No Students Move Into University Of Colorado’s Guns-Allowed Dorms

Gun-friendly dorms were established following a ruling by the state supreme court that the university cannot outright ban concealed weapons. Bizarrely, no proud 2nd Amendment supporters have moved in, the Denver Post reports:

Since the University of Colorado’s Boulder and Colorado Springs campuses began segregating dorms for students with valid concealed-carry permits this year, not a single student has asked to live where guns are allowed.

On Aug. 16, CU announced that both campuses would establish a residential area for students over age 21 with a permit to hold a concealed handgun. In all other dormitories, guns are banned. “So far, no one has moved,” CU spokesman Ken McConnellogue said.

The concealed-carry issue was forced back into the spotlight this month when a staff member with a concealed-carry permit at the School of Dental Medicine on the Anschutz Medical campus accidentally shot a co-worker while showing her gun.

26 Comments on "No Students Move Into University Of Colorado’s Guns-Allowed Dorms"

  1. Fuck this permit shit. Everyone who wants to should carry a gun, without fear of imprisonment or harrassment. When we have to fill out paperwork and pass a test to defend ourselves, then something is definitely wrong. I don’t care about the gun lobby or gun culture. Those fetishistic fucks can lick their barrels all they want–they’re just a little less retarded than the rest of the population because they’re stating the obvious. ‘From my cold, dead hands, bitches!’

    • Matt Staggs | Nov 30, 2012 at 12:34 pm |

      I’m a gun-owner and avid target shooter, but I’m comfortable with requiring permits and safety tests for people who wish to wander around packing heat. The argument there is that criminals won’t obey these kinds of laws…but we’re not criminals, are we?

      • You’re only a criminal if you got caught, no? I steal stuff from big box stores all the time (but never locally-owned stores). Am I a criminal? Criminality is a label for society to take note of and then stay away from. Yeah, people do bad things to each other, but most bad things go unpunished. Lying to your loved ones is probably one of the most heinous non-violent things one can do, but that’s treated as a fucking joke on sitcoms.

        As for permits… James C. Scott (a prominent anthropologist) had a lot to say about the paperwork and bureaucracy of the modern state system. He wrote a book called ‘Seeing Like a State’. Stats, bureaucracy, rules and regs all serve as the functional eyes of the state allowing it to monitor its population. Foucault said the same thing about surveillance and discipline/punishment systems (applicable to the ‘criminality’ label). These thinkers were critical of the ‘norms’ that so-called ‘society’ (government in society’s clothing, basically) pushed onto its population–norms that have the ideology of power embedded in them. What’s ‘commonsense’ is so quick to change over time.

        But, just practically speaking, owning a pitbull does not require any permits, licensing or tests at all. People just buy them and treat them any way they see fit. Some owners don’t give any thought into the effect that they have on their dogs through training (if they even bother to train at all). Horrible things result from this. Now if any case could be made for a permit, this would be it. (Maybe some states do require something?) But I don’t need a permit for a nail gun, or a sword, or pitch fork (which can do a lot of damage, btw; probably more so than the previous two). So why a permit for a gun? Because it’s the same, useful tool used by the police to subdue the population, and when a useful tool is used for those purposes, it can be used equally against them. Permits are political, imo.

        • Matt Staggs | Nov 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm |

          I’m familiar with the argument, and certainly it’s a complicated one. Those are good points, and the very best that I can do is to offer that I’m not an anti-statist or anarchist, and thus, my opinion is partially informed by my political beliefs. The “right” or “wrong” of it is a matter of perspective, I guess.

        • zombieslapper | Nov 30, 2012 at 1:54 pm |

          “I steal stuff from big box stores all the time (but never locally-owned stores). Am I a criminal?”

          Yes. You’re a thief.

  2. emperorreagan | Nov 30, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

    I may have briefly carried a handgun when I was younger, but my impression was that carrying a gun makes one more paranoid and fearful. So after about a week of carrying, I put it in a safe. And after about 6 months of it sitting in a safe and not crossing my mind, I sold it on consignment.

    I also don’t carry a gun now around because paranoia and fear aside, I can’t foresee the situation in which I would use it. I have no intention of ever being an aggressor and don’t have much use for self-defense fantasy scenarios.

    • It mad YOU more paranoid and fearful you ego tripping loser.

      • emperorreagan | Nov 30, 2012 at 2:37 pm |

        My experience agrees with the psychological research on the issue, so I’m happy to be among the norm rather than the psychotic fringe.

        • Matt Staggs | Nov 30, 2012 at 3:44 pm |

          I’ve heard that as well. I don’t carry any of my firearms. When all you’ve got is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. I’m more than happy to hand over my debit card (good luck pulling cash before I’ve deactivated it) and iPhone (I’ll brick it, remotely) if held up. Same thing with my craptastic used car. I’m not taking a life over something so stupid, and the run of the mill criminal just wants your stuff, not your life. Other situations like mass shootings and thrill killings are so rare that you might as well carry carry a snake bite kit and shark repellent everywhere you go while you’re at it.

          All of this being said, I am perfectly willing to use lethal force if someone breaks into my home, although if we’re being honest, he should hope it’s not my wife who has the gun – she’s a better shot!

          • emperorreagan | Nov 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm |

            I agree: violence is a means to an end, not the end itself in robberies. If you have been maneuvered into a position where you’re vulnerable and a robber is able to make their threat display, the sensible thing to do is to give them your valuables rather than escalate the situation and guarantee that someone uses lethal force. If you’re trying to draw a gun or knife in that situation, then you’re either counting on being faster than the assailant or them lacking the conviction to use violence. It’s a macho fantasy best saved for the movies. And that’s probably the most plausible “what if” scenario someone can come up with.

            Crimes within one’s home are of a different nature: lights around the property, locks on the doors and windows, an alarm system, etc. all serve to both deter a potential attack and to give you advance warning. The person is willing to pull back multiple layers of an onion to get to you, so I think it’s rational to use lethal force in that situation.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | Nov 30, 2012 at 4:52 pm |

            If he’s trying to get to you that is, if he’s trying to steal your stuff it doesn’t really justify lethal force, unless he’s armed perhaps.

          • Matt Staggs | Nov 30, 2012 at 5:15 pm |

            That’s a tough call. The sad truth of the matter is that if I wake up in the middle of the night to find a prowler, then it’s very likely I’ll assume the worst. I have a wife, and I refuse to allow a situation to escalate where she could possibly be raped, murdered or both.

          • Simiantongue | Nov 30, 2012 at 9:20 pm |

            Just as a point of interest, I’ve had experience being robbed. It’s a good idea to always carry around a bunch of one dollar bills in a wallet. 20 or so does nicely. Unlike the movies the perpetrator doesn’t stay and count it when you hand it to them, they just glance at the edges and know they’ve got a wallet with what looks like a considerable amount of cash in it and they are hasty to leave with it. It’s basically a decoy. It’s worked for me three times in the past. Well worth the investment.

            My “wallet” has a couple of old expired credit cards in it and such, a library card and maybe some coupons. But not a drivers license or anything that takes an effort to replace. It’s not cumbersome and isn’t a problem to carry, I keep it in my jacket pocket usually. Just a thought to anyone who wants to consider another options.

            When I lived in Southie if you were to hand over a wallet with no cash they’d probably pistol whip you as a lesson for doing so. They aren’t completely dim and don’t appreciate taking the chance of being caught in a robbery for nothing.

          • Matt Staggs | Dec 1, 2012 at 4:49 pm |

            Good tip. Thanks.

        • Interesting, likely it stems from the idea, I have a gun hence everyone else I meet must also be carrying a gun, will they draw on me and pull the trigger the moment my back is turned for some unknown reason and kill me. Will someone become enraged over a bump and start firing. Will a police officer came across me detect my weapon, feel threatened and immediately start firing.
          It’s fear that drives the purchase and carrying of the weapon, that fear is not relived by continuing to carry the weapon it is only exacerbated by the need to continue to carry the weapon. Fearing death less and being able to leave the weapon behind sets you free, now I give you a guess about the nature of people who attack your comment.

  3. Hadrian999 | Nov 30, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

    I would move in just to have a dorm to myself

  4. Rooti Nyack | Nov 30, 2012 at 7:07 pm |

    Like it or not handguns are the great equalizers. It allows one man to stand up to several, it allows a women to protect herself against a stronger male attacker. People who have gun permits rarely commit crimes. Those are the simple realities that drive liberals crazy.

  5. BuzzCoastin | Nov 30, 2012 at 7:25 pm |

    . . . England, where no one has guns: 14 deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns – whoo! I’m gettin’ a stiffy! – 23,000 deaths from handguns. But there’s no connection, and you’d be a fool and a communist to make one. There’s no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. . . . OK, though admittedly last year in England they had 23,000 deaths per soccer game. . . .
    Bill Hicks

  6. Maybe this is because there would be very few students over 21 who would actually want to live in a university owned dorm rather than an apartment… Also, you are allowed to have a firearm in a privately owned apartment anyways, so these dorms filled a niche that didn’t exist.

  7. How many College students over 21 yo still live in dorms?

Comments are closed.