General News Concealed Guns Allowed At Jerry Falwell Liberty University

I know I am in the minority here, but I have no problem with CCW license holders carrying anywhere. If you look at the story, first of all they don't allow them in the residence halls, and they also require you to be a CCW license holder. In all 50 US States you must be 21 to own a handgun, and to obtain a CCW license. That means only Seniors in College, and the staff and faculty could obtain one anyway.

I am still a firm believer that if some of the students or faculty at VA Tech were armed the shooter would not have managed to kill as many people before being killed himself.

 

Real life isn't like an Old Western movie. 99.9% of people are not John Wayne. A concealed carrier (who is not an off-duty police officer or former military personnel) will more than likely not be able to stop a mass shooting, and they may also be mistaken for another perpetrator if police were to enter the space or by other concealed carriers.

[Youtube]MCI4bUk4vuM[/Youtube]

One in five active shooter situations are stopped by a civilian at the scene, and they are more than not unarmed. The other four in five are either stopped by the shooter themselves taking their own lives, or by police/SWAT/military personnel,etc. Only 3% of active shooters are stopped by a civilian with a firearm. That's statistically insignificant.

 

Unfortunitely I'm not able to view the entire video tonight due to an ISP speed issue. I was eventually able to see the first minute, so I know it's a comedy central bit. Other than that, what do you base the bolded comment on? It's not what I've been told by real life experts with real life experience. Also some civilian concealed carry holders are former police or military, but because of their former experience are sometimes not counted statistically as civilians by some advocacy groups.

While stopping an active shooter without a gun is technically possible, the experts I've talked to think that is much riskier to a single person intervening, and offers less chance of being successful. Also some of the shooters that took their own lives only did so after they were wounded or encountered the threat of armed resistance.

Most mass shootings occur in so called gun free zones, and legal concealed carry holders aren't allowed to carry there anyway. Obviously if no civilians are allowed to carry a gun they aren't going to even have a chance to stop an active shooter if one happens to occur.

One example of this was a mass murderer in a Texas diner prior to that state having legal concealed carry. One of the people inside testified that she was at one point behind the shooter, and had an easy shot at him, supported on a table, but her handgun was legally in her car. Her father rushed the gunman and was shot and killed. The shooting went on for ten minutes, until the SWAT team arrived and fired a shot at him from outside with a rifle. The shot was according to the coroner a minor wound that shouldn't have stopped him at all from shooting the remaining survivors, but he went into a bathroom and shot himself.

 

I actually live very close to this school. I mean... close enough that their sports team sells t-shirts in our stores. Close enough for their holiday schedule to drastically affect the traffic. Close enough to see terrifying mobs of them all dressed in red and white hoodies standing outside gas stations like they're about to set something on fire. I am married to a transwoman. I'm Jewish, and I wear a Jewish head-covering that people often mistake for a hijab. This is terrifying. Everything they do is terrifying. They own half the city. It's awful. It's the scariest thing in the world. Yes, I do see how crazy this is. Yes, I do know how dangerous these people are. I have to know. I have to be aware of it every time I leave my house.

I am afraid for my life.

I live this every day.

This is not about statistics or gun laws or campus policy. This is about the fact that this school has spent all their time teaching these students how to hate people, how to violently hate people, and now they are encouraging these violently hateful people they have created to carry weapons. The comments made by Falwell were about Muslims, and our Muslim neighbors are definitely the ones most at risk, but the reality is that now, these students will feel "empowered" to gun down anyone who doesn't live by their "Christian morals." They are being encouraged to back up their bigotry with bullets, and that's dangerous.

That's why I make sure my wife carries a taser when she leaves our house, even if she's just going up the street.

That's why I keep the curtains closed.

That's why I don't go to certain places that I know are "Liberty Hangouts."

This is not about numbers and semantics and opinions. This is a gun in the hands of the people who already want me dead, want my wife dead, want my Pakistani friends dead, want the deaf gay couple down the street dead, want everyone at the local mosque dead.

This is not about percentages.

This is not about political opinions.

They are turning my city into a war zone.

They are trying to turn college students into an army.

I could be shot tomorrow.

I could be shot tomorrow.

I could be shot tomorrow.

 

The mostly straight, white males are going to save us all their imagined threats...

Get ready for it.

 

Coming from a family that owns guns for a professional capacity (District Attorney's Office) and having family that conceals carries, I am torn on this issue.

I am a full second amendment rights support up to the "dreaded" Ar-15 and will be happy to explain why. That being said, I do not think carrying on campus for a terrorist attack is very prudent.

My family, that have received death threats due to the employment, have all taken either self-defense classes or CCW training classes.

I am fairly proficient in the use of arms and can rival any new Army infantry grunt. That being said, I am VERY cautious.

A college campus is one of the safest places one can be demographics wise. The student body has demonstrated the basic skills needed to be accepted indicating a DEGREE of responsibility while the staff tend to be very will educated, having gone through a background check, and middle aged to elderly.

These are the types DIRECTLY OPPOSITE to criminals.

As to the students carrying, I don't believe that many will as a firearm, the fees involved to register with the state, the training, and various holsters put it out of financial reach of most students.

With these two factors in mind, I question the times that a concealed pistol will need to be used to prevent GRAVE CRIPPLING BODILY HARM or DEATH (the only times it should be used) as the threats on campus are low.

I personally believe that it is more likely that a 21 year old CCW permit holder will either leave their firearm in a bag and lose it or very rarely be reckless with it.

Personally, I am in favor of a better trained campus SWAT team than college students carrying.

Per the deputy sheriff that trained our family in many events, including active shooter:

I. If you are in immediate threat of life or limb, fight back with guns or whatever.
II. If you are not in absolute immediate threat, leave the area.
III. Find a secure area.
IV. Call the police department dispatch line.
V. Secure the door and guard it with your gun or other defensive objects.
VI. Notify police that you are in the room and a not the threat and have a CCW firearm.


The Comedy Central skit was complete garbage. No class worth its weight would have a CCW person clear an active shooting incident.

If you want to learn more about firearms, please ask.

 

And my school wants it enforced to have guns always...

 

ConfusedSurfer

Why draw the line at ar-15s?

 

When you "up to the" Ar-15, do you mean including the AR, or except for the AR?

I agree in general with this also, although where I live there is a surprising number of students that are over 21 when they start college. (mostly veterans)

I've never been to California, but in the midwest the chances that you'll encounter the type of attack where you would need to use a firearm is statistically very low.(unless there's some special reason, like the situation you described about yourself, or you live in a very high crime area.) The chances that you'll be a mass shooting situation is even rarer than a one on one criminal attack. Unfortunately they do happen to some people somewhere sometimes and then the question is what to do about it. One of the main issues with concealed carry is knowing which situations rise to the level of using deadly force and which don't. A mass shooting situation, while rare, is certainly easier to discern than some one on one criminal situations. Whether an active shooter is at a campus, a convention center or a crowded department store, a mass shooting is still a mass shooting.

That is definitely a possibility. In the state where I used to live, there is currently over a half million civilian CCW permit holders. The few incidents that have happened there are actually slightly less with civilian CCW permit holders than with police officers. Most of the time when a firearm is lost here, it isn't from being left in a bag, but stolen from cars. (particularly when the gun is required to be left in a car because the civilian is going into a place where concealed carry is forbidden.)

When I was in college, the campus cops seemed well trained, but there wasn't many of them visible at any one time. (unless there was some special event) Although I think a rapid police response is preferable to civilian CCW holders, every minute it takes the more people are killed and injured. Having a fire extinguisher doesn't take the place of the fire department, but sometimes they are needed. So to my way of thinking it's not an either or situation, if it's a place where anyone can just walk in. If it's a school where there is armed guards or police at the door with metal detectors, I would feel differently in that situation.

The bottom line for the story in the OP is that particular college has been allowing it for the last 4 years anyway, except for the dorm area.

This is similar to the training we had to take at work.

Now I'm even more curious to see the skit, just to see what you're talking about. I'll probably have to wait 'till I get home or somewhere else with a decent internet connection. Right now I can barely get on here. :dry:

 

Up to and including semi-automatic rifles.

 

My support for the AR15 and currently legal guns comes from their function. As far as I understand, the AR15 is a semi-automatic firearm similar to a Glock or the century old gun the 1911. That means one pull to the trigger and one round is ejected. The way the gun looks or features on the gun are of negligible effect.

I liken it to putting a Toyota Corolla engine into tjhe body of a Ferrari. Sure the 0-60 may be .25 seconds faster with the carbon fiber or spoilers but its still a Corolla engine. ​

For this reason I discount the accessories.

Now on to the rounds it can fire. The capacity of a semi-automatic firearm is based on the number of rounds the magazine can hold. The standard issue that came with my brothers rifle (in the Army) and that which is standard in most states is 30 rounds. Similar magazines can be purchased for a glock handgun and other pistols.

For this reason, I discount capacity.

Now to the round fired. Most of the AR-15's use a 5.56 or .223 round. Fairly small compared to a hunting round and comparable in some handgun rounds in force (Force = Mass x Acceleration)

With the AR-15 round the mass is small but the acceleration is greater. With handgun ammo and the popular .40 or .45 the mass is greater but the acceleration is greater. So when you count the different variables the rounds fired are about equal, notwithstanding the easy availability of a hollow point round that vastly increased damages from handguns (though you can get AR-15 or rifle rounds but they are more difficult to find).

Last we have the length of the barrel. Federal standards say that the barrel has to be at least 16.5 inches and given the trigger and the shoulder rest stock is about 8 inches the total length is about 28 inches at minimum. With the longer barrel it gives the round more time to gain a good spin like a sweet football throw.

This makes the AR-15 and semi-automatic rifles more accurate. Now this can be a good or bad thing depending on the intent of the shooter.

Now, someone can say since its only accuracy and range with the AR-15 why not use a handgun and ban the AR-15 / like guns.

Now that argument is true but our government does not function like that. Currently, I believe that firearms are under a legal concept known as Strict Scrutiny:

Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.​

So while an assault weapons ban law may not make a huge deal I do not feel the an extremely good case has been made for a ban. Rather the best that argument could achieve is that handgun is comparable. Thus it's like someone making the team for a high schools summer team but then saying they should be in the Varsity playoffs.

Sorry No Dice.

As to other guns that are specifically in use by the military. They either fire multiple rounds per trigger pull increasing lethality significantly or affect multiple persons at once (like a grenade launcher).

 

Just wanted to add additional info to what you said, for the benefit of someone reading who is not familiar with the AR guns. The AR type rifles have a lower part and an upper part. The upper part (barrel and bolt, upper receiver) can be changed to a different caliber. I don't hunt animals but I know people who do. Where I live in the rural midwest and south, some people hunt medium size game with the standard AR bullet, the 223 or 5.56, like coyotes. Some people have AR versions with larger diameter bullets for hunting game like wild boar or deer. You can even get AR uppers in pistol calibers, or in 22lr if you just want to target shoot or hunt small game. The AR type guns are a very efficient firearms design from a technical standpoint, and easy to teach beginners with.

 

Your argument by analogy isn't very good. Formula 1 cars have internal combustion engines yet there are very good reasons not to allow them on the streets. That an AR has features that make it similar to other guns is likewise irrelevant if it has other features that render it dangerous. That the ar conforms to current federal law is not an argument against changing the law to ban them.

The legal doctrine you cite is quite new, it's application to our laws in any event. It's silly to argue from that as an uber authority that refers all others moot, given that it has only recently held any sway. The constitution is not a death pact.

Anyway, We already have gun control in the us. The only thing we are arguing about is where to draw the line. Telling me that you support their legality cause they're currently legal doesn't make much of a dent in the argument that they should be made illegal, or at least much more tightly controlled.

The reasons why these weapons are used is their lethality.

 

Actually, the Armalite Rifle-15 (AR =/= Assault Rifle) and it's derivatives the M-16 and M-14, are actually designed to wound, not kill. In US Military doctrine, we do not leave wounded soldiers on the battlefield. It takes two healthy soldiers to evacuate 1 wounded, thereby taking 3 out of combat for 1 wound. That was the original thinking when the US Air Force contracted Armalite to develop the AR-15. Before that we used the much more powerful .308 (7.62mm) or .30-06 rifle cartridges which would kill most of the time. The US Army adopted the M-16 after a few modifications from the AR-15, notably forward assist, and full auto selection.

 

May I ask what you believe makes a semi-automatic rifle more deadly that a Glock 10mm with a 30 round magazine?

 

That question assumes quite a few things about my positions on handguns. Depending on the target, a handgun, regardless of its extended magazine, may bring more lethality to bear. You've established a false premise here that doesn't speak for my views at all.

The entire point of high capacity magazines is to enable more shots to be fired without stopping to reload. I think you will agree to that? There's literally no other purpose to them.

 

That's actually a myth, that 5.56 mm rounds are not designed to be lethal. There's a lot more to lethality than just the mass of the projectile.

Also, I'm not sure who you're correcting regarding the nomenclature for the AR series. I don't think I've seen anyone say that AR=assault rifle in this context.

 

If the magazine for both a rifle and shotgun were capped at 10 is there a significant difference in lethality?

 

Let's think about that for a moment. Hmm, holding variables of projectile mass, velocity and round composition constant, if I can get fewer rounds towards a target and/or target fewer people, is there a difference in lethality?

 

Yes, but given but firearms are semi-automatic the rate of fire would be the same no?