Tell you what if a college can’t ban black people, gays, or muslims from the campus why should they be able to ban guns?
Well, black people, gays, muslims, etc., are first and foremost people, not dangerous objects or substances. Though many private colleges can and sometimes do ban anyone who is not a student, staff, faculty, or approved visitor from their property. Guns are instruments of destruction first and foremost. They are objects without free will (or civil rights) and can be banned from college campuses for the same reason flame throwers, loaded cross-bows, swords that are not peace bounded, large buckets of battery acid, etc., can be banned. They are dangerous objects and people who wish to own them, must act responsibly in that ownership or risk having that right suspended or taken away.
Or Typhoid Mary…
People are the dangerous ones, a gun is an inanimate object. The point is though that the school can’t reject all those people due to their constitutional rights, not due to the morality of the school. Well a person also has a constitutional right, an explicit one rather than an implicit one, to own and carry arms. What right does the school have to infringe on those rights in such an arbitrary manner.
I have probably had more people who are police officers in my home as guest than you have ever met or even seen in public. Very few of them opposed concealed carry and very few of them aren’t members of NRA, GOA if not both.
“It is clear from this important measure of police opinion that American police officers strongly support concealed carry by citizens and think it is the single-most-important factor in reducing violent crime.”
That’s not what happened at all. Did you read my post?
The bill passed, including it’s author voting for it. The governor vetoed it. The author refused to override the veto because the governor, a Democrat, was a member of the authors party and he didn’t want to embarrass the governor. The veto override, BTW, failed by 1 single vote!
That representatives district got sick of him and he was sent packing. Some of us can definitely relate!
A university or a business has a right to limit or forbid in the name of general safety someone from bringing potentially dangerous inanimate objects on the campus. This applies to guns, radioactive substances, acid in large open containers of corrosive acid, vials of ebola, etc.
Vial of Ebola: Not inanimate. Always dangerous.
Acid: Always dangerous
Radioactivity: Always dangerous
Guns: Only dangerous when used by stupid humans
Your comparison again?
Actually, all four of those things are inanimate objects only dangerous when (mis-)used by stupid humans. The actual comparison list you want it this:
Vial of Ebola: Not widely considered by the citizens and legal precedent as a constitutionally protected category of “arm”, though still usable as a weapon.
Acid: Not widely considered by the citizens and legal precedent as a constitutionally protected category of “arm”, though still usable as a weapon.
Radioactivity: Not widely considered by the citizens and legal precedent as a constitutionally protected category of “arm”, though still usable as a weapon.
Guns: Widely considered by the citizens and legal precedent as a constitutionally protected category of “arm”, though still usable as a weapon. But only for certain categories of guns
For all the social pros and cons, both real and exaggerated (and minimized), of all these devices as weapons, the only factor that really matters is the constitutional protection.
Not the best argument: most universities haven’t had incidents at all.
And if guns WERE permitted, most students would not be carrying anyway. The kind of crazy person who takes out dozens of students at, say, Virginia Tech, is not going to think about any of it too carefully.
Unless it is a private college a university only has authority afforded to it by the state AKA the people.
In my state individuals are able to carry inside the state capitol building. This includes on duty employees right down to the janitorial staff. Ninnies howled when this law passed but it’s been half a decade so far without any significant problems. No murders, no assassinations of elected officials. In response to that one can hear crickets chirping in the silence of the antis admitting they were wrong.