While I personally like NH’s lax gun laws (live free or die, amirite?), I just want to point out that Dartmouth doesn’t have a particularly high rate of violence to begin with. As a student, I do not seem to encounter many situations in which I think having a gun handy on me would diffuse a potentially violent situation. So, really, having really strict College gun restrictions or not doesn’t really have an effect on My Dartmouth Experience. There is no compelling evidence that institutions of higher education shouldn’t infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To ‘12: Most mass murders occur in “Gun Free Zones” that have otherwise had no such prior experience, so, while a history of safety is a plus, it’s no guarantee. I find it very odd that you are willing to have your civil rights infringed as you don’t see a need for them. Letting those in authority do that makes their jobs easier now, and their ability to infringe your rights in the future easier as well. Take responsibility for your rights as well as your safety.

I struggle with the logic of people who don’t want guns on campus. Do they really think, if we ban guns, nobody can bring a gun on campus and there can be no harm done with guns? Clearly, that doesn’t work, as those bent on murder (and subsequent suicide) are not stopped by such rules.

Or maybe they think that free exchange of ideas will be inhibited if guns are allowed on campus? You don’t see people getting into fistfights over disagreements in philosophy class. Guns do not turn their owners into psychopathic maniacs.

The number of states with Unrestricted or “Shall-Issue” concealed carry went from 10 in 1986 to 40 in 2011, with gun control advocates predicting “wild-West” and “blood-in -the-streets” scenarios. That never happened. But they keep up with their predictions. In fact, crime has dropped sharply while gun ownership rose sharply.

Now they predict campus shoot-outs if CCW is allowed in colleges. That hasn’t happened in the 71 colleges that already allow CCW. Only those that still emotionally cling to the failed gun-control agenda of the ‘80s are predicting the small islands of college campuses to behave any differently than the rest of the USA.

The double negative of “no compelling reason institutions of higher learning shouldn’t infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a weak a statement. Anytime an argument is proposed with a double negative, the writer or speaker is hiding, it almost sounds like they agree with what they are opposing. What the person is saying in this case is that they are against the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms…apparently because Dartmouth College says so. Dartmouth College also had a speech code and students and administrators defended that abridgment as well. Hey, who cares. First amendment, second amendment. So what? Right? Just double negative it all away and then you’ll feel better. There is no compelling reason why institutions of higher learning should infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So why are they doing it? ‘12 doesn’t offer any reasons. The gun laws in NH aren’t lax either. Is the right to free speech a lax speech law?

Lott speaks about situations that he admits are rare. The attitude should not be that because these situations happen rarely, we should allow them to happen. Rather, despite their rarity students should still be able to guard against them.

Living and attending public school in Vermont, I know first hand the ease with which students can obtain weapons. But in Vermont, one must understand that hunting is a HUGE part of the heritage and lifestyle. And before you attack with “hand guns aren’t used for hunting,” think of the constitutional implications of limiting the purchase of one time of generally legal weapon compared to another. Although I don’t believe that a ten year old should be able to purchase a fully automatic assault rifle, it is important to remember that a rifle and a handgun are both legally purchasable for adults in all states. A 16 year old can drive a car, which is considerably more dangerous to them self and others than carrying a weapon. That being said, why in the world would you need a gun at Dartmouth?

You said it yourself, gun crime is not big in Vermont and New Hampshire. While I personally support the liberal gun policies of these states, I don’t see how a well armed student body would make anybody safer here, or be anything but a liability for the College.

There is zero incidence of gun crimes on campus. I cannot see how adding more guns could possibly decrease this number.

Hey Roger, do you just write about the topics that your father writes about? From what I can tell, he wrote a book about the U.S.’s “draconian” gun control laws. This wouldn’t be your feeble attempt to reiterate exactly the same rhetoric, would it?

I don’t get it. Roger is saying that campus shootings don’t happen frequently, so it’s okay to give people guns, but also that campus shootings happen all the time (like in Mississippi, Virginia, Colorado) so we should have guns all the time just in case?

People either have the right to defend themselves, and therefore the right to the means with which to best do so, or they don’t. Is there any reason that students at Dartmouth should be denied their right to defend themselves?

Are there other rights that students shouldn’t enjoy on campus? Someone might make an intemperate remark, should the right to speak freely be curtailed? How about the right to assemble? A group of teenage students could get into all sorts of mischief.

I’ve heard that some students are into witchcraft. Perhaps we should restrict the right to worship. So that everyone will feel safe.

The best available evidence is that private citizens are far more likely to use firearms to deter or prevent crimes than to commit them. Is there any reason to think that Dartmouth students would behave differently?

I feel like this column is very insensitive to those who lost loved ones in shoot-outs like the one at Virginia Tech. Lott should not downplay a serious issue like this in the college newspaper. Guns may help self-defense, but Lott says himself that “guns make it easier for crimes to be committed”. There are other ways to defend yourself that do not simultaneously endanger the lives of others. He then says that college-aged students will be responsible with guns (despite the high rate of drinking at Dartmouth, and the tendency of college-aged students in general to be reckless) To support this,he says that “Permits do not allow people to carry concealed handguns while under the influence”. The law says that people under 21 aren’t allowed to be under the influence at all, and that is certainly not followed by many Dartmouth students. Why would the restrictions of a gun permit matter any more than the drinking law to a Dartmouth student? Even if students were “responsible with guns”, accidents can still occur—how many more news stories need to be published about a child getting access to a gun and it going off accidentally and killing someone? Again, with the high occurrence of drinking at Dartmouth, it’s just a BAD idea to make guns easily accessible to students. This statement also bothers me: “those universities allowing firearms on campus simply haven’t seen the bloodbaths many have predicted”. So should we wait until there is another massacre at one of these schools to decide that we shouldn’t allow guns on campus? Finally, this is untrue: “gun-free zones practically advertise their susceptibility to prolonged, execution-like massacres because of their lack of any armed adults capable of stopping an attack in progress”. Hanover Police and particularly S&S officers patrol campus all the time as armed adults and can stop an attack in progress—we don’t need amateur 19 year olds who brag about blacking out on Friday night carrying guns to maintain the peace. There is no reason why any student needs to carry a gun at Dartmouth. This kind of policy that Lott envisions on a college campus is extremely naïve and I don’t think Lott has fully thought out the consequences of it.

insensitive to the Virginia Tech students? Roger Lott is talking about their right (which was taken away) to defend themselves from rampages such as the horrific VT shootings. Laws control those who abide by them, and in this case, protect the criminals who would do harm to them.

Anonymous (Feb 22, 9:34 PM) doesn’t fairly describe what Lott wrote. How is Lott being insensitive to the blight of those at Virginia Tech? He wants to stop these attacks from occurring, and he is offering a way to stop these attacks. As gun control advocates often do, Anonymous raises hypothetical concerns about what might go wrong, but his comment completely ignores and doesn’t address Lott’s points that permit holders in general as well as on college campuses have been extremely careful and law-abiding. Are Dartmouth students so much worse than students at all these other colleges and similarly aged permit holders in other states? While Lott provides data and numbers about what has actually happened, Anonymous provides fears about what might possibly go wrong.

Everyone on this thread realizes that some people on campus already own guns and keep them here. Additionally, many seem to be worried that everyone will suddenly have a gun just because they’re allowed. Won’t the people (probably most students) who don’t see the need for one, just not get one? And the ones who do, and who know how to use one and give it the respect it deserves will have one.

Having seen the overly emotional state of drunken male students on this campus, I think it’s very irresponsible of you call for relaxed gun laws here. While you may be correct about pre-motivated crimes like Virginia Tech or Columbine, I don’t think you’re anticipating crimes of passion that would turn from a punch to a gunshot if these laws were changed (which they won’t be and your article is incredibly unrealistic, but I’m ignoring that for now).