Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Young people are not exactly renowned for their judgment.

We are, after all, talking about an age group that has to be told it is a bad idea to text while doing 70. Or drink alcohol till it spews from your nostrils. Or wear a T-shirt and flip-flops to interview for an office job.

So no, judgment is not their forte. Yet even they have enough sense to steer clear of the gun dorm.

You haven’t heard about the gun dorm? Well, back in August, the University of Colorado announced it was segregating students with valid concealed-carry permits in dorms of their own on its campuses in Boulder and Colorado Springs. This, after the state Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that struck down the school’s ban on people bringing guns on campus. So now, a student 21 years or older who has a permit may be armed in the dorm or even in class, though not, for some reason, at a school event requiring a ticket.

Recently, the Denver Post decided to count the number of young gunslingers who wanted to live among their own. How many kids had rushed to take advantage of this opportunity?

Let’s just say there is not a waiting list. The Post reports the number of kids who opted for the gun dorm is zero. A big, fat goose egg.

The paper speculated on a few reasons for this: maybe there are not enough students with carry permits who live on campus; maybe students with such permits find it more convenient just to sneak their guns into the old dorm.

OK. But isn’t it also possible at least some of this preference for unleaded dorms reflects a happy outbreak of simple sanity? Is it too much to hope at least some students recognize — as the court did not — that an environment full of immature judgment, poor impulse control, overactive hormones, sexual rivalries, drug use and binge drinking is perhaps, not the best place to introduce weapons of mass destruction?

One keeps thinking that surely there has to be some middle ground that balances the rights of responsible adults to own firearms with the need of a society to ensure that people who ought not have access to them are denied. But we will never get there so long as the debate is dominated by the sort of extremism Colorado exemplifies.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit8
  • Print this page
  • 104

107 responses to “In Colorado, Empty Gun Dorm Sends A Message”

  1. I can’t wait, the other shoe is sure to drop.. The state legislature will demand funding for the university drop unless they make students live in the gun dorm.

    • Sand_Cat says:

      Well, if there were any justice – not to mention intelligence – in this world, the legislature would have to appropriate extra money to compensate the college for maintaining empty buildings. But then, if that were the case, this stuation wouldn’t exist in the first place.

  2. Jim Lou says:

    It makes sense. Who wants to be room mate with someone who has a gun and gets drunk?

    • ARepublicanNorthlandGrad says:

      Hmmm, every college kid is a drunk. I guess some sterotypes are okay if they prove your point. That said, not sure a gun dorm was ever a good idea.

      • bpai99 says:

        I don’t read into Jim Lou’s post that he was saying only students with guns get drunk, just that a drunk with a gun is not someone you want to be rooming with.

        BTW, there are some college kids who are not drunks, but I guess some stereotypes are okay if you want to make a point.

        • Sand_Cat says:

          Only one in the “second amendment” dorm has to be drunk to do the damage, and lots of college students do drink heavily these days – and that’s not necessarily a problem unless they drive or carry weapons – unless there’s been a very recent change.

      • Sand_Cat says:

        The fact that you’re “not sure” is as scary as the idea itself.

        • 13observer says:

          yes, “not sure” just like the illegal aliens…..Obama is dying to give his new voting block AMNESTY but, they should all be presumed criminals because they borke our laws to get here and I am fu*king “SURE” of that professor!

          • Sand_Cat says:

            Speaking of “scary,” ARepublicanNorthlandGrad doesn’t come close to you, little boy.

          • bpai99 says:

            Good to know you’re so “fu*king *SURE*”.

            “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

          • Bill says:

            As usual you keep trying to say that illegal aliens voted in the election. Prove your point, name one Illegal Alien that voted in the election and where they voted. You know you can’t because it’s something you made up or here on some far out right wing talk show. As for immigrants being illegal, I don’t think the original inhabitants of this country invited the Pilgrims to Plymouth or the settlers to Jamestown. Where they illegal aliens too?

          • lagovistadave says:

            Not really sure what your point is. The biggest supporters of illegal aliens? Bush 2 and Perry. You may want to check out why. It all comes down to cheap labor for corporations. Obama has deported more illegals in 4 years than Bush did in 8.

          • 13observer says:

            Here is my point; illegal aliens are here to stay, but so are guns, so you will just have to put up with the guns as they are LEGAL and “wetbacks” aren’t.

          • No we don’t. Nonsense. Once again, what does that have to do with the conversation?

          • Rick Fedden says:

            neither are punk ass child molesters like you, which is why you hide like a coward.

          • 324516 says:

            you know that why man invented the coat hanger pity your mom didn,t us it

          • 13observer says:

            How about we have taxpayers pay federal unemployment insurance for “life”? that is how fucking stupid the democrats are!!!!! They can’t pay for armed guards to protect school children but they can pay welfare to the unemployed just so illegal aliens can have jobs!

          • Rick Fedden says:

            Last time I checked, the only reason schools don’t have armed guards is because the parents didn’t want them, so why be such a dishonest little coward?

          • Correct, the Clinton administration prosecuted hundreds for intentionally hiring illegals. In the first 6+ years of the “W” regime, the Feds prosecuted just THREE. I do not have the figures for the last year or so, but I doubt if anything changed. It does not take a genius to figure that out. The key to stopping illegal aliens, if we really wanted to, is to stop the rotten b*st*rds that use them to make huge profits and destroy our wage base. The illegals, by and large, are just trying to survive. Why would a decent person hate them for that? Hate the greedy users of their labor!

          • Rick Fedden says:

            The largest employer of illegal immigrants in Iowa are republican farmers and labor intensive republican owned businesses. Oddly, they’re the largest welfare recipients in Iowa as well.

          • What does your ignorant rant have to do with the article and this discussion?

          • Rick Fedden says:

            and that has what to do with the story your sad sorry ass monkey?

          • 324516 says:

            13obsever. corect me if i,m wrong but all of the people that came over on the nina, pina and the st. marie were illegal aliens and guess what they were criminals.

      • bpai99 says:

        I don’t read into Jim Lou’s post that he was saying only students with guns get drunk, just that a drunk with a gun is not someone you want to be rooming with.

        BTW, there are some college kids who are not drunks, but I guess some stereotypes are okay if you want to make a point.

    • 13observer says:

      yes, it is like rooming with a minority and not expecting to get your shit ripped off!

      • Sand_Cat says:

        Since you’re obviously as good as drunk all the time – or at least when you grace us with your observations – it’s not surprising that you can’t see the difference, and your choice of a racist stereotype says more about you than you think (or do you “think” at all?).

      • Bill says:

        Spoken like a true right wing non-reality believer. When you go to church this weekend make sure you pray to your god for forgiveness and enlightenment.

      • OMG do you have any filters at all! Nonwhite people are no longer the majority in America. Self-identified nonwhite people make up 64% of the population according to the US Census. To suggest all of them have sticky fingers is ludicrous, as is suggesting that while people do not steal.
        You probably do not, but you should, self-identify as a racist.

    • angelsinca says:

      Students without CC permits won’t be living there anyway. Not because they don’t want to. They just don’t qualify for the housing.

  3. DEFENDER88 says:

    I agree, drunk college kids shoud not have guns.
    Any drunk shoud not have a gun.
    I now avoid “Gun Free” Zones, they have become the new killing grounds for the warped and deranged. Aurora, VTech, Churches, on and on. The obviouse link/pattern – All “Gun Fee Zones”. The nut jobs see “Gun Free” as “Free to kill a lot of people”.
    Blindingly obvious even for me.
    The key to the solution is “Responsible” gun ownership. If the police are not in the room, I want my gun with me to at least limit and perhaps stop the slaughters that are taking place. I do have a right to defend myself and others if need be. Especially if the police are not around. If someone in the crowd pulls a gun and starts shooting, the police can never get there in time to stop it. To get a Permit in Tenn you have to go through local, state and FBI background, finger print, etc checks and gun training.
    “Responsible” carry is the only sure solution if the police are not on sight.
    Or we should also outlaw cars, knives, hammers etc which can also kill.

    • awakenaustin says:

      Your position is silly. I am 66 years of age. I have lived in normal circumstances, in ordinary places, traveled to other nations several times, I work downtown, and because of my occupation meet a lot of people who have been charged with criminal offenses. No one has ever pulled a firearm on me or threatened my life with any other instrument commonly viewed as a weapon. I suspect that my experience is the common experience of a substantial majority of the nation. I have never carried a friearm except for the time I spent in the US Army. I have never felt the need to. Is that because I don’t understand how dangerous the world I live in is and I am deluded or is it that my view of reality is the more accurate one and the world we inhabit daily is not as dangerous as you believe?
      The vast majority of police officers in this nation have never drawn a firearm and fired it at anyone. Police officers who receive training much more extensive than the average “carry your piece where you want to guy,” panic and make mistakes in confrontations involving armed adversaries. SWAT Teams train for hours and hours and hours to be able to think clearly and respond precisely, efficiently and accurately in situations of high adrenaline and rampant confusion. Soldiers spend hours and hours and hours of time training for combat conditions. They spend extra time and form special units for urban warfare conditions. So what you are telling me is when the guy bursts into the room armed with his shotgun, semi-automatic pistol with the 13 round clip and extra clips and firing at everything that moves, you are going to calmly rise, draw your .357 or 9mm semi and plug him between the eyes with one well placed shot. I am not going to bore you with calculating the time necessary to react – event, perception, recognition, calculation of desired response, putting thoughts into action, action. Did you hit him or miss him with your first shot? Remember, it is really unpleasantly exciting? Did he shoot you before you even realized what was up?Maybe you are up to the deal. What about the other armed boneheads in the place? Are they up to it? Firing a weapon accurately when ramped up on adrenaline is no easy proposition. The police and soldiers train for these things with the idea that the training will control despite the drama of the situation. It still doesn’t work much of the time. We know soldiers and police officers miss the target a lot. The police believe the minimum assured safe distance from a person armed with a knife is 2o feet when your weapon is holstered.
      Yes some fellow armed with a gun could attack me tomorrow. However, I am more likely to get cancer, be killed in a car wreck, die of a heart attack, slip in the shower and hit my head, or even be killed by a loved one or acquaintance.
      Your best protection from others is to create a civilization which looks after those who need help and gives everyone a stake in the community and the welfare of others.
      By the by, the sole purpose of a pistol is to kill other humans. (I know long guns are used for hunting, etc.) Hammers, knives and cars are tools and their primary purpose is not to kill people. The example is silly.

      • perplejado says:

        Amen. Thank you for such a well reasoned and cogent argument against the madness this country has sunk into.

      • 13observer says:

        it’s funny how our government looks the other way with 0-30 illegal aliens who kill people with cars when drunk, but takes a different position when they are LEGAL, LAW ABIDDING and well within their rights. Yes, it’s a bitch where our country is going. Let’s just call the conceal carry students; “pistol packin immigrants” as they migrated to school with guns. You people make my ass tired with all your double standard bullshit!

        • awakenaustin says:

          I’m sorry, I missed the contagion of illegal immigrant drunk drivers massacring people. Maybe you could enlighten us with how you came to understand that the government is looking the other way when 0-30 (?) illegal aliens kill people with cars while driving drunk. Having practiced criminal law in Texas for almost 30 years I can assure you no one down here is looking the other way when it comes to drunk drivers regardless of their country of origin. This is just some made up nonsense. It makes one wonder if gun owners don’t come up with all these foolish fictional examples of double standards and false dichotomies because they are so insecure about the moral justification of their positions.

      • ^..^ says:

        What is so “silly” about wanting to responsibly carry a weapon and arm yourself?
        You do realize that even the supreme court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect and serve individuals, right…?
        Warren V. District of Columbia. “…official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists.”
        Now, maybe you are exempt since you may have a special relationship with the police and the government having served in the army. But I do not, and I hardly doubt that most Americans these days do. So if they have no duty to protect us, we are just meant to leave ourselves open to abuse?
        THAT is silly.

        • awakenaustin says:

          You clearly don’t understand the case you are quoting from. It means you can’t sue them because they failed to protect you, not that they don’t have a sworn duty to enforce the law and protect and serve the public. This is the problem in a nutshell, you read things without any knowledge of their actual meaning and construe them in ways they were never intended. This case does not stand for the proposition you assert.
          The fact that you actually believe you live in a nation where the police make no effort to protect citizens from law breakers and it is every man, woman and child for him or herself is the problem. It is a problem because that nation is a fantasy of yours and others who pretty much think like you. It does not exist. One of the most interesting ‘special relationships’ that exists in this nation is the one between people and their guns. Most of them would prefer giving up their children rather than have any limitation put on their right to possess firearms. You want a firearm that’s fine. Constitution says you can have one. But please stop with the stupid examples about how necessary it is to have one and how you are going to protect yourself and the rest of us with it with it and how they aren’t a danger to everyone else around you. As a matter of simple semantics it is only irresponsible gun owners who kill people with guns. Talk about abuse. I have to suffer the abuse of your muddled thinking.

          • ^..^ says:

            Ah yes, demean and dismiss. I’m sorry but you failed the “high horse” test.
            For a 66 year old, you seem to sink to pretty childish insults. You know, basically calling me stupid doesn’t make you any smarter and simply because I have a differing opinion is no need to hurl emotionally charged insults. I mean, really? I “abused” you with my “muddled thinking”? Wow, that is definitely a new one to me.
            From what I can see, you clearly don’t understand the people of which you speak. You think all gun owners “would prefer giving up their children rather than have any limitation put on their right to possess firearms”. These people are a fantasy of yours and others who pretty much think like you. They do not exist.
            The fact of the matter is: there is no constitutional duty whatsoever for policemen to protect free citizens. Free citizens, however, have the constitutional privilege of protecting themselves with guns.
            Evil is no respecter of man and obeys no rules. You seem to think the opposite of this, putting your trust solely in the police and government for your protection. That is fine and I can respect that, but I simply disagree with you on how well the police handle situations. And don’t worry, I won’t provide you with any more “stupid” examples of how the police have failed to do their job in the past because I surely will not change your mind.
            All I’m saying is that if people make the choice to take control of their own protection, you should respect that. I did not insult or demean you, and yet you could not grant me the same respect. It is sad that you have pigeonholed so many citizens based solely on their own personal beliefs and how they may not meld with yours. Please be more open minded.

          • awakenaustin says:

            I find it unnecessary to go armed to provide for my own protection. You misjudge the efficacy of your mode of self protection. I watch where I go, who I associate with, what I do to anger and upset others, I recognize I am not always right, I don’t put myself in dangerous situations, I know my neighbors, I lock my doors and windows at night and so forth. I know that my life is more in danger on a daily basis from the motor vehicle traffic, and carcinogens in the air, water, food, and products I come in contact with and natural causes than some thug with a handgun. However, if I really wanted to do something about murder and mass killings with firearms I would support real substantial gun control. Actually removing guns from the hands of people actually reduces deaths by guns despite the bogus claims of the NRA. It can’t help but do so. You fish around this point by claiming criminals will get guns anyhow then run through the litany of ways the gun lobby has made it possible to obtain firearms legally and illegally, without a trace of recognition of the irony of your position. Your argument is stupid. You are forced into a stupid argument because you defend an indefensible position and you do it with neither facts or logic on your side. You are not interested in limiting firearm deaths you are interested in protecting and keeping your right to bear firearms. If this argument focuses logically on gun deaths you cannot win the argument. This is the “mutually assured destruction argument” of the nuclear cold war days writ small. If we are all armed to the teeth then no one dare pull a gun knowing he/she will be killed by all the others. The desire to protect your right to bear arms is what drives you, all the rest is window dressing.

            Saying the police have no constitutional duty to protect is to say nothing all. No one ever said they did. It is, however, part of their job. If a policeman encounters someone robbing you on the street, he will intervene to stop it. If he fails to stop it and it leads to your death, then your family cannot sue him or the city because he has no “duty” to you. The case you cited stands for that proposition and not the one you cited it for. Soldiers have a duty to protect this country and its citizens, however when fulfilling their duty to this nation you die anyway, your family doesn’t get to sue them because they failed to protect you. I bet this isn’t the first time someone has told you your thinking is muddled. I have been told I wasn’t thinking straight lots of times.
            I wish to live in a civilized society. I won’t get there by making it less civilized and neither will you.

          • ^..^ says:

            I can see why people have told you that you aren’t thinking straight, seeing as you are arguing with me about things I have never even stated.
            I never claimed “criminals will get guns anyhow” but instead you stated that (valid) fact all on your own. I never “ran through the litany of ways the gun lobby has made it possibly to obtain guns”. Perhaps you have mistaken me for another poster?
            Either way, you are free to your opinions but guns are a part of America’s history and you cannot erase that no matter how strong your desire is to take them from all citizens. Without guns, we may have never gained our independence.
            This is not about simply protecting the “right”, it’s about protecting the individual. The rest is entirely muddled thinking on your part. Also, sad that you think people with guns are inherently “less civilized”. I would hate to be there when you fall from that high horse.

          • awakenaustin says:

            Yes, I believe a society which believes it is necessary to carry firearms for self protection is less civilized than one in which it is unnecessary to do so. I believe that because it is true. Now whose misstating what others say? I never said people who have guns are less civilized than those who don’t. I never said anything of the sort. That is your reinterpretation of what I said. Maybe you should go back to what I said earlier and read it this time. I understand why you had trouble understanding the legal case you cited. You have reformulated it and what I said in ways that are not accurate but rather are convenient to your point of view. I have no desire to take guns away from you or all of the citizens of this nation, but I am more than passingly tired of all the absurd arguments gun advocates make in justification of the need to carry and possess firearms without limitation or control.
            Slavery and the eradication of native Americans were part of our history also. You see where I am going with this, right? No need for me to finish this thought is there? We grow up and we grow out of some things. The arc of history is in a more civilized direction, we hope. (Just so we are clear, and to avoid further misconstruing of what I am saying, I am not accusing you of being a slave owner or a killer of native Americans nor of advocating those things. J)

          • ^..^ says:

            “I believe that because it is true. ”

            LOL, Statists gonna state. I can see you live in a reformulated dream world where anything you say or think is the truth with no actual evidence to support your claims, so basically this whole conversation has been a waste of time. Thanks for the laughs though!

          • awakenaustin says:

            Just as long as you realize you are the one who ducked out with the lame excuse.

          • ^..^ says:

            Look away from the fact that Mexico has stricter gun laws than the US and a higher gun-homicide rate. Ignore the fact that Switzerland has some of the world’s highest gun-ownership rates and a negligible gun-homicide rate. And don’t even try to compare gun-related murder rates in urban areas that have restrictive gun laws alongside low gun-homicide rates in rural areas where firearms ownership tends to be highest. And blot from your memory banks the fact that there are likely millions of privately owned AR-15 “assault weapons” in America that have never been used to commit mass murder.
            It’s not hard to find this information, so all I can conclude from your ignorance is that you don’t really care. You like to spout clichés because it makes you feel good about yourself.
            Do ya feel better now?

          • awakenaustin says:

            An actual data driven response, I am impressed. What type of weapons did James Holmes use in Aurora? Mexico is a wonderful example. Now, I forget, what is the name of the country who is the largest supplier of Mexico’s illegal gun trade? You are telling me with a straight face that you think Mexico is an apt comparison to your nation? The U.S. has very strict drug controls, some of the strictest in the world, how are we doing in that area? The Swiss as a national defense measure requires its militia related members to keep weapons in their homes. Private ownership of guns requires a government permit. You should spend a moment or two reading about Swiss gun laws. It is enlightening. They also don’t seem to have a tradition of shooting each other when they get mad. They also have a low crime rate. I am sure it is because they all own guns. Or, maybe they are just more civilized. I noticed you failed to deal with the rest of Europe with its relatively strict gun control laws and low homicide rates. They all have gun licensing laws which restrict ownership of guns. I thought I wasn’t supposed to call AR 15’s assault weapons. Aren’t they only recreational? Or is it hunting? Miss the deer with your first shot and you can follow it up with 29 more if you have the right clip. I bet you didn’t know you can set up a pretty significant rate of fire with a semi-automatic since it fires every time you pull the trigger until the clip empties. But, I bet you know how to convert one to automatic. It is easy enough to buy the parts. I wonder why people feel the need for AR 15 style weapons? They are pretty crappy home defense weapons. Shot guns are much better. Especially pumps. Nothing like letting that home intruder hear you racking in a shell. You don’t have to aim – just point. Less chance you will kill a neighbor, too. They aren’t particularly suited to concealed carry or personal everyday security either. They tend to freak out other members of the public when you carry them into public places. Maybe rural areas provide a less target rich environment? Or, maybe rural households are more likely to possess tool guns like long guns and not pistols? Most gun homicides are committed with pistols. You know and I know you got all your examples out of an NRA brochure. Interestingly I can’t find anything which says how many people own AR15s. Di you know you are supposed to be licensed to drive a car? And , cars aren’t even designed to kill things. What’s up with that?
            Why are you so afraid?

            Back to a remote point – people possess pistols to kill people. That is the only reason to own or carry a pistol. It is possible to kill people with lots of things, only it is a lot easier to kill them with a pistol. That is the truth too! J

          • ^..^ says:

            “You know and I know you got all your examples out of an NRA brochure.”

            LMAO, more proof that you know absolutely nothing. Never read an NRA brochure, sorry to burst your delusions of grandeur. You like to think you know everything so you have no problem making gross assumptions and painting everyone with the same broad brush. For shame.
            And you know what’s even easier to kill a lot of people with? A huge fertilizer bomb. Neat!

          • awakenaustin says:

            Then you need to personally update your own research. I notice you have without fail ignored everything of substance I have said. At least I have tried to response to your substance at the same time I gigged you. Good hunting.

          • ^..^ says:

            It must be very comforting to know all the answers. It means you really don’t have to think at all.

          • awakenaustin says:

            Quite comforting.

          • awakenaustin says:

            So all your friends don’t get together and repeat the same two or three examples to each other over and over again. I can’t count the number of times I have heard Switzerland, Mexico and the business about AR 15’s. The problem is they are all inaccurate. They are all overstatement responses to a reasonably complex problem. They are blog crap and they are verbatim from NRA brochures. If you didn’t get them there, you got them from someone who did. Are you going to tell me these are your original thoughts? I am sorry, but no one in his or her right mind actually believes that a nation where people believe they must go about armed for self protection is more civilized than one where such actions are unnecessary. Maybe you need to re-read the sentence a few times.

          • Michael says:

            A little research would help you to understand that the 2nd Amendment was originally not drawn up to allow everyone the right to own and/or use guns. It was designed to placate those in the southern states who insisted on having their own individual militias. These militias sole purpose was to hunt down rebellious slaves. Originally, the regulation of these militias would be in the hands of the federal government. But, in order to get the southern states to join the republic and agree to the Constitution, the states were allowed to regulate their own militias. The point being, that the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow well regulated militias to own and use guns. I also fully realize that the supreme’s, in their infinite wisdom (the case was in the 90’s, I believe), took a different view. But that is my understanding of the history behind the Amendment.

            I own a gun, for protection, as I am a disabled senior citizen, living alone. But I also firmly believe in the need for much stricter gun control measures. At the very least a ban on all assault weapons. Yes, even the ones that everyone has been going out buying so recently. That, and a Universal Background check, with no loopholes whatsoever. I would even give up my gun if requested. This country of ours has become way too violent. There have been way too many instances of mass shootings, in particular, and gun violence, in general. It has to stop. And, yes, I know people will continue to kill other people, using whatever else they can get their hands on if they didn’t have guns to grab ahold of. But, we have to start somewhere. The heck with what the NRA believes. They are nothing more than a lobbying firm for gun manufacturers.

          • 324516 says:

            awakenaustin: you said in your post that free citizens had the constitutional priviege(rights). of protecting themselves with a gun also that the police are under no conutitutional mandate to protect the citizenship of the united state .you are misinformed on both count contary to the misconseption the constitution does not gives i as an american the right to have a gun what the 2 addment said is the right to bare arms an as the govt. has said that we as a people do not need t.n.t. as our personal arm or for that matter a 6inch knife. in some state then we can by law outlaw some weapons while still maintaining the right to bare to the first part of your augrement that the police are under no orders to protect the amer. cit. again that peice of paper that calls the u.s. constit5ution clearly states that the govt should and shell provided for common defence.and wefare

          • 1wannabeapatriot2 says:

            Maybe in the neighborhood you live in, but in the ones I’ve lived in it takes the police two hours to respond to a call that someone is in the process of breaking into your house, while your husband is holding the door shut against them. Whatever is said about “protect and serve” is not true in some parts, at least, of the country.

          • awakenaustin says:

            Really? It has been six months.

        • Jim Myers says:

          Despite all the hogwash blathered at us by the “guns for everyone” crowd, more people are killed by accidental discharge, suicide, acts of violence by someone known by the victim, etc than by a total stranger on a vendetta.

          Thank God the man from the NRA who taught me to use a rifle when I was a teenager is long ago dead. His name was Mr. Zook. He worshipped the NRA.

          He would roll over in his grave if he knew what the NRA turned into.

          • ^..^ says:

            True that. The NRA definitely is to the Republicans what the EPA is to the Democrats. Once upon a time, they had a good purpose and supported noble causes…but now they simply want to file a civil suit or slap some red tape on anything they find contrary to their personal cause. Sad that we have all become so divided.

      • awakenaustin, I could not agree more!

    • elw says:

      You missed the whole point of the story. No one is drunk when they apply for a gun permit; how do you know if someone has got a drug or alcohol problem? 60 mass shooting since the attack on Gabrielle Gifford in 2011 is not anything to ignore. Who is going to monitor if gun owners are “responsible? I don’t mean to be insulting, but I do not want some self-appointed cowboy running around trying to protect me. Isn’t that what Zimmerman thinks he was doing? Clearly the college students of Colorado see the issue better than even you do.

      • 13observer says:

        our government cares nothing about illegal immigration and who is walking our streets, so why all the fuss about law abidding CITIZENS carring guns?

        • elw says:

          I don’t see the connection between the two issues. You might try asking the relatives of the people killed in the 60 mass killings we have had in this Country since 2011.

          • 13observer says:

            I’ll try to keep it simple professor, what is it I should ask the relatives; should we deny the rights of some for the awful deeds of others? Perhaps we should ask the relatives of car fatalities if we should take cars away from everyone? Maybe we should surrender all of our liberties because someone might someday run a muck! The connection between the two issues is quite obvious, you ASSUME the worst of one group, but champion the known deeds of criminals (illegal aliens) who already broke our immigration laws! If you don’t see the connection or “double standard”, I can’t help you!

          • elw says:

            Are you saying that people who take guns and kill multiple people are not breaking our laws? Are you asking that no one make any changes to gun laws to help stop that, out of fear you may lose a bit of your rights to a gun or may have to go to bit more trouble to get one? Your response to my question is at the best an overreaction. No one has ever suggested that we should takes guns away from everyone but it does make sense to limit their ownership for some people and to make sure owners can safely handle them, just as it makes sense to expect people to be able to safely drive a car. Before you yell, I will say in advance that we are not perfect with cars and will most likely never be perfect with guns, but we can be better in both areas and should try to work towards that. I still do not know what this issue has to do with immigration issues? It is a separate issue that is not connected to gun laws or problems.

          • 13observer says:

            if you remember??????? the article was talking about DISCRIMINATING against those students whom were LEGALLY carrying concealed and the PRESUMPTIVE nature in which they were being judged. As for the illegal immigration issue, and I know you lefties are hell bent to defend their criminal asses…………. this government wants to tighten gun laws because of some that break the law but…………… covers up for illegal aliens who benefit by breaking the law! No one is defending law breakers, especially me on any account, but it goes both ways this administration has recently given amnesty to 1.7 million illegal aliens………………..why do you think Americans want personal protection? Maybe if we new who the fu*k was in our country illegally, some would not fear for their safety. Personally, I don’t need a carry piece as I would just kick the living shit out of some engaging me! But understand one thing, if these looney tunes killers want access to guns, they can find it. The ONLY way to eliminate that prospect is to eliminate guns altogether, and that is what the looney gun-grabbers want! If you don’t think so, you haven’t done your homework!

          • elw says:

            I am so happy I do not live in your world, mine is much better.

          • 13observer says:

            yes, free and easy….waiting for Barrack (Santa Claus) Obama to give you more of that free shit he promised you to get your vote. I’m sure it is a bunch easier in your welfare world!

          • elw says:

            Like all your other assumptions – you are so wrong, I am not on welfare. Never have been, never will be.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            So insecure you just have to project your own failings on the rest of us. Does it make you feel big and important to write incoherent insults at the adults, little one?

    • Happy2bback says:

      Going through the proper channels to acquire a gun is commended but the black market on gun running is alive and thriving. Many of the states have only a small percentage of their mentally ill logged into their databases thus these ill people can legally buy guns. The 2nd amendment was drafted while man had to hunt his food, oh and they used muskets a rather slow thing to load. The fact is the semi automatic weapons, can mow down 50 people in the time it would take to reload one time. I do think a lawful person should be able to own a gun, that being said I don’t like seeing them on Craig’s list and the like. Some of our states gun shows are a joke when it comes to how easy it is to get your hand on a gun.

    • Lawrence Winters says:

      I’ve often suspected that people who carry in public have a “hero complex”, where they fantasize frequently about coming to the rescue of “innocent civilians being slaughtered by some crazed gunman”. I would bet good money that DEFENDER88 has those fantasies.
      Here in Tucson, we had a mass killing less than 2 years ago involving Jared Loughner. The killing didn’t occur in a “gun free” zone. It occurred in a shopping center. Arizona law allows people to carry firearms, concealed or not concealed, without one iota of training or permits of any kind almost anyplace, anytime. Therefore, you can be confident that quite a few people in the shopping center were armed. No one with guns could get there in time to stop the gunman. They never do. It was unarmed civilians (people in their sixties) in the vicinity who took him down, disarmed him and held him for the police. One concealed carry citizen did run over to assist, but the assailant was neutralized before he got there. The wannabe “hero” was smart enough to know that pulling his gun out in all that chaos would have only created more chaos. People might have thought he was the gunman and shot at him. Conversely, he could have shot one of the people who disarmed Loughner, thinking that person was the assailant. An average Joe bringing another gun into a chaotic shooting incident will never make things better; it will only make things worse.

  4. elw says:

    Kids are smarter than we give them credit, most of them want to choose the dangers that could kill them, not give that opportunity to someone else.

  5. DEFENDER88 says:

    So you think I am a clueless, gunslinging, cowboy.
    Or as some others have called me “Buckoo” and worse.
    Since you have made a fairly reasoned argument, even though I disagree in many respects, I am not going to call you names.
    I do ask you consider my viewpoint and its potential merits.
    Or is the anti-gun lobby so blindinbly arrogant that they “know” they have the only answer?

    I agree that:
    1 – Ideally no one would have guns.
    2 – 2nd to that Police could be everywhere needed.
    But neither of those options is practical and will “not” happen.

    This leaves me and everyone else defensless in “Gun Free Zones”.

    Gun Free Zones are well meant but in many cases seem to work against the intent.
    Much like some of our laws – which typically end up hurting those they were intended to help.

    You dispute the fact that “Gun Free Zones” have been taken advantage of by the deranged?
    And good people there have been left defensless and slaughtered?
    Guns are tools – plastic and metal just like cars.
    My gun is for sport, I can kill with it but I hope and pray I never have too.
    Guns are also used for sport – I shoot with 60-80 competitors every month and no-one ever gets shot – how can that be??
    I could (if I wanted) kill more people at once with my car than a gun.

    I grew up in the mountains and have been shot at more than once and quite familiar with action under fire, the fear factor and need and training necessary to maintain control of emotions etc. It is pretty scary to terrifying, confusing, dis-jointed, etc.
    Also, in the mountains where I lived, everyone carried a gun and no-one ever got shot. How can that be if guns are the problem?

    “Responsibly Armed Citizens” would at least have a chance to limit some of this slaughter.
    I said the solution is “Responsibly Armed Citizens” by that I mean
    I/we can outshoot 98% of the average police(statistically and personally verified). And est 75% of the SWAT people.
    I shoot, in practice, avg of 1,000 rds a month. This is high intensity defensive practice moving, from cover, standing, kneeling, weak hand, strong hand, on the ground, moving threats covered by moving hostages(non-threats) on and on, all scenarios. And compete in these scenarios twice every month.
    The average cop shoots what? 100 rds a month, on static targets, maybe(but most do not).

    I am not saying we are better than police, just that we can outshoot most of them.
    I would much prefer to leave this stuff(ie defense of myself and others) to the police but they dont seem to/cant be around all the time. In these active scenarios their job is usually to secure the crime scene, and maybe hunt down the shooter if he has not already killed himself – all after the major carnage is already done.

    I compete against 60-80 others like me every month. We can perform and are more accurate and shoot much faster than the police. We have proved this every month when they(the police) try to compete with us(as they do from time to time). We welcome their participation but they typically loose the competition(badly).

    I probably know much more intimately and surely what it takes to hit a “2” spot under pressure much more than you. Since I/we practice it all the time.

    An active shooter might get “me” (ie only one person with a lucky shot). But if say 3 of us had been in that movie theater one of us would likely have killed the guy and limited the slaughter. At least we and thus everyone there would have had a chance.

    So what is your solution to these mass murders in Gun Free Zones?
    Again, the bad guys will “always have access to guns and “apparently” Gun Free Zones”.
    Continue to dis-arm everyone so the slaughter can continue? As it likely will?

  6. steviepage says:

    GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE. People kill people!

    But I kind of think the gun kind of helps don’t you think?

  7. When the gun nuts achieved everything they could ever want — they started to demand things that nobody wanted.

  8. 13observer says:

    It is mostly about PRESERVING our heritage! We are whoring ourselves out to other countries adapting their cultures over ours and being so “politically correct” so we don’t hurt someones feelings etc. These are the reasons our country is facing all the problems! This administration is now trying to collaberate with the worthless United Nations to govern our country, bullshit! You are making judgement calls on these law abidding conceal carry people or pre-judging them assuming there will be trouble if they are carrying but, you also assume the illegal aliens will commit no crimes when they have already broke our immigration laws. This all boils down to who’s ox is being gored! This adminstration doesn’t like the NRA because they lobby against all the gun-grabbing democrats and their phony disarm America anti-gun bills!!!!!

  9. 13observer says:

    are you implying that minorities who commit gun crimes are “gun-nuts”?

  10. 13observer says:

    If you all want to pull the “conceal carry student=drunk gun-nut” CARD, then I will do the same relating by factual statistics and ethnicity, who the people are commiting gun crimes in America and perhaps those in the MAJORITY shouldn’t have the right to own a gun!

  11. billybookworm says:

    When I was in college a lot of us had already had a lifetime of experience with guns. Sadly the same is true now. Maybe they have had enough?

  12. The irony is that the heroes of the West would today be called gun control freaks. The Earps were enforcing a gun ban. The Clantons should be the heroes of the NRA.

  13. DEFENDER88 says:

    Does everyone who disagrees with you have some sort of mental problem like a Hero Complex?
    Sorry to disappoint you but no hero needs here. Dont need it. I am 65 and satisfied with my life accomplishments.
    I have a BS Engineering and MBA and accomplished enough in business and other areas and dont really have a need for any hero worship.
    But I am willing to help stop the violence especially to the innocent, which is most of us. “Am willing” is different from “want to”. I dont really “want to” have to get involved but am willing to if it will save even one innocent person and or slow or stop the violence.
    The killing of even one child, mother, father, etc is just so permanent and irreversible and awful all the way around.
    My “FANTASY” is being able to go where I want without having to worry about being a victim of violence. My FANTASY is the bad guys being afraid to start shooting for fear they will be met with equal or more force. My ultimate FANTASY is no shooters at all but dont think that is realistic, probably not ever.

    Interviews with hardened criminals has shown that what they fear most is armed citizens, not the police.

    Lets take the Aurora Theater for example. Some 100 were there, about 80 shot and 60-70 killed. How much worse can it get!! In the extreme – if everyone in the theater had been armed and responded to the shooter with return fire – I submit he probably would have been stopped short of his achieved body count. “I” would rather take the chance of being hit by a stray from permit carriers than cower behind a seat waiting my turn to be shot in the head.

    As for Loughner – from what you wrote – “No one with guns could get there in time to stop the gunman. They never do.”

    EXACTLY!!! Duh – Thanks for proving my argument.

    Since you have tried to disparage my character:

    You know what you can do with your Hero Complex , ……

    Just because you don’t seem to want to get involved nor propose any realistic solutions to help with the problem, don’t belittle me for, at least, being willing to help. To consider a potential workable solution(non-ideal as it may be).

    “All it takes for the bad guys to rule is for the good guys to do nothing”.

    You seem to fall into the “Do Nothing” group except to keep guns out of the hands of people who just might be able to help, at least have a chance to lesson the killing.
    That is ok(I dont mind a well considered different opinion) but don’t disparage me for wanting to help lesson this problem.

    • Sand_Cat says:

      Having advanced degrees has nothing to do with mental illness or the lack thereof. Your reading comprehension is a bit off, thinking someone pointing out the fallacies of your argument is proving it.

      But perhaps the other writer did err: it’s obviously more effective to let you “disparage” your own character with your comments.

      Your “hardened criminals” don’t tempt me to go out and buy a weapon for self-defense; people like you do, which I’m sure you’ll find satisfying, but even at my most paranoid, I can’t imagine carrying a weapon – concealed or otherwise – into a mall or movie theater.

    • DeanOrfanoyannis says:

      Mah goodness. 65 years old and you’re still living your life in the dark, unaware of what’s going outside our country’s borders. It is absolutely realistic to live a life without fear of being shot dead. Take a look at what modern countries outside the U.S. have done to solve their gun violence problems. Don’t trust the NRA to give you the gospel truth on everything. The NRA has guns they need to sell. Just do some research and find out how people in places other than the U.S. — Canada, England, Japan, South Korea, Australia, most of Europe — see what their gun laws are like. Then look up what conservative Justice Scalia said about Legal and fully constitutional limitations on 2nd Amendment rights. You’ll never learn the truth if you’re always afraid to learn.

      • DEFENDER88 says:

        How you found this discussion after 9 months is interesting, but whatever.
        Actually I know quite a bit about what is going on in other countries. But even more important about what is going on here.
        I dont really fear the thought of being shot dead. Actually there is not much I do fear. I fear women more than being shot. Even though I have been shot at 3 times in the Tenn mountains. We have red necks who get drunk, etc. and some who just think they are bad asses. I really dont care much about other countries either – I care more about what is going on here and MY REALITY. But you may be glad to know I have changed one thing, since some in here have said they would sue anyone trying to protect “them” with a gun, I no longer will attempt to save/protect “others”, just myself and family now. ps I am a State Certified firearms instructor and train and compete to the level that I can outshoot 99% of police in this country, including SWAT. As for the 2nd Amdt, I know enough about comstitutional law to be able to figure it out myself thank you. As for the NRA, they develop and maintain all the standards for gun safety and training even for the police. You have to go thru the NRA to be even police certified

        • DeanOrfanoyannis says:

          I clicked on the article out of curiosity cause I never heard of an all-gun dorm at Colorado U. Then I saw the comments…….Interpreting the meaning of laws on your own can get you in trouble legally. Courts decide how the justice system interprets laws, rights, the constitution etc….People who don’t fear death are either not very bright or emotionally less than stable. And when you fear women more than death, that sounds like good breeding ground for anger issues. You sound like a good prospect for falling prey to potential addictions: alcohol, gambling, guns, etc… Confidence is a good thing, but too much of anything is bad.

          • DEFENDER88 says:

            I strictly abid by the laws of where I am – Fed, State, Local.
            And I DO check them, since I am usually armed, for reciprosity, etc. You might be glad to know, I avoid gun free zones(the preferred killing fields of the deranged). The Colorado theater shooter sought out the only Gun Free theater in the area. Why so many schools shot up? Gun Free Zones with lots of kids and little to no security.

            Ok, I am a Federal(Including DHS), State and Local CERTIFIED, firearms and self defense instructor. I have been thru more checks(including psyc profiles) than you can ever imagine. If they can trust me, maybe you can??

            But as I said I am not going to try anymore to defend you or anyone else – I learned to avoid that from people in here who would sue me for trying to protect them – I dont need that. While I do carry gun liability insurance, I dont need the hassle. And I dont have protection from prosecution like the Police.
            If you dont want to defend yourself or learn to use a gun safely, fine with me. Its your life.
            I have done it and put my life on the line to defend innocent women and children before, but no more, except family.
            1 exa – 6, 1/2 drunk rednecks with rifles shooting at us and me only a pistol with 15-20 women and kids, in the mountains. Me out in front put a couple shots across their bow sent them running, red neck coward bastards. I also once stood between a black friend and the *Klan* in Al.
            That is one of 3 similar incidents, so like I said I have to prepare for MY Realities.

            As for fear of women – tounge in cheek – although I did live with an alcoholic for a few years and she taught me *some women should be feared*.
            As for your *addictions*, since I am 66 now and dont have any(never have), I doubt I am going to take any on now.
            Happily married for 12 yr – 1st. Now 11yr w/2nd.

            I said I dont fear being shot, well we all fear being shot or death – what I meant is I am so highly trained now that I dont fear it as much as when I was unarmed and being shot at and could not defend myself. Does not mean I cant be shot but sure gives me much better odds. I now train local Police SWAT, Military Spec Ops, etc Plus private conceal carry people in tactical self defense. I see that as my contribution to the lack of training problem with Conceal Carry people.
            The last thing/tactic I teach in private/home self defense is shooting. 1st – methods to secure a home, safe areas for all, etc ie a Plan.
            Then DEFENSIVE shooting as a last resort.
            I also teach – *The Best gun fight you can have is the one you can avoid.* THAT I know from experience.

          • DeanOrfanoyannis says:

            Here in the U.S., we live in a war-zone of our own choosing. You’re obsessed with self-defense because teaching it is one of the ways you earn income. In most other modern countries, your job would most likely be teaching others martial arts so they could fend off a knife attack. In the modern world outside the U.S., they learned a long time ago, less guns equals less murder — and that making it harder for everyone to get guns also makes it harder for criminals to get guns too. Exactly the opposite of what most Americans think.

          • DEFENDER88 says:

            At least I hope we are past you trying to berate and belittle me.
            Most in here treat me the same way so WTH.

            I have not done that to you since, like me, I think your heart is in the right place.
            We just disagree on the strategy and tactics of how to lessen the violence.

            I am a degreed engineer by trade. Most of the Defense training I do is volunteer work to teach good people how to protect themself or family and avoid or actually survive a gun fight and not shoot themself or a family member or neighbor. Should they ever have to face that very frightening prospect of being threatened/attacked. And some volunteer work for Police SWAT to help them survive better. Also teach REAL gun safety, handling, storage etc so no children shoot themselves or others. All this BTW to NRA Standards which even the Police use.

            If everyone followed NRA gun handling standards, noone would be accidentally shot.

            On the subject of guns in the USA v other countries:
            Dig a little deeper and you will find that while gun crime may be down, most other crime is up(B&E’s, assaults, etc) exa England, Australia, more.
            But in the US crime, even gun crime is actually down, overall.
            Gun crime(overall in the US) has seen a steady decline for the last 30 or so yrs.
            Except the inner cities of course where the gangs are.

            Also, in the US our record for gun control is not good – Chicago and DC have the strictest gun control and the worst gun crime stats.
            Mostly inner city gang/drug related.
            Legalizing most drugs would stop most of that violence. And save us Billions in LE and empty jails.
            Some 60-70% of those in jail are drug related.

            I say, yes, we should work harder to keep guns out of the wrong hands, keep kids safe, etc.
            But dont do things to limit self defense by good people while the bad guys have virtually unlimited access to arms.
            Which is what many of the proposed intiatives in the US would do.

            How does it make any sense to disarm good people while the bad guys still have their guns?
            ie exa – another assault weapons ban.

            I go back to the reality of the situation, in the US there are already 300mil guns.
            The bad guys HAVE theirs and are not going to give them up any time soon.

            Access to firearms (by the good guys) was a big reason why this country was established.
            The British went to Lexington and Concord to confiscate their arms – the rest is history.

            Do things that get guns out of the bad guys hands but not limit my right to self defense and firearms and I will be right with you.
            At one time I could out-run or wrestle with most attackers, but Im not getting any younger.
            Older folks like me need an equalizer.

            We already know bans on certain guns dont work – ie the assault weapons ban just put AK47’s in the hands of gangs and we the good guys had no defense against them.

            Find better ways to disarm the bad guys(1st) and I will support you.

            Another exa of alternate solutions needed is these school shootings and theater etc ie gun free zones.
            When I went to high school 1/2 the guys who drove had a gun in the back window of their truck.
            This was not happening here until the 1990’s. Before that is was not a problem here.
            What changed?
            In the 1990’s, we(under Reagan) emptied the mental institutions and started treating young men at home on the new anti-depressants – Prozac, Effexor, etc. Look up the stats(Wikepedia has some) – 100% of the school shootings have been done by young white men age16-26 on or coming off the new-age anti-depressants. To be more *humane* we now try to treat them at home but it has clearly gotten out of hand and control. Sad but the mentally sick need to be put away again where they cannot attack schools etc.

            AND – 97% of the killing has been done with hand guns NOT Assault rifles.
            Fix that and the school/mass murders will stop(again). Plus put a Lock Down/*Safe Room* in every class room, especially in tornado areas. *That* could be done resonably.

            BUT – so what is the solution most *in here* want – A ban on Assault rifles or all guns.
            Which has already proven to not work here.
            Wasted time and effort.

            Universal background checks I could support, I would even add a psyc test to own a gun.
            But even then the bad guys dont do background checks.
            So *checks* but for sure not *registration leading to confiscation*.
            Something will have to be done about the “Black Market” to have any real effect.
            But bans, confiscations, etc only hurt the good guys.
            We have already tried and proved that.
            In this country anyway.

            The current Admin wants registration then confiscation(as reported on/by Salon).
            That just disarms all legal owners and leaves guns in the hands of the bad guys – you think things are bad now??
            Try that and see what happens.

            We dont confiscate cars, knives, bats, clubs, etc
            My gun, anygun for that matter, left alone, has never fired a shot on its own.

            Punish the behavior not the means(weapon).
            Is that not “our way”?
            A drunk driver kills someone with a car – we dont ban cars.
            We punish the *Behavior*.

            So what is your plan?

          • DeanOrfanoyannis says:

            The one interesting and sensible thing you said: “Something will have to be done about the “Black Market” to have any real effect.” Last spring, there were 58 out of 100 U.S. senators ready to vote Yes on the bi-partisan Leahy-Collins Amendment to crack down on black market gun trafficking. The NRA stepped in, twisted arms, and persuaded the other 42 senators to Block the 58 with a Filibuster…..(a minimum of 41 votes is required to do that…by the way, the word “Filibuster” is not in the constitution; the Senate added it 100 years ago)

            Basic constitutional principles like “Insuring Domestic Tranquility” and “Promoting the General Welfare” (the Common Good) can Never be achieved with the Unlimited Individual Liberty you demand regarding firearms. The Founding Fathers intended the Bill of Rights as a Balance to the basic parts of the Constitution — not to Cancel Out the rest of it. Even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has said so.

            Your opinion of the Obama admin. is based on conspiracy theories, not fact……25% to 30% of all gun-murders are committed by people with no prior criminal record. It’s not about good guys and bad guys. That’s Hollywood movie stuff, not reality — your seemingly normal next-door neighbor could blow you away tomorrow. That sort of thing happens every day……..You’re like most people who are addicted to guns: denial of evidence, tunnel vision, blind trust in whatever the NRA says, etc…….same old silly tired lines, like claiming that knives and guns are equal weapons.

            The gun-murder rate went down 20% during the 6 years (1994-2000) that Both the semi-automatics ban And the Brady Law was in effect.

            Addicts are as dedicated to their addictions — alcohol, gambling, guns — as they are to their Moms. People love their Moms and will do or say anything to defend them…….As long as your “Law of the Jungle” ideology rules the political debate, the U.S. will Always be a much more dangerous to place to try and raise children than anywhere else, except African and Arab countries.

  14. 13observer says:

    Bob Costas is a piece of shit for using the tragedy in Kansas City to further the anti-gun agenda! The fact he used television to puke up his anti-gun, anti American BIAS is pure bullshit! When are the anti-gun crowd going to realize they are out numbered by a strong pro-gun lobby?

  15. Foot says:

    in darkened bar booths,ceremonial cross burnings and anonymous web chat rooms they spout their hate of “those people” and demand their guns but in broad day light and in front of others they scurry away cockroach style. having all the gun nuts in one place makes sense. as a group they can come out to save the campus or the world .

  16. Foot says:

    broke is the word. before there was illegal aliens there was your brand of legal aliens that killed of the natural citizens which we call American Indians. or have you not observed history.

  17. 13observer says:

    your stand against “right to life” is understandable however, you and those like you are an inspiration for abortions.

  18. Mimi2kool says:

    This gives me great hope for the younger generation.

  19. ralphkr says:

    My, how the times have changed. I can remember when I was a 17 year old freshman at U of Colorado and I often went to class wearing a sidearm (sometimes my concealed .38 & other times my 1911 .45 which would be pretty hard to conceal) because I wasn’t about to leave my weapon in my car. No one ever said a word. I also vividly recall the time 5 of us were in church (all armed) and one of my friends started fooling around with his .45 and the spring & retainer escaped and flew across the congregation (those springs were pretty strong). The congregation helped look for the escaped parts and the Reverend chewed out my friend. Not for bringing a weapon into church but for not paying full attention to his sermon. I also remember being amazed when I moved to Alaska, before statehood, and learned that absolutely no one could carry concealed, not even police, other than the Federal Territorial Police. Yep, things sure have changed in only 6 decades.

  20. bfdd says:

    Guns are simply a non issue. You cannot make something not exist and even if you could you would have to make non existent so many varying technologies as to not have guns immediately not pop up again that it simply isn’t do able. Lets not forget that guns aren’t even the most devastating thing that a person can use to cause violence and destruction, it is simply(at the moment) the most efficient way to express that desire. And lets keep going down this train of thought, how do you purpose we remove guns from the hands of citizens? By arming the Government to take them away? All you’re doing is saying that you’re OK with a certain person having a gun, but not others. Based on what? Who decides that? What if I disagree with you on who should have a gun or not? Are you going to FORCE me to agree with you? How are you going to do it? Odds are you’ll give permission to someone to point a gun at me on YOUR BEHALF, so unless I give up my guns I face violence condone by you. Stupid. I’ve noticed a disturbing trend from those who are anti-gun, they lack the ability to multifaceted thought.

  21. It gives me reason to be optimistic about our young people (I hope.) But what about our leaders and policy makers?

  22. Jon Agee says:

    Leonard Pitts is a biased fool. His history includes being shot by a jealous husband, whose wife Mr Pitts was, shall we say, carrying on inappropriate relationships with. Further, the 21 and older rule sets the project up for failure. Typically these older students are either, A) graduating soon, B) upper classmen or grad students who move into grad housing or off campus because they don’t want to deal with the non-gun stupidity of the underclassmen, or C) mostly males and they want exposure to females for the obvious.

  23. angelsinca says:

    When you reserve an entire dorm for gun owners with CC permits, you kind of defeat the purpose of a concealed weapon.

  24. angelsinca says:

    The only ‘message’ this empty dorm gives is there is more housing available.

  25. Nick Danger says:

    Women are interested in men. Men who are interested in women suck in all other areas. Guns make a person stupid, and a stupid heavily armed guy is not attractive. If you live in the gun dorm, you will have nothing to play with but your weapon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.