Things That Are Hilarious About Students For Concealed Carry on Campus

I love many things in this life, two of which are the internet and guns.  I freely admit to loving both of these things; there is nothing as satisfying as finding out exactly what you need to know exactly when you need to know it, nor is there anything as thrilling as blowing holes in inanimate objects.  (Wikipedia and soda cans, be warned:  I’m coming for you!  OK, Wikipedia doesn’t need to be afraid of me, but soda cans are either getting recycled or sent directly to HELL!) 

So yes, on a very basic level, I am pro gun, yet I am against automatic weapons and hunting.  I also find that my views do not align with the agenda of Students For Concealed Carry on Campus.  This group believes that licensed, legally-armed citizens should be able to carry guns on college campuses; I, however, do not.  Here are a few things I find funny or illogical about the Students For Concealed Carry on Campus and a few of the statements on their website:

  1. Students For Concealed Carry on Campus is a pro gun group that doesn’t have the word ‘gun’  or ‘firearms’ anywhere in their name.  That strikes me as strange.
  2. The site routinely mentions that the group is comprised of  “over 42,000 college students, professors, college employees, parents of college students, and concerned citizens.”  They like throwing that number around, which seems strange to me, because that’s not a lot of people.  As of 2010, Wyoming was the least populated state in the union at 563,626 people while the United States population was at 308,143,815.  In terms of a organizational comparison, PETA has millions of members…  what I’m saying is, 42k is not a lot of people.  And I’d love to know what percentage of their membership is made up of ‘concerned citizens.’  I’m just going to guess and say 90%.
  3. ‘Students for Concealed Carry does not advocate “arming students.”’ OK, I know this is a college student organization, so this is probably a dumb question, but are you on fucking drugs?!? But let me give you a chance to explain yourself:  ‘Our proposals do not change who can carry, but where. We believe that professors, ROTC cadets, ex-Marines, evening students or anyone who already carries a concealed weapon under existing law is no different on campus than they are off-campus. After all, under current law, armed citizens can carry a concealed weapon into literally thousands of places throughout their state, including movie theaters, restaurants, banks, shopping malls, churches and grocery stores, and have done so responsibly for years.’ So you’re pro guns in church, then?  Do we really need guns in movie theaters?  I think this kind of rhetoric just creates more problems for their cause, as I’m guessing that the first thought that flies through the mind of the  average person who reads this is, “You can bring a gun into a bank?”
  4. “History is clear, stickers on campus doors saying “no guns allowed” don’t stop criminal offenders. In fact, no law will ever affect criminal behavior because criminals, by their very nature, do not follow the law. What these signs actually do is create (and advertise!) a defense-free zone, removing legal guns and forcibly disarming victims. This is exactly what makes colleges most attractive to killers who seek easy targets.” First, they’ve taught us that a sticker is no match for a gun; that’s brilliant.  Then:  Criminals don’t follow the law – wow!  That’s what makes them criminals in the first place though, right?  Thanks for explaining that to me!  And I guess ‘killers who seek easy targets’ (as opposed to the killers who are up for a challenge… but I thought man was the deadliest game of all…) are the sort of guys who sit around and think, “I want to kill people, but I’m not, like, willing to work at it or anything…  Oh, I know!  I’ll go to a college campus!” – is that what they’re saying?  Without checking, I’ll say that I’m pretty sure that college shootings (sans Kent State) or any other school shooting is usually perpetrated by a student, not a criminal who is sitting around, thinking about ‘defense-free zones,’ which I’m pretty sure are protected by armed campus police – see point 5 for more.
  5. I also want to know what college these folks hang out at that doesn’t have armed campus police.  Am I way off base, or do most college police officers not carry guns these days?  I thought they all did.  Otherwise, they’re just some person in a uniform with a badge – the gun is an important distinction between, “Hmm, I might be getting a ticket,” and “Oh shit, it’s the cops.”
  6. “Many students state they would not feel safe if concealed carry were allowed.” You folks need to take a marketing class.  I know, I know; you go on to make a point, so rock on:  “However, concealed carry at Virginia Tech was blocked with the specific goal of “feeling safe.” On April 16, 2007, it became clear that feeling safe isn’t the same as being safe.”  Because what, if someone was carrying a concealed weapon that day, they could have stopped that kid (wasn’t he a student there, and not necessarily a ‘criminal’ looking for ‘a defense-free zone’?) by engaging him in a fire fight?  Wouldn’t that have put many students in the middle of a dangerous cross fire?  And you’re also assuming that the person responding to the shooter has good aim, isn’t scared out of their mind and shaking like a leaf…  It’s hard to hit something with a hand gun, and the farther away you get, the harder it is…  I would say that once you get passed six feet, you accuracy is going to start falling significantly.  (Remember, I’m not talking out of my ass, I have shooting experience!)
  7. crime rates on college campuses have risen in recent years, and statistics show that, nationwide, there are nine sexual assaults reported on college campuses each day. Furthermore, the low probability of becoming a victim doesn’t help the 47 victims at Virginia Tech, or the 27 victims at Northern Illinois University, or any of the other countless victims of crimes on campuses. Current policies give such victims the option of playing dead or huddling under desks.”  Wouldn’t it be easier to educate the student community about sex, sexual assault and so on rather than telling everybody to buy a gun?  Pardon the expression, but it sounds like overkill.  Crime is up, huh?  What kind of crime?  If you catch somebody stealing your laptop or your iPod, should we just shoot that asshole?  If you see someone committing a sexual assault, your plan is to shoot the perpetrator off the victim?  That is NOT a good strategy.  I know we see cops on TV hiding behind car doors from gun fire all the time, but I assure you, a bullet will pass through a car door unless the door has been specifically designed to repel bullets.
  8. Their final point under the heading ‘Colleges can’t protect students‘ refers to emergency text messaging systems, surveillance cameras and campus police as reactionary measures to college shooting incidents.  I suppose that’s true, but if the alternative is arming everyone and having them shoot it out with the bad guy, I tend to think this is not a better idea than the aforementioned approaches.  Ultimately, the organization doesn’t expect college campuses to provide much in the way of protection or, as they put it, “provide airport-grade security” because “few people want the nature of a college campus changed so radically.” I tend to agree; it’s impossible to provide a completely safe environment…  pretty much anywhere.  That’s because the kind of safety that this organization is advocating for is an illusion for pretty much everyone in almost every situation – arming people isn’t going to give us all secret service grade protection, and that’s what they’re really advocating for, isn’t it?  If a bad guy pops up, some random citizen will jump up, whip out their 357 magnum (or better yet, the 44 Magnum, Dirty Harry style) and mow them down.  Remember way back when toy guns used to look like real guns and every once in a while, it would get a kid killed?  We didn’t arm the kids or take the cops guns away, we simply changed the toy guns to look more like toys and less like the real thing.  If  the group is so afraid of more innocents getting shot, wouldn’t it make more sense to simply have less guns around?  I just can’t follow their logic.

In my view, Students For Concealed Carry on Campus has this idealized view of guns where everybody has great reaction time, Robin Hood like aim and a cool head under immense pressure.  The idea that everyone is suddenly going to rise to the occasion like they’re Wyatt Earp is laughable to anyone with any gun experience and, you know, a functioning brain.  Arming the population is just going to result in more people getting caught in the crossfire.  I urge folks not to support this group; trust me, when you mess with the bull, you get the horns; or, if you like, if you pull a gun on somebody else with a gun, you’re probably going to get shot next and when you shoot back at the guy with the gun, you’re probably going to miss him.

Students For Concealed Carry on Campus

If you compile a few images together from their website, you can easily make a very convincing comic book cover.

About Jamie Insalaco

Jamie Insalaco is the author of, and editor in chief of

Posted on March 10, 2011, in observations and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.

  1. Take off the blinders… Mass shootings happen in “Gun Free Zones”.

    Do I need a gun in a movie theater, bank, or on campus? I hope not. But if I do, ill be glad I have it.

  2. Hi Rob,

    Thanks for commenting!

    Mass shootings happen EVERYWHERE, not just gun free zones. Fair enough?


    • Well true… I guess I should say the more “infamous” ones. “Gun Free Zones” are tempting targets due to their lack of resistance.

      Your point is good though.. they happen everywhere… Thus having a viable option for defense makes sense.


  3. When I think of infamous mass shootings, I think of the ones that happened at schools. As far as I know, they were all perpetrated by students – I don’t remember any of them having a prior criminal record. I think the point that Concealed Carry On Campus is making is that college campuses are vulnerable to outside criminal elements, but again, as far as i know, the shooters have not been outsiders.
    I do agree that a good defense is necessary, but I’m not willing to put that in the hands of an ordinary citizen – especially when it comes to firing a gun in a pressure situation. It’s hard enough to hit something with a hand gun when no one is shooting back at you! Well, unless you’re Robocop.

    • Well, if you think about it, cops are ordinary citizens. They are BRIEFLY trained, as you are when you take the Concealed Handgun class. Also, what makes a citizen extraordinary? All people are ordinary human beings, there aren’t anybody that’s better than anyone else (or worse for that matter).

      • true, but there is plenty of training courses and target practice for cops – cops have the time (hopefully) and the incentive (stay alive) to get good at shooting; I don’t think the ordinary citizen has the same opportunity to become as proficient a shooter as a cop does.

        and for me, my late teens to early twenties was the hardest time in my life… I know everyone handles growing up differently, but it’s just not an age group I want to necessarily arm without any sort of supervision.

  4. We’ll have to agree to disagree….

    I think you will agree that someone intent on committing a mass shooting will not care whether or not they have a permit, or are allowed to carry on campus or not.

    The bills moving through state legislatures are to allow students and faculty, age 21 plus, who already have a permit to carry (and already carry a gun when off campus) the right to carry when on public property (private schools can still ban) The bills are not about just letting any student carry on campus. Only the ones that have completed the training, and background checks required by the state.

    As far as the high pressure situation, that is a valid concern. Even the NYPD only has a 4% hit ratio when shooting their guns, and a lethal hit ratio well below 1%.
    That being said, sadly, there have been enough mass shooting to get some traceable patterns. And one of those patterns is that active shooters tend to take their own lives once they come up against armed resistance.
    While there is a possibility of a Conceal Carry permit holder to cause some collateral damage (statistically no more or less likely than police) there is also the substantially more likely probability that they can save many more likes than they put at risk.

    • I think you’re right about us agreeing to disagree!

      Ultimately, I feel it is too easy to obtain a gun; so while I understand your logic, I don’t agree with the idea that more guns in the hands of civilians makes anybody safer. As you mentioned, if trained professionals have a 4% hit ratio, I can’t imagine how low the average licensed concealed carrier’s hit ratio is. Ultimately, it’s harder to get a driver’s license then it is to get a gun, and in my manner of thinking, this is not good policy for the well being of ourselves and fellow citizens. I believe there is a direct correlation between the ease of obtaining guns and the amount of illegal guns circulating… but I do seem to remember a number of high school shootings being perpetrated with guns that were stolen from family members, so this leads me to personal responsibility… I could go on and on!

      I do want to take a moment to thank you for your civil tone in a discussion that often gets out of hand. I appreciate your comments! Drop by the site anytime! I hope we can continue to discuss this and other issues… hopefully some more mundane ones!

  5. I think I’m starting to get your POV… it’s not as much students carrying that you have a problem with, as the availability of guns in general.
    I can agree to disagree on that… (Not a criticism, but) if your viewpoint is that civilians should not have guns, or that guns should be prohibitively difficult to own, then we will have a hard time agreeing on any subsequent points of the right to carry and when and where. So moving on… 🙂

    A few things I want to point out that you may not be aware of…. Contrary to popular belief, most police are not “highly trained” on guns. (as NYPD so excellently demonstrated) Most departments only require officers to qualify 1-2 times a year. From my experience in MN, most cops aren’t really into shooting on their own. Most recreational shooters, and carry permit holders shoot much more often than that, and participate in competitive shooting.
    I don’t blame police for this at all.. their time and funding is limited…

    There is a HUGE amount of personal responsibility… not only in the availability of guns, but in the behavior of the individual (a la Jared Loughner) If you focus on the tool, and not the person, you just end up implementing another tool. (A knife, fire, bomb, ford F-150, etc.) I have trained my kids since they could walk about gun safety… I think every gun owner should.

    I could go on more about rights vs. privileges, and stolen guns, but I’ve spammed your blog enough… 🙂

    Likewise thanks for the civil tone… Too often people on both sides of the debate fail to see the validity in points of the opponents arguments. While I disagree with your fundamental thoughts about gun ownership, what kind of freedom loving American would I be if I didn’t respect it.

    Have a good one!

  6. Huh. Our last exchange appeared out of order. Oh well.

  7. So. When an off duty police officer is taking classes at his local community college. And “Cho” student chains the doors shut and is systematically executing his fellow students one by one with 26 close ranged head shots. Keep in mind he will not stop if you just hand over your money, he is clinically psychotic and his only goal is to kill until someone with the capability to stop him gets there. And he gets to you, will you refer back to this website and think “man I was right!”? Or will you be praying to god with your last words that someone with their concealed carry is in your math class? As for campus security my school has one 68 year old, over weight probably half blind security officer. And btw 6ft is probably your arm span… the qualifications to be permitted a CCW is 21 feet, so clearly you would not qualify.

  8. What I meant to articulate with that first sentence is that the current laws ban anyone except an active duty police officer on the clock, from carrying a weapon on campus in 22 states currently.

  9. Even the law enforcement safety act, meant to allow off duty officers the ability to protect themselves and loved ones does not override these arbitrary laws that are quickly changing.

  1. Pingback: 4 Stupid Things TV & Movies Do With Guns |

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: