Utah students hide guns, head to class

[krispos42]

By Joshua Molina
Special to CNN


CNNU campus correspondent Joshua Molina is a senior at Brigham Young University. CNNU is a feature that provides student perspectives on news and trends from colleges across the United States. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of CNN, its affiliates or the schools where the campus correspondents are based.

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (CNN) -- The senior at the University of Utah gets dressed and then decides which gun is easiest to conceal under his clothes.

If he's wearing a T-shirt, he'll take a smaller, low-profile gun to class. If he's wearing a coat, he may carry a different weapon, he said.

He started carrying a gun to class after the massacre at Virginia Tech, but the student says he's not part of the problem of campus shootings and could instead be part of a solution.

Nick, who asked not to be fully identified so his fellow students wouldn't know he carried a gun, says he has had a concealed weapons permit for more than three years. But it was Seung-Hui Cho's murderous campus rampage that made him take a gun to class.

<more>

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/20/cnnu.guns/index.html

Well, what do you think?

[meegbear]

1. Mixed ...

I'm more concerned about a concealed weapon outside of class. In my college days, and I'm sure today, a party and a person with a wrong attitude can go a long way.

[johnbraun]

4. UT and CO have had legal gun toting students on campus since 1995 and 2003 respectively.

They've had no problems. Not a one. I asked a Colorado college's police chief.

[Taverner]

2. Well, I am all for the right to be a dumbass

And this smacks of dumbassery. Say this happened at Columbine? The death count from crossfire would have added to the already large bodycount, unless someone with a gun was lucky enough to get one of the killers in their sights.

BUT...you do have a right to this dumbassery.

[johnbraun]

3. Given that concealed carry holders are 5 times less likely to shoot a bystander than a COP...

(source: C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws”. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994)

I'd rather have a citizen with a carry permit in a classroom than a cop.

And we're talking about over 21 year olds here.

Remember Charles Whitman? Belltower guy? UT-Austin? Half of Texas went and got their deer rifles and kept the SOB's head down. Saved a lot of lives. None of them shot each other or a cop.

Or did you just want to shovel dirt bereft of facts into the discussion and walk away? Why are you being so intolerant towards those that make different life choices than you? Liberals like me don't act in such a manner.

[Taverner]

6. But Whitman was a perfect shot

A guy, all alone, in a bell tower. Hell, I could make that shot.

Lets just use Columbine as an example. Say some of the students were armed - given the right shot, the whole thing could have been over in minutes. Given a few wrong shots, however, and there could have been a much higher body count.

The problem isn't really the gun, but the shooter. How good is he or she, and how lucky is he or she.

Thing is, I think the students should have the right to carry guns. But with rights comes great responsibility - and that's the part lacking.

[johnbraun]

7. We are talking >=21 year olds here, not Columbine. Please constrain your comments in light of this.

"But with rights comes great responsibility - and that's the part lacking."

Given that CCW holders are 20 times more law-abiding than the average citizen, I think they're pretty damn responsible.

[Taverner]

8. It's not the law abiding part that scares me

Its the panic shooters...if we could just make the panic shooters leave their guns at home

[EricTeri]

9. Got a whole lot of examples of those?

No? Didn't think so.

So you're basically saying you're manufacturing a reason to be scared, getting scared of it, and then expecting the rest of us to be controlled by your irrational fears.

Just so we're clear and all...

[bossy22]

10. most CCW holders

train with their guns weekly- more than cops do. But i have never heard of a CCW holder panic shooting- though ive heard many times about the NYPD doing it- but thats probably due to their lack of training

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. Weekly Training is Required for a CCW Permit?

Didn't think so.

Do all CCW holders have experienced being under fire in a hostage and/or terrorist situation?

Didn't think so.

[sabre73]

41. Many ccws if not most

actually participate in such organizations like IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association), IPSC, or any other org. that uses simulated training that induces stress in a manner that would simulate an "under fire" situation. These organizations actually educate the shooters and train them far more thoroughly than most standard POLICE/ Federal Agencies teach their own officers.

So not all of them do have that training but then again.....Do all Law Enforcement have that same training?

NO!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Do All CCWs Have the Same Training?

NO.














.

[L1A1Rocker]

46. Do all police have the same training?

NO.














.

[L1A1Rocker]

90. Well? Frightened of a little banter there FTGF?

[L1A1Rocker]

95. Still waiting. IF you dare.

[ac2007]

62. Vast majority of police don't meet that standard either.

You seem to think high levels of training and proficiency should be the norm for public carriage of firearms. Most police officers only qualify twice per year and fire 50-100 rounds at each time. Most do not practice for hostage or terrorist scenarios. Those domains tend to be left to dedicated units like SWAT. The average patrol officer simply has very little time to maintain high levels of weapon proficiency with everything else they have to know and do.

A lot of CCW holders, on the other hand, take their responsibility of carrying a gun and being familiar and proficient with it seriously. Many, including myself, do practice weekly. I fire more rounds in a month than many police officers do in a year.

And what does experience under fire have to do with any of this? Many police officers don't have experience under fire either. What makes CCW holders so different? Contrary to the police, a lot of us can actually hit what we aim at and we have good reason to do so: We are held to higher standard of liability than a police officer. We can be held accountable for every round and its ultimate destination, intentional or otherwise. Police are protected under sovereign immunity by the State and it takes iron-clad proof of gross negligence to result in charges or dismissal. Things that would land a civilian in a court room, civilly or criminally, often are passed on in a police officer as part of the job. If a civilian opened fire the way some cops did, they'd be in prison.

If you are looking for consistency in training standards, issuing authority and the like, as stated, most States tend to follow the same pattern. As a general rule, a NRA or State approved training course (which are usually one in the same thing) is considered an acceptable standard. Some states require certain marksmanship standards but this is uncommon. And where they do, they tend to mirror police marksmanship standards.

The only way to standardize this is with Federal carry legislation that would make CCW a national right. Personally, I would welcome that.

[L1A1Rocker]

101. Weekly trianing required of police?

[johnbraun]

11. What's a "panic shooter"?

If that's someone that shoots at someone and hits an innocent, you should know that cops hit innocents 5 times as often as permitholders in a defensive shooting situation.

[EricTeri]

13. He's the same guy...

...who can accurately spray-fire from the hip with a highly concealable bullet hose.

(did i get enough of the anti-gun rhetoric into that one sentence?)

[krispos42]

33. you forgot the bayonet

It's a bayonet-tipped highly concealable bullet hose!

:-)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. The Fact that You Have to Ask that Question

.......... says it all.

Tell me, does everyone who goes to target practice shoot their target? How do they do when they are under fire themselves? Do most law abiding gun owners have a lot of experience at that, do they?

[sabre73]

42. Do Law Enforcement undergo this.......

Hollywood version training that you keep bringing up? Being shot at with a hostage in need of rescue!!!LOL!!!

Your ignorance know no bounds!!!

CCWs are statistically far more accurate shooters under stress than MOST LEOs! On the firing range I can point out which Agents are CCW holders as well based on their performances at the range and how they respond to stressful situations in the field.

But don't take the word of someone who actually knows about this topic. What would an Federal firearms instructor know especially if he is also a CCW instructor for the state of Texas?

Not a darn thing.:freak:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. Typical

I'll leave you to characterize me as stupid or ignorant by asking a question.

Too bad you just simply couldn't respond with the third sentence. Nah......... you just have got to throw in the petty personal attacks.

Tell me, does every state require a concealed weapons license?

Please do educate me all wise and knowing one.

[L1A1Rocker]

48. Please keep posts relavant to O.P.

Now back to the relavant topic.

[ac2007]

51. No, not all states require a CCW

Tell me, does every state require a concealed weapons license?

The answer to your question is: No.

40 states are "shall issue". They must issue a permit without discretionary authority to deny to any qualified individuals who apply.
8 states are "may issue" or "no issue". They may or may not issue permits and have the authority to restrict who receives a permit. Many anti-gun forces portray these states as "CCW" states since they do issue permits sometimes. Maryland would be an example of a "may issue" state. Illinois is an example of a "no issue" state.

2 states require no permit whatsoever to carry concealed and doing so is perfectly legal: Alaska and Vermont. Alaska will issue permits to individuals who apply for them but that is more for reciprocity purposes with other states for those who travels outside Alaska rather than a necessity to do so. Vermont requires no permit to CCW at all.

Does this help?

[L1A1Rocker]

47. Your same questions can be put to the avg beat cop.

[Turbo Teg]

68. Well

I think that most people who go to the range will become proficient enough to be able to hit thier targets. Also, most police don't undergo a lot of training themselves. There's probably no way to know how they'll do when thier under fire either. I do know that armed citizens kill more bad guys every year, using less ammo, 1 in 5 rounds will hit thier mark comming from an officers gun while its 1 in 3 for armed citizens. Also, armed citizens accidentily shoot less people than police. (Mistaken Identity)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. You Mean........

................. the one's drinking at a nearby campus bar that impaired his/her judgment?
................. or do you mean the jaded boyfriend who catches his girlfriend in a dorm with another student?
..................or perhaps you mean the student who doesn't like the grade he's gotten or the humiliation he's received in class?
..................or perhaps it was at a frat party where some recreational drugs impaired his/her judgment?

[L1A1Rocker]

49. Kinda sucks

to live in such a dangerious world doesn't it. Of course I'd rather have my CHL when the SHTF. You of course are free to dial 911, or perhaps open up a dialogue with the perp.

[L1A1Rocker]

91. HaHaHa LOL FTGF frightened of little ol me

[L1A1Rocker]

94. Still waiting IF you dare!

[L1A1Rocker]

102. Still no witty reply. Cannot handle the truth?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

52. Actually No

That's simply not true.

Both institutions had 18 year olds and the notion that the skill differential between a 16 year old and a 21 year old is really dependent on their training. Even assuming you have to be 21 years to LEGALLY conceal a weapon, there is no state conformity as to what skill set is required. Heck, there isn't even continuity in whether or not a concealed weapons license is required and how or who is eligible to acquire one.

[EricTeri]

53. Not quite as you make it sound...

You have to be 21 to own handguns by federal law.

Only 2 states do not require a permit, but they're still held to the 21 year old standard.

While there is no federal mandate (nor should there be) on the requirements for CCW, you'll find the requirements are virtually the same in all of the shall-issue states.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. What I Said

Like I said: 'There is no state conformity as to what skill set is required. Heck, there isn't even continuity in whether or not a concealed weapons license is required and how or who is eligible to acquire one.'

Don't confuse operating a gun with owning a gun. Unfortunately there is no consistency in who can operate one either and there is certainly no consistency among the states as to who is eligible (not just age) and what standard there needs to carry a concealed weapon.

[EricTeri]

55. And as I said

While there is no FEDERAL mandate, the requirements amongst the states are pretty much the same.

You have to be over 21 (because you cant legally own a pistol unless you are)

You have to have a clean criminal record. Misdemeanors typically wont disqualify you but could depending upon the specifics. Felonies certainly disqualify you. Of course, you cannot legally own a gun if you have any of those disqualifiers.

You have to pass a written test

You have to pass a physical test which demonstrates your familiarity with a pistol.

You have to pass a background check.

So assuming all those things, why SHOULDN'T one be legally allowed to carry? By what authority would the state say they can't? Do try to remember, one does not need government permission to own firearms.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

56. You've Disputed Nothing I Wrote

Did you?

[EricTeri]

57. Wasnt disputing

I was clarifying.

The words you chose to express your ideas implied there were very loose and inconsistent standards which allowed anyone, regardless of their background, to carry concealed. Your statement also indicate you didn't have a very clear understanding of what actually IS required for a CCW.

Like any state-issued license (drivers, contractors, business, etc), there are variations in requirements from state to state but the basics are quite consistent. For example, the driver's license requirements in Virginia (where I obtained my license originally so many years ago) vary from the requirements in the rest of the nation. I have lived in a number of states since then, and in all of them my license was considered valid.

CCW licenses have almost total reciprocity with all the other shall-issue states.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

58. Another Perspective

You write: 'Your statement also indicate you didn't have a very clear understanding of what actually IS required for a CCW. '

Let me get this right: Nothing I said was false or untrue and I'm the one who lacks an understanding?

You write: 'Like any state-issued license (drivers, contractors, business, etc), there are variations in requirements from state to state but the basics are quite consistent.'

According to you, so much so that as you point out, two states (taking you at your word) don't even require a 'drivers license.' No wonder 'reciprocity' is so ............. legitimate.

[EricTeri]

59. Whatever dude

I was being polite and explaining to you what the general requirements are.

Perhaps if you were a little less aggressive, and more willing to acknowledge that you ARE ignorant in this area and wanted honestly learn a few things, we could have a discussion. Since what you seem to want to do is fight with everyone, good day to you. I simply have no patience for your kind.

Frankly, your kind of behavior on gun rights is why the nation has shifted away from a gun control stance, and why the Democrat party is largely perceived as being anti-gun. Its also why being pro-gun-control is a political death sentence these days.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. Denial

You were being 'polite'?

Must have been the part about calling me a fool, ignorant and a dude that made me think otherwise.

Frankly, your behavior on this board is more evidence of why this country continues to face mass murders on college campuses. Denial.

I'll leave you to argue the Democratic party is largely perceived as being anti-gun, but I'm going to challenge you on the assumption we are the 'kiss of death' given the evidence of who took control of both houses of Congress in the last election.

[EricTeri]

61. I have not called you a fool

Certainly not in this thread.

Yes, you ARE ignorant, as are we all. Ignorance is merely a lack of knowledge. There is nothing insulting or derogatory about the term. I am sorry you believe otherwise.

"Dude" is a figure of speech. Again, if you were offended by my use of it, I am sorry you are that sensitive.

I dont have to argue that it is perceived as anti-gun. That is a statement of fact. I am aware which party took control of both houses, but it certainly wasnt for the party's stance on gun control. I think you'll find the candidates who won in those two cycles wisely avoided the issue for the most part.

[L1A1Rocker]

103. Perhaps foolish but defiantly ignorant

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. How about a different scenario --

Someone opens up on campus. Immediately, a half-dozen concealed-carry students pull out their guns.

For each of them, there is only a one chance in six that the first person they see carrying a gun will be the shooter. So who is likliest to be shot? The shooter, or the CC students?

[EricTeri]

15. Your scenario assumes much...

Mainly it assumes (foolishly i might add) that CCW holders will blindly draw and fire their weapons without any idea as to the location of the threat.

[johnbraun]

16. Common imaginary scenario, but it doesn't happen.

I asked an Israeli citizen about this.

He was involved when a terrorist opened up with an AK in a shopping mall.

He and another civilian (plus an officer that showed up a bit later) shot him to the ground. None of them shot each other.

When I asked him how he knew who to shoot, and he said "Well, the terrorist was the guy shooting at women, children, anybody. All of us knew to shoot at him, not at each other."

Israelis and Arabs are often hard to tell apart just by looking at them, and the terrorist was dressed like an Israeli. The civilian I talked to was able to know who the shooter was by their actions. Just like any civilian would be able to do. It's common sense.

Your thought experiment sounds plausible if you allow your fears to dictate what you think the outcome might be, but in real life it doesn't happen.

...and throwing commone sense out the window just to entertain your fears...

Consider a shooter that intends to load up and kill 30 people. He is killed after 10 people, with 2 dead bystanders shot by the CCWer (a completely unreasonably high number). Therefore, 18 lives were saved. Killing the shooter with any less than 28 people already dead is a net gain. And a civilian CCW holder is going to be there at the beginning of a shooting, whereas the police will get there at the *end* when more people are dead (and as I've said, police are 5 times more likely to shoot innocents than the CCW holder).

So even if a person or two is winged or killed, it's still a net savings in lives to have the CCWer there.

[benEzra]

20. For an example of multiple CHL holders vs. 1 shooter,

see the recent Colorado church shooting. The first one to respond put the shooter down; others were on-scene within moments but did not fire any shots.

In every mass shooting incident I can think of, it was pretty damn obvious who the bad guy was. In this case, it was the guy on the stage with a hunting shotgun and a couple of pistols shooting the people trying to run away from him; pretty hard to confuse, IMHO. In the case of the Colorado church shooting, it was the guy walking into church shooting a rifle. In the Westboro mall shooting, it was the guy on the second floor shooting passersby with a rifle. Also pretty hard to confuse.

I think you underestimate the role that context plays in the assessment of dynamic situations.

[krispos42]

34. Numbers don't support that

Maybe 1% of the students on a campus would carry. The odds of six of them together? Damn low.

Besides, they would presumably be looking at the source of the gunshots, that is, looking for a gun already out. And if the shooter has a long gun, like the NIU guy with a shotgun, that's a pretty obvious target.

[EricTeri]

12. I fail to see...

...how you consider advocating for CCW holders to be able to carry while in universities to be "dumbassery", while at the same time somehow considering continuing to do the same things which have been proven not to work and expecting a different result (which is the very definition of insanity, i might add) to be the intelligent course of action.

Then again, i've never understood any of the "logic" used by those who wish to ignore the 2nd Amendment.

[SteveM]

39. Hmm. Yet Dylan Klebold opposed Concealed Carry in Colorado...

Klebold's "political position" was no hypothetical. Nearly was his murder spree.

June 29, 1999 issue of the New York Times: "Shattered Lives -- A Special report; Caring Parents, No Answers, in Columbine Killers' Past," Pam Belluck and Jodi Wilgoren.

[newfie11]

5. I would do the same thing if I were going to college now

Just because someone has a ccp doesn't mean their going to be Rambo. It would give the student a chance for self protection. As it is now they are sheep waiting for slaughter.

[Turbo Teg]

17. I agree completely.

If I were in class and heard shots popping off, I'm not gonna go look for the threat. If I can, I'm gonna try to make it out the window, unless I can't for some reason. If not, I'm taking cover and sitting tight untill help arrives, or if the worse situation occurs and the shooter gets into the room I will defend myself. I doubt any students will be in the crossfire as when shooting starts most peoples reaction is to get out of the way or get down.

[east texas lib]

18. I think that young Nick...

Has accepted one of the harsh realities of life and has opted for survival. Situational
awareness and competency with a handgun will give you a fighting chance in a hostile
environment. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Herman74]

19. Why just college campuses? Why not bring guns to elementary schools, ...

...after all, on numerous occasions little children have gotten shot, so shouldn't they too have a right to "defend" themselves with guns? But why just places of education, why not other worksites too? After all, anyone just about anywhere can get shot by a crazy guy who, alas, wasn't born with a tattoo stating, "I'm a crazy guy, don't sell me a gun." Wouldn't you gun nuts just absolutely love a society where everyone's packin' heat? We would be just so much safer, right, gun nuts???

But we would all have to be wearing bullet-proof vests, because you see the crazy guy with the gun might well have such a vest given that he certainly has foreknowledge (unlike, say, his victims) that a crime is going to be committed. So just how useful would your concealed gun be, gun nuts, when the crazy guy is pointing a gun at you and commanding you to reach for the sky, just before, lo and behold, he shoots you in the head and you die? Maybe your very last thought would be: "No one would die by the gun, if no one had a gun."

[benEzra]

21. OK, perhaps you can show me which state...

Why just college campuses? Why not bring guns to elementary schools, after all, on numerous occasions little children have gotten shot, so shouldn't they too have a right to "defend" themselves with guns? But why just places of education, why not other worksites too? After all, anyone just about anywhere can get shot by a crazy guy who, alas, wasn't born with a tattoo stating, "I'm a crazy guy, don't sell me a gun." Wouldn't you gun nuts just absolutely love a society where everyone's packin' heat? We would be just so much safer, right, gun nuts???

OK, perhaps you can show me which state issues carry licenses to kindergarteners? :eyes:

FWIW, to obtain a CHL, I had to pass a minimum age requirement, a Federal background check, state background check, a mental health records check, have my fingerprints run by the FBI (clean), take a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on self-defense law administered by the sheriff's department, and demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range, live fire.

Nobody is talking about arming everybody. But as I have said before, allowing the 1-2% of us who are already competent and authorized to carry, to be allowed to do so, is hardly the equivalent of issuing guns to six-year-olds.

But we would all have to be wearing bullet-proof vests, because you see the crazy guy with the gun might well have such a vest given that he certainly has foreknowledge (unlike, say, his victims) that a crime is going to be committed. So just how useful would your concealed gun be, gun nuts, when the crazy guy is pointing a gun at you and commanding you to reach for the sky, just before, lo and behold, he shoots you in the head and you die? Maybe your very last thought would be: "No one would die by the gun, if no one had a gun."

Except the attacker in your cartoon scenario doesn't know which one I am, and I know exactly which one he is. Nor is the vest necessarily as relevant as you seem to think.

If guns were as useless for defense as you seem to think, then off-duty police officers wouldn't carry them. FWIW, most of the same practical considerations apply to off-duty police as CHL holders (and FWIW many CHL holders are former/retired police officers or former military, though I myself am not).

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lex1775]

30. That society will never exist. Ask the English.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

35. Some people are considering exactly that

Not arming the students, of course. They are not competent adults. But for teachers and staff that already have a CCW permit.

So just how useful would your concealed gun be, gun nuts, when the crazy guy is pointing a gun at you and commanding you to reach for the sky, just before, lo and behold, he shoots you in the head and you die?

Well, then, the situation was not made any worse, was it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Thank God

You write: 'Not arming the students, of course. They are not competent adults.'

I suspect there are a number of gun advocates who would challenge the "of course".

In fact, I've seen some argue on other DU gun boards that is exactly what should be done even if I disagree.

Thank you for at least recognizing the inappropriateness of students carrying guns. It's a sad state of affairs that we live in a country where we are talking about students and teachers carrying guns.

[sabre73]

64. If people are really

suggesting that they should "arm" students under the age of 21 then they are mentally deficient and their threads should not be taken seriously. They are most likely flame baiting for the fun of it.

[Turbo Teg]

69. Actually,

I am all for reducing the age to buy a handgun from 21 to 18. Why should you be a second class citizen before your 21? I find it strange that anyone believes a person at 18 is responsable enough to go die for his country, get married, sign legally binding agreements, go to jail for the rest of his life if he does something wrong, but doesn't think he's responsable enough to buy and carry a handgun, or drink a beer. You do know that we give people (some are probably students aswell) under 21 m-16 assualt rifles and other fully automatic weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, Rocket launchers, claymore mines, fucking Abrams tanks, and yes, even Beretta M9 pistols in the military right? Call me mentally deficient, but if the government can trust you with this equipment in the military, then they can trust you to carry a handgun on the streets, and even into a classroom.

[sabre73]

70. I am not against 18 year old

necessarily, But I do view 18 gets rifle and 21 get handgun as a small right of passage. Still no reason to deny the allowance for 18 year olds it is just my old sentiment. I was honestly thinking more along the lines of the grade school student being armed. That is not acceptable period. I am for CCW trained staff being armed. Why not.

As far as me knowing what we give our boys in service the answer is YES I do know since I have trained a good deal of them. As I stated I was not alienating 18 year olds intentionally I was thinking more in the terms of the grade school student.

And that M9 blows. They should get an old fashioned Govt. 1911 but some one out there doesn't think that is a fair gun to use. Too bad.

[Turbo Teg]

71. Ok, cool.

We're on the same page then, except for the 1911, it was good gun........ about 70 years ago! And yes, the M9 sucks dockey balls. I would not mind seeing it get replaced by a Glock, a Sig, and maybe even an HK. Hell almost anything is better than the Beretta! The 9mm is a good round with good ammo, but if we're gonna give them crap to shoot, then lets give them a .45 to shoot it out of.

[EricTeri]

72. 1911 is still a very good gun.

There's a reason it was in front line service for so long. The military is also entertaining the idea of going back to it. In addition, when you look at the expansion of 1911 pattern pistols in the market, I'd say a LOT of people still think its an excellent design. Can you think of anything better?

[L1A1Rocker]

75. Yeah, what he said:)

If the US were to bring back the old iron side .45 I'd prefer a double stack mag. I've got a P-14 that ROCKS!! Of course it's a full house "limited" IPSC gun:)

[Turbo Teg]

81. HAHA, I knew

I'd get flack for saying that!lol. No, it is a good pistol, but I believe there are better ones in service now. I know the military entertained the idea of going back to the .45 and I think the Marine Corps thought about going back to the 1911, which I think going back to the .45 would be a better choice. Now, I think if they are wanting to stay with a single stack I think the Sig p220 would be the better choice, and if going with a double stack, the Glock 21sf, the new .45 that FN has coming out, and if not either of those, then I guess the USP would be my last choice for a good service pistol. Although I don't really like the USP, I think it's more reliable than the Old 1911.

[EricTeri]

82. If you want something more reliable than a 1911...

...you're probably going to have to go with a Colt SAA revolver, or find a way to make an AK47 into a pistol...

It wasn't in service for 70+ years because it sucks.

[Turbo Teg]

83. Hmmm

Not from what I've seen. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion but I have been around enough 1911s to know that it doesn't take much to get them to start to hiccup, so my opinion is that it isn't reliable enough to go back into active service. I've shot 1911s from LLama to Wilson combat and Nighthawk, and have owned a kimber pro raptor II, and I've seen everyone of them fail to feed at some point or another. Not saying I don't like the guns, because I do, just that I don't think they are the best thing out there now. I also believe it was in service for so long because up untill more recent times, there was nothing that would really be that cutting edge above it.

[sabre73]

87. I agree that a revolver is more reliable than a 1911

but the 1911 was not taken out of service because it "sucked". Hardly. There was room for improvement with the original design (internally) but most of that has been so refined over the years that I would sooner trust my 1911's over my other semi-auto pistols.

You can thank those who dictate what is acceptable for "Rules of Engagement" in combat for the .45 being replaced by the ineffective ball ammo 9mm.

But times are changing! I believe we will see the .45 in combat very soon. It is my understanding that it is being used with some spec. ops. already. I could be wrong though.


P.S. I love my revolvers! No jams and all business! :headbang:

[L1A1Rocker]

84. I think the phrase is

Don't poke the dog. LOL:)

[L1A1Rocker]

74. Don't be knocking my 1911:)

Hell, my carry gun is a stainless steele Colt Officers model .45 ACP. I keep the Aguila IQ ammo in it. And yes I have put a couple of mags of it through it just to make sure.

[sabre73]

85. I am one of the few gun owners who

owns a Glock simply because it is a basic staple in firearms but I rarely use it. I do like the Sig and I have 2 H&Ks (USP .40 and the P2000). I had to carry the Beretta 96D brig. for duty carry. I will never buy a Beretta after that (well, maybe a shotgun...We'll see.)

I do love my Kimber TackII 1911 though. I have a sweet load I make for my IDPA matches. feels just like shooting a 9mm.

I say the military should exercise one of the cardinal rules for gun fights: "If you have to fight use a .40 cal or higher!":evilgrin:

[krispos42]

98. We should move up to the .40 S&W

IMHO, at least, with some zippy 165-grain bullets. Small enough to double-stack, big enough and fast enough to hurt.

Shoot'em out of a Springfield Armory XD or Smith & Wesson M&P auto-pistol, or when Ruger gets around to making it's new SR9 pistol in a .40, use that one.


Or, alternatively, if we're going to go back to the .45, it should be the .45 GAP. Same bullet and same ballistics as the standard-pressure .45 ACP, but a lot shorter. Then we could issue a double-stack .45 GAP pistol that doesn't take extra-large hands to be able to handle.

[Turbo Teg]

99. I'm a big fan of the .40

But I think if your stuck using ball ammo then your better off with the .45. You'd be left with a lot of the same problems that you get when using 9mm ball, just with a slightly bigger hole. With a lightweight .45 bullet, you'll get a bigger hole, and less penatration so more energy will be deliverd to the target instead of just knocking holes through him.

[krispos42]

100. There's less of a difference than is popularly thought

The Strasbourg tests showed that average incapacitation times for a 9mm FMJ were 14.4 seconds, and for a .45 ACP was 13.84. The .40 S&W FMJs was 13.76. I don't think we lost very much going over to the 9mm at all because both the 9mm and the .45 will punch clean through a person. This naturally limits the amount of energy absorbed by the bad guy and disperses it in time, so there is less shock. And much of the incapacitation power of handgun ammunition is due to getting the bad guy to realize he's been shot so that his mortality and self-preservation instincts kick in.

I think that now that Glock has changed the market, though, we've seen that the tradtional double-action pistol is not the way to go. I got to shoot a Beretta 92 at a range. Put a few dozen rounds into the target. Didn't like is particularly. A guy in the next stall was shooting a Springfield Armory XD 9mm, and was nice enough to let me try it 5 shots through it. That gun felt much better in my hand, much more ergonomic and simpler to use, to boot.

http://www.thegunzone.com/strasbourg.html

[sepulveda]

66. if they are permitted

if they are permitted, i don't care if they are staff, students, or whatnot.

and i live in WA state. it is entirely legal for any of the above to carry firearms on our college campuses, and i have yet to see a single problem develop from this.

last i checked, the U of Washington is not a hotbed of gun violence.

[L1A1Rocker]

73. Why do you stereo type gun owners?

After all you yourself are a gun owner. You just don't ever load them.

[sabre73]

86. Holy cow !?!

Is FTGFN a gun owner? If that is true then I don't know what to think.

FTGFN, if you read this thread would you be willing to shed some lite on this? Are you a gun owner?

"Inquiring minds (me) want to know."

[L1A1Rocker]

89. IIRC he claimed to be a gun owner in another thread.

Of course he claims that they are locked away and never loaded.

[sabre73]

92. wow FTFGN

keeps me on my toes trying to figure him out.. I get a little dizzy by it!!LOL!!

[sabre73]

63. WOW!!!

You have got to be the most ignorant person I have EVER READ ON ANY FORUM! You "gun grabbing monkey"!!

Get a life and get a clue. I can tell that you have NO life experience whatsoever based on your narrow minded post.

The last time I faced someone with a gun aimed at me (and mine was concealed) he did not win, gun grabbing monkey, but I am sure he thought "I sure wish no one carried guns but me. Then I would have been able to kill his entire family." then he faded to black and my family lives. But hey, gun grabbing monkey, That is just REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE talking there. So why don't you get an education in life before you decide that you know it all, gun grabbing monkey.


I bet you think that no one would ever get murdered if we did away with guns! China is the perfect example! No guns = people getting murder with swords and knives. That is a statistical and verifiable fact. Look it up and maybe you will learn something.


P.S. if someone gets shot in the head there is no "last thought" there is just death.

[L1A1Rocker]

77. Yep, he's got some strange ideas

but I'm thinking his last post was nothing more the flame bait. I did notice his avatar though. One of those one woulders like GW's Daddy maybe?

[WWFZD]

67. Fine by me

In fact, it's a fine idea.
"Why not bring guns to elementary schools".
If any of the people who post on this board, and carry concealed, had a child in the same elementary school as mine, and they routinely hung out after school playing with the kids, I would appreciate having a responsible armed parent on the school grounds with my child until I could get there and pick him up.

[L1A1Rocker]

76. Exactly what I was thinking.

[sabre73]

88. Right on the Money!! N/T

[Lex1775]

22. Doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm pretty sure this guy is only one of many, many students nationwide who have started carrying in their college classrooms, whether it is legal or not.

[MaryCeleste]

25. Can you blame them

I'm pretty sure this guy is only one of many, many students nationwide who have started carrying in their college classrooms, whether it is legal or not.

Ivory tower admins are not the ones at risk and yet want to disarm those who are. When I was in school even pepper spray was not allowed in the dorms. Lots of us had it anyway, and if someone got sprayed for good cause, campus police did not care that we were not supposed to have it.

[Lex1775]

26. Nope, don't blame them one bit.

I'd do it myself.

You bring up a good point with the pepper spray. I wonder if a college administration would act the same way if it was a firearm.

[MaryCeleste]

27. They talked a tough line about it, but backed off

Pepper spray then as now is mostly a woman's weapon.

They did a big thing about it at my daughter's HS. "No one is allowed to have Pepper Spray on a school campus" signs and how it was illegal, that it applied to everyone including parents, not just students etc. During the open forum during back to school night I asked the principal why some of the women staffers were carrying it and what he was going to about that. He stumbled and changed the topic.

[Lex1775]

29. Why were they so anti-pepper spray?

Were the kids pepper spraying each other for the heck of it????

[MaryCeleste]

32. Don't know, but they were most adamant

Which is why pointing out their hypocrisy was so amusing. They run the schools and we must respect their authority (sounds like a South Park line)

[SteveM]

40. I have guns, but when in my car I carry -- ahem -- bear repellent.

[east texas lib]

43. What brand?

Colt's Grizz-Away or S&W's Bearitol?;-)

[L1A1Rocker]

78. I carried Counter Assault up until the

nozzle ruptured. Funny how a gun and ammo are safer to store in a hot car than pepper spray?

[SteveM]

97. Ruger's Kodiak Instamatic.

[sepulveda]

65. at the UW

i live in WA state. WA has no law against carrying on college campuses - for anybody with a valid permit. note also in WA state, you CAN carry openly (very very very few do it though) without a permit. it is legal. i think some of the same people who are so apoplectic that people might be able to carry legally on other campuses, don't even realize that in WA state it is completely 100% legal, and i have yet to see any shootouts between armed students and faculty :)

the last shooting incident i recall at the UW was an employee who got shot by her estranged boyfriend who walked on to campus, into her office, and shot her. does anybody REALLY THINK gun laws would have prevented him from doing that? of course not, especially considering she had a restraining order against him, and was thus committing VUCSA under the revised code of washington (a felony if i understand correctly) for carrying a gun while being a subject of an order for protection.

[L1A1Rocker]

79. Some people really do.

And that is the big sticking point in the debate.

[sepulveda]

80. and the evidence won't sway them

it never ceases to amaze me how those with prejudice (whether right or leftwing) simply will not be bothered with evidence.

abstinence based education doesn't WORK. but those who WANT to believe in it for moral feelgood reasons, don't accept the evidence. see: rightwing

legal CCW on college campuses does NOT result in bloodshed, and is a good idea. the evidence is voluminous, utah, WA state, etc. but those who don't like guns because they FEEL a certain way about them will not be swayed by evidence. see: leftwing.

i can respect those who WISH abstinence based education worked. what a neat idea. teach kids to wait until marriage to have sex. morally - hey, that's great. PRACTICALLY - it's not gonna work to prevent pregnancy and STD's.

i can respect those who wish for a "gun free" campus. but there is no such thing. it's a pollyanna fantasy, dismissive of the real world. all a gun free campus means is a campus where law abiding have to disarm, and others don't.

cognitive dissonance, and dismissal of evidence is something i have to deal with all time.

these people need to look at the evidence.

[ManiacJoe]

93. You need to be careful here.

Yes, there are no WA state laws, but the WA Administrative Code has lots of prohibitions about college campuses. However, see WAC 478-124-020(2)(e) about getting permission for the UW campus.

[sepulveda]

96. yes

the sanctions are non criminal, though (this WAC you referenced.)

also note that there is clear case/constitutional law that protects the rights of citizens to carry firearms in WA state.

also, the WA constitution is very explicit about this.

i have yet to hear of one case of a student being administratively disciplined under this WAC.

if and when it happens, i would suggest that student should argue it denies him his constitutional rights under the state of WA. a *public* university cannot discipline (imo) a UW student for exercising such a fundamental right.

the WA state constitution reads thusly

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

iow, and this is my OPINION based on my understanding of the law and the WAC's (many years experience as a WA LEO)... this admin code has no teeth, considering the WA state constitution.

but nice reference it is. WAC's are kind of the bastard stepchild of the RCW's . a lot of stuff in there.