https://m.facebook.com/?refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F&_rdr#!/SouthCarolinaStudentsForCWP?ref=stream&__user=522317165

Please follow USC Students for Concealed Carry on Facebook! Together we stand & fight for our rights.

"Under South Carolina Code of Laws section 16-23-420(a) “It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm of any kind on any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or in any publicly owned building, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property.”
Unfortunately, laws such as these only make students and teachers more vulnerable. As long as we (law abiding citizens) remain unprotected, we’re even more vulnerable to a potential shooting."

Know what would be great? Arming every person who uses the "logic" that criminals don't obey laws so we just shouldn't have them.

"Lauren aptly notes that existing SC laws don't address the problem in this case, since someone who is going to shoot up a school isn't worried about laws against carrying a gun."
And someone who is going to commit a murder isn't worried about laws against murder. Same logic.
Saying that "this law (the one that doesn't allow guns on college campuses) is ineffective" so college students should be allowed to carry guns is the same as saying "we shouldn't have this law." The author doesn't feel safe on a campus that is "surrounded by rough neighborhoods and crime" as long as the law is in effect. She says that "laws such as these only make students and teachers more vulnerable. As long as we (law abiding citizens) remain unprotected, we’re even more vulnerable to a potential shooting."
You also remain unprotected from and vulnerable to murder, rape, robbery, and any number of crimes that are outlawed, that those who want to commit them will commit regardless of the law, and that law-abiding citizens won't commit. Does that mean that those laws are "ineffective." Based on the author's logic, yes. What should we do about that?

While I recognize that Ms. Luxenburg, who chairs the USC College Republicans, is simply parroting a GOP talking point, it is still worth the time and effort to debunk her notions lest anyone imagine they actually have merit.

First, while the Constitution, as it has been interpreted---terribly, I might add---by the present Court, conveys to private citizens the right to gun ownership, it does not convey to private citizens the right to possess those guns in every setting. Hence, Ms. Luxenburg's referencing of constitutional rights in this instance is an outlier---they are not at issue here.

Second, there is ample evidence that increases in gun ownership/possession do not reduce the crime rate in any setting. No country in the industrialized world even closely approaches the United States in terms of per capita gun ownership. And no country in the industrialized world even closely approaches the United States in terms of gun-related crime/violence. Does anyone seriously believe there is no relationship between those two correlates? In other words, more guns and more people packing them has proven not to be the answer.

(to be continued)

(continued)

Third, the very idea of a concealed carry law on a university campus that serves nearly 30,000 students---not to mention administrators, faculty, staff & visitors---in close quarters is abominable. A CWP is indicative of neither stellar character nor advanced critical faculties---not in a 45 year-old, not in a 21 year-old. My fear is that those who favor students packing heat on campus would only realize the truth of this following a shootout in the Russell House or a "Stand Your Ground" mistake in judgment on the Horseshoe or a tragically impulsive act in a classroom or dormitory. Factor in the potential for accidental shootings---a GOP politician from Florida accidentally shot himself while nude and "practicing my quick-draw" in front of a hotel mirror last summer; he had a CWP but was apparently not taking his Thorazine---and you have a situation wherein I, as a parent, would consider my child more vulnerable to danger from gun-toting fellow students than from the more nefarious critters who might be roaming the campus.

This is not Representative Lowe's first swim in the waters of legislative irresponsibility. The previous ones, while not benign, were yet not so potentially catastrophic that we couldn't laugh at them. This one, however, is dangerously malignant and is no laughing matter. Leave security to the professionals who are rigorously trained in handling firearms and decision-making as to when and how to use them.

This is a bad idea.

You mean leave security to those who haven't successfully stopped a robbery/rape/ beating on campus in the 4 years Iv been here? You mean leave security to the police who have mandatory firearms training once a year????

I wasnt suggesting leaving security to me at all. I look out for myself first. So if i cant count on campus police and security to do their job by establishing a presence on our supposedly safe campus, then yea I then become in charge of my own security. Second dont tell me to grow up when there are daily campus robberies/rapes. Third even if i wanted to start a group of vigilantes I couldn't include the 18 year olds you suggested. 18 year-olds cant legally carry a concealed weapon.

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" -MLK Jr. There is some MLK. If concealed carry were legal on USC campus, im willing to bet that all 30k of the student body wont go out and purchase a gun and then precede to carry it around with them. Carrying a loaded weapon isnt for everyone and I understand that. But by your logic you're comfortable with people legally carrying guns into shopping malls, movie theaters, and various other places im sure you spend a lot of your time.

The President of the university announced today that there would be increased measures to prevent violence from taking place on our campus. While I support placing more cameras, security personnel, and police around campus, that still doesn't change the fact the police cannot be everywhere at one time. "When seconds matter, the police are only minuets away."

re: "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"

nice to hear a MLK thought...now one has to decide which laws are unjust...not a problem in the context of civil rights...do you suggest gun control laws are unjust.

also MLK said disobey with non violence (not w/ concealed weapons) as did gandhi...

re: i'm willing to bet that all 30k...

i'll bet you're right...but to repeat:

say 5000 of the 30000+ are armed...and many of the 5000 are to some degree paranoid...what's the odds of some innocent being shot...i'll take an innocent being shot and give 5 to 1 odds...if 10000 armed will give 10 to 1 odds, etc...

re: you're comfortable with people legally carrying guns into...where ever

apologies if i implied this (dont think i did)...to clarify: i am not comfortable with folks carrying concealed weapons anywhere...it increases (vice reducing) the chance of violence...eg;

i know of some who would be serving life sentences for murder vice 5-20 for assault if they had had a gun...road rage, bar fight, incidents.

re: "When seconds matter, the police are only minuets away."

you dont believe only the armed 5000 (whatever) will be raped or robbed...ie, the unarmed 25000 are still subject to harm by bad actors...ie, subject to police taking minutes vice the seconds a quick draw armed student might prevent a rape...

it's doubtful most could react quickly enough to prevent an attack ...as likely, the bad guy would take the concealed weapon...

Stanley, you're not going to convince anyone who believes that a CCP is a good thing with your flawed logic.
Paranoid? Where are YOUR statistics to back up your claim?? What's good for the goose...
"it's doubtful most could react quickly enough to prevent an attack" - this is likely accurate, but in places where concealed carry is an option, the liklihood of a violent crime diminishes. If I were a criminal (and I'm not, nor am I paranoid), I'd think twice and seek out an easier target if I thought the one I'd be accosting could be armed.