Many of our convenience stores here locally are mom 'n' pop, and of course there are no negative job consequences to terminating the armed robber with extreme prejudice there. There was a little grocery up in NW GA somewhere where the old man who owned it and his wife bagged THREE armed robbers at one time - 2 dead, 1 wounded and arrested. No charges (it was a small rural community) and I think the sheriff wanted to give them a medal for removing three real troublemakers from the county.
The consequences to "carry anyway" are rough if it gets you thrown out of school or arrested. (Seems to me they could only arrest you if carrying on campus was a violation of law, not just school policy as at VT.) But if you lose a job at the Kangaroo or 7-11, it seems to me the risk/reward ratio is acceptable, particularly considering how much more likely it is that you're going to encounter some thug with a gun.
You said — “The consequences to “carry anyway” are rough if it gets you thrown out of school or arrested. (Seems to me they could only arrest you if carrying on campus was a violation of law, not just school policy as at VT.)”
The prosecuting attorney in the case where the Colorado university student had guns in his dorm (in violtion of school policy) — said that he considers it a *violation of the law*, as he puts school policy as “law”. That’s why the university student was arrested.
So, I’m not so sure about it simply being “policy” in some of these cases.
The fact of the matter is — that “law-abiding” gun owners are going to *shy away from* anything that looks like they’re going to run afoul of the law. These *particular kinds* of gun owners (i.e. the “law abiding ones”) are not going to be the ones who decide to see if they can set themselves up for being prosecuted.
Regards,
Star Traveler