Question of the Day: What Kind of Cop Opposes Campus Carry?

“Parents, university officials and campus police took to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, wearing bright-red ‘Campus No!’ stickers to protest legislation that would have allowed professors and staff to carry weapons onto the gun-free campuses of Tennessee’s public universities and community colleges,” reports. “The state House Judiciary Committee appeared to agree, sending State Rep. Andy Holt’s bill to a summer study committee — a legislative purgatory that all but guarantees that it will not come up for debate again until at least next year, if at all. The decision came as a relief to the delegation of parents, administrators and campus police who traveled to the Hill.” Huh?

Parents? How can anyone think that a gun ban would protect their children from the madman who loosed their insanity at Virginia Tech? Do these parents fear accidental or negligent discharges from licensed concealed carry weapons holders, to the point where they “take to the streets” to lower the odds? Have they seen the stats in that regard? Do they understand that there’s nothing to stop an illegal gun from entering this supposed sanctuary?

Administrators? As Vice President Spiro Agnew might say (if he were alive and not busy soliciting brown paper bags stuffed with unmarked bills), they’re effete intellectual snobs. They really do live in an ivory tower, from which they feel free to dismiss concealed carry weapon permit holders as barbarians at the gate. Never once considering how guns have given and continue to give them the freedom they enjoy to spread their ill-informed agenda.

But cops? It would seem to me that cops—yes, even rent-a-cops—would favor individuals protecting themselves by exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Are we thinking that campus cop Derek Myers has never seen a young girl shaking with shock after being raped on the University of Memphis campus? How could anyone see such a thing and not wish that the victim had been armed?

The argument against campus carry: college students are too stupid, mentally unstable or aggressive to bear arms. Sound familiar? Maybe Officer Myers has seen too many stupid, unstable or aggressive students to believe that the ones old enough, as a group, should be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Maybe he’s decided that the kids aren’t alright. They couldn’t be trusted with a Super Soaker, never mind a Springfield .45.

Well who died and made him boss? It’s my understanding that anyone who reaches the age of majority is entitled to his full rights as a citizen of the United States. Period. And don’t give me that crap about shouting “fire” in a crowded movie house. Carrying a concealed weapon is not shouting anything. It’s protecting your life (or competing or hunting). Unless it isn’t, in which case the full force of the law is against you.

I guess cops don’t really “get” the whole Constitution thing. As far as they’re concerned, the real rules governing the populace are the bureaucratic BS they deal with day in and day out. At the sharp end, they eventually confuse enforcing the rules with making them. Either that or they lose track of the reasons behind the rules. Because they don’t matter. To them. Or all of the above.

But I think the real reason cops don’t want citizens to keep and bear arms is that they hate guns. The whole concept of shooting someone scares them. They see lethal force as a ticket to a nightmare investigation and the potential loss of their job. And they can’t have that. What’s more (or less), they suck at using them. They have no confidence in their gunfighting skills. And rightly so. So they think no one else can handle a gun, either.

An armed citizenry is only a threat to a certain type of cop. The kind of cop who shouldn’t be charged with protecting our children. What’s your take?


  1. avatar Vincit Veritas says:

    Agree. If you’re responsible enough to carry a gun anywhere, you’re responsible enough to carry a gun everywhere.

  2. avatar A Critic says:

    That cops—yes, even rent-a-cops—would favor individuals protecting themselves by exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

    That doesn’t make any sense. Cops are part of the state and they are tripping on power (worst drug in the world). Rent-a-cops are often pathetic losers desperately clinging to their pretense of being the same as their thug heros (the rest of the rent-a-cops are usually just people working a job, some are actually security guards).

    But I think the real reason cops don’t want citizens to keep and bear arms is that they hate guns. And they suck at using them.

    No as a rule. “Don’t steal – the government hates competition” can logically be expanded to “Don’t have power – the government hates competition.”

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Yes, well, there is that.

  3. avatar Roger.45 says:

    Control and power is what it’s all about. The campus police official in the picture has the look of scorn on his face because allowing students to be armed infringes on his domain.

    Most people in academia who are against allowing concealed carry present the Saul Alinsky rule of, “Clothe your argument in a moral garment.” They say the concern is for the safety of those not carrying and possible collateral damage. I guess it’s to hell with the safety of one who is licensed to carry but is forbidden to do so.

    The state legislatures would never consider forcing their universities to have to assume 100% liability for institutions that do not allow concealed carry. They would be “shooting-themselves-in-the-foot” (no pun intended) because the universities are funded by the states.

    Many, not all, university chancellors, campus police chiefs, politicians, etc., are just despots that are zealously guarding their fiefdoms sometimes injecting personal political beliefs. This is clearly evident by the number of stars on the chief’s collar… more stars than the West Texas night sky.

  4. avatar tdiinva says:

    There is some logic to the State’s position. It only allows faculty and staff to be armed. I wouldn’t trust your average college professor with a butter knife let alone a firearm.

  5. avatar Magoo says:

    RF asks: “What Kind of Cop Opposes Campus Carry?”

    Well, RF, many in the law enforcement community believe that when a firearm is introduced into an environment, that firearm is far more likely to do harm than it is to do good. You may disagree, but there is a fairly sound statistical basis for that point of view. There’s your key point of resistance, and therefore the most effective point to focus your powers of persuasion.

    What absolutely won’t work: demonizing law enforcement officers, or using baseless speculation to impugn their motives. This can only alienate the members of the law enforcement community who are sympathetic to your cause, while marginalizing your position among society at large. If you don’t want to be considered outlaws in your own community, stop thinking, speaking, and acting like outlaws. Carry yourselves like grownups, and the world will be more inclined to regard you as grownups.

    1. avatar Jordan says:

      “Well, RF, many in the law enforcement community believe that when a firearm is introduced into an environment, that firearm is far more likely to do harm than it is to do good. You may disagree, but there is a fairly sound statistical basis for that point of view.”

      Can you point me to some of these “fairly sound” statistics? I would like to read up on them.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:


      We do know this. There are about 2 million reported crimes foiled by armed citizens. Some of the crimes would have resulted in the death of a victim at the hands of a criminal. Deaths that don’t happen don’t get reported.

      The irresponsible armed citizen is myth (or perhaps wishful thinking) held by gun control advocates. There were at least two armed citizens who intervented in the Giffords shooting. Neither discharged a weapon. This the norm not the exception.

      1. avatar Magoo says:

        I don’t know there are “about 2 million reported crimes foiled by armed citizens.” In proportion to the overall crime rates the claim seems ludicrous.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          As pointed out above things that don’t happen don’t get counted in the statistics. A crime stopped doesn’t mean a gun used. Like all predators criminals generally don’t follow through when they can get hurt. That is why States that allow their citizens to own guns have lower rates of hot burglaries. A crime foiled doesn’t equal a criminal stopped. It may only mean that you aren’t the victim.

          So tell us blind one, have you ever owned a firearm?

        2. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          Lets see, DOJ Firearms Use by Offenders 1997, published Nov 2001 shows when felons use a firearm in a violent crime only 15-18% of the time did they pull the trigger.

          Funny how multiple police reports show this trend to be consistent in ANY incident where they had to pull their weapon.

          These police firearm discharge reports show that of the 15% of the time they discharged their firearm was the target hit. Are you going to verify that the civilians and bad guys are better shots than the police, much less have any data to prove that ratio has changed, nah, didn’t think so.

          Let’s see, our government recognizes that over 70% of violent crimes are not reported, USDOJ National Victimization report 2008. USDOJ National Victimization Report 2008

          We see from hospital & FBI UCR data for example there were 12,252 murders and 70,000 injuries in 2008 from shootings.

          Oh don’t forget that the US government acknowledges 80% of all violent crimes are committed by career criminals/gang members.

          So, since the cops and the bad guys only pull the trigger on 15% of the time, and the cops verify that at best they only hit their target 15% of the time the shot, care to work the numbers eh?

          Make sure you work from the actual number of deaths as calculating off of how many violent crimes are reported like the FBI UCR 2008 data shows only 381,000 reported incidents. Yeah when you work backwards using the 15% of times shots fired and 15% of times shots fired is the target hit from 381,000 you only end up with about 8,300 total deaths and injuries.

          Since the hard data shows 82,252 actual total injuries, you have to work off that total.

          So unless you can disprove the hospital data, any of the data presented above, the police studies you have an impossible problem showing much less proving all those millions incidents where no shots were fired did not occur.

    3. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Your second point resonates. But I’m not quite there. I’ve got anger issues with people who are paid to uphold the law yet withhold its protections from those who pay their salaries and authorize THEM to carry a firearm. As for the risk of a firearm being greater than its benefits, how do I put this delicately? Tough shit. The onus is on gun control advocates to prove that an American citizen should be denied his or her Second Amendment rights. And even if they can prove (good luck) that the risk – reward ratio favors disarmament, how did I put this before? Tough shit. A right is a right is a right. Yes, there are limits. You cannot use your firearm to threaten or murder an innocent person. But proactive crime prevention is a ticket to tyranny. As the men who created and ratified the U.S. Constitution knew well. Hence the Second Amendent and that “shall not infringe” bit. A view shared by the framers of the state constitutions as well. Including Tennessee.

    4. avatar james says:

      “Well, RF, many in the law enforcement community believe that when a firearm is introduced into an environment, that firearm is far more likely to do harm than it is to do good. You may disagree, but there is a fairly sound statistical basis for that point of view.

      1. Where is this statistical evidence? I’ve never seen – or even heard of it. I see it alluded to all the time, so it has to be out there… but where?

      2. There’s also iron-clad statistical evidence that if I were to have you stand in a bucket of ice water and then set your head on fire, statistically speaking, you should feel fine overall.

    5. avatar TL671 says:

      There are already at least 71 campuses in three separate states that allow concealed carry on campus, with Utah having allowed it for more than five years now, with a grand total of ZERO incidences of a permit holder being involved in either a crime, or an accident. So, where exactly is your fairytale, oops I mean “fairly sound statistical basis” that those permitted to carry add to the danger? So, there is actual empirical evidence, and fact to support concealed carry on campus, with nothing but fear mongering, lies, and emotion to oppose it.

  6. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    “But proactive crime prevention is a ticket to tyranny” This is absolutely true, you just have to watch the movie MINORITY REPORT where they would charge you with a crime that you were going to commit in the future.

    1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

      Joe, That almost sounds like you’re making fun of Robert for saying such a silly thing. “Tyranny,” is that what you guys are really worried about.

      Magoo said it exactly right. Guns in an environment, any environment, are more likely to be used for harm than good. Many of you have admitted as much but then fall back on 1. it’s my Constitutional right, or 2. the possible downside of not being armed is so great IF the bad thing happens.

      tdiinva, no one except the most extreme fanatics believes in the 2 million you mentioned. Just read the news, man. And don’t give me that brandishing bullshit. Those are offset by the criminal brandishings which also go unreported. The true DGU is a rare bird, and you know it. Think of your own personal experience and that of all the commenters and readers on this blog. How many DGU events have we heard about?

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Really? Ever looked at the armed citizen column. It happens all the time.

        If guns are alway dangerous then why does Northern Virginia where open carry is legal have a much lower crime rate then DC where it’s nearly impossible to own a gun? Why is Virginia safer than Illinois? Why does the US with its weak to non-existent gun laws have the lowest rates of violent crime then any other English speaking country? Why do the Canadian Prarie Provinces have higher violent crime rates than the adjacent US States despite being demographically similar?

        1. avatar Matt says:

          “why does Northern Virginia where open carry is legal have a much lower crime rate then DC where it’s nearly impossible to own a gun?”

          Demographics. Northern VA is much more affluent than much of DC is.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Ever driven down the Route 1 corridor or visited Arlandia or parts of Alexandria? How about the Manasass area where M-13 hangs out or Seven Corners where Vietnamese and Hispanic gangs lurk. Northwest Washington is demographically more affluent then Arlington yet it has a higher crime rate. Arlington is actually more accessible to Southeast then is Northwest.

  7. avatar Magoo says:

    We’ve been through this before. 2A is not and never was unbounded or absolute. Jurisdictions can and will prohibit firearms in various locales, including campuses, and the Supreme Court will uphold it. You are only describing how you think the Second Amendment should be interpreted, not how it is interpreted. Your dream world, not the real world.

    If you don’t supply the public with confidence that you can handle your firearms responsibly, it will resist your efforts to carry them. That’s only how it is.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Except you can provide no evidence that the norm for firearms owners is not responsible use.

    2. avatar Jordan says:

      “We’ve been through this before. 2A is not and never was unbounded or absolute. Jurisdictions can and will prohibit firearms in various locales, including campuses, and the Supreme Court will uphold it. You are only describing how you think the Second Amendment should be interpreted, not how it is interpreted.”

      None of that is in the 2A, and as a matter of speaking is very easy to “interpret”, unless of course you do not like what it says. When I tell you it is the right of the people to have free speech, what do you interpret that as? Now just replace free speech with bear arms. I understood this in middle school history classes, I dont understand why that is so complicated.

  8. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    Magoo, you said “We’ve been through this before. 2A is not and never was unbounded or absolute. Jurisdictions can and will prohibit firearms in various locales, including campuses, and the Supreme Court will uphold it. You are only describing how you think the Second Amendment should be interpreted, not how it is interpreted. Your dream world, not the real world. “. I think that Robert is spot on throughout this thread and that it is you that is dreaming. Seriously, how many gun owners do you really know, in the flesh that is, not in your imagination.

    The fact of the matter is that no one I know believes that all LEO’s are JBTs on a power trip, but a small minority of them are and they are the ones that need to be watched very closely. Anyone who would deny your essential, fundamental human and civil rights, regardless of what paper instrument codifies them, is not your friend, no matter what their beliefs or intentions are.

  9. avatar jay says:

    How about this, what makes a college different from a restaurant, mall or street. Here’s the argument i hear against campus carry, guns don’t belong in the classroom, why not? i love to hear why not, because while I’m discussing something in English class I’ll just whip out my gun and go crazy. Come on wake up.

    1. avatar Matt says:

      Because people get very very drunk at college quite often, which they don’t at malls or in restaurants, generally. The gun doesn’t just go away after the student carries it to class. He has to store it in his dorm room where it is easily accessible to him or his friends who know it’s there when some drunk kid does something stupid, which happens all the time at college.

      1. avatar Robert Farago says:

        Again, 21 yrs. old minimum. So not your entry-level student. Also, deal with it. It’s a right. What part of shall not be infringed is causing trouble here?

      2. avatar AntiCitizenOne says:

        Let’s get this straight.

        This particular CCW holder has gone through all the hoops and training classes to be well-composed and know when to draw his firearm. He is perfectly capable in your classroom or in the dining hall. Yet to you, he somehow cannot distinguish another drunk person (let alone an alcoholic beverage containr), nor has the common sense to allow total strangers/unqualified individuals to handle his firearm, even though the training he/she goes through requires the same faculties of pattern recognition for identifying threats?

        And in this case, if you’re worried about the dorm rooms, perhaps you don’t really care about off-campus housing, either.

      3. avatar AntiCitizenOne says:

        And as far as I know – many colleges do not ALLOW alcohol in dormitories – so that point is pretty much moot.

      4. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

        3 states, 71 universities all with concealed carry, so where are all these blood baths, we will wait for your data.

        1 year still waiting
        10 years still waiting
        20 years still waiting

        Headlines, Headlines read all about it, anti gun person supplies REAL government data proving concealed carry is a risk and Hell promptly freezes over, headlines, headlines read all about it!:)

  10. avatar Martin Albright says:

    I have a real problem with that photo. There’s no reason a police officer in uniform should be allowed to advocate for a political cause, no matter how strongly he feels about it. To me the officer wearing the “Campus NO” button is no different from him wearing a “Obama for President” button, which would be, at the very least unethical and which, depending on the jurisdiction, might actually be illegal.

    Police need to remember they are civil servants. The office they hold is legally the property of the people whom they are sworn to serve, it is not the officer’s to use as a platform from which to advocate. And if that is the chief (which I presume from the 4 stars on his collar – as though he’s the commanding general of an army [rolling eyes here]) then his elected superiors need to remind him that his wearing of the button is either insubordinate or at the very least, highly improper and unprofessional.

    Unfortunately, if his superiors are the college regents, in all likelihood they are in agreement with him and therefore allow him to disgrace his office that way.

    I wonder how they would react if the chief supported concealed carry and wore a button expressing those feelings?

  11. avatar Matt says:

    College campuses are centers of drinking and irresponsibility. It is beyond me how you could possibly think that encouraging MORE guns on campus will make everyone safer. I can see how you could make the argument that a responsible student having a gun in a classroom at Virginia Tech might have saved lives. But what happens when there is a party at that student’s dorm room, and some jocks get in a fight after too many drinks? What happens when the guy walks in on his girlfriend cheating on him? True, these are situations that can happen anywhere, but they happen MUCH more frequently on college campuses and students, especially intoxicated ones, are not responsible enough to be trusted around guns.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Once again: people are too stupid, emotionally volatile and aggressive to carry a firearm. Same old elitist BS. Who are you to say they are not responsible enough? Isn’t that up to the CCW licensing authorities?

      1. avatar Matt says:

        Even if they are responsible enough 99.9% of the time, college is THE time in kids’ lives when they act in the most irresponsible manner than they ever will in their entire lives. Simply put: people get drunk and do stupid things. When I was in college, I witnessed several altercations where if someone had had a gun present, or available nearby, it would have been brandished at the very least, and quite likely someone could have been shot.

        It’s not that people are too stupid generally, or irresponsible generally to own weapons in college. It’s that while in college, people make a point of acting irresponsibly on a regular basis. Surely they can continue to learn how to handle themselves in a responsible manner without firearms present.

        1. avatar AntiCitizenOne says:

          And WHO exactly is encouraging the irresponsibility?

        2. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Again, what business is it of yours (or anyone else) to remove/infringe upon a Constitutional right guaranteed to U.S. citizens because you think 21-year-old college students are not responsible enough to carry a concealed firearm (without any statistical data to prove your point)? If you want to change the 2A, you go right ahead. Until then, respect the law of the land.

        3. avatar cmdrlimpet says:

          Hey Matt, I got one word for you: Utah…. It’s been YEARS since Utah not only began allowing concealed on college campuses, but passed laws specifically to stop any public university from circumventing the state. Guess what?! There have been no shootings, there have been no burst of gunfire in drunken revelry, there have been no wild frat parties gone wrong… Because if it happened the Brady campaign would be flapping it’s arms around saying “see we told you this was a bad idea!”

          Utah Universities are proof that (at least here) the terrible catastrophes everyone claims will happen, WILL NOT. The burden now lies on the people crying for continued disarmament to show how continuing to create areas devoid of effective self defense (which have already cost many lives) is the better alternative to the mythical brandishing and shooting that just isn’t happening where the possibility exists.

      2. avatar jay says:

        i laugh at how liberal try and attack the second but take a strict view on amendment to protect the criminals. the second amendment applies to only the military and police, yet you can say anything under the first, or not be searched at all for fourth.

    2. avatar AntiCitizenOne says:

      And if college campuses ARE centers of drinking and irresponsibility, as you are hyperbolically stating, I guess we need to rethink what college is all about, because it now CERTAINLY ISN’T higher education in your eyes.

      1. avatar AntiCitizenOne says:

        Looks like the entire education system and the culture itself needs to be reformed so this culture of “irresponsbility” can be drummed out.

    3. avatar AntiCitizenOne says:

      And based on your “cutting-edge” analysis of college students, I guess companies would be loath to hire the average college student due to their past history of irresponsibility.

      If they’re irresponsible with or without alcohol, would you even trust them with your car keys, or even their own fists?

      “Guy walks in on cheating girlfriend, jocks get into a fight” – people have been beaten within inches of their lives or even killed by beatings. No gun needed.

    4. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

      Here is a simple solution. If these chicken little pansies want to ban guns from law abiding citizens because they are afraid of something they never can see or identify, let them. As a result, if any attack does occur, the school and any who supported the ban where the next attack occurrs are to be held criminally and financially liable for failing to protect those they denied the right to defend themselves.

      All schools who ban guns must also have a statement read to every potential student, it reads as follows.

      We at ” (gun ban UNiversity)” are not recognized as a place of free thinking where a persons rights and beliefs are respected. We only expect you to learn what we teach you and expect you to fully accept that what we program (oh sorry) TEACH you is the one and only truth.

      We expect you to believe without proof that your own unsubstantaited fears are the only justification for
taking away anybody’s rights, especially if they are not one of the chosen, enlightened class of people like we are at “Gun Ban University”

      If an attack were to occur, we would expect you to die as we have disarmed you for your own safety. Especially as we have only our own unsubstantiated fears to show how only the police and government are mentally or physically capable of defnding you our loyal peasants.

      But this has a silver lining as we can then dance in your innocent blood and use all those emotions to further restrict your rights, but that is one of the costs of our necessary brain washing program at Gun ban University.

      In the end, our vast experience and teaching you how to NOT think for yourself or to not research and compare data and facts properly will help you tremendously to fit in with we, the few elitists who know what is good for everyone else.

      Have a good day and be careful if you happen upon a person defending their rights, they are easily demonized and persecuted for not obeying our false idol god, our all powerful central government!

      Yeah, that about sums up what these so called teachers that ban a person rights should be forced to have all incoming students read, what poetic justice that would be!

      1. avatar CUJO THE DOG OF WAR says:

        Semper Fi!

  12. avatar Matt says:

    “But I think the real reason cops don’t want citizens to keep and bear arms is that they hate guns. The whole concept of shooting someone scares them. They see lethal force as a ticket to a nightmare investigation and the potential loss of their job. And they can’t have that. What’s more (or less), they suck at using them. They have no confidence in their gunfighting skills. And rightly so. So they think no one else can handle a gun, either.”

    I would imagine cops – and I can tell you, as unpopular as regular police are, campus police are FAR LESS popular than that – are afraid of breaking up a party or fight in which the drunken students might be ARMED. With GUNS.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      They might be armed with guns now. Especially in Memphis. And remember: the minimum age for TN CCW is 21.

      1. avatar Matt says:

        Yes, but allowing concealed carry could only serve to increase the number of guns on campus

        1. avatar AntiCitizenOne says:

          That’s the whole point. Increasing the number of responsibly armed people on campus. From zero responsibly armed people (because they themselves are not armed) to whoever chooses to carry.

    2. avatar AntiCitizenOne says:

      And what kind of CCW holder goes DRUNK/gets drunk at a party, let alone goes out and drinks at a restaurant, or drinks at home while strapped?

      We already have laws in Virginia preventing drinking by a CCW permit holder (at least in restaurants, that is.)

  13. avatar jay says:

    the kids you see at party’s wearing tight polio shirts with flat brimmed hats, Yelling “What the hell bro don’t f*ck with my girl” are not going to the clerks office and filling for a pistol permit. You know i could get into a whole spiel about why most of these assertions are not true (current college student here) however i’ll appeal to the libertarian nature of this bent and make this argument.
    IF the drinking age was lowered to 18 or even lower this problem would not exist. Meany kids go to college from very sheltered homes and just don’t know how to handle themselves, And the drinking age being 21 forces half the undergrads to go to house party’s (shady places often, especially for the innocent girl). the house party’s are generally run by older predator guys who want young girls. most of the older kids are responsible and will go to the bars with their buddy’s or go to the party’s but not end up getting rapped or starting a fight.
    this may seem irrelevant, but most of the behavior that is cited as why the stereotypical college student can’t have a legal firearm, would be vanish over time.

  14. avatar Michael Leonard says:

    The bottom line is that everyone is on their own until help arrives.
    When you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

  15. avatar Phil says:

    Just another example of the king trying to control our bodies.

    1. avatar Phil Thrasher says:

      The 2nd Amendment is a God given, NOT man given, right. Some people forget these simple things.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email