« Gov. Margaret Spellings? | Main | It's Election Day »

As President, Thompson Would Support Gun-Toting Students


Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, who is big supporter of the National Rifle Association and an opponent of gun-control measures, came out on Sunday in favor of allowing law-abiding students to carry concealed weapons on college campuses, so long as they comply with campus and state rules. The issue came up on Meet the Press, when journalist Tim Russert asked the former Tennessee senator about allowing students to carry weapons in light of the shootings in April at Virginia Tech.

He first told Russert: "I don’t think that all students need to be carrying weapons on the school campus."

Whew! Thank goodness for that!

But Thompson added that "...some thought really needs to be given as to who should be properly qualified and permitted and, and armed on campuses and other places where large [groups of] people gather."

When pressed, Thompson said "yeah", students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus.

This has been an issue on college campuses since the violence at Virginia Tech, and in fact, students today at the University of Colorado at Boulder are protesting the school's ban on concealed weapons. The right to carry guns has also been an issue in public schools. A high school teacher in Oregon is suing so she can be allowed to carry a concealed weapon on her campus. In Michigan, a state lawmaker has introduced legislation to allow a teacher to have access to a registered gun on campus.

What do you think? Should law-abiding students and teachers be allowed to carry guns on college or K-12 school grounds?


To answer your question: Absolutely Yes. Qualified college students who have aquired lawful concealed carry permits should be allowed to carry concealed on campus. Also, qualified teachers and school administrators should also be permitted to carry concealed on all school properties. This is the only solution that would stop violent suicidal shooters from taking the lives of so many helpless innocent victims.

I believe that schools and college like every other part of society are open to possibility of violent criminal activity like armed robberies. It is because of this that people that are already have licensed to carry a concealed pistol be allowed to do so at school or at a colleges. This may or may not stop violence at these places but at very least it would give the victims a chance to defend themselves that is a basic human right. Studies have shown people trained and licensed by the state that pass FBI background are check I significantly less likely to commit violent crime than the average person with out a license to carry. Final teacher and college students which to have license are typical 21 years old or older are responsible adult and should be treat as much.

Also your title and article in general is very bias reporting.

What happened at Virginia Tech and every other school shooting is a clear example of what happens when you disarm lawful citizens who are not a threat to society: People die defenseless at the whim of any violent thug who chooses not to obey gun control laws.

Certainly no one is saying that every person should be carrying a gun. A right implies a choice of action. If someone does not wish to carry a gun, fine, that's their choice. However, they have no right to impose victim disarmament on others. There is a big difference between feeling safe and being safe.

The right to life means nothing without the right to possess the means to protect and defend one's own life.

Please, everyone knows that if the only people who have guns are criminals, we'll all be safer.

Dear Mr Thompson - hold steady. The problem at VT was a failure of leadership, not unarmed students.

The VT Policy Group had the time (2+ hours) and technology to notify the campus of two unsolved homicides in a dorm on 4-16. However, they actively chose NOT to notify.

4-16-07 was the start of the VT $1 BILLION dollar fund-raiser. Those 2 pesky murders might dampen the week’s festivities and fund-raising. The admin was more concerned about THE MONEY and “damage control” than student or faculty safety. This explains the “failure of timely notification,” followed by a flaccid e-mail of a “shooting on campus.”

While the students were not informed, VT Pres. Steger promptly notified VA Gov. Kaine’s office. Local public schools heard of a killer-at-large and were in “lockdown” long before the next Hokie victims were barricaded, with 30 murdered and 25 gunned down.

Take home point: When a money-driven administration will not notify the campus of an imminent danger, technology and packing heat are irrelevant.

Failure of leadership will always trump technology and law-abiding citizens. Go Hokies.

Law abiding citizens 21 and over should not be stripped of their rights just because they are on a campus. Not every student has to be armed to make a difference. Not even 1% has to be. Just the idea that someone might be armed would be a deterrent. Nut-jobs like the V-tech killer, are looking for the most carnage that they can exact before they are taken down or kill themselves. If college campuses have the possibility of armed students, the nut-jobs will move to a different so-called "gun-free" zone.

I think “lock downs” are fine for grade schools but college I think would be much less effective. For one thing college are full of adults and they have right to refuse to be locked down. I am not saying you should not quickly alert the campus but you can’t lock down a large campus full of adults. Also where will lock down theory end? Will we lock down entire cities every time there is a criminal disturbance? This smells a bit to much of big brother telling you what you should do for your own good. At the end of the day if you are an adult you are responsible for protecting yourself, and if you want to protect yourself with a guns you should have that option.

The Founders were clear that the militia of the Second Amendment is The People, ALL the people. "Well-regulated" in the 18th Century meant "in good working order." The right of the people stands, anywhere, any time. Licenses work very well in New York City to keep victims disarmed. There's no true gun ban, you see, you just have to have a license to buy one LEGALLY, and another to carry it LEGALLY, and five or so people a year are granted the PRIVILEGE.
Appalachian School of Law did NOT have a campus gun ban. When a failing student -- one with a history of assault against other students and faculty, and chance after chance -- decided to kill as many people as possible, two other students ran to their cars, got their own guns and he surrendered when it was clear that he could himself be shot. The media said the two "tackled" him. The death toll was THREE. Doubtless if the two rescuers had had their guns ON THEM, it could have been lower.
Like the Virginia Tech tragedy, it was just another routine day. Until.
Any time, anywhere. Cho didn't care. Sad that providing for survival is scarier to some people than mass murder.

As a Jewess in the US, I want to say that anti-gun JACKASSES like Michael Bloomberg make me ashamed to be a Jew. Let us ALL work to put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!

Of Cho's victims 11 were 21- 26 years old, 3 victims were 32-35 years old, 1 was 46, 1 was 51 and 1 was 76 years old.

Some folks panic at the thought of young, immature college students carrying a firearm . . . the victims listed above were all mature adults - citizens denied the right to protect themselves and those around them.

Yes, individuals who have a concealed carry license should have the right to carry on college campuses.

Advocating for 21 y/o adults who have undergone extensive training, fingerprinting, and background checking in order to obtain their concealed pistol license to continue to be able to carry that firearm on campus is NOT the same as pushing guns into the hands of "kids" or non-qualified students who do not possess a concealed pistol license.

Remember, no one is advocating for random students to be handed guns on admission to school. They are advocating for ADULTS OVER 21 WHO CURRENTLY HAVE CONCEALED PISTOL LICENSES (which entails meeting rigorous requirements) to simply not have to disarm when they step across the boundary of campus.

These people already lawfully carry guns to your bank, movie theater, grocery store, etc. They are not criminals. In fact, they've been shown to be 5 times LESS likely than an ordinary citizen to commit a violent crime--which is even better than police!

The people who illegally carry guns, like the Virginia Tech killer, obviously ignore the "gun free zone" policy and seek such areas for maximum carnage since they know the victims will be disarmed.

How often do mass shootings take place at shooting ranges or police stations? What about court houses, schools, churches, etc.? The latter are "gun free zones," which is why they occur there.

Licensed concealed pistol carriers are the most trustworthy and law abiding citizens in this country as statistics prove. Licensed pistol carriers are committed to not becoming a victim by capably defending themselves against another person that threatens deadly force. It is sad that a VT student could not have defended him/herself and saved many lives on that fateful day.

Licensed concealed pistol carriers are the most trustworthy and law abiding citizens in this country as statistics prove. Licensed pistol carriers are committed to not becoming a victim by capably defending themselves against another person that threatens deadly force. It is sad that a VT student could not have defended him/herself and saved many lives on that fateful day.

Absolutely, any person who can legally carry a concealed weapon off campus should be allowed to carry one on campus as well, be they a student, faculty member, staff member, or visitor.

I think students should be allowed to carry on campus. Police do not prevent crime they react to it. Allowing students to protect themselves only makes sense.

You ask: "What do you think? Should law-abiding students and teachers be allowed to carry guns on college or K-12 school grounds?" These are two separate questions.

At colleges, all adults should be accorded all the rights that they have in the larger society. In Virginia, that means that those who are at least 21 years old, and who have completed the required training and background checks, should have the right to carry sidearms. If these rights are denied, are you willing to pay the estates of those who are murdered because you denied them their right of self-defense?

As far as k-12 schools are concerned, of course students should not be allowed to carry, but of course properly qualified adults should be allowed to do so.

College campuses should not be allowed to strip responsible adults of their constitutional right to self-defense. Especially those adults whom have passed all the criminal background checks and have taken the required training class to obtain their concealed handgun permit. Disarming the general public just creates "victim zones" for criminals to wreak havoc upon. After all, when an act of violence can happen in mere seconds, the police are only minutes away.

Have you noticed any trends in these comments? I have. I've read article after article with the standard "media" bias that guns are bad, then ask for people to vote in a poll or comment. Every one I've seen to date has been over 90% pro carry for adults with licenses. Interesting the media doesn't bother to admit this wouldn't you agree?

Most points have been well covered, but let me mention some differently and another not mentioned.

If a 21 yr old student has a CHP in Va, and is carrying when off campus, at their apartment (remember, most Juniors/Seniors live off campus, not on), gas stations, restaurants, movies, Wal-Mart, etc., and not a ONE has ever improperly shot another person, why do you think they'll do so on campus? As for the partying argument, most parties occur OFF CAMPUS, and yet, I've never heard of a CHP carrier shooting up an off campus party. again, Why is it suddenly going to happen on campus? It's an illogical argument. The CHP carrier is also WAY too worried about breaking the law, because it's not terribly hard to loose that RIGHT to carry, and have the license revoked. We don't go thru the hoops to then walk out and do something idiotic and loose that Right.

Real life example. Read up on the "21 yr old" VCU student whom a month or so ago shot a burglar who was trying to rob the Baskin Robbins he manages. His store had been robbed a couple weeks earlier by the same person, who was robbing numerous stores in that same shopping center over a period of weeks. This time, he came in with a gun, I believe it was a BB gun, but it's not like you're going to notice that right away. The ADULT 21 yr old student pulled his conceal carry gun, and shot the burglar as he ran across the parking lot. Technically, this is considered inappropriate as we aren't "allowed" to shoot a threat in the back. But last week the Grand Jury acquitted him of disorderly discharge of a firearm, showing that the PEOPLE want their RIGHT to self protection protected, because simply put, the Police, simply can't be everywhere, or anywhere, quick enough. Only the Victim of a crime can ever ALWAYS be there, so only a VICTIM can ever ALWAYS have the chance of thwarting a crime.

That's one of the reasons our Founders put in the 2nd Amendment, along with the need of "civilians" to form a militia (which is NOT a standing state run Army). A militia is armed by the members, not the state, so if the people aren't allowed guns to own, they can't possibly form a militia. If ever our "military" attempted a coup, who but the "armed" citizenry could oppose them? Another reason the "People" need to be as adamant about the 2nd Amendment as the 1st. Oh, and without the 2nd, the 1st would go bye bye not terribly long after. First to be censored would be religious types, then over time every voice in opposition to the group in power. You can't fight the "state" when you have not the tools to do so, and "voting" wouldn't cut it if the 1st Amendment were trashed along with the 2nd.

Please think before you act, because making assumptions too quickly can lead to very bad things happening. Just ask the People's of Britain and Australia, who no longer have the ability to protect themselves and have violent crime at all time highs.

A student can be barred from carrying a gun at HIS OWN SCHOOL that he PAYS MONEY TO ATTEND, but he can not be prohibited from carrying that gun at any other college in VA as long as he has a valid permit.
The VA Attorney General has stated that public colleges CAN NOT universally ban weapons, so this administrative ban only applies to students and staff (staff aren't generally considered to be binge drinkers).
Such a ban MIGHT seem logical for undergraduates on campus, since most of these students are not old enough to obtain a CHP and do live within the alternative lifestyle of college partyers, but is quite illogical when applied to off-property housing, graduate schools, and commuter colleges.
This "ban" makes absolutely no sense.
The only gun restriction I would endorse would be to ban student "open carry" of handguns so that only those old enough to obtain a CHP could be armed. This of course should not apply to guns in vehicles, as students may be in transit to or from hunting, and otherwise shouldn't be denied their rights off campus.

Comments are now closed for this post.

Follow This Blog


Most Viewed on Education Week



Recent Comments