Is It Time To Allow College Students To Carry Guns On Campus?

Crime against students at Georgia Tech has been in the news a lot lately. Most recently a rape was reported on the Tech campus. Atlanta and Tech officials have stepped up security on campus.

These crimes have stirred up the debate again over allowing guns on college campuses. Rep. Sean Jurgenson plans to introduce such legislation in the upcoming Legislative session, according to WGST.

Cherokee County Republican Sean Jurgenson says it’s in response to a number of recent attacks against students at schools in Atlanta.

Similar efforts to legalize firearms on Georgia college campuses have failed in recent legislative sessions.

Is this a good idea? Discuss.


  1. Dave says:

    Hell yes, let them carry. Given the swarms of human debris that occupy the streets at Ga State and Tech, the need to carry is imperative.

    • Painterman says:

      Amen Brother! A gun free zone is a crime spree zone! Funny how the criminals will not obey the law not to carry in restricted areas!

  2. Harry says:

    Allowing students to obtain a permit and carry on campus would obviously help instill what is at present a missing level of fear in the perp brain, that indeed there could be recourse by the victim. Right now they view these students as being low-hanging fruit.

  3. Bridget says:

    They would have to register for Concealed Carry like the rest of us, right? I think giving a deep student discount on a permit would be a good idea. The thing to work out is the tie between alcohol and sexual assault. Ogre, Stiffler, and Bluto having immediate access to a firearm on a Saturday night might be more dangerous than the females carrying over the counter pepper spray.

    • benevolus says:

      That’s exactly it. These pretty much invariably happen late at night. It’s not like the kids are walking back from the library at that time.
      A better solution to me is to increase the overtime for the cops, increased patrols, set up neighborhood watch type crews, add some cameras.

      • Bridget says:


        I’m reluctant to add Big Brother cameras, but that’s likely the best solution. OT and increased patrols probably would not cut down on the actual crime. Where there’s a will, there’s a way when it comes to a crime. Cameras will, however, help identify the assailant after the fact. Knowing your probability of getting caught can dissuade crime.

        If you specifically want to address sexual assault, make a 2hr Criminology 101 class mandatory for all students before registering for classes and then issue them pepper spray. Educating people to protect themselves will be much more effective than paying a rent-a-cop to sort of attempt to protect them.

        Sidenote : I carry a gun depending on where I am… and pepper spray almost always. Aim and Shoot is easy to talk about in broad terms, but when good people (most victims) truly make up their mind what they’re willing to do once they draw their firearm – drawing the weapon becomes the least preferable form of defense.

        And, if you give a firearm to college girls and don’t teach them how to keep it away from a rapist, you then have young co-eds dying by their own gun. The aftershocks of sexual assault affects the rest of your life, but much less so than…death.

        I support their 2nd Amendment rights. I just think they should have mandatory training (self-defense, criminology, and legal) based on age. That includes the ramifications associated with the firearm being around alcohol and certainly Firing Under the Influence.

  4. rense says:

    No. They shouldn’t. Don’t get me wrong. I fully support the 2nd amendment, and had you asked me this question 40 or 50 years ago, my answer would be yes. But in this time, with a culture degraded by broken/single parent homes, miseducated by what passes for public schools, and conditioned by dreck that Hollywood and similar calls entertainment, I simply don’t trust college kids with firearms. Look at those Penn State kids a few days ago rioting because their school fired a coach that protected a serial child molester. Imagine if THOSE KIDS had guns.

    Sorry, but my belief is that IN PRACTICE, the Second Amendment presumes a stable culture, and we don’t have that right now. I am not a gun control advocate of any sort, but with the state of our culture being what it is, were guns legal on college campuses, the students would have more to fear from each other than street criminals. And yes, Bridget above is correct when mentioning alcohol. Part and parcel of our current society was the decision by college administrators after the 60s and 70s counterculture radical movements to end in loco parentis and other reasonable policies to cultivate order on college campuses (both to help mold impressionable young minds and for student safety) and allowed them to turn into the kind of druggy, boozy riotous environment that ill-tempered sailors used to seek out on shore leave (but now no longer have to because they can merely head to the nearest college campus). Administrators allow/encourage their students to be out of control, and you want to introduce guns into that mix? Sorry. Such thoughts, while very good for ideology, ignores the reality of what we have allowed our college campuses to degenerate into, and larger society as well.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      “Sorry, but my belief is that IN PRACTICE, the Second Amendment presumes a stable culture”

      No it doesn’t. The Second Amendment was written out of presumption of an UNstable culture and society during a time of the constant threat of Indian raids, the threat of new raids by the British and to counterbalance a central government that might be all but too tempted to overreach with the immense power it possesses.

      The Right to Bear Arms reflected that we all have a personal responsibility to maintain our personal safety as civilian police forces were far and few between at the time that the Constitution was written.

      It has been a continuously growing and overreaching government that has taken away the rights and responsibilities of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves in what has always been an unstable society, culture and world that has allowed criminals to flourish by preying on easy targets like unarmed college students.

      • rense says:

        I am sorry. We do not want to introduce guns into the out of control environment that is many college campuses. Were college administrators to take back control of their campuses, great. But since the counterculture crowd sees the hedonistic atmosphere as part of “the learning experience”, sorry, no way. Look, a great many colleges have basically started blaming the date rape epidemic on their campuses on males being heterosexual, and not their failure to stamp out the ILLEGAL drugs and ILLEGAL drinking that goes on 7 days a week on so many campuses. Drugs+drunkenness+guns don’t mix. Guns belong in the hands of disciplined, moral responsible people, not people encouraged to be immature and irresponsible.

        • mountainpass says:

          Drunk students that are using illegal drugs and raping are probably ineligible for a license, based on their past records, or will be thrown out of college before they are 21( age necessary for license).

          We are debating law-abiding responsible adults.

    • Cassandra says:

      Amen to this, Rense:

      “But in this time, with a culture degraded by broken/single parent homes, miseducated by what passes for public schools, and conditioned by dreck that Hollywood and similar calls entertainment.”

      I watched HBO recently and was utterly disgusted by the set of shows they aired, and compared to most, I am pretty open-minded.

      Harry and I concurred on the sad and predictable effects of broken homes, this time last year, when young Mr. Boyer was killed in Va-Hi. America’s social fabric, especially in the inner city by GT, is shredded.

      Public education is an oxymoron is so many cases and places. Poor educational outcomes are not primarily the fault of educators. Kids from broken homes usually lack parental involvement, hence are poor students.

      Kid-carry is absurd on it’s face, and undeniably a terrible idea.

      Far more harm will come of having more guns on campus. Guns are high value items for theft; guns are easily stolen and easily traded or sold. Guns make youthful crimes of passion easier. It is easy to turn a weapon upon a kid.

      Stick a fork in this turkey of an issue…guns are an easy, yet ineffectual solution to a difficult issue.

      • you says:

        Kid-carry??? We are talking about students over the age of 21, who are legally allowed to own a firearm. Besides that, these are college students, not street thugs. Stop acting like they are idiots, they are intelligent young men and woman who should have the right to protect themselves in what ever manner they see fit.

        • Cassandra says:

          College KIDS! Yep, that’s what they called me when I was in school.

          Young men whose maturity at age 21 hovers from idealistic to altruistic; whose hormones run between pride and passion. Young women who may have never been in an urban environment, thus may be unaware of how to verbally disarm unwanted advances.

          A rapist is a dangerous coward and should be shot, yet I am 100% sure that the negatives of kid-carry outweigh protection. College kids carrying weapons. Really?

          We’ll have to agree to disagree, without being disagreeable, on this policy point.

          • you says:

            I will say it again…21 is the legal age to own a gun. That is the law. Being in college makes no difference. How do you feel about the “adults” who work on campus? Should they be allowed to carry?

            • Cassandra says:

              Yep, are are correct, 21 is the legal age to own a gun. Is it right to have a gun on campus. Oh Hell NO! For adults or kids.

              How tired are we of hearing about legal vs. right? It is no more right to have guns in school than a church—-er, wait, what did the BrainTrust decide on that one?

              • you says:

                …and it is illegal to commit a crime at school but it happens. It’s a shame the laws are not enough to stop criminals.
                Just because you were too irresponsible to own a gun in college does not mean everyone else is. If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one.

                • Cassandra says:

                  I ~HEART~ guns! I just don’t believe college kids ought to have them on campus.

                  BTW, I will be at GT this AM and will nose around with this question. Stay tuned.

                  • mountainpass says:

                    Serious question. Wouldn’t you think that if just one person was armed at VA Tech that fewer people might have died?

                    After that event common sense would be gun free zones don’t save lives, and wait for it……….they don’t magically keep out guns. The students were fish in a barrel, defenseless and unable to escape. Why you desire to continue with this flawed logic is beyond me.

                    • benevolus says:

                      People get shot all the time off campus and anybody can already carry there, so allowing people to carry doesn’t prevent any shooting either.

                    • “allowing people to carry doesn’t prevent any shooting either”

                      If just one shooting is prevented by someone else in the area that was carrying, your statement is false. πŸ™‚

                    • benevolus says:

                      Not so. If one extra person gets shot in any way other than trying to prevent a crime (drunk, heat of the moment, accident) it cancels any benefit to crime prevention.

          • “College KIDS! Yep, that’s what they called me when I was in school.

            Young men whose maturity at age 21 hovers from idealistic to altruistic; whose hormones run between pride and passion. Young women who may have never been in an urban environment, thus may be unaware of how to verbally disarm unwanted advances.”

            By that logic, we need to increase the age at which someone is allowed to serve in the military, since it’s currently only 18 years old. What age do you propose we allow people in the military to have guns? 25? 30?

            • benevolus says:

              You provide college kids with the same intensity of training and discipline with those weapons and you might have a point.

              • You do realize some kids grow up learning about guns from their parents, right? Yes, my daughter will have a bb gun and/or .22 when she’s old enough (4 months old isn’t quite old enough in my book) and she’ll be taught gun safety from an early age. Teaching a kid gun safety for 10+ years, to me, is much more valuable than six weeks of intense training.

                • benevolus says:

                  Well, I guess that settles it then. Since you taught your kid then we can go ahead and let all kids carry.

                  • Ignoring your snarky comment, I’d also be open to requiring a test before allowing people under a certain age to get a permit. But to outlaw it for everyone doesn’t make sense either. There has to be a reasonable compromise.

                    • benevolus says:

                      Should have put a smiley. πŸ™‚
                      It is a pet peeve of mine I guess, when I see things that look like someone projecting their own personal experience on everyone else (but I don’t mean to be mean).
                      Maybe I’m just a rebel. πŸ™‚

                    • Herb says:

                      @Benevolus, πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

                    • Calypso says:

                      “@David, you’re not my mother.”

                      No, but she wants you out of her basement (again) as soon as you find a job.

                    • Herb says:

                      @Calypso, I own property in Irondale and Morrow, am worth 4.5 million(inherited), and work at a car dealership, which is more than I can say about you.

                    • Herb says:

                      @Calypso, no. I note that I do bear some semblance to Dickey Betts(the way he looked 40 years ago, not today) of the Allman Brothers Band.

            • benevolus says:

              And by the way, if I am not mistaken, suicide rates and stress/mental issues are quite prevalent among young veterans, so that would be evidence that they are not yet well-adjusted.

  5. I Miss the 90s says:

    No surprise here, a bunch of right-wingers and authoritarians either want guns everywhere or believe the country is less stable now than in the past because of moral deterioration.

    Things are no different now than in the past. If you want to get crime rates lower start trying to control the causes rather than the effects of crime. Adding more guns to the street has proven time and again to do nothing to attenuate crime rates and will, likely, result in increased levels of violent crime (of course this is something those that are intimately familiar with the concept of “escalation” will really understand).

    Education, or lack thereof, is the single strongest predictor of individual participation in crime. While bringing back truancy officers and steep truancy fines will only help the situation 10-15 years down the road, it will be more effective.

    Lastly, this is not an issue the general population or the state legislature should be deciding. The decision to allow firearms on campus should be left to the faculty and administration of each university.

    • Paul Srch says:

      “Adding more guns to the street has proven time and again to do nothing to attenuate crime rates and will, likely, result in increased levels of violent crime…”

      Taking guns off the street has been proven time and again to do nothing to attenuate crime rates…. You should perhaps look where the most violent crime is taking place. Cities with stiff gun control laws seem to have the MOST violent crime.

      • benevolus says:

        Ahh, but areas where strict gun control is widely and uniformly enforced have very good results. Gun control in a place like D.C. does little good if someone can go across the river and get all the guns they want.

      • I Miss the 90s says:

        Paul, Paul, Paul. Have you ever heard of endogenous relationships in the logic of inference?

        I can see you have not. You are fallaciously inferring that strict gun control laws cause higher rates of crime. Turn that causal arrow around and I believe you will find that higher crime rates caused the strict gun control laws and, ceteris paribus, that such laws have resulted in significantly lower crime rates.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      “I say ban all guns and knives. We should also look at banning hunting while we’re at it.”

      You mean in the same way that all uncontrolled substances (illegal drugs like marijuana, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, etc) have been banned or in the way that alcohol was banned in the 1920’s and 30’s?

      Banning all guns and knives presumes that 1) big brother government is always going to be there to ensure the personal safety of law-abiding citizens and that 2) everyone, even criminals and outlaws are going to abide by that weapons ban in the same way that law-abiding citizens do, which isn’t the case now, never has been the case and never will be the case.

      Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens only serves to give criminals and outlaws more power, who have demonstrated time and again that they have seemingly unfettered access to illegal guns no matter how stringent so-called “gun control” laws seem to be.

      • Herb says:

        And you know how we’re gonna make these laws mean something? Bring an International weapon and hunting ban before the United Nations. If it’s done at an international level, we will, at long last, live in a world without war. You cannot get past International Law. In fact, I propose an International Government. Isn’t that what we all(minus the Republican Party and their corporate backers with their corporate, stockpiled dollars) dream of. We will have implemented the dream that the hippies dreamed about.

        • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

          You mean the dream that hippies who have smoked one of the illicit substances that I “referred” to earlier (no pun intended) have lucidly dreamed about.

          The hard left just loves the U.N. The same U.N. that sends “peacekeepers” into international war zones with no weapons to get caught in the crossfire while keeping those brutal international dictators that seem to be found in an overwhelming abundance at the U.N. headquarters, in check.

          • Herb says:

            Not all of them did Pot, but that aside, their dream is my dream, their cause is my cause, and I will die defending it. The UN has made great strides in the past 30 years to keep the peace in the International Community. We need to, after 92 years of waiting, realize the dreams of our greatest President ever, Woodrow Wilson, and adopt the League of Nations. It is imperative to the survival of the planet that we act…NOW! Do I stand alone?

  6. 22bons says:

    I think a better way to ask this question is: Which constitutional rights should adults be required to give up in order to attend college? Should we dispense with freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc…. on college campuses? What’s different about the 2nd amendment that makes it subject to debate? Banning guns from campus is just part of the ongoing infantilization of students and it should be reversed.

    • Bridget says:

      I agree that if 18 year olds are recruited to defend our Constitution, they should receive all the rights contained within – that includes lowering the drinking age. The difference is that we don’t hand recruits a gun without proper training. To put 18 year olds in our community with firearms and no training (or at least confirmation of competence) is asinine.

      • John Konop says:

        …………..To put 18 year olds in our community with firearms and no training (or at least confirmation of competence) is asinine……………

        I agree!

      • 22bons says:

        Gun safety and competence among young adults is an entirely different conversation. Of course people of all ages who own a weapon should know how to safely use and store it.

        The question remains why we ask students to give up some constitutional rights to attend college when we wouldn’t dream of asking them to give up other rights such as freedom of religion.

        • Bridget says:

          A 10yr old student has all of their 1st Amendment rights, but not 2nd. As stands, a 20yr old not going to college does not have 2nd Amendment rights either.

          College campuses are lumped into the “School Safety Zone” ( I wonder if the legislation would specify you can carry [here] if you meet [this] training requirement. Like special driver’s licenses if you will.

          • mountainpass says:


            “The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

      • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

        “To put 18 year olds in our community with firearms and no training (or at least confirmation of competence) is asinine.”

        You mean like the 18 year olds (and younger) that commit violent crimes with illegally-obtained guns in our community on a frequent (almost daily) basis?

  7. ted in bed says:

    Effectively, the ban on carrying in schools (16-11-127.1) only applies to people with Georgia Weapons Licenses. If you don’t have a License, it is illegal for you to carry a gun/weapon in public anywhere in the state and 16-11-126 would apply.

    If 16-11-127.1 was repealed in it entirety, only Licensees along with exempt government employees (16-11-130) would be allowed to carry in schools. To carry anywhere in Georgia, you would still need a GWL (Georgia Weapons License) AND Federal Law requires a Georgia License to carry in Georgia schools.

    Who are these Licensees?

    Licensees are thoroughly background checked Georgians OVER 21 years old. They are teachers, parents, and older non-traditional students. The older non-traditional student is like me. I went to Emory Business for an MBA. I’m a responsible guy everywhere except in the classroom where Georgia has decided I’m mass-murderer just waiting to murder my classmates.

    For the record, I did have a professor lose emotional control with one of my presentations: “Prostitution – the leading indicator of economic growth in the third world”. Who knew he was so sensitive about the sex trade?

    The argument that drunk frat boys would have access to guns is mis-leading since to carry a gun, one has to have a license which implies being over 21.

    I went to a top quality engineering school in the 80’s. Most of my dorm-mates had guns in their rooms. We also had access to explosives and were trained in how to blow- shite up and destroy it. Did anyone get hurt or act irresponsibly? No! I’m not sure what is going on at Tech now, but it needs to be investigated and every admistrator should be fired. Our state can not afford to have engineers who don’t take their training seriously or are irresponsible.

    Bridget … your GWL/GFL allows for OPEN or CONCEALED CARRY.

  8. The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

    “Is It Time To Allow College Students To Carry Guns On Campus? Is this a good idea?”

    It is a good idea at Georgia Tech. Of course, the vast majority of students would likely continue to not carry guns, a fact that the armed thugs in the area are well aware of, which means the armed robberies, assaults, rapes and crimes will continue until students start shooting them.

  9. Prime example of the PROPER role of a federal government in a FREE society:

    “Is It Time To Allow College Students To Carry Guns On Campus?”

    When a State or local government initially dis-allowed students to carry, the Federal government/courts should have ruled this act unConstitutional.

    Suggested proper title of this post: Is It Time To No Longer Ban College Students From Carrying Guns On Campus?

  10. jiminga says:

    Those with CCW permits tend to avoid places and circumstances where trouble is likely, thereby making them more thoughtful of their safety. If concealed carry were permitted on campuses we would have had fewer deaths at VA Tech, Columbine, etc. Even the campus police at VA Tech were unarmed and had to depend on outside police forces. Although most instructors would not be interested in carrying, those that were would be of some deterrent.

  11. cheapseats says:

    I think most criminals would love to see college kids have guns – there would be so many loose guns left around that they’d never have to steal one again. Those kids lose cell phones, wallets, purses, shoes, etc. every day.

    Other than that, where would those girls even keep a gun? They wear practically nothing and none would want that “unsightly gun bulge” messing up their outfits.

    Of course, we won’t even discuss what would happen with a mix of toxic levels of testosterone and alcohol…

    They have rights but they don’t demonstrate a lot of responsibility. But, sure! Let’s arm them all!

    Pandering is all fun and games until somebody loses an eye – or worse.

    • Herb says:

      Your comment states precisely why I favor the outlawing and destruction of all weapons on the Globe. People caught with a gun should be sentenced to 10-20 years hard labor.

              • you says:

                Peace? Sure, take away our guns and our defense against violent people and we will have peace? yep. Works all the time. **eye roll**

                • Herb says:

                  But the point is this, the criminals won’t have any guns either and the people ain’t got no chance of getting violent. Is this peace? I say YES IT IS, BROTHER!

                    • you says:

                      Herb – governments would never give up their guns so there would still be guns around and there would be criminals figuring out how to get them. Do you want to live in a country where only the police have guns? That is hardly free.
                      Even without guns anyone who wants to hurt you still can. They will just use whatever is around…a rock, a knife, a car, a chain, rope, scissors…..

                    • Herb says:

                      @Fletch(aka “you”), If no one, I mean NO ONE, not even coppers, had guns, all of God’s children would learn to love one another. This epitomizes what he preached way back 2K years ago when Dinosaurs roamed God’s great, green earth. And we need to include knives in the international weapon ban, and limit the sale of scissors to those who have a permit. God’s will shall be done. Godspeed.

                    • Ken says:


                      People would make their own weapons, if needed – and they would be needed.

                      The Colt Peacemaker was well-named by its users.

                    • you says:

                      There are no guns in the Bible yet there is plenty of violence.

                      The group known as “Hell’s Angels” preferred to carry a hammer because it was not illegal for them to carry yet it could kill.

                      You keep living in denial and I will remain in reality where people are not all nice so I, as a woman, will not be a victim.

              • Bridget says:

                Um, Herb? I’m aware you’re just trying to get responses out people, but… Are you familiar with the book of Revelation? Yes, there’s peace – after kicking a good deal of ace. After that I point you toward King David; the warrior; the man after God’s own heart. We won’t get into a theological debate, but throwing Jesus into this isn’t cool.

                And the ‘criminals won’t have any guns either’ comment below is completely laughable. I’m not saying you’re the resident troll as Calypso mentions above – I’m just sayin’

          • RebelCowboySnB says:

            Luke 22:36

            King James Version (KJV)

            Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

  12. mountainpass says:

    This would let responsible folks 21 years and up with a license carry there. These same people are already carrying in many other places without any problems, why would they change their behavior on campus. The problem is the criminals have no fear of resistance because of the GFZ there.

    Georgia Tech last week admitted that the students are defenseless against attack.

    {Kasey Culler, 21, a fourth-year pre-law student, said she was disappointed that the university relied solely upon email to alert female students about the attack. Some did not see the email until Friday morning.

    The university is outfitted with an emergency communications system used during tornadoes or other events that pose a serious risk to a large number of people. Those alerts are sent in form of text messages and voice messages as well as emails.

    Tech’s emergency management personnel said utilizing that system to alert students to Thursday evening’s attack would have been inappropriate, since the school couldn’t recommend any specific action to ensure safety, according to spokeswoman Lisa Grovenstein.}

  13. you says:

    More guns, less crime.
    I always carry and I practice shooting often.
    Students of age should be allowed to carry on campus; after all, the criminals are already carrying there. No one should have to wait for someone else to protect them.

      • you says:

        Yes I do, does that matter? What do you do?
        I sell guns, pepper spray, knives and tazers to law abiding citizens who want to be able to protect themselves if anything bad should occur but they hope to never have to use it.
        What would you do if you where in a bad situation? Call 911 and wait 10 – 15 mins? The police would get there just in time to right a report. There are not enough of them to stop every crime.

        • Cassandra says:

          I’d tell the nice officer I was going for center mass, but shot the groin. But then, I am not in college. If I had a gun in college, I would still be doing time….

          I agree, when seconds count, Police are minutes away.

          As far as policy is concerned, having college age folks carrying guns on campus is a terrible idea.

          • Dave says:

            Cassandra, if you really had a circumstance when you were in college to use a gun for your protection and actually shot a guy in the groin, I would have loved to have been on your jury. You’d have been freed in five minutes! Not guilty!

  14. Quest50 says:

    It’s amazing to me how people seem to think that if GA Tech were to no longer ban guns on campus that everyone 18+ would immediately go out and arm themselves. You have to be 21 or older and have a clean record to even get a Georgia Weapons Carry License. The people who would be carrying on campus are the same responsible people who carry responsibly everywhere else. There is absolutely NOTHING that makes a college campus special in this regard.

    I really don’t understand why this is even debated. GA Tech wouldn’t be the first campus to drop their ban on legally carried firearms. In the entire state of Utah, it is legal to carry on college campuses. Blood isn’t running in their streets like some of you people seem to think will happen here.

    This is exactly like the situation in Florida, where when they decided to put a licensing process in place and allow carry in the state, many claimed there would be a spike in crime – that the people who jump through the hoops and go through the legal process to carry a firearm legally would end up killing people over petty arguments. That never happened. There’s a term for what many of you are doing: It’s called “Projecting”. You’re projecting your own insecurities on people like me. Stop it.

    It’s ignorant and just plain insulting to me and everyone else in Georgia to say that we’re somehow inferior to people in Utah and several other campuses across the nation. Please, can someone explain to me (with some solid facts) why if it is legal in other places and there hasn’t been any problems, why would it be a problem here?

        • ted in bed says:

          There is a huge misconception that Texas is a gun-friendly state. Its not. Texas Republican’s views of gun rights is very similar to Mitt Romney’s.

          Two examples,

          1) It is a CRIMINAL ACT for a Licensee to openly display a firearm in Texas. That includes “printing” which happens if your clothes are too tight. Apparently, the sissies in Texas will faint at the mere hint of a firearm. In Georgia, we don’t have that silliness and can carry openly or concealed.

          2) Since George Bush signed Texas’ concealed carry law in the 90’s, it has not been modified. Contrast that with Georgia, where we have been decriminalizing self defense for nearly a decade (2004 – Stand Your Ground Legislation, 2008 – HB89 Repealed the ban on carrying while in a restaurant that serves alcohol, 2010 – SB308 dramatically eliminating gun free zones)

          Mitt Romney HAPPILY (his words) signed the law that made Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban permanent. George Bush stated publicly that he supported renewal of the Assault Weapons ban.

          For gun laws, Texas is the southern version of Massachusetts.

  15. Dave says:

    When I was in school I carried a shotgun and a pistol and kept both in my college dorm room. It’s called freedom, folks. And I also felt good about the ability to protect myself and my friends.

  16. saltycracker says:

    Properly licensed and trained folks with guns are a deterrent. The bad guys are playing it smart to do their crimes in areas where the other person might not be armed and trained. The corner store is getting too dangerous for them.

    • benevolus says:

      “Properly licensed and trained folks with guns are a deterrent.” In theory perhaps. But there isn’t enough of them on the streets to actually deter anything, so it’s moot.
      “do their crimes in areas where…” I suspect it is more likely the criminals are actually searching for drunk people.
      “corner store is getting too dangerous for them” This might be true to the extent that the clerks have guns behind the counter, but I doubt is has anything to do with customers packing heat.
      Nice fantasy though.

  17. mountainpass says:

    “Nice fantasy though.”

    This Tech student made it reality.

    “An alleged would-be robber shot and killed on Saturday in a grocery store parking lot had rotated in and out of Rockdale County jail for nearly a decade on charges ranging from simple battery to posession and selling of drugs.”
    “He and another man, who is still at large, reportedly attempted to rob a 23-year-old Georgia Tech student at knifepoint shortly before 8 p.m.”
    “The victim had a firearms license and had a gun with him, according to a friend. No charges have been filed against the student.”

    • rense says:

      I could reply to this with lyrics from the rap music that I used to listen to in the 1990s, but I think that I will pass.

      • rense says:

        You would have preferred this criminal murdering an innocent person to being killed in self-defense instead? And by the way … the criminal HAD A KNIFE, not a gun. So, I guess this criminal knifing this student to death and getting away would have been your preferred outcome.

Comments are closed.