Friday, September 14, 2012

No Guns on Mississippi State University Campus - Still

The Reflector reports

Mississippi State University has not changed the policy prohibiting students from carrying firearms on MSU property, according to Thomas Bourgeois, Dean of Students.

Interest was sparked among Mississippians when House Bill 506 went into effect July 1, 2011. This amendment states Mississippians who have obtained an Individual Firearms Permit are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in previously-banned places such as churches, bars and schools.

Bourgeois made it clear MSU’s campus laws have not been affected by House Bill 506.

“Guns are still illegal for students to carry on campus,” he said.  He said this policy applies to MSU faculty and staff as well.
Why is it that if guns are so obviously beneficial and that being able to carry them is a god-given right, the gun advocates cannot even succeed in places like Mississippi and Texas with guns on campus?

Why is that?

Please leave a comment.


  1. Texas isn't over yet. More decisions on the subject heading in for the session next year.

    Colorado university said the same and lost there too as state law prevailed.

  2. Many in academia tend to be anti-gun. But just as with other civil rights, carry on campus will come.

  3. Because there are enough squeaky wheel hoplophobic mice such as yourself who refuse to look at the data and use critical thinking skills.

    But that's ok Pinky because you know what we are going to do tomorrow night, right?

  4. When you give a student a grade that they deserve which fails them out of school, the gunwacks want the student to be able to pull out a piece and take the prof out. Insanity. Civilization begins when morons like those above are disarmed.

    1. Anonymous, getting a carry license requires a clean record. In most states, the applicant must also pass a written and a skills test. Just how many college students do you imagine will have done those things? Can you see how it's more likely that it would be a professor who is licensed to carry?

      But more than that, are you suggesting that we have a means of detecting who would shoot up a classroom? If I'm planning to give a student an F, should I send a message to NICS first? The FBI can already demand such information under the PATRIOT Act, and I wouldn't be allowed to refuse or to tell the student. So why not add another department to the list, no? For someone who calls gun owners crazy, you do believe in some wacky things.

    2. Greg, getting a carry license in shall issue states requires next to nothing. In Arizona it requires even less than that.

      Your answer to the problem of armed students dealing with professors in a heated discussion is to be armed yourself.

      That's sick. Why do you think they disarm cops and lawyers when they enter a prison? Because no guns is better than everyone being armed, that's why.

    3. Prisons and schools are worlds apart. They disarm everyone in prison because:

      1. They are able to tightly control access to guns in that population in a way that could never be achieved in society. (Well, at least as long as those among us who still value liberty are able to stem the slippery slope that some would put us on.)

      2. Within the prison population is a inordinately high number of people with nothing to lose.

      So the combination of tight controls and desperate population make that a prudent choice. But remember, right outside of the cell block gates are highly armed security personnel.

      So unless you are suggesting that the vast majority of students within the hedges of a typical university are similarly plagued by desperation, then the comparison is more than apples and oranges apart - they are worlds away.

    4. Mikeb, you're the one fantasizing about heated arguments being settled with guns. In over a decade of teaching in college, I've never seen a situation where a discussion threatened to become physically violent. Perhaps I'm just a calmer person than you. I certainly have more direct experience on the subject than you have.

      What concerns me is someone coming in from the outside with the intention of killing people. As it stands, I'm not allowed an effective means of defending against that possibility.

    5. You made two other errors in your comment, Mikeb:

      1. Getting a carry license requires a background check--even in Arizona. (Yes, a license isn't required to carry in that state, but licenses are still issued for the purpose of reciprocity.)

      2. Guards in prisons still have access to weapons. Is that the way you want the country as a whole?

    6. Greg, you are being contentious and disagreeable again.

      Arizona has Constitutional Carry. If someone chooses to apply for a license he can, but he can carry a concealed weapon without one.

      When you said, " In most states, the applicant must also pass a written and a skills test." that does not include Arizona. How was I wrong?

      Guards in prisons are disarmed. Their access to guns is like yours when you go to the post office and leave your gun in the car. Was I wrong on that one too?

    7. 1. As I said, Arizona has both. Carrying doesn't require a license, but the state does issue licenses for those who wish to travel outside of Arizona.

      2. Guards have access to weapons, and they're authorized to use them in times of emergency.

      You made minor errors, but errors nonetheless. When you stop trying to take away my rights, I won't care as much.

  5. Guns on campuses doesn't succeed hardly anywhere because we are talking about academia. By definition academia is a fantasy world removed from real society and they don't have to play by the rules of the real world. More to the point academia is profusely and staunchly liberal. Any institution that is staunchly liberal will oppose guns.

    And we see the true nature of staunchly liberal doctrine revealed in Colorado where their state law recently preempted public university rules, policies, and ordinances to allow license concealed handgun carriers to carry on campus. In spite of the law, some of the public universities refused to comply. Students who had licenses to carry and wanted to carry filed lawsuits which ultimately went to the Colorado Supreme Court -- which upheld the state preemption law and ordered the public universities to stand down. In spite of all that, the public universities are still looking for ways to deny licensed individuals from carrying their handguns. And one professor announced that he would immediately cancel classes if he ever discovered that a student was legally armed.

    The funny thing is, when a liberal university ignored the law because it insulted their sensibilities, liberals hailed them for standing up for their principles. But when a person who is licensed to carry a handgun considers restrictions to be unconstitutional and carries anyway with no malice aforethought, they are "criminals".

    1. There is a difference between leftist and authoritarian. A leftist can see the government's job as helping out the weaker citizens without also wanting to take away liberty, but an authoritarian is never anything but a control freak.

    2. "academia is a fantasy world removed from real society and they don't have to play by the rules of the real world. "

      That could be the reason guns on campuses fails. Or it could be because at universities you have some of the best minds, some of the most intelligent people.

      In places like Mississippi, who do you think has the better logical thinking, a bunch of MSU professors or a bunch of local factory workers? Who's better fit to make important decisions?

    3. Mikeb, you're showing your true elitist colors here. Why do we bother allowing everyone to vote? Why not just allow a tribunal of experts to decide everything?

    4. I love it when people assume that "great minds" in academia are somehow impervious to the failings of humanity -- such as greed, envy, sloth, elitism, pride, power, etc.

      If that didn't convince you that we should take anything from academia with a huge grain of salt, then this question will convince you. If academia is infallible, then why does a huge branch of academia believe in natural selection while another huge branch of academia believes in intelligent design? Natural selection and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. Both branches of academia cannot be right which means one huge branch of academia is embarrassingly wrong.

      If a major branch of academia can be wrong on the question of natural selection versus intelligent design, they can certainly be wrong on gun control versus the right to self defense and to bear arms.

    5. Now you're trying to be slick. The gangs in academia and elsewhere who believe evolution should not be taught because it contradicts the bible are overwhelmingly gun owners and gun-rights believers.

      It's the liberal, free-thinking and unbiased academicians who understand that guns are bad news and don't want them on campuses.

    6. So, Mikeb, the fact that I accept the scientific evidence for evolution and global warming, that I am not a Bible-believing Christian, and that I hold a number of left-wing views fits into your narrative how?