Let me chime in on the opposite side of this debate and ask a few questions:

1. If a person is responsible enough to legally own a gun, what would lead a person to jump to the conclusion that the person is not responsible enough to know how to handle the responsibilities of ownership in a mature manner?

2. According to what was stated above, a 21 year old with no criminal record would qualify to apply for a concealed carry permit in Utah. That 21 year old person could possibly be a college student at the time of application and receipt of the permit. If the state feels that this person is capable of carrying a concealed weapon in public without turning a town's streets into a shooting gallery, why should a public college or university have the ability to disagree? It seems stupid to me-- one the one hand, the state says that a person can carry a concealed weapon; one the other hand, another part of the state-- with no experience or responsibility in law enforcement (i.e. a college) says that a person can't. It seems that the part of the state responsible for issuing the permits should be able to overrule a few liberal college anti-gun nuts who feel that a small handful of students should be forced to surrender their second amendment rights at the door.

(Now, if you're talking private schools that's a different story. Private individuals, organizations, and companies can ban firearm carrying on their own private property without affecting second amendment rights at all-- since the second amendment only applies to government action.)

Personally, I feel that people should be able to carry concealed firearms with them on public property as long as the proper permit has been issued. And by public property, I mean parks, public schools (yes, high schools and grade schools-- if they wish), public colleges and universities, etc. The only reasonable exceptions to this are places where a certain degree of security must be maintained-- courthouses, certain government buildings, etc.

Perhaps if we became a society in which all people were more acquainted with firearms, this irrational fear of guns and apparent discrimination against people who wish to maintain a certain degree of personal safety would both be eliminated. And if we all carried guns and were trained on how to use them, this would probably also cut down on the number of crimes. How many would-be wallet-snatchers would want to risk getting shot over fifty bucks and a few credit cards that would be canceled within the hour?

One final question... If a public school (say Virginia Tech, for instance) outlaws firearms on campus, who do you think should be financially responsible for damages and injuries when shootings occur? I'd say that the school should be. By creating an environment in which people are unable to defend themselves, the school is taking on the responsibility of providing safety. If they fail to do so, I'd hope that they would be held responsible for their short-sightedness. If I were a surviving victim, I'd be the first one to go find a shark of a lawyer who would make every attempt to do so...