COLUMN: Conceal and carry could defuse campus violence

Friday, October 15, 2010 | 10:23 a.m. CDT; updated 6:25 p.m. CDT, Sunday, October 17, 2010

* The headline for this column has been changed to more accurately reflect the writer's views.

Imagine you're sitting in class at MU and someone with a gun enters the back of the lecture hall. As the shooter starts spraying bullets into the crowd, the entire body of students is completely defenseless as the scene unfolds. People try to run but no one can successfully get away during the chaos.  

If someone calls the police, it would take a few minutes for an officer to arrive. How many lives could be taken or seriously harmed in those minutes? And that’s if the shooter doesn’t leave the room and venture across campus, like the Virginia Tech incident, putting officers on a goose chase.

If conceal and carry were allowed on campus, a student with a permit and proper defensive handgun technique could counter the shooter either by talking him or her down or, if out of other options, by force. Either way, the situation could be resolved in less time than it could take for proper security to arrive, with less injury and death to innocent people.

Sadly, Missouri’s (and America’s) reactive, rather than proactive, stance on the issue ensures that when the increasing number of incidents like this happen, more people stand the chance of dying because trust can’t be placed in 21-year-old college students. Right now, you have to be 23 years old to obtain a conceal and carry permit in Missouri.

Looking through comments on news stories dealing with conceal and carry on campus, most people immediately bring up the worst possible things that could happen if students were allowed to carry guns on campus. Some of these examples include students shooting people from stress, students using the weapons while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, non-carrying students being worried about other people having guns around them and students accidentally shooting people.

Allow me to shoot some holes (excuse the pun) in these arguments.

College is stressful, no doubt, but so is life, whether you’re in college or not. Perhaps students should all be locked in padded rooms without sharp objects during every finals week? Remember when the professor at the University of Alabama took a gun to her staff meeting after being denied tenure?

The possibility of students using guns while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is frightening, but people use cars every day under the influence. Should legislatures take away all the cars in the U.S. because only a percentage of the population is too irresponsible to use them correctly? Is this kindergarten?

If students who decide not to participate in conceal and carry are worried about others around them having guns, think about this - the law is called conceal and carry. It’s not pull your guns and show people you’re carrying. Nothing will look physically different on campus because weapons would be concealed in bags, pockets or on holsters under students’ clothes. How do you know someone beside you in class doesn’t have a knife in his or her pocket? You don’t, but it’s not something you think about because you never see the weapon.

In the same sense, muggers have no idea if the person they're about to mug has martial arts or self defense training. If everyone in the U.S. underwent proper self defense training, muggers would probably think again before acting. If college students were allowed to carry weapons, the same thing would happen. Cowardly school shooters understand that people are completely defenseless when they strike. We don't have to be.

The last comment is my favorite – someone accidentally shooting someone else. It does seem to be a recurring event, especially with children who find their parents' guns, which are most likely not locked up or properly put away like they should be. Even a former vice president accidentally shot someone. A comment I read once on a news story mentioned something about how the last thing students need is for someone to accidentally shoot someone else in the back of the head while adjusting his or her iPod in class.

That doesn’t even make sense.

In case you’ve never handled a gun before, and, ironically, it seems like a lot of people who weigh in negatively on the conceal and carry argument haven’t, guns have these devices called safeties on them. It’s a switch you flip so even if you pull the trigger, nothing will happen. One of the first things you learn when operating a gun is to never disengage the safety unless you have the gun pointed at something you intend to shoot, whether it be a burglar or a paper target. It’s equivalent to how one would turn the spray nozzle to "on" with a can of pepper spray before using it. How many people have pepper spray at MU? How many times has someone accidentally been sprayed while adjusting his or her iPod?

Although you can’t guarantee someone would keep the safety engaged on a gun, you can’t guarantee anything in this world. Will the person in the car behind you brake when you do? Maybe not 100 percent of the time, but the percentage probably doesn't dwindle below 95.

The last thing to which I want to draw attention is the common thought that if conceal and carry on campus ever passes, suddenly a gun and a permit will magically fall into every student’s lap. That will not happen. It’s like getting a driver’s license and a car.

Tim Oliver, who has been teaching defensive handgun and conceal and carry classes for more than 30 years, gave me the rundown on all the prices and procedures for conceal and carry in Columbia. You have to take an eight-hour class and pass a test in order to get a permit. You have to pay (although prices vary based on location) about $125 for the class and $11 for the permit. You also pay up to $100 for a very thorough background check. Buying the actual gun hasn’t even been brought into the equation, yet.

Oliver believes most quality handguns start at $300 and go up from there, although there are cheaper ones available.

“Your life is worth more than a cheap gun,” Oliver said.

Then comes the ammunition and the holster, should you choose to purchase one. At this point, an estimate of more than $500 is already wrapped up in getting everything for the permit and weapon. Can every college student afford that?

The process of getting a conceal and carry permit and a gun isn’t easy. It takes time, commitment, money and work — as it should.

If someone is going to shoot up a school campus, do you honestly think he or she is going to go through all of the trouble to pay for a class, pass it and pay for the background check and pass it and then get a gun just to kill innocent people? Hell no. He or she is going to cut the red tape and walk directly onto campus with a gun, ready to fire away.

Some people seem to think that 21 year olds aren’t mature enough to defensively handle a gun, yet they can have knives, cars, pepper spray and defend our country in the armed forces. It’s OK for Americans to defend our country as a whole, but not ourselves as individuals?

Corey Motley is a columnist for the Columbia Missourian, reviews video games for Vox Magazine and blogs about them on He's also an avid Twitter user under the name coreymotley. He's not strong enough to defend himself against a mugger, but he can handle a handgun with ease and precision.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Robert Partyka October 15, 2010 | 11:42 a.m.

We don't need students being heroes. Thats what we have MUPD for. Sure they might take upwards of a minute to arrive, but hell at least they're gonna be properly trained for the situation. This is the most ridiculous idea I've heard in a long time. A crowded campus is NO PLACE for concealed weapons. Maybe you should drink a little Cory, might knock some sense into you.

(Report Comment)
Kristin Collins October 15, 2010 | 12:06 p.m.

First of all, "drink a little?" That will definitely help "knock some sense" into him. Nice. Have you read anything on instances where gunmen have come onto a school campus? The police were called immediately, and several innocent lives were taken because the only thing the people being attacked could do was run and hide. Columbine: 13 people killed, many more severely injured. V. Tech: 32 people killed, several more injured. Imagine if someone had stood up with a gun and faced the perpetrator? I'm sure your opinion of this subject being "ridiculous" would be different if someone you knew was killed or injured in this way.

Corey, I totally agree with you, to a certain extent. I do believe that conceal and carry should be legal on campus. There have been way too many instances where people have died simply because there was no defense by the people being attacked. This I agree with.

However, I do believe that if are going to allow weapons on campus, that they cannot just fall into the hands of someone who simply takes an eight hour class and a test (we have seen what this has done on the roads, much like you said). I feel that for someone to carry a weapon of this caliber, they must prove themselves to be responsible enough. Some sort of level system perhaps? For example: They must have a gun for a year before they can bring it on campus. Or they must prove they can use it properly, as well as know how to properly clean and maintain the gun (as this has caused many accidents as well). I definitely agree with conceal and carry on campus, but I do believe that limitations on who has them should be stricter on school property.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 15, 2010 | 12:45 p.m.

This matter has come up before, and my comment is the same now that it was then. If MU wants to allow concealed weapons on their campus, fine, but DON'T MAKE THIS A UNIVERSITY SYSTEM (all four campuses) REQUIREMENT. EACH CAMPUS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IT WANTS TO DO.

We have campuses in this System where the faculty and students aren't idiots. Thank God for that.

(Report Comment)
Josh Kayser October 15, 2010 | 1:47 p.m.

I applaud you for writing this Mr. Motley. My only hope is that the Journalism School, with their liberal agenda, does not chastise you for not being on of the brainwashed students they are used to having in the classes.

The piece people forget to mention is that it is NOT A CRIME to carry concealed on a campus in Missouri. However, the dilemma a student will face is that, if caught, you can bet your life that Mr. Brady Deaton and the University of Missouri will expel you and publicly make an example out of you.

Keep it high and tight while on campus and if a situation ever arises where you need to protect yourself with force you could be a prime example for pro campus carry and finally get it approved for those too scared of expulsion to take their life into their own hands.

RSMO 571-107
17.2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense.

(Report Comment)
W. Scott Lewis October 15, 2010 | 1:55 p.m.

Anyone who is genuinely interested in or concerned about this issue should visit and look at the facts, statistics, and arguments supporting the legalization of licensed concealed carry (of handguns) on college campuses.

This is a complicated issue that deserves more than a knee-jerk response and can't be summed up by simplistic comments such as "A crowded campus is NO PLACE for concealed weapons."

(Report Comment)
Kate Long October 15, 2010 | 2:16 p.m.

I feel that anyone trying to say the training and background check are not sufficient to carry a gun really should take the course. Not only does the course go over basic gun safety, it goes over awareness of your surroundings, makes sure you are proficient in using both a revolver and a semi automatic. Even if they never intend to get their permit, It would be an eye opener. Many people don't understand enough about guns to make an argument against them.

As said above the whole point of the "Conceal" part of the law is that others don't know you are carrying a gun.

(Report Comment)
Michael Grinfeld October 15, 2010 | 3:52 p.m.

Mr. Kayser is correct that the School of Journalism operates under an agenda. I thought it would be helpful for him to see its provisions. And while some of the language may appear anachronistic to some, the spirit it communicates is still relevant more than 100 years after the school's founding:

I believe in the profession of journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one's own pocketbook is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another's instructions or another's dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds best -- and best deserves success -- fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today's world.

As a result of our following this agenda, both Mr. Motley and Mr. Kayser have a forum in which to express their ideas. Seems like a good thing to me, one that doesn't deserve the negative attributions Mr. Kayser makes.

(Report Comment)
Robert Partyka October 15, 2010 | 4:27 p.m.

I'm sure if we put it to a student vote, the students, the ones most affected by a concealed carry law, would throw it out quite quickly. And my apologies to Corey about my "drink a little" comment. It was in response to his previous 'don't judge me because I abstain from alcohol and am gay' column I was in the wrong to say that. Sorry.

My point is this, if we allow concealed handguns on campus and an event does arise, we will have untrained (as opposed to police officers and SWAT team members), unexperienced, (and for the most part new) gun owners (if the law is 21, most college students will not of had a license for more than 1-3 years) handling a situation that is extremely dangerous. We don't need to have students fighting back, especially when they don't have the training on using a gun in said situation. Maybe we could do this: appoint a small number of students to have cc licenses, have them take a class on using a gun in a situation like VT or Columbine and then let them walk around campus with guns. We don't need anyone with a cc license to have a gun on campus, especially if they are untrained. Thoughts?

(Report Comment)
W. Scott Lewis October 15, 2010 | 9:03 p.m.

Robert Partyka commented, "I'm sure if we put it to a student vote, the students, the ones most affected by a concealed carry law, would throw it out quite quickly."

The beauty of a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy, is that the rights of a minority are not subject to the whims of the majority. If this nation and/or its fifty states were governed solely by majority rule, certain segments of the population never would have gained the right to vote, and public schools would still be segregated.

One of the basic tenets of a free society is that the people are not denied a right unless there is empirical evidence that granting the right will do more harm than good. Another tenet of a free society is that the burden of proof is always placed on those seeking the denial of a right.

(Report Comment)
W. Scott Lewis October 15, 2010 | 9:03 p.m.

Mr. Partyka also commented, "[I]f we allow concealed handguns on campus and an event does arise, we will have untrained (as opposed to police officers and SWAT team members), unexperienced, (and for the most part new) gun owners (if the law is 21, most college students will not of had a license for more than 1-3 years) handling a situation that is extremely dangerous."

Nobody is suggested that concealed handgun license holders be tasked with "handling" a campus shooting (or any other situation). What is being suggested is that trained, licensed, carefully screened adults be allowed the same means of personal protection on campus that they're already allowed off campus.

Concealed handgun license holders are not vigilantes or wannabe cops, and they don't carry concealed handguns so that they can chase after bad guys like amateur one-man SWAT teams. They carry for PERSONAL protection.

I don't know about the training offered in Missouri, but in Texas an applicant for a concealed handgun license is specifically trained NOT to seek out an active shooter (

This blog posts elaborates on my point:

According to a 1997 FBI study, most shootouts last less than ten seconds. It's absurd to assume that ten seconds of exchanged gunfire could possibly lead to greater loss of life than a ten-minute uncontested, execution-style massacre like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech. It's equally absurd to assume that police would arrive (during that ten-second window) to encounter an ongoing shootout and be unable to discern the good guys from the bad guys. And as I already pointed out, it's absurd to assume that concealed handgun license holders would be running around, guns drawn, looking for the shooter.

So what is the justification for prohibiting licensed concealed carry on campus?

Every peer-reviewed study on the issue--including studies by the National Academy of Sciences and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center--has found no evidence that licensed concealed carry leads to an increase in violent crime. Seventy-one U.S. college campuses currently allow licensed concealed carry on campus. Thirty-three of those campuses have allowed it for an average of five years; the other thirty-eight began allowing it at the beginning of this semester. Not one of those campuses has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft.

So, what is the justification for prohibiting licensed concealed carry on college campuses?

More information:

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 16, 2010 | 4:25 a.m.

There are at least two reasons why it would be a bad idea for the university - that's the university, not its students - to adopt a policy of sanctioning students to carry firearms on campus.

LITIGATION: Should lawsuits take place as the result of an incident the university will have added legal liability because it sanctioned the carrying of firearms. If students were carrying firearms in violation of school policy that makes the university's legal defense easier.

INSURANCE: What would the university's insurers have to say about a policy of allowing students to carry guns on campus? If an insurer didn't refuse to provide coverage they might at the very least significantly increase premiums.

A state university that presently cannot pay its faculty the medium compensation for AAUP universities certainly doesn't need additional lawsuits or significantly higher insurance premiums.

Here's a "homework" exercise. First, determine the total number of students presently (or in some recent year) enrolled at all accredited four-year colleges and universities in the United States (we'll leave out junior colleges). Next, add up all the reported firearms deaths (include suicides) for the year in question at all the colleges and universities.

Divide the deaths by the number of students; multiply that result by 100. (Calculus or differential equations are not required.)

Small number, isn't it? Isn't your proposed solution a bit like attempting to kill flies by using a shotgun? You'll probably kill some flies, but what about the collateral damage?

[Finally, I repeat my request that if this gun-toting policy is adopted at MU that the other three campuses should not be forced to follow.]

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush October 16, 2010 | 2:18 p.m.

The most dangerous place in the city is our local police station. In 2009, our law enforcers averaged 2 accidental firearm discharges per month.
Finally, when law enforcement arrive on a scene of violence, I don't want them to have to sort out who the "good guys" with the guns are from the "bad guys" with the guns. Precious moments can be lost. I want my law enforcers who arrive on a violent scene to neutralize every threat.

(Report Comment)
Chris Meissen October 16, 2010 | 2:24 p.m.

Whenever this subject comes up, college students are always portrayed as untrustworthy, irresponsible, and immature. Yet any student capable of obtaining a CCW permit is old enough to be considered an adult, to marry, to join and fight in the military, and most importantly to vote on who will lead our State and country. But somehow they are too immature to be trusted with the means of self defense?

I find that attitude insulting, demeaning and unbelievably arrogant and elitist especially when it's espoused by the faculty who are paid to teach these students. We are not talking about kindergarten students. We are talking about legal adults, many of whom are "non-traditional" students well out of their twenties.

None of the fears espoused with respect to CCW in general society at the time CCW was enacted in Missouri have been fulfilled. After six years, CCW permittees, including those attending college, have shown themselves to be safe and responsible. It's time to stop denying responsible people the right to defend themselves simply because they choose to continue their education.

(Report Comment)
W. Scott Lewis October 16, 2010 | 3:23 p.m.

Ellis Smith, the law can be drafted in a way so as to absolve colleges and universities of liability. Such a provision was included in the bill that almost passed the Texas legislature in 2009 (it passed the Senate by a wide margin but died in the House, where it had overwhelming support, do to a filibuster of an unrelated bill). If a public college doesn't have a choice as to whether or not to allow licensed concealed carry (which it shouldn't--state-funded institutions shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily refuse to honor state-issued licenses), nobody can claim that the college "sanctioned the carrying of firearms."

If every other business and institution in the U.S. that currently allows licensed concealed carry on its property is able to obtain insurance, I'm sure MU would be able to also.

It’s true that college campuses are statistically very safe, just as affluent neighborhoods are statistically very safe. But just like affluent neighborhoods, college campuses DO occasionally play host to every type of violent crime found in the rest of society, from assault to rape to murder. That being the case, what is the justification for prohibiting licensed concealed carry on college campuses?

We don’t tell concealed handgun license holders that they can’t carry concealed handguns in affluent neighborhoods, so why do we tell them that they can’t carry on college campuses? Because you are unable to show that "campus carry" will cause additional problems on Missouri college campuses, your case for prohibiting it simply doesn't hold water.

Gregg Bush, in 2007, the last year for which records are available, individuals age 21-24 (the age group most likely to carry concealed firearms on campus) accounted for fewer than 70 accidental firearm deaths NATIONWIDE. Most of those were either hunting accidents or incidents of a firearm being mishandled in the home. Because the trigger of a properly concealed, holstered firearm is not exposed, and because modern firearms are designed not to discharge if dropped, accidental discharges related to licensed concealed carry are extremely rare and almost never result in injury.

Again, every peer-reviewed study on the subject has concluded that licensed concealed carry does not lead to an increase in violent crime. And the 71 U.S. college campuses that currently allow licensed concealed carry on campus have yet to see a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats or suicides), a single resulting gun accident, or a single resulting gun theft.

Licensed concealed carry isn't causing added problems in the states where it's allowed, it's not causing added problems on the college campuses where it's allowed, and there is no reason (beyond personal prejudice) to assume that it will cause added problems at MU or any other Missouri college.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 16, 2010 | 5:05 p.m.

How long has MU been in business?

During that time, how many firearms-related deaths have occurred on the campus? Suicides too.

Injuries? YES, we all know about one celebrated injury. A freshman (male) basketball player inadvertently shot himself in the foot! He was not expelled for having the firearm. Of course not; he had an athletic scholarship.

Actually, he had a good basketball career at MU - until he and MU ran into the Iowa Hawkeyes in an NCAA March Madness tournament game.

When MU played basketball at Iowa State the Cyclone fans would yell "Bang! Bang!" every time he held the ball. Maybe that didn't bother him.

Have all the concealed weapons at MU that you wish, but let's allow the other campuses decide whether they want them or not.

(Report Comment)
Luke Poland October 17, 2010 | 12:01 a.m.

It really is disheartening to see that people believe that just because someone crossed an invisible boundary that their life is now worth less than it was before.

This is the same mentality of "blood in the streets" and "the wild west" that those who oppose concealed carry blab about before passed in a state. Yet, none of this occurs.

It seems that the mentality is that someone holding a concealed carry permit automatically becomes some super vigilante waiting to thwart crime at any opportunity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I, just as you or anyone else, have the right to defend our lives if we are ever in the face of danger by another. To say that just because someone crossed some imaginary line their right to self preservation has now ended is immature at best.

Citizens who seek to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon are not the ones you need to worry about. Said citizens must pass 8 hours of instruction, which covers not only firearm safety and a proficiency test, but thoroughly covers the laws in Missouri as well as how to properly conduct themselves in the threat of danger. They are taught that their last resort, once all others have been exhausted, is the additional tool they will be allowed to carry once they pass their criminal background investigation.

Simply stating that there has not been an incident of an active shooter at any given location is incredibly immature and selfish. Just because there has not been an incident does not anoint that location from what could happen tomorrow or next week. Tell that to the students at Virginia Tech, I'm sure they would be relieved that since there hadn't been an attack there, they would never have to face the reality of the real world we all live in where bad people do bad things.

No, really, let me know how that works out for you. Not so well, huh?

The hard, cold reality is that the bad man can come at any given moment. We do not get to choose when, where, why or how. To sit there and say that someone's life is worthless really shows about ones true character. To say that just because they crossed some invisible line that they now just have to "take it" and deal with being a fish in a barrel is purely ludicrous.

None of the fears that those opposed to concealed carry cry about have materialized.

The reality is that the dangers of the world we live in, that those who support concealed carry warn of, materialize every single day. Even here in Columbia.

People do irresponsible things every day. Should we now take away cars? How about cell phones? Maybe we should take away the internet too, as I'm sure somebody just irresponsibly wrote something bad about someone else and made them cry.

The right answer is not to infringe upon responsible people, but to take actions against those who fail to live up to their responsibilities.

People should not be forced to be a victim.

(Report Comment)
Nathan Redelfs October 17, 2010 | 7:11 p.m.

Hi all, I just wanted to leave my two cents here. There are arguments on both sides of the fence. I believe that students who legally hold a CCW license should not be barred the right to carry while on campus.

To Gregg Bush,

Two things: first, if the SWAT team or police officers are not trained in how to deal with multiple armed people, then they are not being trained well enough. This is standard training. Standard training is also to "neutralize" the threats, or possible threats. This isn't as much as an issue as you'd like to think.

The way the training goes, CCW permit holders are trained to identify the target before all else, therefore not pointing it at a friendly, and definitely not at the police. Second, CCW Permit holders are trained to obey to the letter any orders given by the police. Most incidents happen very quickly, because the decision to defend yourself is generally very quick. Take this for example,

A shooter enters the classroom, shoots the teacher and begins to turn towards the class. When the first shot goes off, the CCW holder (student) reacts, identifies the threat, draws, and fires before the gunman is able to fire on the class. He then assumes a "low-ready" position and dials 911, explaining the situation, describing himself and explaining that he is a CCW permit holder.

The dispatcher provides this information to the law enforcement.

Granted this is a limited scenario meant to illustrate a point.

The point is that consideration has gone into this. It's no different than police arriving on the scene of a defensive shooting elsewhere. They are trained to neutralize the threats, or possible threats. This means that when they get their, the CCW permit holder will most likely be disarmed and detained until it can be ascertained what happened.

(Report Comment)
Moian Reader34 October 19, 2010 | 3:16 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Gregg Bush October 21, 2010 | 10:50 a.m.

I'm convinced!
More lethal weapons = more safety.
What about swords? Can I carry a sword? Maybe if it's in a cane, and I have a permit?
Sounds like safety!

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 21, 2010 | 12:49 p.m.

Swords are only acceptable if concealed, WHICH MEANS YOU MUST STICK THEM SOMEWHERE. We can't have one standard for firearms and another for swords. We are in the process of preparing appropriate concealment guidelines for your assistance.

Should you choose to carry a specific type of Japanese ceremonial sword and suddenly be seized with the impulse to commit seppuku you are advised there will be a maintenance charge to your student account for cleaning up the blood in the classroom or lecture hall.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 21, 2010 | 1:07 p.m.

Does the college offer a sword swallowing course?
Then the swords can be carried around on campus in one's esophagus.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 21, 2010 | 1:24 p.m.

Don't know, Ray, but that would definitely be ONE orifice in which to insert the sword. There are others.

And if one wished to be crude, lewd and antisocial (not to mention politically incorrect) he might suggest to another sword carrier where that person should stick his sword. Nah, they only say things like that at that other campus.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush October 25, 2010 | 3:18 p.m.

Nathan Redelfs says to me: "...first, if the SWAT team or police officers are not trained in how to deal with multiple armed people, then they are not being trained well enough. This is standard training. Standard training is also to "neutralize" the threats, or possible threats. This isn't as much as an issue as you'd like to think."

1st - SWAT can't deal with retreating canines without killing them using bullets I buy for them.
2nd - you don't know me.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.