Restricting guns in these areas only serves to disarm honest, law-abiding citizens and preventing them from protecting themselves. It does absolutely nothing to curb crime (as is clearly witnessed from the amount of gun crime in/around restricted areas). Criminals do not care for laws. Why inhibit those who choose to follow them?

Biased much? Didn't notice a single comment here where a gun has saved a life, defended a home or prevented a rape. Glad the people taking the poll saw through your efforts, though.

No matter what law you write, you will always see the 'student who hides a handgun' or a knife, drugs or anything else. You don't stop them on campus, you stop them in the highchair.

Speaking on the subject of adult college students, the subject of being armed is much more than a right. Every single person has the legal authority they need to stop a crime in progress. They have the right AND the authority to come to the aid of a police officer, or another student in the absence of officers. The best example is Citizen First-aid and CPR where anyone can stand in for EMS until EMS arrives. The acceptance of training millions in Citizen CPR had the very same challenges as we see for concealed carry on campus. The challenges may be righteous, but having passed muster and having been answered, the preponderance of good public policy comes down in favor of immediacy instead of waiting for permission somehow or even waiting for police. Emergencies don't wait, whether criminally violent or medical, some of which are immediately life-threatening.

My suggestion is guns on campus for the very same reasons you would not discourage bystander CPR when it is necessary. Who would do that?

With almost 325 votes in our unscientific poll, 94 percent are in favor of revising Georgia's concealed weapons laws. What do you think?

The story is slightly misleading in that the implication is that the Therrell High School student would be allowed to carry to High School if the law passes. You have to be 21 to get a concealed weapon permit.

It is a fact, that if a criminal wants to carry a weapon into a restricted area, a gun law is unlikely to stop him. If the criminal then decides to open fire on someone, a lawfully armed citizen may very well stop him (while the police are setting up their perimeters and trying to establish lines of communication and determining which agency has overall command and control authority).

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"

Thanks,
Rick Moser

As unintentional as it was, you're right Rick in that part of the story being misleading. Thanks for pointing out and the correction has been made. And your other point concerning criminals is a sad truth, too.

Understanding that time is critical is the first step. A practical, reasonable response as early as possible can make all the difference. When first responders will not arrive in
time, it can be mitigated by citizens. If - as in another article on this - police encourage children to 'throw things' at the shooter, they at least comprehend the importance of a target refusing to be a victim.

This is what we are educating the bureaucracy about: citizens are the untapped resource AND with the authority to act. If you believe in CPR to keep the lid on until EMS arrives, then you also have to believe in lay intervention until police arrive.

There are stories of wonderful valor in teachers who acted on behalf of the kids who could not act for themselves, a difference between high school and college; why not tap into that willingness and values instead of discouraging it?

Secondly, armed parents is a common solution. Any parent visiting their kids should be free to carry their weapon. More are recognizing this, and no states have found a reason to regret this latitude.