IceCreamer
Active member
So, 13?
Texas To Allow Guns On Campus
- Thread starter Mike-O
- Start date
midwestpowhunter
Active member
+14
cobra_commander
Active member
what do you pay in taxes over there? That health care is not free. Oh, and your country can afford to push the pharmaceuticals to a lower rate because the United States (people) pretty much funds 90% of all medical advancement.
midwestpowhunter
Active member
It's funny that u ask me how old I am and then ur the one that makes the immature comments that make you look like the 13 year old. Remember this whole thing started by you making fun of something that I posted. 8 am on a Monday morning trying to have some fun... Apparently that's not allowed on newschoolers
skier_boy26
Active member
Did OP even read this?
Probably. But he is always a scared Finn. The US is always doing something so scary to him, but... he doesn't even know what he is talking about.
This is fine by me. Honestly. You don't hear about average non-insane Joe killing some innocent (except for VERY rare cases). It is some nut job that does it. These laws would not have been observed by them anyway.
Probably. But he is always a scared Finn. The US is always doing something so scary to him, but... he doesn't even know what he is talking about.
This is fine by me. Honestly. You don't hear about average non-insane Joe killing some innocent (except for VERY rare cases). It is some nut job that does it. These laws would not have been observed by them anyway.
midwestpowhunter
Active member
I think he's just angry today I tried to have some fun and he rained on my parade so I've made it a point to fuck with him today my karma be damned
skithesprings
Active member
looks like somebody took an 8th grade english course and is feeling especially eloquent. The problem is, sensationalizing your argument does nothing but show how weak it actually is.
give this a read...
I know that every gun owner is a law breaking, satanic, criminal, whose errant hand fires indiscriminately into crowds. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to carry a weapon because they are guaranteed to never be put in a situation where their life may be in danger.
now do you see how asinine your entire argument is?
give this a read...
I know that every gun owner is a law breaking, satanic, criminal, whose errant hand fires indiscriminately into crowds. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to carry a weapon because they are guaranteed to never be put in a situation where their life may be in danger.
now do you see how asinine your entire argument is?
TheQuailman
Active member
this is retarded, whether its legal or not to carry a firearm doesn't matter if someones going to kill someone they clearly don't give a shit about the law
people should be allowed to protect themselves and what about people who want to go hunting or people on the riflry team, why can't they have their equipment in their room?
people should be allowed to protect themselves and what about people who want to go hunting or people on the riflry team, why can't they have their equipment in their room?
Barefootin_Fiend
Active member
ok, well if said unstable kid gets in to an argument with a professor, he is going to be much less likely to pull out a gun if a) the professor might also have one, and/or b) 12 other people in the room are packing and ready to blow him away the second he pulls it out.
Where-am-I
Active member
i don't know, an experiment that could destroy lives. but we'll see how it goes
lyndon
Active member
Interestingly enough, this issue dates back to the mid 19th century, when a large wave of migration of people from the defeated Confederacy made their way to the Western US to escape new government. Although the murder rate in the US is undoubtedly higher, it has less to do with the guns in the hands of irresponsible Americans, but rather the entrenched gun-cultured society. I've been to Texas, and I have seen a mullet-esque hick with a revolver in his back pocket in a WalMart. I think that anyone who thinks that having a gun is acceptable has a few screws loose.
Sure, the more available firearms are made, the more people mentally unfit to carry a weapon will indeed possess one.
I've just noted a few flaws in peoples arguments above mine:
-If permits to carry a concealed weapon are passed by a panel, should this excruciatingly rigorous screening process be a more noticeable and effective deterrent? That's just like saying that driving education schools should produce the epitome of perfect drivers- which is not the case. People decide what they want to do, and if that desire is great enough they can perform amazing feats to do so. Anyone can pass a screening, just like people can beat a polygraph or lie right to your face. This wondrous screening process seems like its keeping a lot of people safe...
Call it my Canadian upbringing, synonymous with 'common sense' in my opinion, but allowing concealed weapons on a college campus is quite possibly the worst decision. The US has enough gun-control policy to deal with, but I guess its easier to let the idiots run than try to track them down.
According to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, the average student only spends approximately 5 hours each day on educational activities, but nearly 8-10 socializing/eating/drinking. No offence to anyone here, but I highly doubt you would agree that placing weapons in the hands of young, intoxicated and irresponsible children is a product of the government remarkable thinking, how would you?
Sure, the more available firearms are made, the more people mentally unfit to carry a weapon will indeed possess one.
I've just noted a few flaws in peoples arguments above mine:
-If permits to carry a concealed weapon are passed by a panel, should this excruciatingly rigorous screening process be a more noticeable and effective deterrent? That's just like saying that driving education schools should produce the epitome of perfect drivers- which is not the case. People decide what they want to do, and if that desire is great enough they can perform amazing feats to do so. Anyone can pass a screening, just like people can beat a polygraph or lie right to your face. This wondrous screening process seems like its keeping a lot of people safe...
Call it my Canadian upbringing, synonymous with 'common sense' in my opinion, but allowing concealed weapons on a college campus is quite possibly the worst decision. The US has enough gun-control policy to deal with, but I guess its easier to let the idiots run than try to track them down.
According to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, the average student only spends approximately 5 hours each day on educational activities, but nearly 8-10 socializing/eating/drinking. No offence to anyone here, but I highly doubt you would agree that placing weapons in the hands of young, intoxicated and irresponsible children is a product of the government remarkable thinking, how would you?
cobra_commander
Active member
I don't carry when I am drinking. This is the same for everyone else I know with a CCW.
To get a CCW you need to be 21. So your statement about children just shows how little you know about this topic. Please research more before you share your 'common sense' next time. This law is about allowing adults to carry a fire arm as they go about their day.
If I was allowed to carry on my campus you could bet your life a VT or NI style incident would not happen in a classroom I was in. As it is, my state and university do not allow me to carry on campus, and I honor that law. Its funny how the CCW permit holders tend to abide the law.
The Florida licensing authority responsible for issuing and revoking concealed weapon/firearm licenses, maintains and shares data on its concealed weapon license applications, issuance, revocation, etc.,
Data from: October, 1987 – January, 2011.
Since October, 1987, approximately 1,918,601 concealed weapon/firearm licenses have been issued.
The same data suggests that only 168 of the nearly 2 million licenses were revoked for use of firearm during commission of a crime.
That is, approximately 0.00875638 % of all licensed concealed weapon holders in Florida from October, 1987 - January, 2011, have committed a crime with a firearm (resulting in revocation of said license).
Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report
October 1, 1987 - January 31, 2011
Licenses Issued: 1,918,601
Licenses Revoked (crime after issuance – firearm utilized) : 168
I know it's not texas but it gives you an idea.
To get a CCW you need to be 21. So your statement about children just shows how little you know about this topic. Please research more before you share your 'common sense' next time. This law is about allowing adults to carry a fire arm as they go about their day.
If I was allowed to carry on my campus you could bet your life a VT or NI style incident would not happen in a classroom I was in. As it is, my state and university do not allow me to carry on campus, and I honor that law. Its funny how the CCW permit holders tend to abide the law.
The Florida licensing authority responsible for issuing and revoking concealed weapon/firearm licenses, maintains and shares data on its concealed weapon license applications, issuance, revocation, etc.,
Data from: October, 1987 – January, 2011.
Since October, 1987, approximately 1,918,601 concealed weapon/firearm licenses have been issued.
The same data suggests that only 168 of the nearly 2 million licenses were revoked for use of firearm during commission of a crime.
That is, approximately 0.00875638 % of all licensed concealed weapon holders in Florida from October, 1987 - January, 2011, have committed a crime with a firearm (resulting in revocation of said license).
Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report
October 1, 1987 - January 31, 2011
Licenses Issued: 1,918,601
Licenses Revoked (crime after issuance – firearm utilized) : 168
I know it's not texas but it gives you an idea.
JamesR
Active member
I disagree with op on gun laws. However, the United States has earned its reputation as being fucking insane. Honestly, I too would be scared of a theocracy sitting on trillions of dollars of military spending. That said, try to see beyond the blinding "virtue" of patriotic nationalism. Realize that debates such as these have nothing to do with the country an individual comes from; but about what rights and privilges are, or should be, universally available. I would assume op doesn't give a single fuck whether people in Texas carry guns on school campuses or not. I for one see it not as a question of government policy, but as one of morality. Chances are, if you feel the need to insult someone else because of their views, you lack the necessary understanding to support your own.
Now, op
1) With ccw legal on campus, both good and bad people will be able to make use of the new legality.
2) Allowing concealed carry does not directly effect the ammount of guns that may be on campus. It only effects the consequences of being caught with a concealed weapon. Illegal: jail. Legal: no punishment.
If one is going to commit a crime with a gun, there is no added benefit in the legality of having on campus or concealing said weapon. As ownership of the weapon is not related to CCW laws, the crime would be commited with the weapon regardless of legality of concealed carry. With ccw illegal, the only deterrent to the criminal is in getting caught with the weapon on campus before the crime can be committed. So it can be concluded that there are minimal negative effects on criminals if carrying on campus is illegal. This is in sharp contrast to the positive effects illegality brings. It makes the person already determined to commit a crime less likely to be resisted in an effective manner. It leaves the law-abiding people defenseless. No doubt you've heard this argument before, so I'd like to hear your response to it.
Now, op
1) With ccw legal on campus, both good and bad people will be able to make use of the new legality.
2) Allowing concealed carry does not directly effect the ammount of guns that may be on campus. It only effects the consequences of being caught with a concealed weapon. Illegal: jail. Legal: no punishment.
If one is going to commit a crime with a gun, there is no added benefit in the legality of having on campus or concealing said weapon. As ownership of the weapon is not related to CCW laws, the crime would be commited with the weapon regardless of legality of concealed carry. With ccw illegal, the only deterrent to the criminal is in getting caught with the weapon on campus before the crime can be committed. So it can be concluded that there are minimal negative effects on criminals if carrying on campus is illegal. This is in sharp contrast to the positive effects illegality brings. It makes the person already determined to commit a crime less likely to be resisted in an effective manner. It leaves the law-abiding people defenseless. No doubt you've heard this argument before, so I'd like to hear your response to it.
The thing about guns, is that the criminals only have them because people that have them registered make them so damn easy to steal.
Sure they went through all this training and blah blah blah... and maybe they will never fire the thing outside of a shooting range...
But a drunk college student who leaves their dorm room door open and forgets about the concealed gun in the locked box... Then bitches when their computer is stolen and forgets that maybe the gun in the box has been too. I mean, it's a rare scenario, but college kids aren't the most responsible kids ever, regardless of what permits they have been given.
The thing about conceal and cary is that if it becomes such a popular trend, there wont be situations where you are held up at knife point.. you will have a brick smashed on your head out of no where and then be robbed. Crime evolves to fit our laws.
As far as having a gun carefully placed in a safe or something of that nature in your bedstand... that I am not against. Especially should a zombie apocalypse occur.
Sure they went through all this training and blah blah blah... and maybe they will never fire the thing outside of a shooting range...
But a drunk college student who leaves their dorm room door open and forgets about the concealed gun in the locked box... Then bitches when their computer is stolen and forgets that maybe the gun in the box has been too. I mean, it's a rare scenario, but college kids aren't the most responsible kids ever, regardless of what permits they have been given.
The thing about conceal and cary is that if it becomes such a popular trend, there wont be situations where you are held up at knife point.. you will have a brick smashed on your head out of no where and then be robbed. Crime evolves to fit our laws.
As far as having a gun carefully placed in a safe or something of that nature in your bedstand... that I am not against. Especially should a zombie apocalypse occur.
lyndon
Active member
This was by no means a shot at you or your decisions to carry a concealed weapon, it was in light of the discussion that college kids of 21 and older would be permitted to carry a weapon on campus. Just because the people that you know with a CCW don't have a weapon when they drink, that doesn't mean others wont.
The society of the US and Canada, although very stereotyped, are quite different. I've managed to live 21 years without ever seeing or touching a firearm. I guess my primary question is why would a college student need to have a concealed weapon with them? Are they not in class to learn? If they feel that unsafe in society/that educational setting, I think there is a major problem...
I'm not sure if I understood correctly, but are you referring that if a shooting happened you would use your concealed weapon to disarm the suspect? How many innocent bystanders would be injured in the process?
What I was saying is that its not necessarily the people with the guns, but the gun-culture in the United States. Once one person has a gun, others 'need' one to 'protect' themselves.
I wouldn't have gone quite as far to say that my statement "shows how little know about this topic", seeing it might just not be as bias as yours is. The impact of guns and gun control in Canada and the US is my thesis, so I think that I have read enough from both sides of the story to form an intelligent opinion.
The society of the US and Canada, although very stereotyped, are quite different. I've managed to live 21 years without ever seeing or touching a firearm. I guess my primary question is why would a college student need to have a concealed weapon with them? Are they not in class to learn? If they feel that unsafe in society/that educational setting, I think there is a major problem...
I'm not sure if I understood correctly, but are you referring that if a shooting happened you would use your concealed weapon to disarm the suspect? How many innocent bystanders would be injured in the process?
What I was saying is that its not necessarily the people with the guns, but the gun-culture in the United States. Once one person has a gun, others 'need' one to 'protect' themselves.
I wouldn't have gone quite as far to say that my statement "shows how little know about this topic", seeing it might just not be as bias as yours is. The impact of guns and gun control in Canada and the US is my thesis, so I think that I have read enough from both sides of the story to form an intelligent opinion.
JamesR
Active member
^this. because rapists and murderers give you time to run back home and unlock your safe... right?
And to the rest of what you said, the criminals that dont give a fuck about violence in favor of wallets are already smashing people with bricks. Apply your own logic and see that when there is no threat of retaliation, people are more likely to commit crimes. There's a reason the United States fucks shit up in Iraq in the name of democracy but hasn't attempted anything in North Korea. Any time there is an imbalance in power structure, those on the superior end will take advantage of it, whether it be at the national or individual level.
And to the rest of what you said, the criminals that dont give a fuck about violence in favor of wallets are already smashing people with bricks. Apply your own logic and see that when there is no threat of retaliation, people are more likely to commit crimes. There's a reason the United States fucks shit up in Iraq in the name of democracy but hasn't attempted anything in North Korea. Any time there is an imbalance in power structure, those on the superior end will take advantage of it, whether it be at the national or individual level.
IceCreamer
Active member
All ad hominem attacks aside,
Even if we accept that only students with a CHL will be
allowed on campus with a weapon, a CHL doesn't give someone hostage
rescue and counter-terrorism training. They'll have a gun and ZERO
experience firing it under the stress of screaming and unexpected
gunfire and fear of imminent death.
First, imagine a classroom full of students who've managed
to let down their guard and forget everyone is armed; imagine they're
fully engrossed in a lecture or exam or just relaxing with friends
between class. When a psychopath shows up and starts picking them off,
the utter surreal shock of the situation is guaranteed to cause a
reaction delay during which people will die. When these self-styled Air
Marshals—randomly distributed around any given event—get their weapons
drawn and begin firing in the direction of fire through the shrieking
chaos of panicked students ducking and running into each other, the
odds of more people dying go through the roof.
Second, imagine the CHL students never let down their
guard; imagine they stay twitchy and keep weapons at the ready. They're
not likely to focus well on academics and their agitation will likely
keep others on edge. They're more likely to overreact and shoot the
janitor who barges into class waiving a walkie-talkie yelling "FIRE."
Even if they react appropriately to a real shooter, they're simply not
trained to shoot back with any accuracy under stress and through a
crowd. People will die.
Third, these lunatics we're trying to defend against go
into action fully expecting or even planning to die. They just hope to
kill as many as possible before the end. An armed student body will
only suggest different tactics. We'll get more snipers and maybe a few
suicide bombers. People will die.
Fourth, this bill assumes a lone crazy who takes the bold
step of carrying a gun to campus and SNAPPING. I'd suggest there's more
than one crazy running around and this bill just obviates the need for
that bold step, requiring them only to SNAP.
These incidents—the Virginia Tech massacre
specifically—illustrate failure of state handgun laws, failure of
mental health professionals, failure of faculty and parents to
recognize and properly deal with a noticeably unstable individual, NOT
the failure of students to properly defend themselves.
I am not against personal protection or for abolition of
gun ownership, but this bill will not prevent future horrifying events
and may be reasonably expected to cost lives. It is an ignorant leap in
the wrong direction.
Even if we accept that only students with a CHL will be
allowed on campus with a weapon, a CHL doesn't give someone hostage
rescue and counter-terrorism training. They'll have a gun and ZERO
experience firing it under the stress of screaming and unexpected
gunfire and fear of imminent death.
First, imagine a classroom full of students who've managed
to let down their guard and forget everyone is armed; imagine they're
fully engrossed in a lecture or exam or just relaxing with friends
between class. When a psychopath shows up and starts picking them off,
the utter surreal shock of the situation is guaranteed to cause a
reaction delay during which people will die. When these self-styled Air
Marshals—randomly distributed around any given event—get their weapons
drawn and begin firing in the direction of fire through the shrieking
chaos of panicked students ducking and running into each other, the
odds of more people dying go through the roof.
Second, imagine the CHL students never let down their
guard; imagine they stay twitchy and keep weapons at the ready. They're
not likely to focus well on academics and their agitation will likely
keep others on edge. They're more likely to overreact and shoot the
janitor who barges into class waiving a walkie-talkie yelling "FIRE."
Even if they react appropriately to a real shooter, they're simply not
trained to shoot back with any accuracy under stress and through a
crowd. People will die.
Third, these lunatics we're trying to defend against go
into action fully expecting or even planning to die. They just hope to
kill as many as possible before the end. An armed student body will
only suggest different tactics. We'll get more snipers and maybe a few
suicide bombers. People will die.
Fourth, this bill assumes a lone crazy who takes the bold
step of carrying a gun to campus and SNAPPING. I'd suggest there's more
than one crazy running around and this bill just obviates the need for
that bold step, requiring them only to SNAP.
These incidents—the Virginia Tech massacre
specifically—illustrate failure of state handgun laws, failure of
mental health professionals, failure of faculty and parents to
recognize and properly deal with a noticeably unstable individual, NOT
the failure of students to properly defend themselves.
I am not against personal protection or for abolition of
gun ownership, but this bill will not prevent future horrifying events
and may be reasonably expected to cost lives. It is an ignorant leap in
the wrong direction.
I said that because if someone was robbing my house, they aren't entering from the bedroom window. There is no harm in protecting your home and family while in said home.
And the rest of what you said, kinda sounds like you agreed with what I said.. so I'm confused.
As far as rapes go.... most rapes are by someone you know. Abductions generally happen on things like morning runs. Sure it may happen to the girl walking to her car after class... but like i said, crime will evolve, she won't get a friendly knife to her throat, she will get an injection in her neck or bashed over her head before she knows what happened.
I'm not entirely against conceal and cary or gun ownership, I'm just not a fan of the fact that in a drawer constitutes a safe location to put them.
If it isn't on your person, it should be locked up, not in a lock box, but in something that isn't going anywhere.
Criminals have guns because the people who register them dont put them in safe places.
And the rest of what you said, kinda sounds like you agreed with what I said.. so I'm confused.
As far as rapes go.... most rapes are by someone you know. Abductions generally happen on things like morning runs. Sure it may happen to the girl walking to her car after class... but like i said, crime will evolve, she won't get a friendly knife to her throat, she will get an injection in her neck or bashed over her head before she knows what happened.
I'm not entirely against conceal and cary or gun ownership, I'm just not a fan of the fact that in a drawer constitutes a safe location to put them.
If it isn't on your person, it should be locked up, not in a lock box, but in something that isn't going anywhere.
Criminals have guns because the people who register them dont put them in safe places.
Barefootin_Fiend
Active member
How does one go about obtaining firing experience under the stress of screaming, unexpected gunfire, and fear of imminent death?
Is there a course out there that you can sign up for where they shoot real bullets at you and actually try and kill you?
Is there a course out there that you can sign up for where they shoot real bullets at you and actually try and kill you?
cobra_commander
Active member
I 'feel safe' on campus, in the sense that I don't expect one of my class mates to jump up and start blasting. I didn't expect an ex staff member to walk out into the middle of campus one day and burn himself alive either, but he did just that.
Maybe it's just the way I was raised but I like to be prepared. The cars I drive always have 1/2 a tank or more of gas in them, and I know where more is kept. I also have 3 months of food in my apt, and ways of acquiring drinking water. I don't expect a giant earthquake to wreck seattle, but I try to be ready in the event that it does.
As for the live shooter scenario, I doubt there would be collateral casualties from my weapon, I understand how to use firearms, I know that the bullet may over penetrate. I carry bullets that are designed not to, mainly due to their increased lethality (google Lemas APLP, and no you can't have any). I also know how to shoot, and train shooting reflexively.
You were the one who talked about this law permitting drunk children running around with guns, not me. That is why I asked you to do more research, since (in texas) you need to be 21 for this law to even apply.
Maybe it's just the way I was raised but I like to be prepared. The cars I drive always have 1/2 a tank or more of gas in them, and I know where more is kept. I also have 3 months of food in my apt, and ways of acquiring drinking water. I don't expect a giant earthquake to wreck seattle, but I try to be ready in the event that it does.
As for the live shooter scenario, I doubt there would be collateral casualties from my weapon, I understand how to use firearms, I know that the bullet may over penetrate. I carry bullets that are designed not to, mainly due to their increased lethality (google Lemas APLP, and no you can't have any). I also know how to shoot, and train shooting reflexively.
You were the one who talked about this law permitting drunk children running around with guns, not me. That is why I asked you to do more research, since (in texas) you need to be 21 for this law to even apply.
lyndon
Active member
I think its called Police Foundations... it's pretty new.
Im glad to see that the majority of people here feel as though they and their concealed weapons can act as effective police officers. Write your governments and tell them the good news, I'm positive they could save a lot of money if you're offering to do it all for free...
Im glad to see that the majority of people here feel as though they and their concealed weapons can act as effective police officers. Write your governments and tell them the good news, I'm positive they could save a lot of money if you're offering to do it all for free...
S_Jenk
Member
Being from Montana, and from a family where more then several guns are owned, I do see the right of being able to bear arms.
However, this right needs to be controlled and regulated. It is a right, yes I am very aware of that, but given that it is from a document over 220 years old, it needs to be re-interpreted to fit modern day standards. The term "loose-constructionism" comes to mind.
A person can own a gun of course, but to obtain and maintain ownership of one needs to be regulated through registration, training, and background checks. If that person has nothing to hide or fear from this hurdles, then getting a weapon should not be a problem. What concerns me on this matter is the ease of which guns can be obtained by nearly anyone meeting the "requirements" these days. Of course this does not apply to every state, so I merely point out the ones where the laws are lax.
As for having them on campus, there really is no need for that. While they may serve useful for the extremely rare occasion of a killer on campus or such, they present more a hazard for the rest of the time. The knowledge of allowing (concealed) weapons on campus will create more paranoia than a feeling of safety. At least for those who do not carry a gun, which is the large majority of them.
When your not going hunting, target practicing, or in general use of guns, keep 'em at home.
However, this right needs to be controlled and regulated. It is a right, yes I am very aware of that, but given that it is from a document over 220 years old, it needs to be re-interpreted to fit modern day standards. The term "loose-constructionism" comes to mind.
A person can own a gun of course, but to obtain and maintain ownership of one needs to be regulated through registration, training, and background checks. If that person has nothing to hide or fear from this hurdles, then getting a weapon should not be a problem. What concerns me on this matter is the ease of which guns can be obtained by nearly anyone meeting the "requirements" these days. Of course this does not apply to every state, so I merely point out the ones where the laws are lax.
As for having them on campus, there really is no need for that. While they may serve useful for the extremely rare occasion of a killer on campus or such, they present more a hazard for the rest of the time. The knowledge of allowing (concealed) weapons on campus will create more paranoia than a feeling of safety. At least for those who do not carry a gun, which is the large majority of them.
When your not going hunting, target practicing, or in general use of guns, keep 'em at home.
Inbred_Redneck
Active member
I see no problem with this.
Barefootin_Fiend
Active member
So they actually shoot live rounds AT the students with the explicit intent of killing them? Yeah, ok.
tommyp1ckles
Active member
Who would shoot up a school where theres a good chance that there are multiple people carrying concealed weapons in the room? definitely not a first choice for a school shooter.
skithesprings
Active member
I can't quote specifics from your post because my computer is weird like that, but you're making some pretty ridiculous claims.
First, panicking in the event of a shooting does not result in everyone carrying a gun pulling it out and shooting everyone they see. For example, in the case of the shooting in Arizona, there was a pedestrian in immediate vicinity to the shooter who never even drew his concealed handgun because he assessed the situation and decided it wasn't the best option. If theres a situation in a crowd, just because someone has a concealed weapon doesn't mean they will use it. No shit people aren't trained "to shoot back with any accuracy under stress and through a crowd" as you say, because they know YOU NEVER SHOOT THROUGH A CROWD.
Second, did you honestly just suggest that someone would shoot a janitor? Unless that janitor kicked in the door and pointed a gun in someones face could you ever see someone finding their concealed weapon, chambering a round, and firing upon them? It isn't exactly a reflex response to shoot someone and its not like anyone is sitting in class with their gun drawn and ready to shoot. Come on, that argument was terrible.
Third, If these shooters had the least bit of intelligence don't you think they would have already resorted to the alternative methods you mentioned? What does that have to do with concealed carry anyways?
sorry, but i just fail to see how you could possibly consider your arguments the least bit effective.
First, panicking in the event of a shooting does not result in everyone carrying a gun pulling it out and shooting everyone they see. For example, in the case of the shooting in Arizona, there was a pedestrian in immediate vicinity to the shooter who never even drew his concealed handgun because he assessed the situation and decided it wasn't the best option. If theres a situation in a crowd, just because someone has a concealed weapon doesn't mean they will use it. No shit people aren't trained "to shoot back with any accuracy under stress and through a crowd" as you say, because they know YOU NEVER SHOOT THROUGH A CROWD.
Second, did you honestly just suggest that someone would shoot a janitor? Unless that janitor kicked in the door and pointed a gun in someones face could you ever see someone finding their concealed weapon, chambering a round, and firing upon them? It isn't exactly a reflex response to shoot someone and its not like anyone is sitting in class with their gun drawn and ready to shoot. Come on, that argument was terrible.
Third, If these shooters had the least bit of intelligence don't you think they would have already resorted to the alternative methods you mentioned? What does that have to do with concealed carry anyways?
sorry, but i just fail to see how you could possibly consider your arguments the least bit effective.
JamesR
Active member
The thing about conceal and cary is that if it becomes such a popular trend, there wont be situations where you are held up at knife point.. you will have a brick smashed on your head out of no where and then be robbed. Crime evolves to fit our laws. >implying concealed carry is bad
As far as having a gun carefully placed in a safe or something of that nature in your bedstand... that I am not against. >implying guns are good if kept at home
Your argument of weapons on campus is, to summarize: "People might steal them."
People who care enough to get a license generally care enough to take care of their weapons. The fact that they -might- be stolen is irrelevant in relation to the fact that there are many other avenues that feed guns to criminals and that the issue at stake here is the ability to defend oneself.
"crime will evolve, she won't get a friendly knife to her throat, she will get an injection in her neck or bashed over her head before she knows what happened."
What you're implying is that the greater the number of concealed weapons, the more violent criminals will become. Let's pretend for a moment that this is true.
In scenario A, an unarmed girl is attacked by a man with a knife. She is overpowered and robbed/raped/killed/etc.
In scenario B, an unarmed girl is attacked by a criminal. Because the criminal is aware that the girl may be armed, he hits her over the head or injects her with a tranquilizer in the neck. She is overpowered and robbed/raped/killed/etc.
In scenario C, an armed girl is attacked by a criminal. Because the criminal is aware that the girl may be armed, he hits her over the head or injects her with a tranquilizer in the neck. She is overpowered and robbed/raped/killed/etc.
So if we take your "evolution of crime" theory (that criminals will become more violent in response to increases in concealed carry) to be true, the outcome of situations B and C remain the same as the pre-ccw scenario A.
But let's think about it from a more logical perspective. You seem to have ignored it in my last post so i'll repeat this: whenever there is an imbalance in power, the imbalance will be exploited. Further, the lower risk is in relation to gain, the more people who will be willing to take the risk. These things considered, it can be said that when the power is brought to equilibrium, there will be less crime.
Still, even with less crime, you could argue that the remaining criminals who are still willing to chance the increased risk will become more likely to use extreme violence in order to committ their crimes. In saying this you are ignoring a basic fact of human nature: we're not inherently violent creatures. Just because it would take further violence to commit a crime, it does not follow that further violence would be used. The prospect of having to use violent force would most likely deter more who considered crime, not cause them to turn into sociopaths.
So who does this leave? Only extremely violent individuals who have little fear of consequences that may result from their actions. Could they be moved to resort to shooting people in the back before stealing wallets? Maybe. But i would say that those people are most likely already doing just that.
With this knowledge we can present another situation.
In scenario D, an armed girl encounters a criminal approaching her with a knife. She draws her weapon and the criminal retreats. She is safe.
Without a concealed weapon, the girl is overpowered by both the realistic criminal, and the sociopath. With the concealed weapon she is overpowered by the violent criminal, but is able to save herself from the nonviolent criminal. As evidence does not support an increase in violent crime in relation to number of concealed weapon permits issued, we can conclude that it is far more positive for the girl to be able to carry a concealed weapon.
As far as having a gun carefully placed in a safe or something of that nature in your bedstand... that I am not against. >implying guns are good if kept at home
Your argument of weapons on campus is, to summarize: "People might steal them."
People who care enough to get a license generally care enough to take care of their weapons. The fact that they -might- be stolen is irrelevant in relation to the fact that there are many other avenues that feed guns to criminals and that the issue at stake here is the ability to defend oneself.
"crime will evolve, she won't get a friendly knife to her throat, she will get an injection in her neck or bashed over her head before she knows what happened."
What you're implying is that the greater the number of concealed weapons, the more violent criminals will become. Let's pretend for a moment that this is true.
In scenario A, an unarmed girl is attacked by a man with a knife. She is overpowered and robbed/raped/killed/etc.
In scenario B, an unarmed girl is attacked by a criminal. Because the criminal is aware that the girl may be armed, he hits her over the head or injects her with a tranquilizer in the neck. She is overpowered and robbed/raped/killed/etc.
In scenario C, an armed girl is attacked by a criminal. Because the criminal is aware that the girl may be armed, he hits her over the head or injects her with a tranquilizer in the neck. She is overpowered and robbed/raped/killed/etc.
So if we take your "evolution of crime" theory (that criminals will become more violent in response to increases in concealed carry) to be true, the outcome of situations B and C remain the same as the pre-ccw scenario A.
But let's think about it from a more logical perspective. You seem to have ignored it in my last post so i'll repeat this: whenever there is an imbalance in power, the imbalance will be exploited. Further, the lower risk is in relation to gain, the more people who will be willing to take the risk. These things considered, it can be said that when the power is brought to equilibrium, there will be less crime.
Still, even with less crime, you could argue that the remaining criminals who are still willing to chance the increased risk will become more likely to use extreme violence in order to committ their crimes. In saying this you are ignoring a basic fact of human nature: we're not inherently violent creatures. Just because it would take further violence to commit a crime, it does not follow that further violence would be used. The prospect of having to use violent force would most likely deter more who considered crime, not cause them to turn into sociopaths.
So who does this leave? Only extremely violent individuals who have little fear of consequences that may result from their actions. Could they be moved to resort to shooting people in the back before stealing wallets? Maybe. But i would say that those people are most likely already doing just that.
With this knowledge we can present another situation.
In scenario D, an armed girl encounters a criminal approaching her with a knife. She draws her weapon and the criminal retreats. She is safe.
Without a concealed weapon, the girl is overpowered by both the realistic criminal, and the sociopath. With the concealed weapon she is overpowered by the violent criminal, but is able to save herself from the nonviolent criminal. As evidence does not support an increase in violent crime in relation to number of concealed weapon permits issued, we can conclude that it is far more positive for the girl to be able to carry a concealed weapon.
tommyp1ckles
Active member
interesting fact: in most states (not sure about canada) the police have no legal obligation to actually protect you.
You put a lot of words into my mouth in which I don't happen to agree with your reasoning.
My posts were simply to state an observation that most people were failing to understand that the guns criminals have (outside of organized crime) come from owners of registered guns being careless with where they place them. The more people who own guns, the more their are to steal. The other avenues come from gun dealers who most likely got them from stealing them. Maybe from illegal imports... but the man who robs the drug store... that gun is probably registered to someone who may not even know it is missing.
My posts were simply to state an observation that most people were failing to understand that the guns criminals have (outside of organized crime) come from owners of registered guns being careless with where they place them. The more people who own guns, the more their are to steal. The other avenues come from gun dealers who most likely got them from stealing them. Maybe from illegal imports... but the man who robs the drug store... that gun is probably registered to someone who may not even know it is missing.
JamesR
Active member
Cool, except you're basing that information on what i can only assume was the New York Times.
According to the ATF, only between 10 and 15 per cent of guns used in crimes are stolen. Only 9% of firearms possessed by federal inmates were illegally obtained (1997).
It's nice that you have beliefs, but try not to throw them around like facts unless you've done your research.
According to the ATF, only between 10 and 15 per cent of guns used in crimes are stolen. Only 9% of firearms possessed by federal inmates were illegally obtained (1997).
It's nice that you have beliefs, but try not to throw them around like facts unless you've done your research.
alright, cool, so I was in the percentage that thought most were getting stolen... researching further has led to another not awesome conclusion that most are people buying them for others...
Soooo people who are able to own guns are just giving them to criminals. Awesome!
Still goes towards my point that people who are able to register and own guns and want something to do with guns are the reason they are ending up in criminals hands. That's pretty damn scary.
My posts didn't really have much to do with the OP and conceal cary and what not. I was making commentary on how everyone is angry about criminals having guns. Well, its people's carelessness and the governments lack of better an proper enforcement that is allowing them to end up with all these guns.
Of course the stats I found do say there are rogue gun shops that sell illegally, but this doesn't make up the majority and again, this seems like its a more organize crime sort of deal.
Soooo people who are able to own guns are just giving them to criminals. Awesome!
Still goes towards my point that people who are able to register and own guns and want something to do with guns are the reason they are ending up in criminals hands. That's pretty damn scary.
My posts didn't really have much to do with the OP and conceal cary and what not. I was making commentary on how everyone is angry about criminals having guns. Well, its people's carelessness and the governments lack of better an proper enforcement that is allowing them to end up with all these guns.
Of course the stats I found do say there are rogue gun shops that sell illegally, but this doesn't make up the majority and again, this seems like its a more organize crime sort of deal.
why take away someones given rights because they happen to be a college student? this doesnt make any sense to me. why should being a college student take away your right to defend yourself?
i personally know one person who used his concealed carry to defend himself, on a campus, where concealed carry is legal. he was getting out of his car, and some other pissed off driver who was following him, came up to him, grabbed his shirt and held a knife to his chest, he drew his pistol, the guy put his knife away, and they both waited for the cops to arrive. there's another person on campus whom i dont know that used his concealed carry to defend his girlfriend. two drunk guys where hitting on her, she told them to fuck off or something, they got pissed, started grabbing her and pushed her up against a wall, the boyfriend drew his gun, told them to back off, and they did.
this is just two cases this year that i happened to hear of, and i know many other cases exist, but not one where a concealed carry has been involved in a crime here. and this is in what would be considered a very safe crime free town. if i lived in some shit hole like LA, you would have to be an idiot to think carrying is a bad idea. if you drink while carrying, you loose it, and i think get a fine. 3 of my friends carry, none of them have carried while they were drinking.
i personally dont see why anyone could think that giving criminals more power by disarming the law abiding public is a good idea. its just common sense. you take away guns from law abiding citizens you give the criminals and government more power than the people which is terribly backwards. its the criminals and the government that need to be scared of the people.plus i have not seen one good argument against the whole, "criminals dont follow laws in the first place, so gun laws arent going to stop them from acquiring a gun" argument.
i personally know one person who used his concealed carry to defend himself, on a campus, where concealed carry is legal. he was getting out of his car, and some other pissed off driver who was following him, came up to him, grabbed his shirt and held a knife to his chest, he drew his pistol, the guy put his knife away, and they both waited for the cops to arrive. there's another person on campus whom i dont know that used his concealed carry to defend his girlfriend. two drunk guys where hitting on her, she told them to fuck off or something, they got pissed, started grabbing her and pushed her up against a wall, the boyfriend drew his gun, told them to back off, and they did.
this is just two cases this year that i happened to hear of, and i know many other cases exist, but not one where a concealed carry has been involved in a crime here. and this is in what would be considered a very safe crime free town. if i lived in some shit hole like LA, you would have to be an idiot to think carrying is a bad idea. if you drink while carrying, you loose it, and i think get a fine. 3 of my friends carry, none of them have carried while they were drinking.
i personally dont see why anyone could think that giving criminals more power by disarming the law abiding public is a good idea. its just common sense. you take away guns from law abiding citizens you give the criminals and government more power than the people which is terribly backwards. its the criminals and the government that need to be scared of the people.plus i have not seen one good argument against the whole, "criminals dont follow laws in the first place, so gun laws arent going to stop them from acquiring a gun" argument.
cobra_commander
Active member
Ya, this class has been available for the last 235 years, it's called the United States Infantry. Were pretty fucking good at it. The class is free and comes with a nice, if a bit small, salary, as well as discounts at many businesses.
cobra_commander
Active member
I was thinking more along the lines of The Swiss, where every man serves, and then gets to keep his service rifle or trade it in for a hunting rifle. I wish I got to take my m4 home rather then giving it back to the arms room.
CAPSLOCK*
Member
This is from the International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide study by Professor Martin Killias, May 1993. Not the most recent info but it's the only graph i was able to find, america is now also #1 at gun ownership rate.
I understand that it is a constitutional right in the US to own a gun. But this constitution was signed 400 FUCKIN YEARS AGO GOD DAMNIT.
So yeah it was cool back then to own a musket that could shoot a bullet, then needed 5 minutes of cleaning before shooting again. You basically needed a degree in order to operate a gun. If your founding fathers saw what kind of guns are for sale these days they'd be like LOLWUT?!
Come on dudes you already have the highest gun ownership rate and homicide rate in the world, if you think more guns are gonna fix the problem... you're already fucked.
I understand that it is a constitutional right in the US to own a gun. But this constitution was signed 400 FUCKIN YEARS AGO GOD DAMNIT.
So yeah it was cool back then to own a musket that could shoot a bullet, then needed 5 minutes of cleaning before shooting again. You basically needed a degree in order to operate a gun. If your founding fathers saw what kind of guns are for sale these days they'd be like LOLWUT?!
Come on dudes you already have the highest gun ownership rate and homicide rate in the world, if you think more guns are gonna fix the problem... you're already fucked.
The US also has shitty places like LA, a shit ton of gangs, and mexicans to drive up these numbers. my aunt lives in nebraska, and in her town basically every single household owns multiple guns. and there has not been one gun related crime in something like 40 years. its a town of like 150,000 too.
there is hardly any crime at all because nobody wants to risk robbing someone who most likely has a gun next to his bed.
gangs will have guns regardless of any laws, do you really think that disarming everyone BUT them will do any good? if i lived in an area with a lot of crime and gangs i would definitely have a concealed carry.
i know ive said this before but ill say it again, disarming the law abiding public makes the people scared of criminals and the government, but its the criminals and the government that need to be scared of the public.
and what about the people that use guns for sport? or for hunting? i know multiple people who's entire meat supply comes from hunting.
there is hardly any crime at all because nobody wants to risk robbing someone who most likely has a gun next to his bed.
gangs will have guns regardless of any laws, do you really think that disarming everyone BUT them will do any good? if i lived in an area with a lot of crime and gangs i would definitely have a concealed carry.
i know ive said this before but ill say it again, disarming the law abiding public makes the people scared of criminals and the government, but its the criminals and the government that need to be scared of the public.
and what about the people that use guns for sport? or for hunting? i know multiple people who's entire meat supply comes from hunting.