ROTC Students to Carry Weapons on Campus
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=173793
Printed Date: 19 December 2025 at 3:23pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: ROTC Students to Carry Weapons on Campus
Posted By: TippmannBro
Subject: ROTC Students to Carry Weapons on Campus
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:15pm
|
Check this out: http://rotc.military.com/rotc/news-article.jsf?aid=162389&am p;cms=1 Wow. Just, wow. I am an ROTC student in Alabama, so this would apply to me. I really don't think that having more weapons on college campuses will make it any safer here at Auburn. The university has a policy against carrying weapons on campus, but they have no way to enforce it. Anyone can carry a pistol on campus if they want, and no one will know. I know for a fact that several of my friends DO carry guns on campus. There are no metal detectors, no cops checking students... This really won't matter. And what are the chances of one of 300 ROTC students being at the scene of a shooting on a college campus of 25000? And if they are present, what are the chances that said ROTC student is carrying a weapon and can employ it effectively enough to neutralize a threat and save lives? Is the chance of that happening greater than the chance of an accident occurring on our campus because more people were allowed to carry weapons? And why just ROTC students? I can tell you that not all ROTC students are "hardened killers" that can kill a person with their bare hands (I am in Air Force ROTC... some of our guys can barely handle a stapler). The article claims that we would be giving weapons to "the cream of the crop". Not all ROTC students are the cream of the crop, and I know several I wouldn't trust with a water pistol. If we are going to give weapons to students on college campuses, you might as well let everyone that has a pistol permit to have them. I know Senator Erwin. I have met him personally. This definitely sounds like one of his shenanigans. Just thought this was interesting. Discuss. ------------- WAR EAGLE!!! |
Replies:
Posted By: Project Irene
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:20pm
| While I myself would love to carry a personal firearm on campus at Auburn for protection, I understand why they aren't allowed. Most college age students would responsibly handle a firearm. Keyword being most. We need more safety precautions, no one needs another virginia tech, but the precautions should NOT need to come from the student's themselves. Lets use our judicial powers a little better think of another way. |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:21pm
I think this is the million dollar question. I personally think that allowing weapons on campus would make things worse in the long run. ------------- 
|
TippmannBro wrote:Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:21pm
| If seen enough ROTC students look like their going to soil themselves in paintball. I wouldn't have that much faith in them. They were mostly fat gamers who wanted to fly F-22's. |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:24pm
| This will turn out well. |
Posted By: ¤ Råp¡Ð F¡rè ¤
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:26pm
|
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:32pm
| they should just start deploying Marines to college campuses. we'll be a nice deterrant. |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:34pm
| oh and the link doesnt work when you paste it in the web browser. story not found. |
Posted By: heliumman77
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:46pm
|
Well if there were no guns we wouldn't have any of these predicaments would we? Every problem with shootings someone says lets get more guns which never helps no guns mean no gun problems its simply that easy. Yeah guns for hunting but why all citizens to carry guns honestly it's is just ridiculous the solution is not allowing what causes the problems.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:47pm
|
Dumb, and counter-productive. Sorry, but anyone that wants to carry around a gun while they are on campus must be afraid of their own shadow. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:54pm
No, it's not that easy. I'm not for students walking around armed on a campus, but eliminating guns altogether won't stop criminals from getting guns. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 9:59pm
Didn't bother to read any articles regarding the bill being put forth to allow ROTC students to carry... but wholeheartedly agree that it is beyond stupid. I DO believe that anyone qualified and licensed to carry should be able to on-campus. (Note: that doesn't mean I believe EVERYone should be able to, or should, carry) However to open that door only to ROTC students, or to assume that an ROTC student is a more capable person with a firearm is asinine. |
Posted By: TippmannBro
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 10:14pm
|
Dang, I can't figure out why the link doesn't work, so here is the article: If two proposed laws pass Alabama's Legislature this year, some
college students and teachers could be packing more than books to class. Erwin's bills come in the wake of recent shootings like Thursday's rampage at Northern Illinois University, in DeKalb, Ill. A gunman killed five and injured 16 people when he opened fire at a lecture hall there. Erwin's bill would allow only ROTC students with licenses and no felonies or misdemeanors on their records to carry guns on campus. http://capwiz.com/military/issues/alert/?alertid=11020506&type=CO - Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue. The students also would have to complete a university-approved training course. "I did that so nobody could say I'm trying to create a wild-west atmosphere," Erwin said. "(It's only the) upper-echelon, best of the best, cream of the crop." Jacksonville State University has a policy banning students and teachers from carrying guns on-campus. University officials contacted Thursday said they do not favor Erwin's bills. The first bill specifically would exempt schools with policies against students carrying guns on campus. But the second bill is much broader, saying a state-supported university can not prevent any professor who has a license from carrying a gun. Erwin said last year's Virginia Tech shooting moved him to introduce the bills. "So my thinking is if we had a situation here where there were extra guns on campus available, that would send a deterrent to any potential madman who might want to try that in this state," Erwin said. Erwin introduced similar legislation last year, but he said he did so too late for it to gain momentum. He's not optimistic this year, saying it will take time to build support for the proposal. Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association said the NRA approves of Erwin's bill. "I think that the main point � is the only thing that's going to take down a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, and in situations of campus shootings time is of the essence, and the longer one waits there is a result of a higher body count," Parsons said. JSU President Bill Meehan, who says he is a former NRA member, does not agree. He said even trained professionals occasionally have accidents that cause injury or death. "I fully support our policy and would not be in favor of anything that would increase the number of weapons on our campus at this point," Meehan said. ------------- WAR EAGLE!!! |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 10:25pm
|
Deterrant to attendance, yes. On point - I dated an ROTC nursing student for a while. She should never have been allowed within 500 feet of a firearm. And for random speculation - I wonder what would happen if one of these hardened killer ROTC students opens fire, VT style, with his "service weapon". ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 10:30pm
The usual I suppose. People will scream and demand that there be more gun laws/bans and that the law allowing ROTC students be stricken. Other people will demand that the non ROTC students be allowed to carry so that they can protect themselves from the ROTC students. Brady Campaign and the like will jump on the story as proof that we should all be disarmed. Gun owners will slap their forehead and moan "not again", as they once again will have their own personal rights threatened because of the actions of an unstable individual. Same old same olds. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 11:08pm
|
Since when is ROTC the "cream of the crop"? Half these kids have no real military training outside of what they get through ROTC. The majority of what ROTC teaches is D&C anyways, nothing about reacting in a firefight, nothing about dealing with a high stress situation. This dude is a frickin idiot. I remember in the last thread I said something about allowing those with military or police training to carry, but this could be the worst idea I have seen yet. I would rather have no weapons on campus than some ROTC dog and pony show kids that are wanna be hardcore killers carrying that haven't even been through boot yet... God I hate morons. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 27 February 2008 at 11:10pm
The paintball team here has played with ROTC groups a few times. I didn't think people could be any more afraid of paintball until I saw them play. In terms of personality, they're just like any other college students. I think the senator realizes something he's not telling us: This will increase recruitment rates People will join just so they can carry on campus. People will join so that others will feel safe around them (so they can feel desirable) ------------- 
|
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 12:57am
| /me waits for the ridiculous statistics supporting the claim that having students carry firearms helps prevent school shootings when there isn't a shooting at that school for a year. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 1:01am
Linus might not even show up here. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 6:01am
|
deterrent to attendance? i think not. women love Marines... hahaha
in all seriousness, ROTC brats ive seen, god help us if they are the cream of the crop. i think we need mandatory civil service or something in this country for a year or so, teach people some respect and discipline. things would be better off that way. kinda like Germany. its either military service, or civil service. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 7:09am
I'm still waiting for the statistics supporting the claim that there are/will be a plague of gunbattles in the wake of people getting permits. Or perhaps statistics that will support the claim that if made legal, there will be a rush of students to even apply to get their CCW at all, let alone actually carry on campus. Statistics will show the thousands of people within my county with CHPs probably draw their pistols out to settle arguments about who has the better haircut, or getting pickles on their Whopper at the drive-thru when they didn't ask for any. Oh wait... no they don't. 
Statistics will show all of the students who legally carry guns to school right now at Utah's public universities and colleges probably walk around getting drunk, shooting Glocks into the air and hold up smarter kids at gunpoint to steal their term papers. Oh wait... no they don't.
But... you're right. Despite the silliness... there will be statistics out on everything. And those same statistics will be meaningless and trivial. |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 7:47am
| Failtard idea. I barely trust some of the people on base who carry a gun for their job. No way I'd ever go to a college where they hand out weapons to ROTC students. |
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 8:20am
|
I carry a machete to school. I dare somebody to try to shoot me. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 8:28am
God, I hope you are not serious. That is the dumbest idea yet. "Lets just give people who don't want to be here in the first place a gun and tell them to shoot people". Dumb idea. A year of service? In the corps you are lucky if you are out of MOS school in 6 months, so basically you are giving back about an average of 6 months of real service? Waste of money. By the time they get to Iraq they will just hop right back on a plane and go home because their enlistment is up... -------------
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 9:55am
|
I do believe Kristofer said "civil" - many European countries with a draft offer a non-military alternative to service. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Snake6.
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 10:19am
|
True, but I still wouldn't want any type of draft. Its pointless and people aren't going to work hard at something that they are being forced to do. A all volenteer force has been proven effective, why fix something that isn't broke? ------------- 
http://paintballchat.org - Paintball Chat I'm at work, Leave me alone!!! |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 10:23am
| Concealed carry, touchy subject. especially on a college campus where drinking and drug use exists. 2 things that don't go with handling of any weapon. Not a good idea. And I support the right to carry a firearm but there is a point where it becomes too dangerous. It would probably do more harm than good. Students will see a pistol in every bag, on the quiet ones who sit in the back, the openly aggressive students, etc. which will lead to more police activity on a campus tying up valuable manpower that could be used else where preventing/detering a crime. |
Posted By: Roll Tide
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 11:09am
|
Terrible idea, IMO.
------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> 
|
Posted By: impulse!
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 1:06pm
It's kind of hard to get troops, when no one is volunteering.... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Snake6.
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 1:13pm
|
Since when is no one volunterring? At this schoolhouse alone we have 2,000 Marines that came straight from bootcamp here right now. About 200 leave every week and we get about the same amount in every week. Our barracks are so full that there are Marines living in duty huts because there is no place else to put them. One in five Marines come here from bootcamp, and there are about 900 Mairnes a week that graduate bootcamp. I don't think we are hurting for people. -------------
http://paintballchat.org - Paintball Chat I'm at work, Leave me alone!!! |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 1:35pm
|
I still think it's a bad idea. ROTC students are no diferent than other students. I dont see arming teachers also as a solution.
I think that student drills and cordinating with Emergency Response personel for when such events happend are the way to go. A lot of the knuckle heads here are in college and I wouldnt arm any of them.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 1:41pm
I do! Arm the teachers! Please! ------------- ? |
Posted By: Snake6.
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 1:45pm
|
Ha. Reb wants to shoot somebody. -------------
http://paintballchat.org - Paintball Chat I'm at work, Leave me alone!!! |
Posted By: X-51
Date Posted: 28 February 2008 at 3:47pm
|
This is how I should've put it in the other thread. It's exactly what I'd like to see happen, some serious work with students and response teams. I think it would knock these things down and in my opinion after a few failed attempts people might think twice before trying it themselves. ------------- Once we clued in on the fact that life is finite, the thought of losing it didn't scare us anymore. The end comes no matter what, all that matters is how you wanna go out, on your feet or your knees? |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 2:46am
|
Like I said in the other topic, while Student CCW probably isn't going to solve the problem in the long run, it has a chance of stopiing the immediate problem of a gunman in your classroom executing people.
I don't see a "mass" issue of guns to ROTC caddies as the way to go. However I don't see the problem of legal CCW holders carrying on campus. The key word here being legal. All of the people who have done office/school/university shootings are breaking the law when they start KILLING PEOPLE. Do you think they give a rats ass about the law about no weapons? Please. Anti gun laws only prohibit those who abide by laws. Those that take no notice of them, take no notice of them. KBK |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 2:50am
No doubt it could stop the immediate problem of a gunman in your vicinity. The issue here now is if the guns will cause added problems in the long run. It is fine if we break even, but I personally am not so sure that guns won't make things worse due to the millions of other situations where a gun is tend to do that. -------------
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 2:59pm
The problem there is that most shooters including CCW shooters have never shoot while being shot at nor engaged. They dont have that sort of Training. Now that my oldest kid is going to be a freshman in college next year I dont think I'd want someone with a clean background record, some classroom stuff and some range shooting playing John Mclain arround my daughter. When we started to work on the Embassy in Panama we took a few Department of State shooting courses and even us as Trained Infantry Marines where surpriced how many times I missed in close range when moving and shooting and nailing bystanders. And we used to do life fire about 3 times a month and in a "combat" setting I was quite proficient. Figthing CQB and under fire is a whole diferent Monster. Why the FBI, SWAT and Other law enforment agencies spend so much money on training each year. Because unlike in Combat casualties are not acceptable. -------------
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 3:22pm
|
INTORDUCE A BILL TO ALLOW PAINTBALLERS TO CARRY ON CAMPUS! THEY HAS THE EXPERIENCE TO PWN THE N00BS AND BE AGG AT THE SAME TIME!
------------- 
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 9:50am
|
MBD and Evil, I agree with you 100%.
One thing I do know is how range time =/= live fire time. It just galls me that someone who can legally CCW, can't do it in places that are know to get shot up. Personally I'm better trained, and have more experience than a large majority of CCW out there, but here is some paper pusher telling me I can't carry my weapon in a place where it could actually do some good. Whats a better use for a CCW, protewcting myself when I stop for gas at night, or putting down a gunman in a school? One I'm allowed to do, the other I'm not. It's like someone said on another forum : "It's like the cops think it's ok for the gunman to shoot you on purpose, but heaven help it if you should accidently get shot by someone trying to stop him". Having done CQB courses as well, you'll never forget the feeling in your stomache when you first land a round on an instructor with "HOSTAGE" on his chest. KBK |
Posted By: MT. Vigilante
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 11:56am
|
When he said " Beleive it or not, most ROTC students are not hardend killers..." I LOLd hard. I mean no offense to ROTC students, you guys are certainly better than most citizens because you have shown an interst in joining the military, but, I can beleive it. -------------  Join the XP Re-Revolution!
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 12:30pm
People who want to join the military are better? Pull your head out of your ass. What about people who want to be farmers? They're the most important people in this society. Without them, we don't eat. What about people who aspire to be doctors or engineers or teachers? They are just as important as but have chosen even more honorable careers than being in the military. You can't have the military without the above careers (and many others). You can have all of those without the military (as evidenced by the many prosperous countries that are either neutral or have no militaries). Being a soldier is by no means the only patriotic thing you can do for your country. As for the rest of ROTC, many of them do it because they follow in family footsteps. Many of them also do it because they care more about their specific roles in the military than actually helping the country out. This is all coming out of a guy who wants to join the military. By your definition I'm better than other people. I'm not, and neither are you. -------------
|
Posted By: X-51
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 12:31pm
|
Really? That comment is laughable in my opinion my buddy goes to school with three rotc students and I know more about the function and the design of firearms and proper shooting skills then all three. I can offhand shoot at 50 yards better than one of them can bench shoot. ------------- Once we clued in on the fact that life is finite, the thought of losing it didn't scare us anymore. The end comes no matter what, all that matters is how you wanna go out, on your feet or your knees? |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 1:20pm
True, I guess my main point was, I don't think more guns is the answer. I'm sure people who do carry guns do so for legitimate reasons, but I don't think guns are appropriate at all to be had or carried on a university campus. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 3:38pm
While I do understand the concern over the thought that all of a sudden having umpty-hundred/thousand armed students parading around campus... this usually just isn't the case in any environment where CCW is allowed. Lots of assumptions arise when this whole issue comes up. Mainly that we'd see a massive "jump" in students carrying. I don't think that to be the case at all. Even if we just go by the opinions of the people on this board... majority seem to be against the idea... therefore, I doubt any of you would be carrying. If the student population here is representive of the student population in general... then again, none of them will be carrying either. I wouldn't carry if I was in school right now. None of my friends would've carried either, in any of the schools I attended. As for the highlighted section of your statement... that's how a lot of people feel about MOST if not ALL places. Do you feel someone should be able to carry into a bar? Or a restaurant? A government building? A shopping mall? A park? If the answer is no... then essentially you don't feel that people should carry anywhere. Sorry, but that's unacceptable. A criminal cares not about gun-free zones. They're gonna carry, regardless. Some people believe it is their own personal responsibility to protect their life and the lives of their family/friends. To do so, they carry a firearm. I whole-heartedly believe they should be able to. How about for our purposes here... a compromise? If it's felt that ordinary students and faculty should not be allowed to carry... how about students that are also law enforcement officers? 2002... Appalachian Law School shooting... two students, upon hearing gunfire, had to run back to their parked vehicles to retrieve their firearms. The gunman was then subdued and held at gunpoint by these students until police arrived. Both of these "students" were LEOs. Mind you, by this time, the shooter had depleted his ammunition supply anyway. But what if he hadn't? Think of the time wasted by these two students having to run to their vehicles. If they had been carrying, they had the potential to save lives. For the record, I don't carry. I'm don't feel I'm proficient enough with a firearm to adequately protect myself and my wife in a public setting. However, I do know several people who do carry... daily. And I feel completely safe around them. They aren't rambos, they aren't hero-wannabes... they're simply upstanding citizens who feel they should be able to protect themselves. They, like me, have the utmost faith in the skill and training of our county police... however, in my particular district (which is large) there are only 12 officers on duty at any given time. That said, response times can vary. So despite the level of respect, the thought behind carrying is: 'when seconds count, the police are only minutes away'. This thought, to me, is only amplified by the fact that many universities out there have unarmed police/public safety officers. My first school (George Mason) has an armed police force. My second school (Mercer County Community) had unarmed security mostly tasked with parking enforcement. My third school (University of Delaware) had an unarmed police force. The campus I spent a lot of time on in high school (Princeton University) had an unarmed public safety staff. To me, that just means longer response times by armed officers. No matter how well it's practiced and drilled. That said... for those here uncomfortable with the thought of armed staff/faculty/students... how would you feel if staff/faculty/student was off-duty/retired LEO? This only opens the door to very few folks, so the 'benefit' would be slight... but then so would the feared 'risks'. Thoughts? |
Posted By: benttwig33
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 11:05pm
|
Can someone inform me on what the eel the ROTC program even is/does?
The only ROTC is know of is like a high school program, and the only people I know of who do it only do it because they can't keep up with athletics. Please tell me my sterotype is wrong. ------------- Sig is WAY too big. |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 02 March 2008 at 12:27am
uh...in hs maybe...in college it's the real army...it's not to avoid a class. i joined and signed my contract with the army 06 SEP 2007. right now i'm contracted to complete 4 years of military science training, physical training 3 days a week and a classroom instruction 1-2 days a week, pending what year you are. every other week we go into a back field on campus and do drills and tactics. we're mostly all in decent shape, but there are a few people who can't pass a pt test to save their lives. they will be weeded out, will not contract and will not enter the military. rotc in college is voluntary, and i do enjoy it, and i am looking forward to commission as a second lieutenant in 2011. if you don't know that much more, rotc is all that, and the end result being an officer. ROTC is what's known as BOLC I (basic officer leadership course), after that, we move onto BOLC II, which is a 5-6 week boot camp (as i was explained it) and then finally BOLC III, which is your specialty school. EX- if you branch infantry, you go to infantry school to learn the tactics and how to be an infantry officer. edit- you cannot commission without a college degree; hence why you have to complete 4 years of MS. also, the first two years is the equivalent knowledge of what you would learn in boot camp. |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 02 March 2008 at 11:22am
|
That seems a bit simplifying. "Criminal" is not a uniform class. I agree that somebody intent on mayhem will not be deterred by a gun-free zone, but a "criminal of opportunity" not actively seeking to commit a crime at that time may very well decide that it isn't worth the hassle to carry in places where weapons are not allowed, due to the increased scrutiny. Not all criminals carry all the time - some carry some of the time, others carry only for special occasions. "Criminals" are not a distinct group that always ignore all laws.
Isn't this already the case? I guess it depends on the state, but in many states LEOs are permitted/required to carry off-duty, and state law would override any university regulation. But certainly in principle I would agree that LEOs ought to be allowed to carry off-duty, regardless of "gun-free" zones. If that isn't the rule it ought to be changed.
Speaking only for myself, I don't have a particular problem with any particular category of people being armed (students, faculty, etc.). What I have a problem with is fools being armed, and any policy that encourages people to pack da heat will (IMO) mostly result in more armed fools. The non-fools who want to carry don't need encouragement, but all it takes is a "arm the students/stewardesses/whomever" call to arms, and you have a load of fools running to the gunstore. So I am particularly opposed to a bit of self-selective arming, but I strongly oppose any type of active or implied encouragement to an arms race. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: MT. Vigilante
Date Posted: 02 March 2008 at 1:40pm
Shooting ability and knowlege of firearms doesn't make you a hardend killer. As for Saying poeple in the military are better than the average person, I appologize, I didn't actually mean they are better than everyone else, I was trying to imply that they are better than a certain groupe of people, you know of who I reffer to, the weak and lazy portion of the country. And I wasn't saying that those in the military are the only ones of that mindset. Anyone who works an honest living and supports this country is of the same metal in my book as those in the military. ------------- Join the XP Re-Revolution!
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 6:39am
|
And in reference to the topic, the RTOC would be better than many civilians who haven't ever held a gun, or shy away from them.
Susan, most of what you say has merit, except for the comment about criminals and crimed of opportunity. How many school shootings are "crimes of opportunity"? They aren't. They are planned events, where the shooter conciously decides to throw aside the laws and morals of the country to do their own thing. Pretty much the same thing they will do to "Gun Free" laws. While firearms do have a limited use against crimes of opportunity, when the crime is of a violent nature, they are more another layer of defence against premeditated violent crimes, and those are generally the ones you need a weapon to stop. It's harder to scare off an attacker who's executing a plan than someone doing it on a whim. Criminals by their very definition break laws. Law abiding citizens, by their definition don't. Which ones are more likely to ignore "no gun" laws? |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 7:20am
i will say, i do have a problem with the thought of some of my fellow cadets having a CCW. i think if this were to take affect that a psychological (major) exam would need to take place. besides that, with proper training, i wouldn't have that big of a problem with that idea. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 8:36am
Susan, in my home state of Virginia at least there is no law to this effect. My stepfather is a Deputy, and when he took us to a theme park when I was a kid, he was told that he wasn't allowed to carry into the park even after he showed his badge to the unarmed guard at the metal detector. There was not a single armed guard in this park, and the only people who could do something if the crap hit the fan were rendered useless by some stupid park policy. The irony of the situation is the next year there was a stabbing at the park, the dude murdered someone then got away because nobody had a weapon... -------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 9:04am
| I don't believe the guy got away because there wasn't an armed citizen. I believe he got away because No One tried to stop him. 1 man against many? with a knife? An armed citizen, if present, may have been able to detain them until a LEO arrived. Here is an observation from a retired cop,my father. "laws are like locks, they keep honest people honest and do nothing to stop a criminal, it just slows them down." |
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 10:39am
|
I don't understand what the issue is. If a law abiding citizens whats the ability to protect himself(and family) who the hell are we to deny him of that God given right? I don't see a difference if the person is a ROTC student, or a history major. As long as they meet the requirments, and take the proper training classes it should be allowed.
Arming just ROTC students is not the answer. Anyone with the ability, should have the right of self defense. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 11:17am
| Spoken like a member of the NRA. I would love to see it. PROVIDED that the individual who wants CCW must go through a training and safety course, issued a picture ID permit, and re-certification to hold a CCW. I still don't like the idea of the ROTC being an armed presence on a campus. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 12:33pm
Agreed, but a person that is armed would be more likely to act in this situation. That was my point. -------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 12:37pm
| True. and so would an unarmed group of concerned citizens. Apathy is what let that guy get away. People failed to react or chose not to. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 12:44pm
How would you react in this situation? You are unarmed and the guy has a combat knife... -------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 12:51pm
| been there, done that. I have a scar on my left hand from a would be mugger trying to rob a tourist in Central Park. He got a broken collar bone and I got 10 stitches. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 1:05pm
No, you are standing there and some dude gets stabbed, and the stabber runs away. Is the average unarmed citizen going to chase after him? I think not. But we are getting away from the original point of this thread... -------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 1:14pm
| True enough, we'll start another one just for that and see how many would/could/try in that situation. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 1:19pm
It was done along time ago. It devolved into a flame war. You honestly cannot tell how you would react until you have been in that situation. -------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 1:26pm
|
No argument here, Snake. |
Posted By: X-51
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 4:22pm
|
The only reason people don't know how they would react is becuase they are out of touch with their pysche. ------------- Once we clued in on the fact that life is finite, the thought of losing it didn't scare us anymore. The end comes no matter what, all that matters is how you wanna go out, on your feet or your knees? |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 4:25pm
WHAT???? |
Posted By: X-51
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 4:29pm
|
Did I stutter? ------------- Once we clued in on the fact that life is finite, the thought of losing it didn't scare us anymore. The end comes no matter what, all that matters is how you wanna go out, on your feet or your knees? |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 4:51pm
| You are talking psycho babble. Phsyche? So this has to do with one's spirit and soul?? more like apathy or fear. "I don't want to ge tinvolved, it's matter for the police" or " My God, I could get hurt or even Killed!" |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 5:00pm
That's not enterely true. even the best of training doesnt compare to the actual thing. This applies to everything because when training you still have that "safety blanket" mentality where your shooting or something like CPR no matter how many reps you do on that Torso Dummy it's nothing like peforming under the stress of doing CPR on a person who is dying. I used CPR as an example that most can relate since it's something that can happend to everyone. I seen officers who are CPR trained and been on the Job for years just freeze and go into a duh... mode when they cant think what to do Next. This isnt due to any 'detachment' from their psyche its just how this particual incident affected them. You cant serriously be sure of how you will react in every situation. Let alone one that has you in Mortal Danger. I remember Marines who talked the talk of being Killer Blood Sucking War Machines but before we shipped to Operations beg to remain on ship that they had a "bad feeling" or some other escuse why they punked out. I seen people freeze under fire and I seen subpar Marines rise to the Occation when under stress and fire. -------------
|
Posted By: X-51
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 8:01pm
|
All of what your saying makes good logical sense, however people need to get into their own heads more often. You spend the most time with yourself, granting you the ability to know you more than possible. ------------- Once we clued in on the fact that life is finite, the thought of losing it didn't scare us anymore. The end comes no matter what, all that matters is how you wanna go out, on your feet or your knees? |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 9:36pm
|
Absolutely agree - clearly gun-free zones are useless against NIU/VT-type situations. But against the hot-headed random violence that college kids get involved with all the time, gun-free zones can (I believe) be quite helpful. This because drunk idiots getting involved in party brawls generally don't go to the party intending to shoot somebody. But once the drunken fists of fury start flying, the world is safer if the hotheads don't have guns. Guns make idiotic behavior potentially deadly. This is why many carry laws exclude areas that tend to encourage idiotic behavior (like bars). Thus, whether or not one has moral objections to gun-free zones, I do believe that as a practical matter they do serve a purpose. Clearly they are not a panacea, and arguably they do more harm than good, but to simply throw out the "criminals will ignore them" is a simplistic analysis, IMO.
See, I do not accept this dichotomy. Easy example: I violate state weapons laws every day when I carry my pocket knife. I also own a variety of non-firearm weapons that are illegal in my state. I also habitually ignore speed limits and a handful of other laws that I deem inconvenient. Yet by most people's definition I am a "law-abiding" person. I don't go mugging/robbing/killing. I am unlikely to start a random fight and generally a peaceful kind of person. And even as I ignore the state law that prohibits my concealed carry knife, I have no intention of violating that very same as it applies to firearms. Potheads are not automatically going to ignore firearms prohibition, any more than ex-Enron executives. All "criminals" are not equal, and there is no such this as a truly "law-abiding" citizen. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 9:55pm
|
Clearly we need a new title for generally good people. Non-Barbaric Citizens. They may break some laws, but they don't mug, kill, or burglarize. -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 05 March 2008 at 2:13pm
And we aren't talking about potheads here, or Exxon managers, or even Martha Stewart, those people don't use weapons for their crimes, and generally their crimes aren't violent. Maybe I should have quantified my statement by saying "violent" criminals, but owing to the fact this is a topic about school/university shootings, I thought that was evident. My point reamians the shooter isn't going to get to the school and see the no guns sign and give up. Him, being a criminal, out to do a criminal deed, will ignore the law. I, on the other hand, also break the law every day. Every time I go pick my kid up from school I'm breaking the gun free zone . Every time I go into a post office, I'me break a gun free zone. There are even malls with signs up that I smile at as I walk past. You and I, and milloins of other people out there cause "victimless" crime. IMHO about 90% of the laws that are victimless are iodiotic in the first palce, and people think them up to keep lawyers busy. We ignore laws as we see fit, making us criminals, yes. But we are law abiding when it comes to inter personal crime. (I'm assuming you are a decent person here, I appologise if I am wrong). That is what I meant with the statment "Law abiding citizens". If you would have me state it in full : "Violent criminals, by their definition of being criminals, are likely to ignore any laws that are against their actions or the weapons they are going to use. Normal, non criminally violent citizens are more likely to obey the laws, when speaking about the general populace of the USA." Now we've sasted a whole hell of a lot of space arguing over the chances of yet another law preventing these shootings, when we all know they won't. Even banning firearms outright doesn't prevent criminals getting them. Ceesman762 Going hand to hand with a lethal weapon is pretty stupid. I'm glad all you got was 10 stitches, you could have gotten dead. Getting within striking range of a knife can easily mean more damage than stitches can fix. Wouldn't having a ranged weapon of some sort have helped you? KBK |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 05 March 2008 at 2:28pm
| if I had one, yes, it would have. but at that moment all I had was my hands. You sound like my father,the arresting officer, my G-friend, etc same exact words. And in truth, I was cursing my stupidity! |
Posted By: JAden
Date Posted: 05 March 2008 at 8:50pm
|
my opinon is that letting all the students carry guns would most likly be bad. It just gives more chances of people shooting each other. On the other hand if you want to shoot up a school that allows guns on campus, wouldn't u think twice? an agrument for this is when carrying a gun in public was allowed in the US, it was the time of least crime, becuase if you wanted to mug a guy u wouldn't know if he had a gun. in the end no it is a bad idea ------------- 98 Custom 12" Proto Barrel 98 custom tactical forend (modified) TAPCO folding Stock Custom trigger job "A closed mouth gathers no foot" |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 05 March 2008 at 8:58pm
|
Spelling and grammar use it. Reading your post was like reading chinese.
-------------
|
Posted By: JAden
Date Posted: 05 March 2008 at 9:12pm
|
snake BUG OFF(since i can't say what i want) if you want to seem superior then every one else then you can go ____ your self
<i suggest that you take a breather. You have been pretty crabby in your last few threads and are getting all sorts of attention brought upon yourself. By the way making blanks to hide your lil hissy fit cuss words dodges is still flaming. This is your Only and Last Warning> ------------- 98 Custom 12" Proto Barrel 98 custom tactical forend (modified) TAPCO folding Stock Custom trigger job "A closed mouth gathers no foot" |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 05 March 2008 at 9:28pm
Sigh, typical forum n00b. Gets angry quick and cusses people off without an understanding of how we communicate. Gotta love 'em. -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 05 March 2008 at 9:48pm
Been there done that. Didn't get any stitches, but got a tetnus shot. Unfortunately I didn't have any choice because I was the one being mugged. Fortunately the mugger was almost too drunk to even stand. Nowadays I always have a weapon when I'm out the house. |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 06 March 2008 at 12:29am
|
mind if an actual ROTC cadet takes a stab at it? the only people within the department i would ever trust with a live firearm on this campus are the Lieutenant Colonel, the two Majors, the Captain, the Master Sergeant, and the Sergeant First Class, AND- the cadets who are in guard and reserve units at the same time. why? 99% of the cadre (officers) have been to iraq or in some combat situation. maybe only doing paperwork, but even at LTC, you have enough years to have an idea of what to do. the cadets i mentioned? two are Iraqi war veterans, and one a Drill Sergeant who just wants his degree and a commission. past that, i wouldn't trust my own judgement in any given situation with a firearm, and actually i wouldn't even trust one of the guy who's in the guard right now, so guess how much that speaks for. however, the cadre do have experience and have more of a grasp on whats going on quick situation wise. training is neato and super cool, but it does not replace real life EXPERIENCE. which is what we would need IMO to have weapons on campus. bottom line. edit- i feel like this is going to come up so i'll extinguish it now. "but GI, what if the cadre are nuts and turn on someone?!" well, why do we give the military guns? because we trust them to use the firearms properly. there is no guarantee anywhere giving anyone with authority a weapon. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 March 2008 at 10:18am
| Kay, I carry a pocket knife, modified to open easily and remain locked open. that is what I learned from my little "adventure". and stay out of Central Park at dusk. BUT, back on topic, the ROTC should not be an armed presence on campus. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 06 March 2008 at 10:36am
|
So much e-peen in these threads.
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 06 March 2008 at 11:06am
just visiting or from the area? the school i'm at is about 20 minutes by train into Penn. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 March 2008 at 11:17am
| Visiting. I'm about an hour train ride east to Penn Station. I still go to CP with my family, I just leave before dark. |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 06 March 2008 at 11:19am
| yeah, i don't blame you...if you don't mind me asking where are you located (in general) i'm from further out east on the island around ronkonkoma in suffolk county but i go to school in nassau. We have a team on campus and i know a few guys on it that still do pay paintball, so if you still play let me know and maybe we can get a game going or something. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 March 2008 at 11:27am
| Not far from you, a little further east of Ronkonkoma. Sounds great, send PM when you play, my wife plays too. |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 06 March 2008 at 11:32am
| sounds good...quick question...any idea if cousins outdoor closed down or not? i heard they couldn't renew their lease so they had to leave, leaving high velocity the only field open out in coram |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 06 March 2008 at 12:07pm
| I just got off the phone with Dave at the Medford store. They're open no plans on closing. It's probably a rumor started by Hi-Vi. Those guys are charging $100 a case for field paint!!!! |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 2:17am
Why does someone always come into a thread like this and scream Epeen? Some of us do know what we talking about. |
Posted By: impulse!
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 7:13am
Some of us do know what we're talking about. -I tried to stay out of this argument as long I could.But it seems Cessman, X-51, and Kayback are absolutes bamf's when it comes to these situtations. when is comes to guns.I would love to carry a gun on campus. But seeing if everyone was able too would be at horrible outcome. Even for "rotc" students. Schools shootings will keep happening if future education doesn't keep up. As I mean students psychiatric minds are evolving. And the school systems need to evolve to help students. The events of today are different from the 50's. So we need to help students to comprehend and cope with thing happening in their lives and family's for that matter. You guys have to understand things are different. Kids are complete "vags" nowadays. The last thing they need in college is a gun, that they can carry everyday. -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 8:58am
|
I appologise for leaving out the "'re" I was typing that on my phone, and it was an accident.
I've agreed a million times that the blanket CCW for RTOC isn't a good idea. However I still say those who legally qualify for CCW, why not let them carry if they want to? However someone popping and saying "E PEEN!", which happens every time someone on this board mentions they are 1) equipped to take action and 2) metally prepared to take action, is getting on my nerves. I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but I haven't bought thousands of Rands worth of firearm, I haven't bought hundreds of Rands of concealment rig, I haven't fired thousands of rounds through my daily carry gun, I haven't spend almost 10 years working as a police reservist, I haven't spent more thousands of Rands on shooting courses, and I haven't spent thousands of Rands and countless hours doing martial arts just to have some 'tweeb say it's all E Peen. Some people take their self defence seriously. Not because I think I'm a BAMF, but because I acknowledge there are bad people out there, and they tend to do very nasty things to people. I do not want them doing said nasty things to me, my family or those I care about. And I refuse to capitulate to criminals. If this means they are going to escalate the situation, then I am damn well prepared to go all the way. I don't want to, and I don't go looking for trouble. I go out of my way to avoid trouble when I'm not in uniform. However this does not mean I am not prepared to fight as hard as I must to protect my family or to survive. It's not E Peen. It's simply stating my outlook on life. If your's differs, so be it. Not everyone who states a willingness to fight back, or acknowledges they carry lethal weapons is trying to grown their E Peen. Some of us know what we're talking about. KBK |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 10:56am
Really now? Forgive me if some of us disagree. 
Really? So you’d love to carry a gun on-campus? Why? And once again, the assumption comes up that EVERYone would be carrying on campus if the door was opened… or that there’d be a major influx of guns. Just because CCW becomes available, doesn’t translate into everyone rushing out to get one.
That’s great. I won’t disagree. But what does this do to solve the issue of the right for someone to provide protection for themself?! So the people who choose to take personal responsibility for their safety, and that of their families, should simply sit back and wait for society to correct itself instead? Gee, that makes perfect sense! And I’m sure society will correct itself quickly too, won’t it? 
Way to lump every “kid” these days into one category of failure! I guess everyone 21 years old these days is just an emotionally disturbed “vag” who will be quick to turn into Charles Bronson and shoot everyone he/she sees? The same assumptions come into play. You think that every kid on the block will apply for CCW and start carrying to school. You think that at the drop of a hat, there’ll be shootouts in the street, and that campus square will become the wild-west. CCW holders are amongst the most law-abiding citizens in the country. They have to be, otherwise that right to protect themself gets taken away. The fear of drinking alcohol while CCW? Instant revoke. Brandishing the firearm in a non-life threatening situation? Revoke. Anyone not up to snuff won’t be issued one from the get-go. How 'bout the fear that someone with CCW will suddenly “snap” and go on a rampage? Hate to tell you, but as it stands right now… a student CAN get a CCW, just not carry on campus… so, they still have access to a gun, they still can “snap”… what’s there to prevent at that point? A rule against carrying? All the ‘ingredients’ are already in play, and all it takes is for them to retrieve their firearm from wherever it’s stored. I guess all the college students with CCW who currently live off-campus right now as you read this are just a ticking time-bomb waiting to go-off, since they too, are "vags" who don't know how to cope and will undoubtedly go about spreading violence on the streets. Or is it that once they cross the invisible boundary seperating campus from the rest of the world... it turns them into raging blood-thirsty savages? Utah’s allowed CCW for students… have we seen massive shootouts resulting from someone insulting another “kid’s” mama? Or knocking their book on the ground? Heck, that aside, have we seen a MASSIVE influx of guns on Utah’s campuses? Is EVERY kid carrying now??? And if your argument applies only to “kids”… then what about ADULTS? Would you change your mind if it was allowed only for those 40+? Probably not. Oh, that's right... adults are never on campus anyway… just “vag kids”? I guess anyone who wishes to take personal responsibility for the safety of themselves and their family is just a badass with E-peen these days. And in order to be good citizens, we should all just continue to lean on our government to provide everything for us. 
(and again… NO I do not currently carry, NO I would never have carried at school even if allowed)
Sorry to jump on this late, I haven’t bothered come back here in awhile… State Law does not necessarily trump University Regulation. There is no state law in VA preventing carrying on a university campus. Yet at just about every school (like VT)… it’s disallowed for students/faculty under threat of expulsion/loss of job. So *I* can carry a gun on campus… but a student (including off-duty LEO) cannot via student/faculty regs. While other states may remove the non-student exception here in VA… the Regs disallowing weapons on campus most likely still covers LEOs at the majority of schools. |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 12:04pm
|
well I have to admit that I am a Bad Ass. And I am sure that I can handle any situation that should arrise after all that is what I do for a living. As the Sheet Rock guys that I keep in business. -------------
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 7:51pm
|
Holy crap you are old. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 7:55pm
Thou cant argue with the Classics 
-------------
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 March 2008 at 11:40pm
Sad part is... I can't really think of a modern-day equivalent. |