quite a bit less lethal to both target and potential bystanders. Is there a justification for lethality, if the point is to avoid having to use the weapon and use it as a tool to stop a situation or protect oneself and their peers? I would say that using a taser or a tranquilizer gun would do much more to stop a person and contain your nightmare scenario than a non-lethal shot to the abdomen, legs/arms, etc. Unless the plan is to shoot to kill or to fire more than once? -ES

2008-11-24 21:21:03   Oh wow. I'm not even going to get into these comments. But may I say that I am saddened and disappointed by the existence of a Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. —gurglemeow

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.