Guns on Campus

[GeauxSioux]

Proposal would ban guns in on-campus apartments

You could say people came to Tuesday's UND Apartment Community Council meeting packing heat.

About 35 people attended an open forum to discuss the council's recent proposal to ban storage of weapons, specifically guns, in UND apartments.

The majority of attendees were gun owners and students, but one politician was notably present, Rep. Donald Dietrich, R-Grand Forks, a lifetime National Rifle Association member.

According to the proposal, residents cannot store

[greenwinger_13]

I think that's stupid... why even bother? When was the last gun related violence on-campus? I guess I don't remember since I have been here, plus I just brought my shotgun right into the dorms anyways every single time I went hunting which was alot. I just took it apart and brought it right in. Why should I have to go take another 15 minutes to get my gun out of a gun locker at the UPD when I am already waking up way earlier than any college student should.. that's just me....

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

Here is what I posted on the GFH article.

I hope this thing is soundly defeated. It is a constitutional right to be able to have a gun. If we had a VT type incident at UND, I would rather have a gun in my room/with me. That way I have some personal defense. Guns don't kill people, people do. Banning guns will, if anything, increase the likeliness of a attack on campus, because it is an easy target. KEEP gun Freedom.

[so.cal.sioux]

Here is what I posted on the GFH article.

You bring up the Virginia Tech incident. By making a gun acceptable in every dorm room across campus, wouldn't you think that would make it easier for a mentally unstable student to get a hold of a gun and recreate the VT incident? If gun control was more strict in this country the killer at VT probably wouldn't have been able to get his hands on a gun.

You also bring up the safety issue on campus. UND is located in Grand Forks, ND, one of the safest communities in the union. Not to say we should be ignorant and say it couldn't happen but UND's campus is not located in south central Los Angeles. I hardly think it is necessary to arm every student on campus just incase a massacre happens on campus.

They ban alcohol and drugs in the dorm rooms but not firearms? Tell me how that makes sense.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people? well then let's legalize drugs too. After all, drugs don't kill people, people kill people.

[Diggler]

This thread is going to be a train wreck.

[THETRIOUXPER]

Just say no to guns.

Well, then say YES to capital punishment and enforcement of more stringent laws for people who commit murder, rape, ect.

[airmail]

I believe that there are some instances that would be harmless, and are negatively affected by this proposal. For example, I recall a roomate of mine bringing his shotgun to school so that we could hunt together on the weekends. (seems to me he had a "knife not for cooking purposes" as well) I do not see one thing wrong with that.

By making a gun acceptable in every dorm room across campus, wouldn't you think that would make it easier for a mentally unstable student to get a hold of a gun and recreate the VT incident?

Let's be honest with each other and acknowledge what I believe to be fact: If some idiot wants to go on a shooting rampage, he or she will; plain and simple. They will access a weapon from somewhere, whether near or far.

Access to a firearm doesn't convince a mentally unstable person to start shooting classmates. Mental instability convinces a person to start shooting classmates.

[so.cal.sioux]

I believe that there are some instances that would be harmless, and are negatively affected by this proposal. For example, I recall a roomate of mine bringing his shotgun to school so that we could hunt together on the weekends. (seems to me he had a "knife not for cooking purposes" as well) I do not see one thing wrong with that.

Let's be honest with each other and acknowledge what I believe to be fact: If some idiot wants to go on a shooting rampage, he or she will; plain and simple. They will access a weapon from somewhere, whether near or far.

Access to a firearm doesn't convince a mentally unstable person to start shooting classmates. Mental instability convinces a person to start shooting classmates.

I will agree with the fact that if someone has their mind made up that they are going to shoot people on campus, they are going to find a way to do it. So why make it easier for them if there is a gun readily available in every room on campus? If there are strict laws and gun restrictions put into place, the killer might be stopped somewhere in the process of acquiring a firearm.

Another thing to think about. Someone is cleaning their gun because they are going out hunting the next day. Somehow the gun goes off and accidentally kills the roommate or someone else in the room.

Is the "right to bear arms" worth the risk of someone being killed? Hopefully everyone will answer no.

[Bison Dan]

I will agree with the fact that if someone has their mind made up that they are going to shoot people on campus, they are going to find a way to do it. So why make it easier for them if there is a gun readily available in every room on campus? If there are strict laws and gun restrictions put into place, the killer might be stopped somewhere in the process of acquiring a firearm.

Another thing to think about. Someone is cleaning their gun because they are going out hunting the next day. Somehow the gun goes off and accidentally kills the roommate or someone else in the room.

Is the "right to bear arms" worth the risk of someone being killed? Hopefully everyone will answer no.

Why not ask that same thing about the rest of the amendments? This sounds like a solution in need of a problem!

[airmail]

Is the "right to bear arms" worth the risk of someone being killed? Hopefully everyone will answer no.

I do not want to come across like a big 2nd Amendment apologist, because I simply am not. Rather, I consider myself a sportsman, and that's where my points are drawn.

If you ask if .357 snub nosed revolvers should be the norm on campus property, I would certainly disagree. I think it is important, however, to point out that the proposal is targeted towards campus apartments. Someone please tell me if this is incorrect, but wouldn't that also include married student housing? I have a hard time digesting that gun control would be mandated against married adults, who likely would use firearms in a cautious and responsible manner. Further, even in the Single Student Apartments a minimum age of 23 or adequate credit hours are required to be eligible. Seemingly, these young adults would also seem the type that could handle firearm responsibility.

What I think is even more foolish is the portion of the proposal that bans knives. Suppose I'm married, have two children, am taking a graduate course at UND while working to support my family in the evening... and yet I cannot be trusted with a 4" folding buck knife?

The 2nd Amendment will get its glory during this debate, but in my opinion falls to the debate of general common sense. I find it interesting that in all the years of campus apartment living that were not protected by this proposal, we haven't heard of or witnessed any of the tragic events that are being discussed in this thread.

Perhaps we just got lucky.

[Bison Dan]

I do not want to come across like a big 2nd Amendment apologist, because I simply am not. Rather, I consider myself a sportsman, and that's where my points are drawn.

If you ask if .357 snub nosed revolvers should be the norm on campus property, I would certainly disagree. I think it is important, however, to point out that the proposal is targeted towards campus apartments. Someone please tell me if this is incorrect, but wouldn't that also include married student housing? I have a hard time digesting that gun control would be mandated against married adults, who likely would use firearms in a cautious and responsible manner. Further, even in the Single Student Apartments a minimum age of 23 or adequate credit hours are required to be eligible. Seemingly, these young adults would also seem the type that could handle firearm responsibility.

What I think is even more foolish is the portion of the proposal that bans knives. Suppose I'm married, have two children, am taking a graduate course at UND while working to support my family in the evening... and yet I cannot be trusted with a 4" folding buck knife?

The 2nd Amendment will get its glory during this debate, but in my opinion falls to the debate of general common sense. I find it interesting that in all the years of campus apartment living that were not protected by this proposal, we haven't heard of or witnessed any of the tragic events that are being discussed in this thread.

Perhaps we just got lucky.

I agree with many of your points. What about the private house across the street from the University? Should there be limits on it? I think everyone needs to face the facts that in a free society if someone really wants to harm or kill someone it is very difficult to stop them no matter how many laws we make.

[FlyinSioux]

My post on the Herald Website

"Some people have the wrong idea on here. We just want to keep our guns IN OUR HOMES... Doesn't everyone keep there car with them? Do you want to have to take it down to the PD every night when you're done using it? Then check it out the next morning? More people are killed by cars every year than guns.. So, we had better start locking those up.. Right Hillary?? A gun is no different. It is a tool, used in most North Dakotans lives every day. A handgun IS used for lawful self defense by more people than I think most of you people realize, right HERE in GRAND FORKS. I carry every single day, and I guarantee none of you guys would pick me out for being a "Carrier". Why would we want to make the apartments a "Gun Free Zone". That directly equates to a "Hey Rapist, Robber, and other criminals, come get me, i'm unprotected." That's all that it will do is make us easy targets, and they know it. And for those of you that believe crime doesn't happen in GF, what about the girl raped two blocks from the Police Station??? Please people, be smart."

[so.cal.sioux]

I agree with many of your points. What about the private house across the street from the University? Should there be limits on it? I think everyone needs to face the facts that in a free society if someone really wants to harm or kill someone it is very difficult to stop them no matter how many laws we make.

Airmail, thank God we have not had to witness any tragedies of that nature at UND but neither did VT before their massacre last year. We have to take precaution now to try and prevent something ever happening.

Bison Dan, you are right. If someone has their mind made up that they are going to harm someone, it is pointless to try and convince them otherwise. That being said, we can't just sit back, do nothing, shrug our shoulders and say "eh, there is nothing we could have done anyway."

[Big A HG]

I didn't read all the replies so this may have been stated.

In my opinion, this is stupid. A rule like this isn't going to stop a lunatic from doing a VT incident. If you own a gun, you own a gun.

I am not a gun owner.

[Stromer]

My beef is with the girl who spoke up against having guns. How does she know that there isn't a gun next door right now? Is she living in fear as we speak? And does that mean she will never move off campus for fear of living next to a gun? It is total madness.

[PCM]

I will agree with the fact that if someone has their mind made up that they are going to run down people on campus, they are going to find a way to do it. So why make it easier for them if there is a car readily available in every parking lot on campus? If there are strict laws and car restrictions put into place, the killer might be stopped somewhere in the process of acquiring a vehicle.

Another thing to think about. Someone is washing their car because they are going on a trip the next day. Somehow the car rolls backward and accidentally kills a child playing in the street.

Is the "right to own a car" worth the risk of someone being killed? Hopefully everyone will answer no.

[airmail]

Airmail, thank God we have not had to witness any tragedies of that nature at UND but neither did VT before their massacre last year. We have to take precaution now to try and prevent something ever happening.

I agree we are fortunate, and I also agree that VT never saw it coming.

My question, then, would be how far do we go? Do we outlaw firearms within city limits? Do we outlaw automobiles as they have caused tragic deaths over and over again? A year or two ago, a woman was stabbed in the restaurant she worked in by a man who used a knife from that very kitchen. Should we then close all of the restaurants in Grand Forks?

If we govern with hypothetical situations, than we are forced to police hypothetically. The above absurd suggestions are showing just that.

I can see that you are passionate about the proactive protection of the public, which is certainly admirable. I still maintain, however, that this proposal will do nothing to perpetuate or prevent a tragedy.

I was just thinking, how are they proposing to police this? Nightly weapons checks? Cutting open the bed pillows looking for cold steel contraband? My guess would be no accountability whatsoever, which makes the whole proposal a mute point.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

It is ridiculous that this is even an issue! Citizens of the United States are free to own and use guns. It is constitutionally guaranteed. Period. That should be the end of the debate.

But since some people can not seem to understand that, I will continue. People kill people, not guns or drugs or cars or anything else you can think of. If someone dies because they took drugs, that is their own fault. I will never die from it because I will not abuse drugs. It is about personal responsibility and freedom. Look at how much stuff is smuggled illegally every year. If guns were banned nationwide, criminals would still get their hands on them. I know if I am instructed to stay in a dorm because a killer is lose on campus, I would much rather have a shotgun out and ready to go then sit there with nothing between me and the killer but a locked door. Also, I am a law abiding person, as is most everyone. Just because some idiot uses a gun improperly, should not mean that I can no longer use one.

[so.cal.sioux]

I agree we are fortunate, and I also agree that VT never saw it coming.

My question, then, would be how far do we go? Do we outlaw firearms within city limits? Do we outlaw automobiles as they have caused tragic deaths over and over again? A year or two ago, a woman was stabbed in the restaurant she worked in by a man who used a knife from that very kitchen. Should we then close all of the restaurants in Grand Forks?

If we govern with hypothetical situations, than we are forced to police hypothetically. The above absurd suggestions are showing just that.

I can see that you are passionate about the proactive protection of the public, which is certainly admirable. I still maintain, however, that this proposal will do nothing to perpetuate or prevent a tragedy.

I was just thinking, how are they proposing to police this? Nightly weapons checks? Cutting open the bed pillows looking for cold steel contraband? My guess would be no accountability whatsoever, which makes the whole proposal a mute point.

I believe the comparison between firearms and that of automobiles and kitchen knives are apples and oranges. Automobiles are necessities in everyday life. You need your car to go to work, school, etc. Yes they have caused deaths but realistically you can not get rid of everyones car. Kitchen knives are necessities in a restaurant kitchen. You can't be a chef without kitchen knives. On the other hand, you, me and 99% of all other Americans can get through there day without needing a gun. The 1% being police officers. Guns are wants, not needs. Cars and kitchen knives are needs, not wants.

You do raise a good point though. There is not a reasonable way to police this other than making a stiff penalty for being caught.

Bottom line: we should not put up a big neon sign that reads "come one, come all. guns are welcomed and encouraged on UND's campus!"

And if you are using the hunting reasoning as basis for your argument then I ask you this...When was the last time you saw a 10 point buck drinking out of the English Coulee on campus and say "Damn, I wish I had my gun with me!" If you are going hunting, go home and get your gun first. Leave it off campus.

[airmail]

If you are going hunting, go home and get your gun first. Leave it off campus.

Which is my point... for the families living in the student apartments, that is their home. The University should respect their home, and not be nitpicking their legal possessions.

FYI Shooting a 10 point buck drinking out of the English Coulee at UND would be a violation of ND G&F hunting laws.

[GeauxSioux]

It is ridiculous that this is even an issue! Citizens of the United States are free to own and use guns. It is constitutionally guaranteed. Period. That should be the end of the debate.

But since some people can not seem to understand that, I will continue. People kill people, not guns or drugs or cars or anything else you can think of. If someone dies because they took drugs, that is their own fault. I will never die from it because I will not abuse drugs. It is about personal responsibility and freedom. Look at how much stuff is smuggled illegally every year. If guns were banned nationwide, criminals would still get their hands on them. I know if I am instructed to stay in a dorm because a killer is lose on campus, I would much rather have a shotgun out and ready to go then sit there with nothing between me and the killer but a locked door. Also, I am a law abiding person, as is most everyone. Just because some idiot uses a gun improperly, should not mean that I can no longer use one.

Totally agree.

Additionally, I believe that the fact that the VT killer knew that no one else would be armed probably made it a whole lot easier for him to do what he did. He knew he wouldn't be stopped.

It's beyond me how we can keep creating new laws for "gun control". The people who follow the laws don't need more laws and restrictions on them and the ones that are breaking the current gun control laws are going to break future ones. Eventually the only ones that will have guns will be criminals, the police and military. That doesn't make me feel safe.

[so.cal.sioux]

Totally agree.

Additionally, I believe that the fact that the VT killer knew that no one else would be armed probably made it a whole lot easier for him to do what he did. He knew he wouldn't be stopped.

It's beyond me how we can keep creating new laws for "gun control". The people who follow the laws don't need more laws and restrictions on them and the ones that are breaking the current gun control laws are going to break future ones. Eventually the only ones that will have guns will be criminals, the police and military. That doesn't make me feel safe.

Yeah you're right. Let's give everyone on campus a gun just in case the worst massacre in American History happens that day. 13,000 guns on campus would make me feel safe and secure.

Did you ever stop and think that this rule could very well stop the next Virginia Tech? If this rule comes into play and the killer is caught with the gun before he/she has a chance to use it, would this rule still be dumb and unconstitutional if it saved lives?

[so.cal.sioux]

Which is my point... for the families living in the student apartments, that is their home. The University should respect their home, and not be nitpicking their legal possessions.

FYI Shooting a 10 point buck drinking out of the English Coulee at UND would be a violation of ND G&F hunting laws.

You raise another good point. I can't say I disagree with you here. There is never going to be a version of this ban that is going to effect everyone the same.

[GeauxSioux]

Yeah you're right. Let's give everyone on campus a gun just in case the worst massacre in American History happens that day. 13,000 guns on campus would make me feel safe and secure.

Did you ever stop and think that this rule could very well stop the next Virginia Tech? If this rule comes into play and the killer is caught with the gun before he/she has a chance to use it, would this rule still be dumb and unconstitutional if it saved lives?

I'm not advocating handing out guns at Twamley. Let's allow responsible citizens the "right" to have their own gun.

The killer at VT had a history of psychological problems. VT had ban on guns in place. He had guns in his room and he was not caught. I don't see where it helped there.

You were right Diggler, train wreck.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

Yeah you're right. Let's give everyone on campus a gun just in case the worst massacre in American History happens that day. 13,000 guns on campus would make me feel safe and secure.

Did you ever stop and think that this rule could very well stop the next Virginia Tech? If this rule comes into play and the killer is caught with the gun before he/she has a chance to use it, would this rule still be dumb and unconstitutional if it saved lives?

YES! It would still be dumb and unconstitutional! VT had a gun ban and look what happened. It sure didn't save lives there. I would rather have 13,000 guns on campus. Just about everyone on campus is a law abiding citizen. It is not like as soon as a person gets their hands on a gun, they go out and shoot someone. And that way, as soon as the killer shoots one person, someone will shoot him and there will not be nearly as many innocent deaths. There was a guy lose out by Drake that was wanted for murder, among other things, recently. That is not to far from where I live and we had the gun out and ready to go. Had that guy tried to do anything on our property, he would have been shot. I shudder to think what would have happened had that guy broke in our house and we did not have a gun.